Tweet
C = Claimant a limited company
D = director of the Claimant and company B
C went into liquidation
D arranged that B purchased the debt from the liquidator
31/01/23 DDJ apparently allowed Claimant to be changed to B
6/4/20 Trial hearing DDJ accepted that B had purchased the debt, they had not 'transferred' the right to pursue the Defendant for the debt, case dismissed and refused to allow B to appeal.
Having received an N39 for the 4/7/23, the enforcement section appear to be very confused as to who the Claimant is, they have referenced C and B.
I am refusing to be served the N39 from B, on the basis that there is no legal relationship between us.
What do I do about the Court being confused?
D = director of the Claimant and company B
C went into liquidation
D arranged that B purchased the debt from the liquidator
31/01/23 DDJ apparently allowed Claimant to be changed to B
6/4/20 Trial hearing DDJ accepted that B had purchased the debt, they had not 'transferred' the right to pursue the Defendant for the debt, case dismissed and refused to allow B to appeal.
Having received an N39 for the 4/7/23, the enforcement section appear to be very confused as to who the Claimant is, they have referenced C and B.
I am refusing to be served the N39 from B, on the basis that there is no legal relationship between us.
What do I do about the Court being confused?
