Suing the right entity - Car Dealer changed their trading name to avoid detection

[Zeitgeist]

There is a car dealer that advertises over 100 cars and home delivery on all major car sites. They had RAC Approved Dealer status. I bought a car online. I paid into a bank account under the dealer’s name. I cancelled the contract before delivery after finding out the car had been misrepresented. I asked for a full refund. They immediately stopped communicating with me.

After some investigation including phoning their landlord, I discovered that this dealer had adopted their new trading name late last year because they have horrendous reviews and Outstanding CCJs. It took almost one month for RAC to confirm that they were dealing with a trading arm of a limited company. Or at least that is the business relationship they have with RAC. RAC has since removed their Approved Dealer status.

I sent pre action letters to the limited company t/a the dealer name. It was signed for. Today I got a legal letter from a firm that provide ‘advice and assistance to our motor trade members’. To wit: “Our member is not associated with the company ***** and has no contract with you for the sale of the vehicle.”

This is not a case of mistaken identity: they are the same people. Is it possible that they set up their bank account as a sole trader or partnership but adopt a trading arm for use with established accounts like RAC?

What can I do to ensure I am suing the right ‘entity’ without wasting too much time and money? Should I start the Money Claim and name who I believe to be involved and leave it to them to respond?

[atticus]

I would start with the details on the contract documents. Do these show a limited company? If so, is the company registration number shown? If so (again) check on companies house using that registration number - that is one detail that, unlike company names, cannot be changed.

[Zeitgeist]

No the details of the contract did not indicate that the dealer has anything to do with the limited company. That is why it took me a few days to find out who they really are.

[dslippy]

Take great care about the names used.

[atticus]

Can you post the order form or contract, with your details redacted?

[Zeitgeist]

Thanks but the contract does not mention the limited company at all. There is a slight possibility they set up the bank account as a sole trader but I think it unlikely esp as RAC has identified them as Limited Company T/A. As I understand it that is a violation in and of itself as they should be utterly transparent about the connection. They have gone to great lengths to conceal their identity but they still left bread crumbs...and those lead to the limited company, their directors and no one else.

[des8]

Is that "Lawgistics" who responded to your LBA?
Was the vehicle actually delivered?

If your contract only states the name of the dealer, and you paid into an account in his name, it seems pretty clear that he is the person you need to take action against.
Of course if he has no assets ......

[Zeitgeist]

Yes it was Lawgistics. The car was never delivered. The account is in the name of the dealership - not an individual. The problem is determining if the bank account was set up as the trading arm of the limited company - or if one of the syndicate opened it as a sole trader. Either way -and despite evidence to the contrary- they are disputing that they are connected. Trading Standards are involved.