Help with chasing debt

[missmooch]

Hi

I have a joint ccj against 2 very slippery defendants, 1 is an ex tenant, other is the guarantor. They are very clever in dodging debts....in fact one owns his own debt collection business. They are very public on social media. The tenant I believe continues to rent, and the guarantor rents too. Guarantor does have his own property but craftily put it in his partners name and his son now lives in that house.

Both have assets, cars etc....though whether these are hired I don’t know.

I tried getting the hceo involved giving them 3 addresses, and they forgot to attend to 2 of these(!). They have been in short, hopeless, so they have offered me a refund.

So I am not sure where I go from here. My solicitor says another hceo is the only option.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and what did you do? Anyone know of a good hceo, who will chase hard?

Thanks for any help!

[jaguarsuk]

Hi

I have a joint ccj against 2 very slippery defendants, 1 is an ex tenant, other is the guarantor. They are very clever in dodging debts....in fact one owns his own debt collection business. They are very public on social media. The tenant I believe continues to rent, and the guarantor rents too. Guarantor does have his own property but craftily put it in his partners name and his son now lives in that house.

Both have assets, cars etc....though whether these are hired I don’t know.

I tried getting the hceo involved giving them 3 addresses, and they forgot to attend to 2 of these(!). They have been in short, hopeless, so they have offered me a refund.

So I am not sure where I go from here. My solicitor says another hceo is the only option.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and what did you do? Anyone know of a good hceo, who will chase hard?

Thanks for any help!

Are they employed or self employed? If self to Ltd Company or Sole Trader?

[missmooch]

Thnks for your reply Jaguarsuk - 1 runs a ltd co, the other is paye employed as well as being self employed

[jaguarsuk]

The one running the Ltd must be on it's payroll, therefore along with the other on PAYE is liable to an Attachment of Earnings order surely?

Did the solicitor say why this was not an option and only a Writ of Control was an option?

Also, are the properties in their name or the name of the company?

[missmooch]

Solicitor didnt say.Think PAYE job is only part time, and with the ltd company, would he be paid directors emoluments - and are these still liable under attachement of earnings?

Ex tenant doesnt have a property. Guarantors property in partners name.

[jaguarsuk]

It seems a High Court Writ is the only solution then.

[R0b]

Given that you have some address details for each of the defendants, do you know where they actually reside?

I suspect your solicitor might have suggested that going down the HCEO route might be the only option as it is generally the cheapest unless you have sufficient information to pursue other methods of enforcement.

There is, however, an alternative option to the HCEO method and that is to order the defendants to court for further questioning. Under CPR 71, you are entitled to make an application to the court for an order that they attend to answer some questions about their current status. Why would you want to do this over going down the HCEO route? Well, here's a few reasons:

1. It only costs you £55 for the application (not sure if you can put two defendants on one application but worst case its £110).

2. Attendance is a must and failing to do so is contempt of court. A court could then issue a bench warrant for that person's arrest if repeatedly fail to turn up.

3. Any questions asked will be done under oath and is usually asked by an officer or the court though in some respects it is possible a judge would ask those questions.

By going down this route, you could get the information you need and then work out what your options are. That said, you would probably have to move pretty quickly but if the defendants have a job, the questioning should filter out their employer's name and address so you could look at making an attachment of earnings order or some other enforcement method.

[missmooch]

Thank for your reply Rob - I did ask my solictor about this, as I did consider going down this route, but he says he finds it a waste of time as the defendants never truthfully reveal details about their bank accounts that have any real money in them!

[R0b]

I agree, defendants can be a bit tricky when giving information about their banks and what money is inside of them which is part of the problem. But if either of them are working and earning a wage, that could be helpful in at least trying to recover some of the money or if there is information about where they reside, that could help with enforcement through a HCEO.

It may be possible, if you know the employer's details, to make a third party application to force the employer to disclose that person's bank details to which the payments are being made. That way you could then look to raid that account (assuming the defendant doesn't become aware and changes details) to recover your money. This route is obviously more expensive than the application for further information or the HCEO but therein lies the problem with difficult and slippery defendants.

Can I ask how much the debt is?

[missmooch]

Thanks Rob - yes agree about the attachment of earnings for the earning defendant and didnt realise that the third party order could force the employer to disclose bank details.

The debt is £4,000

[R0b]

Just to clarify about the third party application, it would fall under an order known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order, and to re-emphasise, I did say may be possible.

The reason I say that is because you would have to show the court that the defendant's, by their conduct, are wilfully evading the enforcement of the judgment. Unless you can show that, an order for disclosure is unlikely to be made.

Unfortunately it is one of these situations where sometimes it might be worth letting it go than throwing good money after bad. The order for information might unravel some things that you are not aware of and in which case could open up further opportunity for enforcement, thats assuming the defendant's are telling the truth and don't move assets around.