Simple Procedure - Uninsured cleaner

[Nostrus]

Alright, so first off; not a legal expert, double check everything with a legal professional (solicitor in the first case, Sheriff Officer after decision is reached), not responsible for what you do with your money, etc etc.

If she has referred to herself as a sole trader, she is now also liable in a personal capacity. This means that you can pursue avenues of recovery such as:
- bank arrestments (Where you have her bank served with an arrestment where they effectively freeze all monies above a certain amount, which was around £530 when I was last in the industry. Anything above that can be seized, but if she is operating in an overdraft, you are SOL. If you don't know which bank she uses, most SO firms will offer to file against the Big 5 in Scotland but if they are using an online bank, then this will likely miss completely and you will just be out of pocket.)
- attachment (This is where a Sheriff Officer shall attempt to seize assets, although due to debtor protections, this effectively means seizing their vehicle. Again, there are some protections here. If the value of the car is low, it will likely not be seized. If it is their only vehicle, they can apply to the court to prevent it being seized, unless it is of a reasonable value (think along the lines of several thousand pounds) in which case the court will permit the sale to proceed, you will get reimbursed including costs and the rest of the money shall be returned to them.)
- earnings arrestment (This is the least likely to succeed against a sole trader, as they are their own employer. I wouldn't bother with this.)
- inhibition (This is where a debt is levied against a property they own (you must know the property, you can't just term it against "any" property) which lasts for five years. You can apply to continue it twice. It means they cannot get rid of the property without first paying off the terms of the debt.)
- money attachment (If this person is working "cash in hand" this may be the most effective method of catching them out. This diligence is essentially Person A owes the debtor some amount of money. Prior to it being paid to the debtor, a Sheriff Officer can seize those funds and pay them over to you.)

I would suggest you do some digging on this (perhaps even employing a firm of Sheriff Officers to do so, as most will do some form of OSINT background checks on the people they are employed to recover debt from) to see which method is most likely to succeed, as you must pay up front and recover the fee later.

Also, depending on the amount of money that she is due to you, you could potentially force her into sequestration. Aside from HMRC I have only seen this done once, and it was out of spite. Probably not a route you wish to go down, but it may be open to you.

[Zobles]

Thank you.

Thats some really comprehensive advice and I will read through it a good few times and try to digest what is being said.

Her van certainly doesn't look to be worth thousands. Reg would suggest it's 8 years old and looks like it was an auctioned off old AA van - yellow tranny with recovery beacon.

Thanks again, you've been really helpful.

She has said she is willing to enter into ADR so the ball is in her court to send me the details of the body she chooses. 2 days into a 14 day response time period so will see where it goes from there.

[Zobles]

I have another question about the Simple Procedure.

I was the one who entered into the agreement with this Trader by means of a messenger service, between my account and the Traders

I am the one who has paid to repair the damage to the cooker from my personal current account.

I am the one who has signed off every letter written to the trader.

I am married, technically it is not my my cooker, it is our cooker.

Can my Husband be my Lay Representative in court?

Or it is better to name him as the claimant in the Simple Procedure Form?

He is ex law enforcement and far more familiar with legal issues than I. He feels he will cope with the stress of a hearing far easier and I wholeheartedly agree!

[Nostrus]

Apologies, I only check these forums every so often.

Just name both of you as Claimants on the Form. Nothing prevents you from doing so. Push comes to shove, then yes, he could act as a Lay Representative but I doubt the Court would push that as a point.