MMF now Lantern

[Amethyst]

So cases in court where MMF are claimant - do they need to change claimant or as it's a name change not an entity change do they just carry on ?

Also bit odd another company called lantern debt recovery was set up in Dec 17 and changed its name to motormile finance at same time that the original motormile changed to lantern...
They've just swapped identities....

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11098802

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06637307

[Amethyst]

[R0b]

I would say it depends on whether or not they mentioned their company number in their POC - I assume they didn't and if not, then the argument might be yes they may need to make an application to amend the name, particularly if some other company has now swapped names and a defendant is ordered to pay up.

That could cause some confusion as MMF pursue future claims. I would think you need to look carefully on any letters as to what company number is being referenced as that will probably be the only identifier as to who is who.

[Amethyst]

Only letter I've seen so far

[R0b]

Technically, an application to the court may be required but from memory that is only required in circumstances where the name of the claimant on the claim form/particulars of claim is wrong. I don't recall any authorities on the point of having to make an application to amend their name by virtue of a company name change because presumably, at the time the claim was issued, the name would have been correct.

The other issue is that if they have multiple ongoing cases it might be considered unreasonable and costly for them to make an application for each and every case though MMF could perhaps make a single application to amend their name on all live claims.

There is also the slip rule under CPR 40.12 which allows the court to amend omissions or accidental errors but I am not sure those powers are appropriate in this case, unless I suppose this is all explained to the judge and he/she is happy with that explanation but clarifies the matter in any judgment or order it makes should MMF/Lantern be successful.

Of course this could also be addressed in their witness statement or any skeleton argument to say that there has been a name change to the company and are now referred to as Lantern instead of MMF. Whether the court accepts this is another matter but strictly speaking, I don't think they would be in breach of the CPR if the name remained the same.

What MMF or their lawyers should have done in the POC is identify MMF by reference to their company number i.e. "The Claimant is a limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with the company number XXXXXX". That way even if they did change their name and it came to enforcement of the judgment, they could prove that they are legally entitled to enforce the judgment.

It all comes down to whether the defendant is prepared to challenge whether or not they ought to have made an application and/or if the court is satisfied by the comments of MMF. If the claims are on the small claims track, I would imagine that most judges would probably allow the claim to continue in the interests of justice, proportionality and the overriding objective.

That all being said, happy for someone to correct me on the above if there is already case law out there that addresses this issue.

Edit: In terms of that letter you uploaded, they should as part of every company's legal obligations is to include their registered office and company number on any business letters. I can't see it but I would think its set out in the text at the bottom of the letter.