Is this an invalid writ.

[cul8rm8e]

I arranged a secured unregulated loan from a company (partnership)

To cut a long story short, things have gone really bad, and they have taken action and i received a court writ for repossession. The court writ was in the name of a Limited company i knew nothing of at the time but do now.

They say the contract i signed showing who the company was providing the loan is correct but they are a trading style of the limited company and thats why its been served by them.

On the loan agreement there was nothing whatsoever to mention they had any relationship with a limited company or that they were (limited company)trading as.

Since the writ has been served, they have now made the same company (partnership) a trading style name of another limited company, funny enough, the same person owns both limited companies and the trading style company, even more strange, he owns the Broker company who sourced the funding from the (partnership) company on my behalf and charged me £1,500 for their brokerage services.

Now the thing is, I am planning to counter sue the loan provider (partnership)as they were in clear breach of contract,(very long story) how would you do that if they are a trading style name of a completely different limited company.


thanks

[MissFM]

Re: Is this an invalid writ.

Hi Cul8rm8e

I have been following your other threads and IMVHO you are being stitched up.

You do (also IMO) need expert legal advice.

As I understand it, a Ltd Co is a stand-alone individual in its own right: so if you have a contract with a Ltd Co it can't suddenly transform into another and continue the contract without your express agreement.

If you made agreements with the directors, as individuals, then they are liable as individuals. But they have "Limited Liability" for their actions as directors of a defunct company unless they personally acted illegally.

This sounds, though, to me (on the limited info provided), like a very common scam that unscrupulous individuals use - a black hole in company law which allows people to just keep incurring liabilities both legal and financial, winding up a company, then starting a phoenix company with a slightly different name but the same directors.

It's hard to believe it's legal but in many circumstances it is , which is why I would strongly urge you to seek specialist legal help.

Good luck.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Is this an invalid writ.

Do any of the companies, partnerships or partners have a valid and current Consumer Credit Licence?

[cul8rm8e]

Re: Is this an invalid writ.

Yes they do but it is all changing and i am trying to keep track of whats going on. I will try to explain where i am and what i have on that. All in pdf files for reference

Broker, and (the lender named on the contract) were trading style names on the same CCL number with categories (Credit Brokerage)which belonged to the Limited company, this has now changed, the two trading names were removed and a new trading name added to it. - Limited company with one trading name


The (lender name on the contract) also had its own CCL with two further trading names under the license with categories (Consumer Credit and Credit Brokerage) No company registration number applied to it as it want Limited, Effectively it was a trading name under a Limited company license and at the same time had its own licence.:typing: THIS LICENSE WAS RECENTLY SURRENDERED!


A new Limited company that was setup recently now has the Broker company added to that new CCL categories (Credit brokerage) - Limited company with one trading name



Effectively at this point both the original broker/lender trading names are not what they were, but, more below!



Another new Limited company was set up using abbreviations of the original lender company trading name. The original company trading name is now part of that license as a trading name of this Limited company, there is also a further two trading names applied to this CCL - categories (Credit Brokerage) Limited company with three trading names




If i may say that it has just dawned on me, neither of these limited companies or trading names within any of them have a license to provide loans, it think. All have the category (Credit Brokerage) applied to them.

I know it all sounds a bit complex but trust me, I am on top of it all, and so is the solicitor. Judgement day will come and Questions will be answered ultimately leading to who will hang who and who`s face will change to 50 shades of grey when the solicitor produces the goods. it will be EPIC

Sorry, got a bit excited there

[cul8rm8e]

Re: Is this an invalid writ.

MissFM

The contract was produced by one of the trading names of the Limited company. The Limited company is the company taking action.

The trading name of that limited company now has no association with them and is now a trading name of a NEW limited company thats been set up.

Oh, i never mentioned on here i dont think, the lender and his couple of mates have over 40 dissolved companies to their name mostly defunct in the last 7 years or so, one of them has his name on 22 of them, they go something like this:

the loan company ltd
the loan company one ltd
tlc company ltd
tlc uk ltd


get the picture?

[cul8rm8e]

Re: Is this an invalid writ.

Found this which i think is very interesting, it most certainly relates to something confusing.


The importance of suing the correct entity
| Litigation |
Identifying the correct entity is a very important piece of the jigsaw when conducting business and a substantial number of businesses, whether it be an individual or a company, are failing to obtain the correct details of who they are contracting with on a daily basis. This can cause problems when taking legal action and may affect your chances of success.

It is extremely important to do your due diligence checks on who you are doing business with and providing goods or services to, from the first time you make contact.

In carrying out your checks at the start of the business relationship and at regular intervals throughout, you will be in a stronger position when you require Court action to recover outstanding invoices. This will also assist the enforcement of any judgement that is obtained.

Easy steps you can take in order to identify the correct entity you are dealing with:-

Limited Company
- Carry out a Companies House “Web Check”.
- Obtain the trading and registered address
- Make regular checks on the status of the company through Companies House
- Obtain a guarantee from a director of the company with whom you are dealing.

Limited Company “trading as” / “t/a”
- If the trading name is different to the company name, this is important as many companies trade under another name which may not be obviously linked to the company name: e.g. Joe Bloggs Limited t/a The Ice Cream Parlour.

Some companies do include parts of the company name in the trading name but not all: e.g. Joe Bloggs Limited t/a Blogg’s Ice Cream Parlour.

Partnership
- Obtain the full business name and addresses of the business
- Ensure you identify and make a record of all the individuals involved in the partnership and keep a record of their full names. This is important information to have because a claim can be brought and enforced against the partnership, the individuals or both.

Individual/Sole Trader
- It is very important that you get the full name of the individual/sole trader and any business name they are conducting business under.
- Obtain the individuals home address or business address, which will be the same for a sole trader as they may be conducting their business from their home address.

Sole trader and partnership “trading as” / “t/a”
- As above, it is important to check who you are dealing with and make sure you have the name(s) of everyone running the business and the trading name.

Michael Robinson, Paralegal in the Litigation Department says:

“It is important to carry out your checks at the outset and carry out some research of your own as to the entity you are dealing with to ensure that your clients’/customers’ details are correct on your records, including your invoices and delivery notes etc.

In making these checks and ensuring details are correct at the start and throughout the business relationship, if and when legal action is required, you are ensuring that you are pursuing the correct entity. As a creditor it could save you money in not having to have the Judgement varied or to proceed through the whole Court process again, incurring costs that could have been avoided at an earlier stage.

Due diligence checks are important for every business whether you are a one person band or a multi-national company.”

[cul8rm8e]

Re: Is this an invalid writ.

Found this which i think is very interesting, it most certainly relates to something confusing.


The trade name is different from the name in which it has been registered. A company incorporated in England and Wales or Scotland may only be registered with one name. However, in addition to the company's registered name, it may also have business or trading names. The provisions on business names are set out in Part 41, Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).
A business name is a name used by any person, partnership or company for carrying on business which is not the same as their own name. In the case of a company, it means a name that is not its registered name. Business names are not registered under CA 2006, but they must comply with the provisions of Part 41 and the regulations made under it.
Disclosure of registered name

Under section 82(1) of CA 2006 and regulation 6 of the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 (the Regulations), a company must disclose its registered name in:

• Business letters, notices and other official publications.
• Bills of exchange, promissory notes, endorsements and order forms.
• Cheques and orders for money, goods or services signed by or on behalf of the company.
• Bills of parcels, invoices and other demands for payment, receipts and letters of credit.
• Applications for licences to carry on a trade or activity.
• All other forms of business correspondence and documentation.
• Its websites.

Use of business name when contracting

It follows from the Regulations that a company must include its registered name in its written contracts - of course, a contract can be made orally, or by conduct.
As a matter of good practice, the company's registered number should also be included, as this is the only thing identifying a company that never changes.
Enforceability of contract containing business name only

The other aspect to this question is whether a contract entered into by a company incorporated in England and Wales or Scotland be enforceable against that company when the only name mentioned in the contract is the business name of the company rather than its registered name.
The simple answer is that such a contract will be legally enforceable provided that the use of the business names does not create any confusion as to the identity of the party in question, and providing all other elements for the formation of a contract are present.
The identity of the parties to a contract is fundamental to the formation of a contract.
However, if there is a dispute over who the true parties to the contract are, the courts will consider what the parties said to each other and what they did in the period leading up to forming the contract to determine who the parties were intended to be. This will be a matter of interpretation.
Section 83 CA 2006

In addition to the common law rules, section 83(2) CA 2006 provides that, where a company is seeking to enforce a right arising out of a contract made in the course of business in which it was in breach of the requirement of disclosure under section 82, any legal proceedings will be dismissed if the defender to the action can show that he has a claim against a company which he has been unable to pursue because of the breach or that the company's breach has caused him to suffer financial loss.
In other words, where a company is in default of any disclosure requirement under section 82, it will have no rights against any person who can demonstrate some actual prejudice caused by the breach. If the defender cannot show such prejudice the contract is enforceable.