Jump to content
Twitter - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'

Hair Bear

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    181

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Hair Bear

  1. Hair Bear
    I’m writing this on behalf of a friend who has recently gone his separate ways from a council-employed job of many years. The last 36 years of that job he was paying into the “works” pension plan, and whatever he contributed, his employer, the council, paid the same (lately he was paying £120 a month). He was planning to retire in six months, age 55, as this was when he could take payments from his pension. However, the council decided to off hire him in advance – not literally, but by telling him his job was no longer available and that he would have to do another (one that was wholly unsuited to him). The “settlement agreement” was much less than what it would have been in six months, but more concerning to him is his upcoming monthly pension. He says that the council’s solicitor told him that although once he hits 55 he will get regular payments on his pension, these will be based only on his contributions. The contributions made by his employer, the council, will be null and void, despite their having matched his payments for years. Is this right?
  2. Hair Bear
    Thank you, unclebulgaria67 and Andyorch. Will let you know what happens.
  3. Hair Bear
    For many years I've religiously renewed my breakdown coverage because it's very cheap - £15. During that period I think I've used them only once before, but recently I punctured five miles from home. Ordinarily I would put the spare on myself but, Sod's Law, only that morning had lent someone my repair kit and didn't have it back yet. Rather than walk home, I decided to use breakdown. When I rang, they told me they couldn't find my details and said I hadn't renewed, but I was adamant that I had. They agreed to send someone in good faith providing my details could be clarified (I was also given the impression that if there had been a problem with the renewal, it could be rectified). As it was, it took them four hours to get to me (had I known it would be that long, I'd have walked home!). This prompted them to, the following day, ring me and offer £50 compensation. Now I've received a threatening letter saying I didn't renew and they want paying for everything. I'm assuming they mean the £50 and the cost of the (third party) breakdown guy. They haven't put a figure on this but I dread to think what it is. Having now checked, I found that I haven't a renewal policy. Further investigation shows that I sent them a cheque (which I have proof off) but, again Sod's Law kicking in, the £15 cheque that was subsequently cashed on my bank statement, and that I therefore assumed was for the renewal, was actually a late cheque that I'd written three months earlier, cashed late. So what now? I know that I sent them the cheque, so feel like I'm being punished because they lost the cheque. I know that I won't be able to afford whatever figure they come out with, and most certainly wouldn't have willy nilly rang for a breakdown guy to come out had I not thought I had coverage. Thanks in advance.
  4. Hair Bear
    Interesting. Will check it out, thanks. PS Do you have the contact email?
  5. Hair Bear
    They said they had no knowledge of the company's accounts and that I had to contact whoever it was (sorry, I forgot which body), but they had no knowledge of accounts either.
  6. Hair Bear
    Thanks for your input. All good stuff. I'm trying to find out about the assets and what happened to them without the director knowing I'm doing it (he is very slippery and good at wrangling the law to tailor himself, so I don't want to give him cause for mounting a defence before it's necessary). I tried Companies House but got no luck
  7. Hair Bear
    Thanks, guys. The company did stop trading at least three months prior to their asking to be struck off (in the eyes of the law. In reality, it continued trading under his brother's name).
  8. Hair Bear
    Can someone help me with a part of this process that I'm not fully understanding... Let's say, for the sake of this example, that the limited company that owes me money legitimately/honestly/within the law had zero assets when the director had it struck off. Even if that company had a million pound a year turnover, and even if the director (who was the sole owner, sole director, sole company secretary, and the directing mind that against the law terminated my job) had a personal fortune of 5 billion, is it the case that, although I can claim my money, I can't actually receive any because there were no assets left? Or, since he personally has 5 billion, does he have to pay me directly?
  9. Hair Bear
    "as I understand it, the Op's order is against a company which has been wound up and not against the individual" Yes, that's spot on.
  10. Hair Bear
    I like it (and funny). Does this and "s212 and s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986" go together, or are they two separate routes? Apologies if that sounds thick.
  11. Hair Bear
    Very interesting link, thank you. In this instance, only the name of the original owner is given, although it also says "We have 2 historical records for [the website]" and "There are at least 2 significant changes". But there doesn't appear to be any other information or ability to access further info
  12. Hair Bear
    Yes, they've always had one and still do.
  13. Hair Bear
    Hi, Pusillanimous. My worry is that (a) the opposition is very slippery and, despite my thinking I had this won four years ago, as a consequence I've still not won anything. Additionally (b), steampower's earlier "I think it is doable by a dedicated litigant in person who puts in the hours to understand the court process". I'm not nearly smart enough nor skilled enough to live up to that criteria. As such, I can see me being outsmarted at some point.
  14. Hair Bear
    According to the Land Registry, the establishment's owner is called (a pseudonym) 'Quick Systems', but Quick Systems (or, rather, the real name) doesn't register on Company's House or Company Check. However, when one goes on Endole, when you type in 'Quick Systems' it gives you several companies all registered at Quick Systems head office address (different to the bar). A couple of these are limited companies, and a quick check on those reveals that none are my director. Regarding sub-10K or over: It seems my choice is to either ask for the full 17K or plump for sub-10K. Going for the 17K would mean my case is so strong I couldn't lose. If I decided on sub-10K, then rest assured I would not be attempting to get the balance (right now I have nothing, so ten grand would be a great victory). This brings up two questions: Currently I am leaning towards sub-10K. I believe my case is strong enough to challenge for the 17K but, as you know, the opposition has a history of being able to wriggle out of things and I'm worried I might get stuck with a bill. Any thoughts about the strength of my case? If I do go sub-10K, is 9.99K feasible or does it have to be a round figure? Thanks in advance.
  15. Hair Bear
    Yes, I checked with the Land Registry. It doesn't give a person's name for the owner of the property, only a company. A check on that company gives no name as a director, but I'm guessing that he doesn't own it. The bar is situated in a huge building with other bars and many flats, all leased by whomsoever owns the building. I doubt that he would have the kind of money to buy that, and since the previous owner of the bar rented the property, I'm therefore assuming it's still rented. Regarding "In an extreme case you might not get away with obviously gaming the system": Can you expand on "extreme case", please. Thank you.
  16. Hair Bear
    I've now read through this, thanks, and (since legalities are still very gobbledygook to me) have some questions: 1) As similar as Colin's case is, doesn't the fact that the company in my case being struck off make a difference to my course of action? 2) Is 10K a threshold of whether something is small claims? 3) You say that, because something is small claims, it is unlikely that you will have to pay the other sides costs. Is this the only requirement? Meaning, if a millionaire puts in a claim for 9K he won't have to pay the others side's cost if he loses, but if someone is on disability payments (so is poor) and claims for 11K, if he loses he will be liable for costs? 4) If it's a case that "yes, you will be liable for costs if you lose no matter what your financial circumstances if it's over 10K", if you are owed 17K can you just claim for only 9.9K? (You might be throwing away 7.5K if you win, but you're prepared to lose that against an insurance of not having to pay costs, sort of thing.)
  17. Hair Bear
    Thanks, Steampowered. I'll print everything out and start reading up.
  18. Hair Bear
    I'm pretty sure that it was discussed, albeit briefly, on this thread.
  19. Hair Bear
    From what I have been told, the debt can, via a civil court action, legally be transferred to the "directing mind" (the person who did me wrong). In this instance my case is strong, as the directing mind was also the company owner, the company director, and the company secretary. I'm confident I can prove that he purposely had his company struck off in order to avoid paying me money.
  20. Hair Bear
    Great stuff, in that this would have been the exact answer to my next "what is the procedure?" question. Before I do any of this, though, I need to find out if any of this is worth bothering with. I'm pretty sure that I can win the case (we can discus that soon), but it's pointless trying to if the person I'm targeting doesn't have any money. So I need to find out what credit he has, by which I mean discovering how much cash he's got invested in his house. Apparently solicitors can find that out, so I'm just asking how I might go about it in the cheapest way possible.
  21. Hair Bear
    I'm now in a position to begin civil proceedings against the person (the directing mind) whose company was deemed to owe me money, but was struck off companies house. Before I leap in, obviously I need to find out if he has money, presumably in his property, so would like to know how I might go about finding out how to do this? Thanks.
  22. Hair Bear
    Judge: "MS P DONLEAVY, REGISTRAR IN CHAMBERS". Regarding the costs decision: I also included time spent in court last year, which was after the company had ceased to exist. Of this, the Registrar wrote "I have jurisdiction only to consider the costs incurred in this court in the appeal lodged on 3rd July 2013. If the Respondent wishes to claim costs in the employment tribunal, he must make an application to that tribunal." Can I still do that? If so, how do I go about it? Regarding "Time to seek an order that he attends court for questioning in his capacity as a former director of the company for questioning about the company's assets?": Are you talking about trying to get the £17K that the company owes me transferred to him? Or are you speaking about having him perhaps getting some sort of fine for his behaviour?" Thanks, gents.
  23. Hair Bear
    Costs Update. The results arrived today, apparently the EAT took place on 7th November 2014. Firstly, thank you Steampowered and Pusillanimous for chipping in with some great advice. Unfortunately, though, it hasn't seemed to matter. Whilst the Judgement started off superbly well, with the Register slating the other side ("I find Mr. X's contention that he [me] was an employee of the company frankly risible"), the good news soon petered out: "Once the information was available to him [meaning that other side couldn't continue their Appeal because they no longer existed in law], the drafting of the Answer should have taken less than an hour. Therefore I am not minded to quantify any significant costs to as due to him. I therefore refuse the costs application." What ticks me off the most is that the other side didn't even have to pay a single penny. He must have a been sprinkled with fairy dust at birth. I mean, although the drafting of the Answer didn't take long, to literally download the questionnaire, then type on it, then scan it, then upload it to email and send, all takes at least an hour. So why didn't I at least get one hour's worth of money? Even a pound for thirty seconds would have given a smidgen of satisfaction. To add to my woes, I was going to stress this in the appeal (and ask you lot if you know of a similar case where they managed to obtain all the money, so I could rebuttal - I had claimed for 60 hours, the amount of time wasted writing a lengthy Answer prior to my discovering that they couldn't actually continue). However, when I emailed the Register today to ask when the Appeal deadline is, the reply instructed me: "on the 14th November"! And I only got the letter this morning! I have emailed them back stating that they had previously agreed to not only send me letters but also to email me the same (because I have a problem with post arriving late). So hopefully they will grant me a further say. All thoughts are welcome.
  24. Hair Bear
    So, to be clear, since I'm not the brightest star in the galaxy, I should literally write: "I am claiming costs under Rule 34A (1) at the rate set out in Rule 34D (4) and 34D (5)." ? Also: The other side was a company, let's call them B Limited, and they were represented by their director and company secretary Mr X. It is he who wasted my time and I am claiming costs against him, as the company secretary. When the barrister who had won my 2012 Tribunal came back into the picture briefly, it was he who drafted that Respondent Answer and also wrote the above (that's where I've just nicked it from).
  25. Hair Bear
    Something like this? In light of the wasted costs that have followed, therefore, the Claimant's seek an order for wasted costs against the Appellant’s representative, XXX, in accordance with Rule 34C on the basis that XXX's conduct was improper, unreasonable and/or it is reasonable to expect him to pay for the Claimant’s wasted costs as a result. A schedule will be prepared in due course.” And should I write my name where it says "the Claimant" ?

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London NW11 7PE

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...