HM Court Bailiff Harassment

[mwe]

Hi

In December 2010 a customer was refunded for a repair that we could not complete. In June 2011 the company (Company 1) went into liquidation. In July 2011 a similar named company (Company 2) was formed. In November 2011 the customer went to the small claims court for compensation against company 1. Additionally the claimant also mispelled the company name.

It appears that he won his case for compensation and has approached company 2 for payment. The court have written to company 2 and the bailiff has visited a couple of times.

I have written to the court and explained to the bailiff that Company 1 is no longer trading and dont understand why company 2 should be liable. I didn't get a reply from the court and have had 4 different letters threatening bailff action addressed to 4 different similar sounding companies.

1.To me company 2 cannot be resonsible for the actions of company 1. Am I right?

2. If the claimant misspelled the company name then technically has he sued the wrong company?

3. The bailiff called again last week and told my staff that he will remove goods next week.

What action should I take please

Thanks

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I'll move your thread to the bailiffs forum where the guys should be able to help you. I'll leave a short term redirect from this forum for you.

 

My best, HB

[sgtbush]

if company 1 are no longer trading then company 2 cannot be held liable

but i think their might be some technacallities

 

was company 1 a Ltd company and is the director of (1) a director of company 2?

sometimes the directors can be still held liable in certain circumstances i think on how the companys are set up

as for the mis-spelling, it depends on how mis-spelt it is

i know a warrant ( which in this case their is no warrant i know) says Joe Bloggs and the name of the person is Jo Blogs then a warrant will still stand.

im not to clued up on corporate law, im sure someone with more knolwage will be here soon

[brassnecked]

if company 1 are no longer trading then company 2 cannot be held liable

but i think their might be some technacallities

 

was company 1 a Ltd company and is the director of (1) a director of company 2?

sometimes the directors can be still held liable in certain circumstances i think on how the companys are set up

as for the mis-spelling, it depends on how mis-spelt it is

i know a warrant ( which in this case their is no warrant i know) says Joe Bloggs and the name of the person is Jo Blogs then a warrant will still stand.

im not to clued up on corporate law, im sure someone with more knolwage will be here soon

 

I think it depends on how Company 1 was liquidated, and the terms of transfer/sale of any assets, you can see what a can of worms this is in the sorry saga when Claire Sandbrook from Sherfarce tried to gain protection in the Huntress case, where they firked up and enforced against new tenants of a premises, which used equipment formerly belonging to the previous occupants who were the debtor this one could be interpreted in various ways.

[lamma]

The company number is the distinguishing identifier of the legal entity. I hazard that was not on the court paperwork - was it ?. The date line you have presented plus copies of the Company House record of the creation of Company 2 should be sufficient for all but the most dim witted of court clerks. Be sure to illustrate company numbers clearly. Was a receiver appointed for Company 1 ? If so drag them into this.

[mwe]

Both companies are Ltd. Both had the same director.

Everytime I get a letter from the court threatening the bailiff they have changed the defendant name and always got it wrong.

Surely you cant buy from Comet and find they've closed so sue Currys?