A client is being chased for a debt (over £1,500) from a company which has a compulsory notice of strike off issued against it. The strike off notice is dated today and the debt collection agent called today. Coincidence??
The contract was a 12 month rolling one which the client didn't notice. Since then the client has formed a ltd company but the contract is unfortunately still in his name as a sole trader. He tried to cancel it but was out of time by about one month so according to the debt chasing company he is still personally liable.
Does anyone have experience of getting out of this kind of contract? He has been told he has to pay within 24 hours or face a "statutory demand" notice being served on him tomorrow with punitive interest and costs. Surely this would be down to the courts?
Replies (19)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Pointing out to the debt collector that his client has been struck from the register should solve this.
The debt collectors are trying to scare your client. Let them serve the Statutory Demand (but do NOT let them enter your client's home, whatever lies they may tell they do NOT have any right to do so). File an application with the court to have it set aside. Do so without delay, you only have a couple of weeks.
The debt is less than £5,000 but you would be amazed how often debt collectors threaten bankruptcy if you don't pay. For debts below £5,000 you cannot be made bankrupt, and any threat to make you bankrupt for a lesser amount is illegal.
Also consider filing a counter claim for the distress caused. You won't get it if the company is going into liquidation but it WILL mean that they have to file a defense which will cost them time and aggravation.
Why not claim for distress against the debt collectors ?
They're the ones making the threats.
It does sound like the client is personally liable though, if the contract is in their personal name (and a new contract was not created on formation of LTD company). So it seems the debt collection agent is right.
A company that no longer exists cannot take legal action. It appears the company will cease to exist in a few weeks. Therefore the object of the exercise is to fob them off until they are struck off.
A company that no longer exists cannot take legal action. It appears the company will cease to exist in a few weeks. Therefore the object of the exercise is to fob them off until they are struck off.
Unless the debt collectors have bought the debt, which means the client then owes them the money
In view of the new facts I suggest that your client should formally notify the debt collectors that should they again go on to his property the police will be called as their presence is not lawful.
Should they turn up ensure that he does call the police and insist that the police remove/arrest them.
All debt collectors have to be registered, report their behavior and the companies behavior to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
the contract is unfortunately still in his name as a sole trader. He tried to cancel it but was out of time by about one month so according to the debt chasing company he is still personally liable
If the contract is in his name as a sole trader and was never transferred to the company, then yes he is personally liable and will continue to be. The company would never have been liable, so it's being struck off would be irrelevant.
I read it as the company supplying the service was being struck off. That of course begs the question is it (the pursuer) fulfilling its obligation under the contract, seems difficult if it say has ceased trading?
Sounds like a variation on the fire service diary scam if you ask me.
I can't believe there are any reputable organisations advertising internally on NHS computers?
"the contract is unfortunately still in his name as a sole trader. ".
Two issues then:
Confirm if the contarct is in fact in his name- if so then the Co Strike off is irrelevant.
If not, as others have said check the enforcability of the debt.
If I were owed money by a Co trying to strike off I'd certainly object to the strike off.
Does no one actually read the question? It is very clear that it is the creditor who is a company being struck off, not the alleged debtor.