Difficult debt - advice welcome

I suggest his bank is at fault for allowing this. Have a go at them.

Rob Graham

What do you mean by 'amended'? Did he actually change the payee details or sign it on the back (which you can do with cheques that aren't crossed account payee)? Anyway, what are you doing sending cheques to a man who owes you money?

Have no more contact with him other than legal ways Deal with his wife, she is your way to get your money Make her life hell, by the time she has a court order on you he will of caved in. Follow her everywhere, phone her at night, give notes to her children for her. Do not get phisical or the police will act streight away Get your money off her good luck jim

In message , Jeremy writes

What do you mean by 'amend'? If the cheques have been altered on the face of them, as opposed to being endorsed, then you should sue your own bank.

No its not.

If the fact is that he endorsed the cheques to his wife then this is not criminal and not fraud and not an offence. It makes no difference at all to your financial claim against him UNLESS you make him bankrupt, in which case the facts should be declared to his trustee on the grounds that he has deprived himself of assets. This doesnt mean he has defrauded you because he *could* have been legitimately discharging other debts to his wife, although I know it looks very suspicious.

In message , Robin Graham writes

If the cheque was 'amended' on the face of it, then it is the OPs own bank whom he should have a go at.

If the payee merely endorsed the cheque to his wife, the drawer has no right of action against any of the banks involved at all and 'having a go' will have no effect or relevance.

Aren't most cheques account payee only these days though?

In message , Chris Street writes

Yes. That has no relevance.

No, a debt collector isn't the best bet. Your best bet is to do yourself what the debt collector will do: serve a Statutory Demand on him. A Statutory Demand is the biggest, baddest "demand" letter you can write. It says, in effect, "Pay your debt to me within 21 days or I will file a petition to make you bankrupt." You have a CCJ against him, so the debt you ask for is the total of the money owed, the costs awarded with the CCJ itself, and any other court costs you've been awarded. Email me (stever, not the dustbin) and I can provide sample wording for a Statutory Demand. Failure to pay the whole of the amount demanded within the 21 day period is sufficient cause for him to be made bankrupt, all by itself, even if he actually has enough assets (of his own) to make good on all his debts. The debt he owes you must be at least £750, including the original claimed amount, court fees, other costs awarded by the court, interest (you *did* claim interest, didn't you?), and so on.

The problem with letting the debt collector do it is that in most cases, debt collection firms won't go through with the bankruptcy petition, even if the demand isn't satisfied. If you have enough money lying around (typically cited as being in the £2000 range by the time you've paid solicitors, court fees, the Official Receiver's deposit, and so on), do it yourself, and file the petition. You must do this within four months.

The Statutory Demand, because it is such a serious thing, must be served "personally" on the debtor. This doesn't mean that you have to do it yourself. All it means is that the "service" can't be done by post. Someone, usually a detective bureau acting as a "process server" has to go and hand it over. They typically charge in the seventy-quid range, sometimes a bit more, for this, and anywhere from seven to twenty quid for the "Affidavit of Service" (an "O-3").

I haven't reached the point of actually getting to the bankruptcy hearing myself, so I can't comment on that, but every legal bod I've spoken to says that the Statutory Demand backed by a CCJ puts you in about the strongest position possible when filing the petition.

It might or might not be criminal fraud, depending on how he amended the cheques. However, if you get a bankruptcy order against him, the Official Receiver takes over. Concealing assets from the Official Receiver is a criminal matter, for the debtor *and* for anyone (such as your debtor's wife) involved in the concealment.

What will you get out of making him bankrupt? You have to be realistic: you probably won't get more than a little bit of your money, if that. You *will* get him shut down, as he would no longer be able to take on credit of more than £250 without permission (and taking money up front for a job is taking credit). This effectively shuts down his building operation, as he is taking the money in "via" himself, rather than via the business. He is acting as a front-man for this business, so it effectively shuts down the operation. He takes on the "bad credit" history by absorbing all the credit-damaging stuff like CCJs, and being a bankrupt will make him unable to do this anymore. And anyway, there's a strong possibility of criminal sanctions, and people being barred from being directors of companies, and visits from the taxman, fun stuff like that.

Because of the potentially disastrous results of making him bankrupt, the Statutory Demand will at least get his attention, and may well get your money.

However:

1. Was the CCJ issued at a hearing, or was it obtained by default? This is an important distinction, as it affects his options for attacking the Statutory Demand. By now, I would expect that it won't be possible for him to get the judgment set aside, but he might have a go at it. (The defendant in my case certainly did, much good did it do her...)

1. You can use the Statutory Demand as an intimidatory tactic, and then walk away if it fails, as it's not very expensive. If you do go through with the bankruptcy process, remember that *it* is expensive, into four figures by the time you're done. It has been known to reach five figures - this is rare, but not unheard of.

Rob

in a not disimilar situatuion myself and trying to get answers I think you need to clarify the whole amending cheques thing was he Mr J Smith and she Mrs J Smith so he added an "s"?

Hope you get your money from the thieving scum!

What happened was that the debtor amended the initial "I" to be an "E" (his wife's initial) and was then able to pay it into her account.

I had a bit of an arm wrestle with my bank and they eventually agreed to refund the latter of the two cheques I wrote to him, so they did agree (although deny this, officially of course) that they could have done more to protect me against the amendment to the cheque.

Have you thought of a garnishee order served on one of his debtors?

You need to be certain that the minute the order is served, there are funds available in the debtors bank.

Rgds,

__ Richard Buttrey Grappenhall, Cheshire, UK __________________________

In message , Jeremy writes

On one hand, your bank was at fault for not returning both cheques marked 'alteration requires drawers confirmation' but they didnt.

But on the other hand, if you took them to court you would have to prove that you lost out in some way, and from what you have said, then you haven't lost out at all (from the cheque alteration that is, not form his failure to perform) . In fact, as the alteration was made by the rightful payee, then he could claim he was entitled to alter the cheque in order to discharge a debt to his wife, a claim which a court would tend to uphold.

On the next hand (!) he appears to have deliberately deprived himself of assets at the expense of creditors.

He's a canny devil. Id go for a CCJ and explain the sits to the court then go for an order attaching something or other. Another poster suggests a garnishee order, but you'll need to a bank that actually has some dosh in it in his name.

How on Earth can anyone be certain of that? The Third Party order (modern name) is a lottery, pure and simple.

And in the case of this debtor, it's likely that he *won't* have any money in his bank account. Assuming he even has one that anyone but him and the bank knows about, that is. He's one of those "professional debtors" who keeps *everything* away from his name, or hidden so deep nobody can ever find it.

Steve, I think you're missing the point of what a garnishee actually is. Can I suggest you read up on it.

It is not served on the debtor who owes you money, but on a debtor who owes your debtor money.

Regards,

__ Richard Buttrey Grappenhall, Cheshire, UK __________________________

I'm well aware of what a Third Party order is. My point is that it is only effective if you can identify a debtor of your debtor (most commonly a bank, the debt being an account) and the debt is of a useful size (i.e., in the case of a bank account, that there is money in it) at the moment the order is served. The order is only good on the day it is served - if the order is served on the bank *today* and the account is empty, then you get nothing. If, *tomorrow*, the account holder puts a large sum in, your order will not have any call on it. How many people know beforehand exactly which day the debtor's money will be in his account?

In the same way, consider the other kind of Third Party order, made against a more conventional debtor of the debtor. Consider A, a sole trader who owes me money, and B, someone who owes A money for some work A will be (or has been) doing for B. Unless I can find out the (small) span of days where the money is payable, and B's name and address for service of the order, I will be unable to make an effective Third Party order against B. I might serve it too soon, before the debt is owed/payable, or too late, after B has paid it, and in order to select B as the target of the order, I must have some idea that B is A's debtor, and that's normally difficult to find out at the best of times.