Loading Notifications...

Will I get my money (vouchers) back?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Phil Lyon 14 Oct 2020

I paid a childcare provider £200 from childcare vouchers in error; we stopped using this provider last year.

They have just gone bust as the schools have started doing their own provision.

Their admin have passed on my request for a reversal of the payment to their "liquidators".

I have no idea how liquidators go about their business or my legal recourse in this matter.

What chance have I of getting this money / vouchers back?

 gezebo 14 Oct 2020
In reply to Phil Lyon:

Minimal I’m afraid. The liquidator will liquidate any assets and divvy it up between everyone owed money. This could be a whole range of things depending on the set up. So it could be food/catering, rent, loans or whatever. If the remaining split equally as a percentage owned you’d be lucky to get a few quid but the reality is it won’t be and as such a small fish you’ll be left with nothing. Well that’s it in a nutshell. I’m sure someone may be able to explain it in a more detailed fashion for you. Bit annoying really as £200 is a lot of money ☹️

In reply to Phil Lyon:

I would say zero. My experience of liquidators is that after the text man has had their bit any money left over just happened to be the same amount as their fees cost. 

 Cobra_Head 15 Oct 2020
In reply to Phil Lyon:

What Dax said, the liquidators, take their fee, then the tax man, then what's left (usually FA) gets shared out (sometimes)

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Doesn't the tax man get first dibs then the liquidators? 

 wercat 15 Oct 2020
In reply to gezebo:

And is the liquidator able to treat something belonging to someone else (mistaken payment) as an asset?  If so where does that entitlement end.  It is not an asset of the business it is something that came into the business's possession by mistake.

I'm pretty sure that if the business came into possession of some valuable lost property that implied a duty to take reasonable steps to find the owner then in that case they would be unlawfully acting if they took it as an asset to liquidate.

to the OP - I would contact the liquidators and take this line very strongly and with threat of prompt legal action if they do not return YOUR cash mistakenly in their possession.

From what you said the money was not  in their possession through any existing contractual or any reason connected with their busniness and they never had any entitlement to it

that also goes for vouchers - tell the issuing authority/office that a firm has the vouchers and that they were not given as part of a contract to provide any childcare but as a mistake.

This is what I'd do

Post edited at 12:44
 Cobra_Head 15 Oct 2020
In reply to Dax H:

> Doesn't the tax man get first dibs then the liquidators? 


I doubt it, otherwise the liquidators are going to be out of pocket should there be insufficient funds to pay the taxman first.

Though I'm not sure, maybe they take a risk! Though it wouldn't make sense as then there's be lots of companies, not wound up, if you knew you were on to a loser as a liquidation company, you'd simply not bother.

 rj_townsend 15 Oct 2020
In reply to Dax H:

> Doesn't the tax man get first dibs then the liquidators? 

I'd always though this was the case, but it looks like that's now changed. Take a look here - quite interesting who gets paid first, with employees only getting up to £800 of what they're owed which seem a bit rubbish. https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/articles/insolvency/who-gets-paid-first-when-a-company-goes-into-liquidation

 wercat 15 Oct 2020
In reply to rj_townsend:

This is different though.  The money wasn't owed to anyone in the course of business, it was there by error and never passed into the firm's ownership and had a duty not to assume ownership attacehd to it which should be honoured by the liquidators.  Not the same as a business debt or wages owed to employees.

In fact the issuing authority I would think is under no obligation to honour vouchers to which a business  or its successors/administrators is/are not entitled.

Threaten small claims at least as well as letting them know that if they knowingly process them as an assets having been informed of the facts it would be fraudulent

Post edited at 13:37
 rj_townsend 15 Oct 2020
In reply to wercat:

> This is different though.  The money wasn't owed to anyone in the course of business, it was there by error and never passed into the firm's ownership and had a duty not to assume ownership attacehd to it which should be honoured by the liquidators.  Not the same as a business debt or wages owed to employees.

From the information in the OP proving that the funds are not legitimately theirs seems problematic. The OP had used their services previously and, somehow, sent them additional vouchers. To me that seems different to an entirely unsolicited payment from a stranger landing in the account.

> In fact the issuing authority I would think is under no obligation to honour vouchers to which a business  or its successors/administrators is/are not entitled.

Contacting the issuer and asking them to cancel/invalidate those vouchers and provide a refund seems like a reasonable route.

> Threaten small claims at least as well as letting them know that if they knowingly process them as an assets having been informed of the facts it would be fraudulent

For the sake of £200 which the OP admits he sent them in error, I think I'd write it off to experience.

 wercat 15 Oct 2020
In reply to rj_townsend:

nothing much to disagree about except that writing £200 off depends on the means of the person making the choice.  Certainly not worth having a heart attack over.

 Donotello 15 Oct 2020
In reply to wercat:

Can you imagine you’re either a company who’s gone bust and had to sack all your staff, or you’re a billion dollar liquidator and amongst the hundred suppliers begging for their 4-6 figure payments someone’s on the phone asking for their £200 voucher back. 
 

Absolutely no chance they’d even let you finish your sentence if they even entertained a call, it’s big business and the little guy gets left in the wind.

 wercat 16 Oct 2020
In reply to Donotello:

so it's small claims then, if they ignore that the finding will be against them

you shouldn't speak up for the enemy. What a Rubbish attitude.

we're speaking in the context of a childcare business.  If you've got £200 to throw away then you're a lot better off then I.

In the past I launched a three pronged attack on a multi million pound insurer who would not pay up under a 1990s PPE insurance and I won.  I planned and fought it as a battle using other organisations (Ombudsman and building society, having got them on my side) to put fire down on the enemy and also barraged management titles with threats of legal action until one of them broke cover.

I enede up with a very large cheque from this multi million (conservative estimate) organisation

For them to use the 200 in their proceedings having been put on notice about the title to the money would be a fraudulent transaction

Post edited at 10:23
2
 wercat 16 Oct 2020
In reply to Phil Lyon:

in case people dislike the idea of the PPE claims bandwagon it was not involved. the context was the early 1990s, unemployment and them not paying what I was owed under the policy, because of rules they changed in their own favour (why the Ombudsman reigned fire on them as well).  This was the first PPE scandal when they were found not to be paying out, nothing to do with the PPE misselling that later made a lot of people a lot of undeserved money.

nothing to do with credit cards - it was mortgage providers pressure selling ppe with the mortgage so you could not lose your home if you lost your job.  I tooke them at their word but the insurers did not.  Hence a plan of attack.

Post edited at 13:30
 wercat 16 Oct 2020
In reply to wercat:

PPI not PPE

 SteveX 16 Oct 2020
In reply to wercat:

>

> Threaten small claims at least as well as letting them know that if they knowingly process them as an assets having been informed of the facts it would be fraudulent

Threaten who?


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.