GCs PCs - DO NOT BUY FROM [Removed]

Paul_Varjak

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

Companies can actually be struck off without actually going through the process of liquidating them. Instead, they are simply removed from the Companies House register, however there are certain conditions. (Of which I can't just remember off the top of my head!)

I think if you read what I wrote more carefully, that is what I said!

Paul_Varjak

zax47 wrote: »

PAUL VARJAK: Companies House themselves have decided to strike them off the register, as they may choose to do for various failings. However, a creditor has a judgement against the Company and has petitioned, successfully, for Companies House to hold-off on the striking -off for several months to give him chance to to have this judgement satisfied (as once the Company ceases to exist then the judgement will lapse?). GCPC's apparently, so far, have not acknowledged this judgement against them. {Removed by Forum team} ignorance or incompetence rears it's head again (or is it the Nigerians again?)

Like I said, striking a company off the Companies House register does not mean the company does not exist! As long as the company has not been wound-up in some other way, a strike-off from the Companies House register would have no effect on any court proceedings against the company - because the company would still exist!

The problem with strike-offs is that creditors can be drawn into the trap of thinking a company does not exist when, in fact, it still does! That is a trap I think you would fall into if such a company owed you money!

Money_Grabber13579

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

Like I said, striking a company off the Companies House register does not mean the company does not exist! As long as the company has not been wound-up in some other way, a strike-off from the Companies House register would have no effect on any court proceedings against the company - because the company would still exist!

The problem with strike-offs is that creditors can be drawn into the trap of thinking a company does not exist when, in fact, it still does! That is a trap I think you would fall into if such a company owed you money!

But if the company is no longer registered with Companies House, how can it still exist? Fair enough the buildings might still be there, and trade may be carrying on, but it is no longer a company. It might be classed as a sole trader instead though. But a company is one that has been incorporated, i.e. gone through the process of registering with Companies House, filed articles of association, and allegedly filed accounts. (Although, apparently GC's PC's is special and doesn't need to file accounts.)

Paul_Varjak

zax47 wrote: »

PAUL VARJAK: Companies House themselves have decided to strike them off the register, as they may choose to do for various failings. However, a creditor has a judgement against the Company and has petitioned, successfully, for Companies House to hold-off on the striking -off for several months to give him chance to to have this judgement satisfied (as once the Company ceases to exist then the judgement will lapse?). GCPC's apparently, so far, have not acknowledged this judgement against them. [Name removed by Forum Team] 's ignorance or incompetence rears it's head again (or is it the Nigerians again?)

A proposal to strike off can be made by Companies House or an officer of the company. Have you actually determind it is a Companies House proposal to strike them off the register or at the request of the company?

I did read one post that suggests the company has no directors and that would certainly be a reason for Companies House to strike the company from the register.

The cynic in me says that maybe the only director resigned so in order to get the company removed from the register, thereby giving an illusion that creditors have no recourse in law because they think the company no longer exists!

The fact that [Name removed by Forum Team] now seems to be a sole trader and is selling what is probably company stock, would lead me to the conclusion that there is illegal activity in this case. If that can be proven in a court of law, creditors of the company may have recourse against any existing and former director(s).

Paul_Varjak

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

But if the company is no longer registered with Companies House, how can it still exist?

Winding-up a company and striking the company off the register are separate procedures. Only in the former case does the company cease to exist! If a company is struck of the register it can be re-instated to the register by a court order. If the company is wound-up then re-instatement to the register would not be possible.

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

Fair enough the buildings might still be there, and trade may be carrying on, but it is no longer a company. It might be classed as a sole trader instead though.

'IT' can be classed a sole trader? What is 'IT'? The Sole Trader seems (in this case case) to be [Name removed by Forum Team] . You seem to be referring to a single entity 'IT' that continues to exist after an incorporated body no longer exists. I don't think that can happen! There are two 'ITs' - the first is GC's PC's (the incorporated company) and the second is [Name removed by Forum Team] (the Sole Trader). GC's PC's and [Name removed by Forum Team] are compeletely separate legal entities as established in Salomon vs Salomon!

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

(Although, apparently GC's PC's is special and doesn't need to file accounts.)

I think if you check the Companies House register there has been no requirement to file accounts for the company yet! The first accounts are not due until 20/01/2010.

trisontana

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

Winding-up a company and striking the company off the register are separate procedures. Only in the former case does the company cease to exist! If a company is struck of the register it can be re-instated to the register by a court order. If the company is wound-up then re-instatement to the register would not be possible.



'IT' can be classed a sole trader? What is 'IT'? The Sole Trader seems (in this case case) to be [Name removed by Forum Team] . You seem to be referring to a single entity 'IT' that continues to exist after an incorporated body no longer exists. I don't think that can happen! There are two 'ITs' - the first is GC's PC's (the incorporated company) and the second is [Name removed by Forum Team] (the Sole Trader). GC's PC's and [Name removed by Forum Team] are compeletely separate legal entities as established in Salomon vs Salomon!



I think if you check the Companies House register there has been no requirement to file accounts for the company yet! The first accounts are not due until 20/01/2010.

No, they were due in April of this year:-

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 20/01/2010
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 17/04/2009 OVERDUE

Paul_Varjak

Sorry, you have misread Companies House data. The first accounts are not due for submission to Companies House until 20/01/2010. They will cover the period from incorporation up until 31/03/2009!!

The only document that is overdue is the Annual Return. I am not sure if that is sufficient reason to strike a company off the register.

Money_Grabber13579

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

Sorry, you have misread Companies House data. The first accounts are not due for submission to Companies House until 20/01/2010. They will cover the period from incorporation up until 31/03/2009!!

I can confirm that accounts do not have to be filed until the later of 12 months after the end of the period of account, or 3 months after the notice requiring a return was sent. (Assuming they prepare accounts for 12 months)

Well that's for tax purposes anyway!

Paul_Varjak

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

I can confirm that accounts do not have to be filed until the later of 12 months after the end of the period of account, or 3 months after the notice requiring a return was sent. (Assuming they prepare accounts for 12 months)

Well that's for tax purposes anyway!

I don't really know.

marleyboy

the Directors (Mum & Dad) quit as soon as the heat was on, assuming no responsibility as it was run by their Son, they claimed to merely "agree" to be director's for reason of [Name removed by Forum Team] 's age.

[Name removed by Forum Team] on the other hand, continued to keep the business open, assuming his age would be a "get out of jail free" card, and upto now continues to believe that to be the case.

I find it totally ironic, that his former solicitors at [email]legal@gc'spc's.com[/email] are now currently selling his product's for him, even better that they only accept cheques made out personally to one [Name removed by Forum Team] .

Although I can't imagine anyone visiting his website and purchasing any product's without feeling a twinge of concern about how the company trade's, causing them to at the very least, Google his name and company first.

Now which site do you think will "pop up" at the top of the list in Google when such a search is made and what are the chances of the said customer actually proceeding with such a purchase after reading such a site, with the very owners "own" replies included on such a site.

I'm reminded of the Paul Whitehouse sketch "Coz am a bit Weeee and a bit Wooaaaa, Am a Geezer"