Sole Trading after Bankruptcy

GT9

Hello

I am new on here but i was looking for any advice on the above subject.

I declared myself bankrupt in September 2007 whilst trading under my old business name, and was discharged in July 2008, however due to some misdemeanours i have a BRU for a few years too.

I have kept out of trouble since, pay a large IPA each month, etc however i wish to start trading again as a sole trader.

The business i want to start has nothing to do with the old business, completely different, i do not want any credit terms and i will have no suppliers, i am basically a one man band.

The bank have okayed a basic business account so i can deopsit money, etc and so everything is legit for book keeping.

However my concern is the trading name, i have read that the trading name i went bankrupt under i have to use again and inform any business i deal with that i am a bankrupt.

Now the people i will be dealing with are the general public so surely when i am dealing with them i don't say oh by the i am an ex bankrupt or do i?

Thats off point slightly, as stated the new business is completely different to the old one and the business names have no relevance.

Is there a way i can start trading afresh without using my old business name?

I have spoke to my official receiver about it, and although he is a nice guy i don't think he really knew the answer and he said would send out some info which is what i have already.

The Insolvency helpline said they didn't see a problem but i was not convinced and the last thing i want to do is get in any trouble.

My example being -

Fred Bloggs Trading as Fred Bloggs Builders goes bankrupt

he then starts again not borrowing, etc doing hair and beauty, surely he can't be called Fred Bloggs Builders when he is doing hair and beauty??!!

Any response will be really appreciated, thanks the taking the time to read this post.

maxmycardagain

They dont know thier own rules?...

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/TechnicalManual/Ch25-36/Chapter25/part4/part_4.htm



25.73 Engaging in business following a BRO/BRU If an individual subject to a BRO/IBRO/BRU wishes to engage directly or indirectly in any business under a name other than that under which they were adjudged bankrupt, to avoid being guilty of an offence he/she must disclose the name under which he/she was adjudged bankrupt to all persons with whom he/she enters into business transactions even though he/she may have been discharged from bankruptcy.



The individual is not prohibited from trading in partnership, although he/she must still disclose the name in which they were adjudged bankrupt, during the period that they are subject to a BRO/IBRO/BRU.

---

a simple addition to any sign/small print...

Fred Bloggs hair (formerly Fred Bloggs Trading)

FinancesOfAFiveYearOld

Thanks for the link, Max - interested me too (similar position but minus the BRo/BRU.

The rules read as a bit stiff on any "lesser" BRO/BRUites. Probably aimed more at the Maxwells.

The way it reads to me sticking a sign on the wall reading "Previously trading as Fred Blogs Wig Perfumier" or whatever would suffice. It doesn't read to me as though you need to add "... and I was bankrupt". It looks as though you only need to ring an "unclean, unclean" bell and announce your prior bankruptcy if obtaiing credit.

I suppose the sticking point would be any website or advertisement would need the "previously trading as" posting on it as well...

maxmycardagain

a hairdresser would be 99% cash transactions, i doubt joe would have to explain over every blue rinse about his BRU

headoutofsand

I like this bit

"When an individual is subject to a BRO/IBRO or a BRU, he or she is subject to a range of disabilities or restrictions until the BRO/IBRO or BRU has expired" What are these diabilities? I have a sore leg, so I have a BRO and am not allowed treatment until the BRO expires;)

On another note, when I am discharged ( no BRO) do I still have to abide by the trading name rule/game/madness? I probably would wait until DC before starting the new venture

debtinfo

If you have no BRO/U you can do whatever you want (within normal reasonableness) after discharge

headoutofsand

Thank you, What is " Normal reasonableness?

Like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8025000/8025119.stm

The reasonableness reminds me of driving examiners. Who when giving the order for a left reverse round the corner, Would say " I would like you to reverse around this corner staying reasonably close to the kerb"

This would then give them the opportunity to play their "gey area card" and fail the candidate for being to wide. Reasonable being the get out clause.

FinancesOfAFiveYearOld

Ah, yes, but Sir is a "Sir" and Section 3174/A Paragraph 22-76/b Subsection 666 of the Insolvency Act For Peasant Persons (Only) declares, for purposes of disambiguation: "If thou be an Peer of the Realm, an Knight of the Sticky Garter or otherwise qualified by way of Political, Social or Old School ties thou shalt not be liable under this Act for much in the way of a BRO/BRU and, shouldst thou be subject to an Insolvency, thine Receiver shalt be a Blind Old Bat with a Deaf Guide Dog and there shalt be no batteries in the hearing aids of either."

Odd how those of us who were born with a comprehensive school plastic spoon in our, er... our mouths make such a fuss and fiddle about getting back on our feet through a web of restrictions and turned backs while those who walk among us versed in Latin and Greek and um, well, the game and source of Rugby, those who have Eton well from the plate of life so to speak, continue after their "fall-ettes" to do much the same as they did afore...

Cynical? Moi?