Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

I understand that they did get investors Marshallka. One of the larger investors is not too far away from here. So I understand. How will these people get their money back I wonder. Tink that has all been spent.

Who was that then Maxdp? Sounds very Cartelly then if its all been spent.

maxdp

Do not know if it has all been spent Marshallka really, that was just a throw away comment. They usually have enough to open their next business but not enough to refund their investors.

Was told it was an Executor of a fund and perhaps they may reveal themselves on here, or not, perhaps they like to help in the background.

maxdp

Am having a few uncomfortable thoughts about my other Solicitors at the moment they are waiting around a long time for a point to be settled by Counsel. Fingers crossed.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Do not know if it has all been spent Marshallka really, that was just a throw away comment. They usually have enough to open their next business but not enough to refund their investors.

Was told it was an Executor of a fund and perhaps they may reveal themselves on here, or not, perhaps they like to help in the background.

They do seem to wind up don;t they but I thought when they are struck off and dissolved it meant they HAD paid their creditors off. Perhaps I am wrong. Going to google that one.

maxdp

Thought they could open it up under a slightly different name but not the same name. TBH I am no expert at all so would be interested to see what you google.

marshallka

Some info here on phonenix companies.


PAGE 93 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.54 There is nothing in itself illegal or improper about directors of a failed company walking away and trying again with a brand new company. There is likewise nothing illegal about a new company being formed which has a very similar name to a company which has been dissolved. Nonetheless the law sees it as being against both the public interest and commercial ethics for directors of an insolvent company to continue their business activities in circumstances where they appear to be trying to delude past and prospective clients and customers into thinking that the defunct business is continuing. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.55 A new company which is formed in these circumstances is often referred to as a ‘phoenix company’ because of the false impression it creates that a company has risen intact from the flames of insolvency. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.56 Special safeguards exist to prevent directors of companies that have gone out of business from becoming involved in phoenix companies. Where a director becomes involved with such a company he or she will commit a criminal offence and may also be made personally liable for the debts of that company. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.57 Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court: [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]

PAGE 94 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.59 It must also be borne in mind that the restrictions on directors apply not only to acting in respect of new companies formed after another company has gone into liquidation – this is the common understanding of the term ‘phoenix company’. The restrictions apply equally to acting in respect of existing companies and businesses. This means that persons who have been directors of two companies with similar names may find themselves in breach of section 216 once one of the two companies goes into insolvent liquidation. The restrictions can, therefore, have particular ramifications for group companies, many of which will have very similar names. [/FONT][/FONT]

Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court:
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Am having a few uncomfortable thoughts about my other Solicitors at the moment they are waiting around a long time for a point to be settled by Counsel. Fingers crossed.

So your complaint is actually nearly there. I know this is two then won for you isn't it (or that you know of won!!).

marshallka

Just been reading through the other forum about Cartel. It seems that people are asking for their fees back under section 75 for the cards they were wanting written off!! I cannot believe this. Pot and Kettle or is it me.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Just been reading through the other forum about Cartel. It seems that people are asking for their fees back under section 75 for the cards they were wanting written off!! I cannot believe this. Pot and Kettle or is it me.

It is really Marshallka. From what I understand that is what these companies were telling them to do to pay by card and then live off the card till it was up to its limit then claim it back as unenforceable. ~0~

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

So your complaint is actually nearly there. I know this is two then won for you isn't it (or that you know of won!!).

No This one is yet to get court date Marshallka. It will be time barred in April and they are trying to hurry it through to avoid having to stretch the time barred rule. The Watson one will be totally time barred in April which is why I am cross cause they are ignoring me. I have sent the information to the SRA and so fingers crossed they will sort this out soon:eek: