HMV administration and returning goods?

railbuff

wealdroam wrote: »

What is this talk about a new company now being in existance?

My understanding is that HMV, the company that was, is still trading.

The only difference is that it is now in the hands of insolvency practitioners rather than the directors.

Maybe, in the fullness of time, a new company, say HMV (2013) Ltd, may well rise from the ashes, but the current trading company is the same company that was trading last year.

yes the stores and the business is still running, but it is common practice that administrators will change the business name while under their command. It is something to do with safeguarding the assests

pmduk

You'll usually see a notice on the door with something long the lines of trading as HMV Ltd (in administration)

Johno100

railbuff wrote: »

yes the stores and the business is still running, but it is common practice that administrators will change the business name while under their command. It is something to do with safeguarding the assests

If there is a sale of the business name, which is an asset, then the Administrators may look to change the name as part of a sale agreement in order to avoid confusion and / or allow a name swap with a newly incorporated company.

Recent examples Jane Norman Limited is now JN Realisations Limited, Habitat UK Limited is now H Realisations Limited and Barratts Shoes Limited is now Bridge Realisations Limted.

The Companies in question i.e. JN Realisations Limited is still the same legal entity as Jane Norman Limited and is the one that owes its creditors their monies. The Administrators do not incorporate new Companies for the purposes of trading, so please do not keep parroting this erroneous information.

timbstoke

railbuff wrote: »

thats true, but some on here dont understand that HMVgroup Limited is no longer an active company at the moment, so any vouchers purchased from them cannot be used at HMV stores as these are now run by HMVgroup ( in adminstration) limited who never sold the vouchers

I understand entirely. I just don't care. HMV (In Administration) Limited has taken on all the assets and liabilities of HMV Limited. Therefore, HMV (In Administration) Limited DOES have the money that was paid for the vouchers.

Consumer protection law should be on our side here. As long as it isn't, I would have no moral issue with removing goods to the value I am owed, and I very much doubt the people about to lose their jobs would worry about taking it any further.

OlliesDad

timbstoke wrote: »

Consumer protection law should be on our side here. As long as it isn't, I would have no moral issue with removing goods to the value I am owed, and I very much doubt the people about to lose their jobs would worry about taking it any further.

So if you had returned something via post the day before they went into administration you would be happy not to not receive a refund as the law would state gift card holders get money first?

OlliesDad

Or if the company you work for had to lay you off because their biggest customer can pay nothing towards their debt.

I'm not sure people realise that some of the multinational companies suppliers will be tiny companies with only a few members of staff.

timbstoke

I'm not concerned in the slightest what agreements businesses choose to reach between themselves. What I care about is the fact that the law around administration is, from a consumers point of view, utterly ridiculous.

If a business ceases trading, that's one thing. If there are no stores, then clearly they cannot accept gift cards. In that situation, I believe the correct order of creditors should be:

- Consumers with open transactions (returns currently in process, unfulfilled orders, gift cards) which were entered into on a B2C basis.
- Secured creditors
- Unsecured creditors

If, on the other hand, they're still actively trading, then the fact that they've handed off their business to an administrator shouldn't be any of the consumers concern. In this situation, there is NO reason why gift cards, returns, and unfulfilled orders should be affected by the administration process.

The current situation not only makes consumers feel ripped off when they see the directors of such companies taking hundreds of thousands in payouts for basically destroying the company, but also encourages fly-by-night companies to set up, take thousands of orders, and go into administration with their victims money.

dalesrider

timbstoke wrote: »

If, on the other hand, they're still actively trading, then the fact that they've handed off their business to an administrator shouldn't be any of the consumers concern. In this situation, there is NO reason why gift cards, returns, and unfulfilled orders should be affected by the administration process.

The only reason the administrators keep stores open etc. Is to keep funds coming in. Which can assist in finding someone to take over the company.
Which is why jessops shut up so fast as no one was interested in taking them over. Unlike HMV who have several interested parties.

timbstoke wrote: »

The current situation not only makes consumers feel ripped off when they see the directors of such companies taking hundreds of thousands in payouts for basically destroying the company, but also encourages fly-by-night companies to set up, take thousands of orders, and go into administration with their victims money.

Well so long as you paid by a card, then the company going under and not providing goods is not a issue as they can be recovered by your card provider. Makes no diffrence if company is solvent or not.

But I do agree that even in administration your legal rights under the sale of goods act should still be in place.

pmduk

The major outstanding point with the HMV situation is that they declined to process refunds or accept vouchers 20 hours before actually appointing administrators.

Zandoni

timbstoke wrote: »

I'm not concerned in the slightest what agreements businesses choose to reach between themselves. What I care about is the fact that the law around administration is, from a consumers point of view, utterly ridiculous.

If a business ceases trading, that's one thing. If there are no stores, then clearly they cannot accept gift cards. In that situation, I believe the correct order of creditors should be:

- Consumers with open transactions (returns currently in process, unfulfilled orders, gift cards) which were entered into on a B2C basis.
- Secured creditors
- Unsecured creditors

If, on the other hand, they're still actively trading, then the fact that they've handed off their business to an administrator shouldn't be any of the consumers concern. In this situation, there is NO reason why gift cards, returns, and unfulfilled orders should be affected by the administration process.

The current situation not only makes consumers feel ripped off when they see the directors of such companies taking hundreds of thousands in payouts for basically destroying the company, but also encourages fly-by-night companies to set up, take thousands of orders, and go into administration with their victims money.

Agree 110%