Contracting / Limited Company whilst BR

chimaera_2

Hi All,

I went BR back in January and to date its been one of the best decisions i have made.
No where near as bad as i thought it would be and this site/forum has been an imense help and its a credit to you all.

Now for my question.

I work in a office doing a boring 9-5 job sitting behind a PC screen all day. I have found that i can do the same job as a contractor for approx 30 - 50 % more per hour than as doing it as a full time position depending on lengths of contracts / locations etc.

So i have been investigating this with various agents and have found that to get the max rate i need to have a Limited Company to bill the company i am contracting to.

So, can i set up a company as a BR or do i need to find a 'third' person to do this for me?
Are there third party companys that offer a service where there company is arranges the finance etc?
what other advice can anyone give with contracting whilst BR?
What will the OR make of the change of career path?

Thanks.

Chimaera

wherediditallgo

Point 8 on the Insolvency service site here says that "The following are criminal offences for an undischarged bankrupt: ... being concerned (directly or indirectly) in promoting, forming or managing a limited company, or acting as a company director, without the court’s permission, whether formally appointed as a director or not."

That bars you from doing it while you're an undischarged BR. Even after discharge, I'd still check before going ahead with it. If you have an IPA, you're required to inform the OR of any changes in circumstances (including income) during the 3 years it's in force. An IPA can be put in place at any time before you are discharged. So I wouldn't even consider it until after discharge if I were you, & perhaps not even then.

gettingitsorted

unfortunatly i cant answer alot of your question but im sure one of the other will be along at some point ,.

you will haft to inform the OR of the change in your circumstances and will most probably haft to fill in another I/E form .

Bakeybadoo

Very, very dodgy ground. I'd say it's a huge NO but contact your OR and ask them just to clarify.

I'm with WDIAG though.

tight_jock

If you possibly can, I would sit on your hands til discharge and hope you don`t get an IPA.
This is what I`m doing but the day after I am discharged, the new company will be formed and up and running within a week.

If all goes smoothly with your case, you could be clear to do this within 5 - 6 months.

During your undischarged period, it is best to minimise your income and maximise your expenditure for the paperwork.
Good luck
:beer:
TJ

Richard_S

tight_jock wrote: »

If you possibly can, I would sit on your hands til discharge and hope you don`t get an IPA.
This is what I`m doing but the day after I am discharged, the new company will be formed and up and running within a week.

If all goes smoothly with your case, you could be clear to do this within 5 - 6 months.

During your undischarged period, it is best to minimise your income and maximise your expenditure for the paperwork.
Good luck
:beer:
TJ

Hi Jock,

That's exactly what we're waiting for, there really is no motivation to start trading as a sole trader or partnerhip and I do prefer the Ltd Co alternative even if the benefits are not as significant as they once were.

We really should have another meeting when more people are able to attend, it really was a most enjoyable evening.

Under the terms of our "articles of association" there were sufficient members there to constiture a "quorum" although the most important decisions we took were "whose round is it"? :beer:

Rich

tight_jock

Richard_S wrote: »

Hi Jock,

That's exactly what we're waiting for, there really is no motivation to start trading as a sole trader or partnerhip and I do prefer the Ltd Co alternative even if the benefits are not as significant as they once were.

We really should have another meeting when more people are able to attend, it really was a most enjoyable evening.

Under the terms of our "articles of association" there were sufficient members there to constiture a "quorum" although the most important decisions we took were "whose round is it"? :beer:

Rich

But the benefits of a "safety net" still make it a more attractive proposition to me.

Is there a clause in the articles about decisions being taken whilst under the affluence of incahol occifer???

:beer:

Richard_S

tight_jock wrote: »

But the benefits of a "safety net" still make it a more attractive proposition to me.

Is there a clause in the articles about decisions being taken whilst under the affluence of incahol occifer???

:beer:

There was a sober unanimous agreement, prior to the AGM, that inebriation was never under any circumstances to be considered as making members unfit to give a considered, informed approach to the decision making process :rotfl:

tight_jock

Richard_S wrote: »

There was a sober unanimous agreement, prior to the AGM, that inebriation was never under any circumstances to be considered as making members unfit to give a considered, informed approach to the decision making process :rotfl:

That`s ok then. As long as the constitution wwas amended accordingly, proposed and seconded as required and then voted. I would hate for the process to have to be repeated due to procedural errors...:rotfl: .:rotfl:

gotnomoneynomore

Getting back to the original question. I don't see any reason why you can't set up a limited company so long as you aren't a Director (or shareholder as these would go straight to the OR) and then you must go to court and seek permission to manage the limited company on the grounds you could earn more money this way.

If you do it correctly and your reasons are valid, you may be looked upon favourably although I'm told 99% of these get refused. To do it properly there are many things you need to put into your request to court - this is in the "manual" somewhere. They include what company, share capital, duties to perform, what benefits you will receive, etc.

It's not impossible - I'm allowed to manage my limited company by order of the court, however the judge did say that on the face of the initial evidence, it was unlikely to have been granted.