PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

tiggrae

di3004 wrote: »

This is interesting thanks Tiggrae, and any idea on their charges for approx hour of their time if I decide to want to go further in this matter ? Cheers hun.;)

a lot of the time they'll give you a free advise hour on the basis they may get further work

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, i thought that is why we had the FSA and OFT for these reasons... Maybe i am wrong here. If you worrying now about saying things then all you have done is wondered is it not. You have not actually accused anything here. You have never said that they are actually a phoenix company. This is where the OFT may be of help or perhaps trading standards as Troness suggested a while back.

Yes true.;)
With a bit of luck the OFT will take note of my letter for as soon as possible, will get on to the FSA tomorrow, and see what happens from there, although I don't think they let us in on the outcome of this do they not ?:rolleyes:
Fingers crossed hey ?:D

di3004

Even though I don't think both the OFT or the FSA get back to anyone, I did request if the OFT could just confirm delivery of the letter/email, and think I read something like it takes something like 10 days for a reply - although as said its very doubtful I will be told the outcome of this.

di3004

tiggrae wrote: »

a lot of the time they'll give you a free advise hour on the basis they may get further work

interesting to know this, so would this be telephone advice or maybe home visit ?
Sorry I just have no idea with this lol.....:o thanks.

di3004

A big thanks to both Marshallka & Tiggrae for all your input here, its much appreciated.;) :beer: .

Will go to bed and awake with a fresh head in the morning lol.....:D .

Night folks.
xx

pinknico

Di, I had reply from the ICO after 3 weeks but that was in relation to non compliance of SAR. I must admit I was expecting not to hear anything at all.

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

if you read it carefully it says restricts the use by a phoenix or successor business (neither apply to financial as it's a prior business) to that of a company in insolvent liquidation - again not applicable as it was set up prior to liquidation

and strictly speaking they haven't 'reused' a name either as it was again set up prior to liquidation - you have to be soooooooo careful with the law and how it's worded

what about this then. Is there anything here

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][/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]



Before it was you who agreed this could apply here???

I think perhaps Di then is banging her head against a wall here in that if they have done nothing wrong then they are right to dismiss her claim and that is law. Maybe she shoud give up then.. seems to me that this sort of thing is allowed and all above board then. Perhaps its been a complete waste of time. I really feel for Di here. SHe only wanted her money back just like the rest of us that have been ripped off with single premiums.

marshallka

So tiggrae tell me or anyone else here is it right for a company to open up and have a similar (very blummin similar!!) named company waiting in the background and then trade from that company and then liquidate it and then use the other company (that was waiting there), apply for a licence to trade from and continue in a way which misleads people into not knowing the difference. We all thought that click finance was click financial. Everyone that tried to help Di here thought they were the same company.

Surely then its a wise thing to do now for brokers. At registration open two companies (or more). Only licence one for now!! If things start to go pear shaped then go under and then use one of your other similar named companies that you actually had opened at companies house the same time as your trading company was launched. (REMEMBER THEN IT WAS OPENED THE SAME TIME SO ITS NOT PHOENIX!!! )

Its a right good loopole thing here. In fact why doesn't everyone do it!! It safeguards your name and also if anything crops up like the "payments protection insurance thing" in the future you have no repercussion as your company went "bump".

Yeah right - its ok to do - its not against the law - in fact no-one will want to know - you have not done anything wrong here -

And then you wonder why people get angry at the system...

THIS NEEDS CHANGING HERE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AND THAT IS MY OPINION. WE SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE PROTECTION IN THIS TYPE OF THING.

And no tiggrae, I am not a lawyer and also do not actually "know" the laws regarding this but what i do know is it is not right, proper and fair and i think it needs addressing. I am a "consumer" and think that although not a lawyer we should be able to inform the authorities of things like this and how they AFFECT us as consumers. That is why when i helped with the letter for Di, who is also a consumer, i did not quote any laws in it as this was a "normal consumer" enquiry ABOUT the legalities of this. There were no accusations on it. All information was taken from public registers. I would be going mad now if I had to give up cause of the system. The system stinks.

I hope the authorities do look at this site every now and again and see what laws like this can do to an ordinary family living on the breadline.

Also should we have to have lawyers to write to the OFT or FSA or FOS?? They understand what we are saying surely. I thought they were there for the general public.

If people don't fight then nothing will ever change.
I don't know the laws, legalities etc but I do know of human decency..

di3004

Hi there Marshallka

Aww you have been working hard here already hun, bless ya.;)
And thank you.;)

I was checking through the company house information last night that were sent to me and these were still responsible for that company, well all the Companies in that group as from 2001, so should still be liable in my eyes to deal with consumers complaints, they were still responsible, if these are not liable then no-one else is.......

ednoni

Hi all,

I was wondering if there was anyone out there that could help me.

As previously mentioned, I went to court with Creation and they failed to provide a defence. I have therefore issued a judgement to them to refund all my PPI money 22 days ago.

I phoned Creation today and they stated that the matter was with their lawyer, who is in meetings/conference and will call me on Monday or Tuesday.

This has worried me a bit now as I was under the impression that the judgement by default is a final judgement and that they should pay me the monies owed immediately.

Does anybody know anything different? Are they still within any rights not to pay me?

Any help would be appreciated.