PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

Di, just read this. Could this be the reason for the long liquidation. (April 2005 to July 2006 and then getting licence in January, 2005 for the other)

The court’s leave is not required where the company, though known by the prohibited name within the meaning of the section has:


Can I use the company name again?

There are 3 exceptions to this prohibition:

1. Where a company acquires the whole or substantially the whole, of the business of an insolvent company, under arrangements made by an insolvency practitioner acting as its liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver, or as supervisor of a voluntary arrangement. Creditors must be notified.
2. Where an individual affected by section 216 applies for leave of the court to use the prohibited name. [There will be no breach within 7 days of the liquidation. If an application for leave is made there is no breach until six weeks and 1 day after the date of liquidation or the day on which the court disposes of the application (whichever is the earliest). ]

3. The court’s leave is not required where the company, though known by the prohibited name within the meaning of the section has:

1. been known by that name for the whole period of 12 months ending with the day before the liquidating company went into liquidation, and
2. has not at any time in those 12 months been dormant.

Its number 3 that may have been applied here!!!!

But to me its seems that the liquidation started in April, 2005 and that means that the company without a licence that suddenly got one in January, 2005 had only done this 3 months prior!!!!! and previous to that was non trading - If the important date is April 2005 and not June, 2006 (as on companies house)!!!! (although I have read somewhere they actually liquidated in March, 2006)

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

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.

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.


I have not mentioned this again today as tiggrae said earlier that


the law doens't support that as the company is dissolved and there's nothing left) you're just doing it go 'get even' and maybe get them shut down - do you really want to stress yourself and have their solicitors writing you nasty letters - that's just a personal opinion mind

and

again a phoenix company by definition rises from the ashes - financial was set up before the other dissolved so accusing people of operating phoenix firms could potentially be seen as libel - sometimes the law is VERY black and white and you have to be careful what you put in writing



But the two references here suggest that a phoenix not only means new companies but can also mean existing companies.

I think you have a chance of getting your PPI money back here and make them liable. You are not going to try to get them closed down. You couldn't do that. That is entirely up to the authorities here, you want back your money. Just my opinion Di. This is where you need to find out (as I have posted a million times before) if they applied for their leave to court for this. (as it states here - without leave to court!!)

Have you ever actually accused them of being a phoenix company Di.. That OFT letter does not actually accuse them.

Also if any acts were to be mentioned I would have mentioned the Insolvency Act and section 216 too.

Hi there hun
i dropped off to sleep lol.

I cannot recall of ever accusing them of phoenix hun, and that OFT letter never did mention that either.;)
It would be cool to get that money back, afterall it was mis sold, and would not want to get any company into trouble but I do believe if it was that of their company that stopped trading and still continued with having the money to run other companies, they should still admit liability to their complaints.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, just read this. Could this be the reason for the long liquidation. (April 2005 to July 2006 and then getting licence in January, 2005 for the other)

The court’s leave is not required where the company, though known by the prohibited name within the meaning of the section has:


Can I use the company name again?

There are 3 exceptions to this prohibition:

1. Where a company acquires the whole or substantially the whole, of the business of an insolvent company, under arrangements made by an insolvency practitioner acting as its liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver, or as supervisor of a voluntary arrangement. Creditors must be notified.
2. Where an individual affected by section 216 applies for leave of the court to use the prohibited name. [There will be no breach within 7 days of the liquidation. If an application for leave is made there is no breach until six weeks and 1 day after the date of liquidation or the day on which the court disposes of the application (whichever is the earliest). ]

3. The court’s leave is not required where the company, though known by the prohibited name within the meaning of the section has:

1. been known by that name for the whole period of 12 months ending with the day before the liquidating company went into liquidation, and
2. has not at any time in those 12 months been dormant.

Its number 3 that may have been applied here!!!!

But to me its seems that the liquidation started in April, 2005 and that means that the company without a licence that suddenly got one in January, 2005 had only done this 3 months prior!!!!! and previous to that was non trading - If the important date is April 2005 and not June, 2006 (as on companies house)!!!! (although I have read somewhere they actually liquidated in March, 2006)

Thats the trouble, they have so many companies its very confusing.... , the liquidators letter also confimed 2006, and as its only 2 years ago you would think they would still have the details, it makes me wonder.....:rolleyes:

I thought Companies house stated 2006 or have I mis read this ?
Will check this out now on Companies house as they will close at mid night lol.

di3004

Did not add the name this time lol, but put in the reg number of the one i used and here are the dates etc

Company No. 04239176

Status: Dissolved 22/06/2006
Date of Incorporation: 21/06/2001

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

mlucyminx

Hi there,

I'm after some advice again.

Have written tolittlewoods shop direct regarding ppi added to my choice and kays catalogue accounts.

they have written back saying get lost haven't done anything wrong and also saying FOS can't help as they weren't registered with them til 5th November 04 and my policy was added before then.

Is there anyone else I can write to who will help for free.

Don't really want to go the court route unless i absolutely have to.

thank you in advance

marshallka

mlucyminx wrote: »

Hi there,

I'm after some advice again.

Have written tolittlewoods shop direct regarding ppi added to my choice and kays catalogue accounts.

they have written back saying get lost haven't done anything wrong and also saying FOS can't help as they weren't registered with them til 5th November 04 and my policy was added before then.

Is there anyone else I can write to who will help for free.

Don't really want to go the court route unless i absolutely have to.

thank you in advance

I think they may be right here as there are a few others claiming regarding catalogues on here. You could ring up the Ombudsman and ask if they were members of the GISC before this though??

di3004

PPI news:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/10/05/banks-to-be-banned-from-selling-insurance-with-loan-115875-20775712/

mlucyminx

marshallka wrote: »

I think they may be right here as there are a few others claiming regarding catalogues on here. You could ring up the Ombudsman and ask if they were members of the GISC before this though??

Have phoned FSA as someone suggested on another forum and they werent regulated by them and have just phoned littlewoods and they said they werent regualted at all before 2004. Can this be right?

out of interest though have just read through the (photocopy) of a policy document they have sent to me and it states
The insurers of this policy are Aviva international Innsurance limited now trading as norwich Union Life and pensions limited trading as norwich union in the uk. Then goes on to say both companies are authorised and regulated by the financial Services Authority.

Also the policy was added to my account in 2003 and I was not working at that time.

mlucyminx

have just spoke to FOS and they said no they werent regulated before then.

So annoyed. think im going to take them to court.

Its principle now.

does this apply to late payment charges as well then?

mlucyminx

just had a thought .

Can I claim from norwich union?