PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Check this out

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2001/013.shtml

Blimey thanks hun, this is very interesting.:D

Reading just this part had me going;

FSA urges consumers to check financial services firms are authorised




FSA/PN/013/2001
26/01/2001

You would think this would be the case wouldn't you ?

di3004

I told the compliance manager by email today that all these groups under Click are very confusing as there are so many.

And also did tell him that I know the director has run all these as he founded in 2001 which was the beginning of the Click groups, also told him that I am to be in touch with my MP.;)

Did not hear anything back though.....:rolleyes:

di3004

Need to nip off a min, if you have to go Marshallka you have been a star :A :T , and if I miss you when I get back, I will catch you tomorrow, but I won't be too long, should be bk soon.;) Thank you,

Di.
xxx

di3004

Just had a quick nose on companies house, they are due to close for the night.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/5662f36035a6023027b581eb7fa4fb27/companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1221000819#result

marshallka

marshallka wrote: »

Should Finance Now be on the FSA Register?? What are trading styles??

Finance now is trading from the old CLick Finance addy.

Forget this one. Their web page is from 2002

Domain name:
financenow.co.uk

Registrant:
Dial e forBusiness Ltd

Registrant type:
Unknown

Registrant's address:
bridge House, South Street
Farnham
GU9 7RS
GB

Registrar:
Easyspace Ltd t/a Easyspace Ltd [Tag = EASYSPACE]
URL: http://www.easyspace.com

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 17-Sep-2002
Renewal date: 17-Sep-2008
Last updated: 15-Feb-2008

Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.

Name servers:
ns.dialeforbusiness.co.uk
ns2.dialeforbusiness.co.uk

janieg65

Hi

I am quite new to all this and wondered if anyone can help?
My husband and I bought a car in 2006 through G & N carsales in Cleckheaton West Yorks. The finance was arranged through London & Scottish. I recently wrote to them asking for the PPI to be cancelled and the premiums paid back. They advised that it was G & N that arranged the PPI.
The problem i have is that the G & N where we got the car from is not there anymore.
Not sure if there's anything else i can do, any help or advise would be appreciated

marshallka

janieg65 wrote: »

Hi

I am quite new to all this and wondered if anyone can help?
My husband and I bought a car in 2006 through G & N carsales in Cleckheaton West Yorks. The finance was arranged through London & Scottish. I recently wrote to them asking for the PPI to be cancelled and the premiums paid back. They advised that it was G & N that arranged the PPI.
The problem i have is that the G & N where we got the car from is not there anymore.
Not sure if there's anything else i can do, any help or advise would be appreciated

Here is the FSA info for these

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmBasicDetails.do?sid=121580
Click on the tabs and you will find address/email address's and phone numbers etc

Registered Name G & N Car Sales Limited 07/02/2005 Trading Name Britannia Motor Company 07/02/2005

when you put britanniamotorcompany.co.uk into a search this comes up

http://www.pabstudios.co.uk/

Very confusing

Companies House details here

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/29e837ca9eb83242ea11703ccdf28204/compdetails

di3004

Morning all........:D

Wow Marshallka your at it already with Click again lol.......:rotfl: :rotfl: , bless you, and thanks.;)

I think you will be glad to see the back of this case hun ?:rolleyes:

marshallka

Di from the book thing that troness gave you

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]
[/FONT]

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di from the book thing that troness gave you

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]
[/FONT]

Thanks hun, you beat me to it again lol, was going to check this out this morning, saves me now looking for it now, cheers.:D