PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

When a company goes into liquidation it has to advertise it in the Gazette.

Thx hun, so if I can try to dig out more info on this for that year from the Gazette it should announce this then ?:rolleyes:

(Really I need lots of background information before getting back in touch with these again, do it all in one), so the consumer advice maybe another way perhaps ??

marshallka

Sections 98,99 and 100 here

98.— Meeting of creditors.
(1) The company shall—
(a) cause a meeting of its creditors to be summoned for a day not later than the 14th day
after the day on which there is to be held the company meeting at which the resolution for
voluntary winding up is to be proposed;
(b) cause the notices of the creditors' meeting to be sent by post to the creditors not less
than 7 days before the day on which that meeting is to be held; and
(c) cause notice of the creditors' meeting to be advertised once in the Gazette and once at
least in two newspapers circulating in the relevant locality (that is to say the locality in
which the company's principal place of business in Great Britain was situated during the
relevant period).
(2) The notice of the creditors' meeting shall state either—
(a) the name and address of a person qualified to act as an insolvency practitioner in relation
to the company who, during the period before the day on which that meeting is to be held,
will furnish creditors free of charge with such information concerning the company's affairs
as they may reasonably require; or
(b) a place in the relevant locality where, on the two business days falling next before the
day on which that meeting is to be held, a list of the names and addresses of the company's
creditors will be available for inspection free of charge.
(3) Where the company's principal place of business in Great Britain was situated in different
localities at different times during the relevant period, the duties imposed by subsections (1)(c) and
(2)(b) above apply separately in relation to each of those localities.
(4) Where the company had no place of business in Great Britain during the relevant period,
references in subsections (1)(c) and (3) to the company's principal place of business in Great Britain
are replaced by references to its registered office.
(5) In this section “the relevant period” means the period of 6 months immediately preceding the
day on which were sent the notices summoning the company meeting at which it was resolved that
the company be wound up voluntarily.
(6) If the company without reasonable excuse fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2), it is guilty
of an offence and liable to a fine.
99.— Directors to lay statement of affairs before creditors.
(1) The directors of the company shall—
(Represents Current Law in Force - for pending amendments see Prospective Law on Westlaw UK.)
Insolvency Act 1986 Page 46
(a) make out a statement in the prescribed form as to the affairs of the company;
(b) cause that statement to be laid before the creditors meeting under section 98; and
(c) appoint one of their number to preside at that meeting;
and it is the duty of the director so appointed to attend the meeting and preside over it.
(2) The statement as to the affairs of the company shall be verified by affidavit by some or all of
the directors and shall show—
(a) particulars of the company's assets, debts and liabilities;
(b) the names and addresses of the company's creditors;
(c) the securities held by them respectively;
(d) the dates when the securities were respectively given; and
(e) such further or other information as may be prescribed.
(3) If—
(a) the directors without reasonable excuse fail to comply with subsection (1) or (2); or
(b) any director without reasonable excuse fails to comply with subsection (1), so far as
requiring him to attend and preside at the creditors' meeting,
the directors are or (as the case may be) the director is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
100.— Appointment of liquidator.
(1) The creditors and the company at their respective meetings mentioned in section 98 may
nominate a person to be liquidator for the purpose of winding up the company's affairs and
distributing its assets.
(2) The liquidator shall be the person nominated by the creditors or, where no person has been so
nominated, the person (if any) nominated by the company.
(3) In the case of different persons being nominated, any director, member or creditor of the
company may, within 7 days after the date on which the nomination was made by the creditors,
apply to the court for an order either—
(a) directing that the person nominated as liquidator by the company shall be liquidator
instead of or jointly with the person nominated by the creditors, or
(b) appointing some other person to be liquidator instead of the person nominated by the

creditors.

marshallka

For anyone waiting to see if a company has been put into liquidation apparently on companies house they have to advertise in the Gazzette

http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Thx hun, so if I can try to dig out more info on this for that year from the Gazette it should announce this then ?:rolleyes:

(Really I need lots of background information before getting back in touch with these again, do it all in one), so the consumer advice maybe another way perhaps ??

Di, this looks to be all the info from the Gazette. Check again as i put "Click Finance Limited into the search and found these.

maxdp

Hi All . Have been away all week and am just catching up with all the posts. Am still having headache with my claims so have all next week to work on them.;)

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Hi All . Have been away all week and am just catching up with all the posts. Am still having headache with my claims so have all next week to work on them.;)

Which ones are you working on?? Is it still the figures that were wrong??

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Which ones are you working on?? Is it still the figures that were wrong??

Hi Still Barclays and FOS. Settlements figures are simple 8% and rebates are without interest. Have only just got back so am going to print out all e mails etc and compose response to FOS. Perhaps when I work it out can I PM to you see if I am missing plot or something here. Do not want to post on Forum as am sure FOS and c ompanies check on here and do not want to be identified at mom:mad:

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Hi Still Barclays and FOS. Settlements figures are simple 8% and rebates are without interest. Have only just got back so am going to print out all e mails etc and compose response to FOS. Perhaps when I work it out can I PM to you see if I am missing plot or something here. Do not want to post on Forum as am sure FOS and c ompanies check on here and do not want to be identified at mom:mad:

Ok, thats fine but i don't think i can actually do the working but glad to take a look. I know what you mean about the "lookings" on this site but sometimes i wish that companies did look to see the strain they were putting us all through. As regards FOS looking I think they will all be too busy sorting out our claims.

I have one in now with the adjudicator, they rang yesterday about the co-op bank and hopefully that will be sorted soon. Trouble is co-op are delaying sending things to the FOS and its going to take a little longer. I did ask yesterday what would happen if they don't and they said they would just uphold it in my favour. I also got asked about when i became aware there was a problem with the PPI and i told them in April this year when i found this site. We had 4 loans with the co-op and never asked for the PPI but it was applied and we just assumed it was compulsory. I now know it was not and that we could have added to our income protection instead.

I don't feel sorry for these banks either, i don't blame them for my debt in the first place but i think the adding to the problem and enduring us to more debt was not very professional at all. Who can you trust, thats what its done to me, i don't know who to trust now and I feel myself having paranoid thoughts about anyone in the future to do with finance.

I look back at the time with Firstplus when i asked them for a settlement figure and they gave it to me and it was more than we borrowed. Never once did they say it was anything to do with the insurance being paid front loaded, they always said it was Rule 78 and that was why. I remember the stress i was going through at the time through other things and then this. I hope we all win.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Ok, thats fine but i don't think i can actually do the working but glad to take a look. I know what you mean about the "lookings" on this site but sometimes i wish that companies did look to see the strain they were putting us all through. As regards FOS looking I think they will all be too busy sorting out our claims.

I have one in now with the adjudicator, they rang yesterday about the co-op bank and hopefully that will be sorted soon. Trouble is co-op are delaying sending things to the FOS and its going to take a little longer. I did ask yesterday what would happen if they don't and they said they would just uphold it in my favour. I also got asked about when i became aware there was a problem with the PPI and i told them in April this year when i found this site. We had 4 loans with the co-op and never asked for the PPI but it was applied and we just assumed it was compulsory. I now know it was not and that we could have added to our income protection instead.

I don't feel sorry for these banks either, i don't blame them for my debt in the first place but i think the adding to the problem and enduring us to more debt was not very professional at all. Who can you trust, thats what its done to me, i don't know who to trust now and I feel myself paranoid thoughts about anyone in the future to do with finance.

So glad things have started moving for you Marshallka lets hope they get their finger out and play ball. It would make things a lot easier for all concerned:D

I know that FOS check this site 'cause some time ago somebody was complaining about time they had to wait and they were suffering severe hardship and basically their adjudicator was useless. Within a day the FOS had tracked down who the complainant was and contacted them re hardship issues:rolleyes:

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

So glad things have started moving for you Marshallka lets hope they get their finger out and play ball. It would make things a lot easier for all concerned:D

I know that FOS check this site 'cause some time ago somebody was complaining about time they had to wait and they were suffering severe hardship and basically their adjudicator was useless. Within a day the FOS had tracked down who the complainant was and contacted them re hardship issues:rolleyes:

If people are suffering hardship they have to prove it first though and its not word of mouth. I don't think that some people would be in the situations that they are in now if they had not got into the trap of consolidation and then having PPI rammed down their throats just to get more profit. I actually got ill after the Firstplus loan, things were just too much and i already had other things to deal with (health probs and not just a cold either lol) at the time and this just topped it off. Naivity i would call it and from them it was a case of preying on the vulnerable.