Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Re: diplomat, top oven and grill not working but the fan is
russ77 wrote:so have you got an more ideas please?
Yes, get someone whom knows what they are doing in to look at it, as your clearly out of your depth on this particular item.
Jackal
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2“Ooooh Matron” ?
Agreed lets put this one to bed but first let me tell you a wee story out our mate Martin!
I was in my local Vet with my dog as he needed his annual booster injections,
I am sitting in reception waiting when Martin comes running in with a goldfish in a bowl.
He runs up to the reception desk, plonks the bowl on the top and screams at the young girl I need to see the Vet now!
What on earth is the matter the startled young lady asks, fearful of the answer.
Martin just continues screaming at her get me the vet, get me the vet now!
A few uneasy seconds go by with Martin stuck screaming at the girl repeatedly when suddenly the senior vet appears.
Martin what’s wrong he asks, Martin says thank god your here, I think my goldfish is an epileptic please look him over.
The vet, astonished by this but understanding of how difficult Martin can be when he can’t get his own way, agrees to look at the goldfish.
About 10 minutes pass and nothing of any interest occurs as the Vet studies intensely Martins goldfish.
Eventually the vet says to Martin, he seems fine to me!
Martin then replies in a hard and insulting manner, yes he is now but you wait till you get him out of the water!
J
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Re: “Ooooh Matron” ?
Yes Jim, but your not an argumentative, opinionated know it all.
Big, big difference!
Carl
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2“Ooooh Matron” ?
He is an argumentative penis-oner with too much time on his hands through lack of work, whom is filling his time between The blue pill doses baiting you.
He has a history of it.
Don’t let him wind you up as he then wins.
He likes the sound of his own opinion, just like lee8, so ignore him and starve him of the publicity he craves.
Just my humble opinion.
J
Carl
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Re: Hoover HFI3015-80 (32900047) dishwasher
Merv
Electronic Control Module from date code 0628 is part number 41021317
Just so you know, the number in your initial post (ie 32900047) is the product code for the appliance.
The next eight digits (08351701) are the date code and item number, in this case date code 0835 (meaning made in week 35 of 2008.
The item number 1701 is the number of the unit made in the week.
HTH
J
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Hoover HFI3015-80 (32900047) dishwasher
Merv
There are two control boards on the unit.
There is one under the buttons called a program control module which is PN 41012533.
There is then an electronic control module next to it. I suspect this is the one you want.
There are three versions depending on the date code of the unit.
All three come programmed to the unit but they are not interchangeable.
Give me the date code and I will give you the part number for the correct one.
J
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Re: Connect. Opened module
Poor is it not, especially as Connect usually won’t have a PCB back, or so they say!
J
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Customer threatening to blacken my business on FB
I wouldn’t do anything nor would I refund anything!
In your opinion, what’s the difference between her putting some crap on FB as opposed to her slagging you off to her mates when she has a coffee morning get together before Jeremy Kyle comes on, just after she gets the Tax Credit payment she’s been waiting for?
J
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Servicenet
Beever
No apology necessary, speak as you see it is the best way forward.
I don’t do the spanners thing, which 99.9{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} of the guys on here do, my skill set is elsewhere, where getting to the nitty grit crux of the issue is usually key to the answer we need to find.
Whilst it was not my intention to come over as abruptly as you appear to have taken it, I will make not make an apology for speaking my mind.
By way of background I will introduce myself and then give a quick 101 lesson in insolvency, so perhaps you can better understand the process you are looking into with regards to GLG and their various incarnations.
I hold a first class with honours degree from Kings College London, one of the most prestigious Law centres in the world. I spent four years as Head of Legal Services for a big 4 bank working in the City and in the US. I specialise in commercial law.
Since leaving the bank, I set up my own venture capital company which buys failing companies with a view to turning them round and selling them on, usually ones which are insolvent.
I am involved in many industries around the world, including, pubs, restaurants, hotels, warehousing, logistics, retail and servicing.
I am involved in a Domestic Appliance business solely as a result of the death of my father a number of years ago, whom owned a regional service centre, employing in excess of 50 staff. We are service agents for many well known brand names, insurance providers and third party work providers.
I am a senior magistrate in my local area and sit on the advisory panels for several Trading Standards units and I assist, on an adhoc basis the OFT as required.
There are a number on here whom know my specialist skills when it comes to legal stuff (note I do not do criminal work) and they know I am more than happy to sit in front of a Judge opposite senior barristers and fight my corner.
I have rarely lost a case, but it does happen from time to time. In my day job being nice doesn’t help all that much they are busy people whom want to get to the facts and get it over and done with.
So that’s a little about me, now to Go Local / GLG Marketing or whatever they want to reincarnate themselves as in the future.
In England and Wales, there are three basic ways to close a Limited Company, Forced, Voluntary or Lazy.
First Forced:
This is where a creditor pursues the matter through the courts and gains a Winding Up Order. Once granted the company is dead and will be taken over by either the Official Receiver (OR) or an Insolvency Practitioner (IP).Either way, the creditor will need to pay for the service. If an OR is appointed, the costs is currently around £1500, or if an IP is appointed there will be a minimum fee (usually around £5k) and then hourly fees thereafter.
It is the creditor whom pays the IP’s fee IF there are insufficient funds from the Debtor to settle the account. Either way, it will cost the creditor quiet a bit of money to pursue it and the likely hood is they wont get anything back.
It is probably for this reason that in 2013, 15004 corporate insolvencies occurred, but only 3644 of those were via a forced closure.
Second Voluntary:
This is where the shareholders, note not the directors, seek to close the company on a voluntary basis. This could be because they are in fact solvent but want to cease business or most likely because they have debts and cannot afford to service them on a going concern basis.This is always done through an IP. Now a days, we often see pre packs occur. This is done where a friendly IP is appointed and the assets and goodwill of the business are sold to an interested party almost immediately after the insolvency occurs.
This riles lots of creditors as they see the owners continue in a business albeit under an new name and be able to walk away from all or a vast majority of the unsecured debts.
Whilst it isn’t palatable it is quiet legal.
TBH with you, I have access to a number of friend IP’s whom alert me to “possible” insolvencies where I can pre pack a deal to obtain the assets and goodwill of a business relatively cheaply. I use this method all the time to buy businesses.
Third, Lazy:
This is what GLG are trying to do and again it is perfectly legal, although most unpalatable!The shareholders (note not the the Directors, although 99.9{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} or the time Directors and Shareholders are the same people) decide to close the business down, usually because they don’t have funds to continue.
Once they are aware the company cannot continue (this is important) they must, under the law, cease trading, otherwise they run the risk of being prosecuted for either unlawful trading or fraudulent trading. GLG did this and they ceased to trade to comply with the law. They did not at this stage need to notify anyone of the situation.
90 days after they ceased trading they are permitted to request Companies House (CH) dissolve the company from the register, effectively killing the company and stopping any further action being taken against them. This is done by completely form DS01 and sending it to CH along with a fee of £10.
Within 7 days of this they are supposed to send a copy of the said completed DS01 to all KNOWN creditors, including staff and their fellow directors and shareholders.
CH every Thursday issue to the London Gazette, which is the Crowns public newspaper freely available to purchase / subscribe to, of freely view on line, a list of all companies whom are in the process of being dissolved.
Once advertised, CH will do nothing for three calendar months to allow any interested party to object to the dissolving of the Company. If any single entity wishes to stop the dissolution of the company, they simply need to write to CH and say so. CH will stop the process completely on receipt of any one single objection. Usually it is the HMRC whom will automatically object to a DS01, but anyone can do it.
CH will, on receipt of any single objection, write to the applying company and then inform them an objection has been raised and also advise that another DS01 will not be accepted by CH for another 3 months from the date of the their letter.
In 3 months time, the company is entitled to submit another DS01 and will need to pay another fee to attempt the dissolution again.
Now this bit is important. If they submit a second DS01, anyone whom objects to it a second time, is automatically ignored. Only new objectors are permitted to object to the second application.
The reason for this is the three month delay CH force on the applying company between applications. This delay is plenty of time for the objector to petition a court to force a winding up order and if you as the objector don’t do it within the three months time frame, it is considered that your objection isn’t valid and thus ignored the second time.
In any event, if the company fail to send in their required annual returns or file accounts for a sufficiently long enough period (currently around 18 months) then the company will automatically be struck off by CH anyway.
So all GLG have to do at the moment is sit, wait and let it die!
Now to CH.
Employees at CH are simple civil servants, vastly overworked, seriously underpaid and exceptionally stressed, especially so during the current economic climate. I am not defending them but I will give an insight into their behaviour. I deal with them almost daily, in the same way you guys deal with spare suppliers.A DS01 can only be used in compliance with sections 1003, 1004 and 1005 of the Companies Act 2006. Contained within Section 1004 of the act is a defence to knowledge.
So basically the requirements to complete a DS01 are the following:
[*] The Company has not traded within the last 3 months
[*] The Company has not changed the company name within the last 3 months
[*] The Company is not subject to any legal proceedings, current or proposed
[*] The Company has not made a disposal for value of property or rightsThe legal proceedings bit at point 3 above is important as once a CCJ has been obtained against the company, it is not in the eyes of the law subject to any legal proceedings. what it is subject to is enforcement, two totally separate things.
The form must be sent to all known creditors, employees, fellow directors, shareholders, trust managers etc.
You will note the word KNOWN. That is known at the time of the application.
So whomever completes the form and sends it to CH has a defence if they claim they had no personal knowledge of an individual creditor, whom claims not to have received the copy of the DS01.
A further defence exists regarding notification in so much as CH WILL publish the intention to dissolve the company in the London Gazette. As I said earlier, this is the official Crown newspaper. It is free to view on line and available to everyone.
I have successfully argued in court that this “advertisement” is sufficient to discharge the applying Director of a DS01, from individually notifying all creditors of the intention to dissolve a limited company.
It is a bit like sending someone a letter, but the person receiving it treats it as junk mail and throws it away without reading it. Is that the fault of the debtor? What the applying Director needs to prove is that sufficient public warning to all potential creditors was provided, the London Gazette entry does exactly this.
Creditors will therefore need to prove to CH that the Debtor Company Director, whom made the application DID not send them a notice or that such a notice was not publicly advertised and that is near on impossible to prove.
So back to CH, yes they want to known all the entities proposing to object to the DS01. They are recorded and yes if enough objectors come forward it will be looked at more closely but how many is enough?
Well it depends on the number of creditors, 2 out of 500 wouldn’t warrant looking at further 2 out of 10 would, but how would anyone other than the Debtor Company know that?
In essence what the CH operative is doing is trying to get as many objectors recorded as possible so they can be excluded from objecting to any subsequent DS01 filed down the line, thus making it easier to dissolve the company later in the year.
Simple fact on this one is, GLG Marketing is dead!
All the assets will have been transferred to another company by now so bailiffs, HCEO and such like wont be able to seize anything of value and all the creditors can do now is either spend more hard earned money chasing nothing or walk away.
If you really want to do something and make a difference, then the DS01 is already dead accordingly to CH. Yours or whomever else objected stopped their current attempt to dissolve the company.
You have a valid CCJ and depending on which enforcement can be carried out at some point (it will either say on the judgement payable immediately or within certain time frame ie 28 days) once you are past the wait time for enforcement, then you can petition a High Court close to you to wind them up.
It will cost you £280 to ask for the petition (this not refundable) plus a further £1250 deposit for the OR, both are payable at the time of the application to the Court. The deposit will be repayable ONLY if you are unsuccessful and unable to obtain a winding up order. You can use your unpaid CCJ as evidence of the insolvency of the debtor company.
If you are successful, the OR will be immediately appointed to deal with them, unless you want to pay for your own IP to be appointed and then it will need the Courts agreement to it.
Assuming its the OR whom is appointed, the directors will need to be interviewed under caution at their local OR office and you will be able to put forward your case to the OR so they know what to look for. The OR in this case will be able to obtain a Directors disqualification order, IF they feel they have need for one, but that’s a very, very big if.
The important thing here is the interview. Its done under caution, is recorded and can be used to commence criminal proceedings if the interviewee is caught lying under oath. This and failing to attend or comply with the OR are the two biggest ways to end up with a Directors Disqualification Order
To put it into perspective, of the 15004 cases of corporate insolvency in 2013, only 27 instances of a Directors Disqualification Order occurred!
Beever I know the above isn’t what you want to hear, but its the present day truth. I don’t want you or the other guys on here to spend time, money and effort chasing something that is never going to happen.
Sometimes, however unpleasant, you just have to take it on the chin, brush yourself down and move on otherwise your gonna get an ulcer or something.
Trust me if there are a realistic and cost effective way to get some satisfaction with these scum sucking, weigh anchors I would help you achieve it, but there isn’t I am afraid.
IMHO and as much as it grates me, its time to let this one die but be vigilant on other companies whom will, I have no doubt, rise from its ashes and try to take you for a ride again.
You will do more good spreading the word to the guys on here and in the trade generally not to be used by the phoenix entities. Eventually, if enough of us stick together and stop their ability to rip us off, they may just decide enough is enough and leave us alone.
Jackal
Servicenet
Beever
If you knew my background and what I had done for many guys caught up in this affair, you would know how insulting your comment is. For the record, I have helped 56 agents on here recover over £76k from the various Go Local incarnations over the past three years all for free, so don’t suggest I don’t care about the guys getting shafted!
Fact is the information needed to prevent you getting caught out was here on this site right from the very start of GLG coming into existence and it was provided by me.
You choose for whatever reason not to review or use that information and got caught. You want revenge but you won’t get it and now think your the be all and end all expert on the subject.
Your first post on this contradicted itself. You start off by stating you want to stop the dissolution of the limited company so you opposed the DS01. You then want others to oppose it too thus stopping the present attempt at dissolution.
In the same post you later say you want them closed down, that is a contradiction, first you want it stopped then you want it to occur.
Your not going to get anywhere with it and your not going to bankrupt Ms Heron unless you have a personal guarantee, which I assume you don’t have otherwise your CCJ should be against both entities and it’s not.
Your peeing in the wind trying to achieve the impossible and trying to waste the time and efforts of others on here. You wanna spend your money and waste your time achieving nothing, well it’s your time and money to do as you please, but don’t waste the time and hope of others, it’s hard enough for them as it is.
Jackal
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Re: Servicenet
Beever, knock yourself out after all what do I know!
J
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Re: Servicenet
Beever your contradicting yourself.
Your asking people to write in to prevent the DS01 they have filed which shuts them down and then you say if enough people complain hopefully you can get them shut down.
You are correct with regards to a DS01 application to companies house in so much as they should (within 7 working days of it being filed at Companies House) send a copy of the DS01 to ALL known creditors. Whilst it is an offence not to comply the chances of CH pursuing it is none existent.
Now any creditor can oppose the disillusion and CH will stay the matter upon any one application to oppose.
Usually HMRC will automatically oppose any DS01 application if the company has either registered for VAT, PAYE or CT but you as an individual creditor can do so also.
Once the DS01 has been declined they can apply again in 3 months time, remembering it is a simple form and £10 for each application.
The reason for the 3 month delay is to allow whomever has opposed to the original DS01 time to force a winding up order through court at there cost, which currently will cost you around £1500 with little to no prospect of ever seeing your money again.
If they reapply after 3 months and the same entities oppose a further DS01 without demonstrating you have instigated formal winding up proceedings then your subsequent opposition will be ignored and the company will be formally dissolved irrespective.
Sadly your CCJ won’t be of much use unless you have knowledge assets being transferred away to another co. but if they know how to play the game there are ways round that.
Finally, I know both Ms Heron and Mr Waterhouse are both being investigated by TS and CH but getting a conviction is something completely different to being investigated.
Jackal
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2Re: WTA in the news
Guess whom the legal advisor to Birmingham TS is?
As to Martins question about who “the law” is, well, TS officers, if they believe they have a strong enough case pursue matters through the Magistrates Courts, so the law deciders in that case are, normal, every day, reasonable people serving there local communities free of charge, called Magistrates!
Sadly though, TS officers rarely take such action on an individual by individual basis.
Good to see the WTA actually got a good mention as the team work really hard to do right by all in this industry.
Jackal
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
