Abandoned working files

Abandoned working files

Didn't find your answer?

OK, this is genuinely a question on behalf of a friend of mine (who doesn't use A-Web) - and the friend isn't me in disguise, just to be clear.

My friend (let's call him 'A') used to be in a kind of partnership with another bloke (let's call him 'H').  They had separate accounting companies but shared the same office and for a while traded under the same name.

H left the country and isn't coming back - has basically cut all ties.  A is now left with a row of filing cabinets of H's dead clients - no work done for them for at least 3 years.  H won't communicate and isn't bothered, and A needs the space and that part of his life brought to a close.

What does A do about all these working files?  Can he arrange for safe disposal (shredding?)  It seems he's left holding them, feeling responsible, yet really they aren't his responsibility, and for clients he's never dealt with before.  He's now feeling that he has to put them into storage (paid for by himself) until the 6-year limit is passed.  I've told him I don't think this is the case, but am at a loss as to the best advice to give him.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

Thanks, WS.

Replies (16)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By johngroganjga
03rd Oct 2013 09:48

A should just tell H in writing that he has until x date to collect his property after which A reserves the right to dispose of that property as he sees fit.

If it comes to it the method A uses to dispose of the files should be a confidential one. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By B Roberts
03rd Oct 2013 10:12

What does ....

.... a "kind of partnership" mean .......

Were the clients in question clients of the partnership ?

Who is the contract between / engagement letter? - is it Client and Partnership A&H, or Client and H ?

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By wilcoskip
03rd Oct 2013 10:42

Used to be...

There used to be a partnership with a joint company, both of them as directors.  They parted ways some years back.  H has now ceased accountancy practice entirely, and simply uses the same office for other purposes.  The clients in questions would only have dealt with H, not A.  Engagement letters, from what I can see, are few and far between.

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
03rd Oct 2013 10:59

Facts changing

It can't have been both a partnership and a company.  Was it the company that was supplying services to both groups of clients.  You said that they had "separate accounting companies".  Does that mean three companies altogether?

You said that "H left the country and isn't coming back - has basically cut all ties" but now you say that H "uses the same office for other purposes".  Both can't be true.  Which is it?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By wilcoskip
03rd Oct 2013 11:10

Sorry - not being clear here.

I used the term 'partnership' out of convenience, but technically it was a company.

Company 1 was the original company they owned 50/50 and were both directors of.

They then split, and A had company 2, owned solely by him, and H had company 3, owned solely by him.  The clients under discussion were clients of company 2,with no involvement from A.

I meant to say that A has ceased accountancy practice and uses the office for other purposes.  H is, as mentioned, overseas and not in contact.  Apologies for the slip.

WS

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By User deleted
03rd Oct 2013 11:19

Company 2

wilcoskip wrote:

They then split, and A had company 2, owned solely by him, and H had company 3, owned solely by him.  The clients under discussion were clients of company 2,with no involvement from A.

 

If they were clients of company 2 they are A's responsibility surely

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
03rd Oct 2013 11:14

Was some of the work on the files in question performed by Company 1 before the split, and what has become of Company 1 since the split?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By wilcoskip
03rd Oct 2013 11:17

...

Company 1 did not carry out any of the work in the files.  Company 1 ceased trading in 2009 and is now dissolved.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andy.partridge
03rd Oct 2013 11:18

More confusion

Listen to yourself:

'A had Company 2, owned solely by him' and 'The clients were clients of Company 2, with no involvement from A'.

How are these statements compatible?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By wilcoskip
03rd Oct 2013 11:22

Damn.

Mustn't try to post on AWeb and do work at same time.

 

Company 3.  H's clients only.  No involvement from A. 

On the plus side, whilst my AWeb postings have turned into utter confusion, the personal tax returns I've churned out are absolutely fine.

WS.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Johngreco:
avatar
By andy.partridge
03rd Oct 2013 11:27

How do you know?

wilcoskip wrote:

On the plus side, whilst my AWeb postings have turned into utter confusion, the personal tax returns I've churned out are absolutely fine.

WS.

Have you got someone there to proof read them too? Only kidding
Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
03rd Oct 2013 11:28

So what happened to Company 1's 'files? 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By wilcoskip
03rd Oct 2013 11:35

Company 1's files are sitting in a storage as far as I'm aware - there's no overlap between those files and company's 3 files.

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
03rd Oct 2013 11:46

I have to say that it's extremely odd that Company 1's files went into storage and were not passed to whichever of Company 2 and Company 3 took over the client in question.

But if it is literally the caser that A has no involvement with or responsibility for Company 3, then my recommendation remains as set out in my first post, with the added proviso that now we know that the files belong to Company 3 not H personally, A should also write to Company 3 at its registered office. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By wilcoskip
03rd Oct 2013 11:50

OK

Thanks for your help, everyone.  And apologies for the confusion caused at some points.

WS.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
03rd Oct 2013 12:13

May not be relevant, but...

Is company 3 even still in existence?

 

If it has been struck off then they may well be no recourse and as such can just dispose of them. That being said, it may be courteous to do as John has suggested.

Thanks (0)