My point is, how did these fraudulent applications get through? Yes, you were required to 'self declare' but surely there was at the very least a simple check on filed accounts to prove previous earnings.
Yes, it may be poor procedures by the banks, but the loans are underwritten by the government [ taxpayer]. If not HMRC, who is responsible for investigating the massive fraud?
I can see the banks crying that they weren't given sufficient time to put the correct procedures in place, but if some could, so could the rest. It is not a difficult process to do a quick look-up at Companies House. All the business banks will have that interface. I guess they simply weren't bothered because they knew the taxpayer would be picking up the cheque!
As one of the 3 million who have not been supported, I hope HMRC makes an example of the many thousands who have defrauded the various [taxpayer funded] schemes. BBLs are a prime example, and there doesn't appear to be any mention of how many of those HMRC is investigating. But they must be the easiest to assess because HMRC will have the history of how long the business has been operating profitably and submitting returns. Which makes me wonder how these fraudsters were able to obtain BBLs in the first place, when they had clearly set up businesses very recently and purely to claim the BBL.
Whenever a large government department embarks on a major transformation project, the emphasis is on what they do today, and not what they could do tomorrow. Agility and innovation offered by smaller suppliers is sacrificed on the altar of constantly awarding contracts to the large, politically connected suppliers, who often have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and we are back into a 5 year project cycle, at the end of which very little has changed. Except, the systems have become more complex, the suppliers have made a lot of money, and the government department refuses to hold the supplier to account for problems because certain department heads would have to be held to account for their decisions in awarding and managing the contract... catch 22.
The Horizon project is such an example. Without a Public Inquiry, Fujitsu won't be held to account because they are too deeply embedded in numerous government contracts, and nobody at a senior level at the Post Office will blame Fujitsu because it will reflect badly on them.
...evidence at Companies House. 50%, but there appear to have been various filings listing different percentages over the years.
She could call a members meeting, but with just 2 members, and assuming the other member turned up, the vote would be deadlocked. Then what?
I take your point about an IP needing money, and maybe that's what needs to happen. Next question ...who to turn to ...London firm, local Bath/Bristol firm?
I am assuming the 50% shareholder would be a creditor because she received no dividends, whereas the other 50% shareholder did. However, she would not be recorded as such because the company is denying it and won't provide the accounts.
If an order was made on the company to pay the shareholder what she's owed, it would not have the assets to do so.
Unfortunately, I do not know where to look for someone who would act on a contingent fee basis.
Action Fraud referred it to Bath Police for investigation...
...which is unusual, given the volume of fraud complaints they receive each day. So, there is a prima facie case, which you would have thought worth investigating, and which would be substantiated if they obtained the other 3 years of accounts (and bank statements for good measure). Inexplicably, Bath Police are refusing to obtain them, but won't say why.
The one thing Fraudsters hate is exposure. It would be perfect if they could be exposed by a newspaper or the BBC, but they won't do anything unless the fraudsters are charged.
Maybe, the answer is to take direct action which will challenge them to take action themselves e.g. accusation of libel or harassment, or the shareholder petitions for winding up. Harassment would involve the Police, who would then need to consider the evidence. I don't know enough about winding up, but it sounds costly.
If I knew of a way to get HMRC interested, I would use it!
Small businesses are not immune from paying tax...
...yet many (one-man-bands) believe they are a law unto themselves, and are so clever, that they can fool their accountants, Police, Customs, and HMRC, and defraud their shareholders.
It is not an excuse to not pay for an accountant. Unfortunately, there are accountants out there who will turn a blind eye to what their clients are saying or, worse still, will proffer bad advice.
These 'small' frauds have gone unchallenged for far too long. They damage the economy and also shareholders. The Police do nothing. So, HMRC needs to step up to the plate.
I am fed up seeing Directors getting away with blatant fraud, while I go out of my way to understand what I need to do as a director, and make sure I do it and pay for it.
I know of one example where a small consultancy based in a village just outside Bath, has defrauded its co-shareholder to the tune of nearly £100,000, and because the directors say they haven't, the Bath Police simply believe them rather than the victim, despite having been provided with one set of accounts which alone clearly shows serious irregularities worth some £23,000 to the co-shareholder at the very least, with supporting commentary from 2 experienced forensic accountants. That's not taking account of a very high minus score against the HMRC Business Entity test because the ex-director and sole employee, worked full time for and at Lloyds Banking Group since 2006, yet the company manages to 'spend' many £000s on 'marketing'!
These directors do not fear HMRC or the Police, because they do not believe their crimes are of interest to the authorities. Indeed, the Police's comment is their investigation was 'proportionate' ...against what tariff? They've done it before, and will keep doing it with impunity, unless someone brings them to account.
Let's see more of this from HMRC ...and the Police!
Your blog implies all landlords are 'rackmanesque' scumbags, out to rip off unwitting tenants.
This attitude does nothing for the hardworking private sector landlords who treat their tenants well, often at a cost to them.
You make no mention of the difficulty facing landlords when they need to evict a tenant who has refused to pay rent for months on end, or pays a little to delay the notice, then stops paying again.
You make no mention of tenants who destroy properties when they are evicted, at huge cost to the landlord (yes, repairs can be claimed but the rental void cannot!).
You make no mention of the fact that tenants on benefits have their benefit paid direct to them and, unsurprisingly, they fail to pay their rent.
You make no mention of who will provide the housing for non-social housing tenants.
You make no mention of how numerous BTL private landlords and increasingly, the retired, are being ripped off by unscrupulous Freeholders.
You talk a lot about how BTL landlords have inflated house prices, preventing first time buyers getting on the housing ladder, but make no mention of the fact that renting is less costly than owning your home (on a mortgage) and is responsibility-free.
My answers
My point is, how did these fraudulent applications get through? Yes, you were required to 'self declare' but surely there was at the very least a simple check on filed accounts to prove previous earnings.
Yes, it may be poor procedures by the banks, but the loans are underwritten by the government [ taxpayer]. If not HMRC, who is responsible for investigating the massive fraud?
I can see the banks crying that they weren't given sufficient time to put the correct procedures in place, but if some could, so could the rest. It is not a difficult process to do a quick look-up at Companies House. All the business banks will have that interface. I guess they simply weren't bothered because they knew the taxpayer would be picking up the cheque!
As one of the 3 million who have not been supported, I hope HMRC makes an example of the many thousands who have defrauded the various [taxpayer funded] schemes. BBLs are a prime example, and there doesn't appear to be any mention of how many of those HMRC is investigating. But they must be the easiest to assess because HMRC will have the history of how long the business has been operating profitably and submitting returns. Which makes me wonder how these fraudsters were able to obtain BBLs in the first place, when they had clearly set up businesses very recently and purely to claim the BBL.
So true, Bill. But what's the answer?
Whenever a large government department embarks on a major transformation project, the emphasis is on what they do today, and not what they could do tomorrow. Agility and innovation offered by smaller suppliers is sacrificed on the altar of constantly awarding contracts to the large, politically connected suppliers, who often have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and we are back into a 5 year project cycle, at the end of which very little has changed. Except, the systems have become more complex, the suppliers have made a lot of money, and the government department refuses to hold the supplier to account for problems because certain department heads would have to be held to account for their decisions in awarding and managing the contract... catch 22.
The Horizon project is such an example. Without a Public Inquiry, Fujitsu won't be held to account because they are too deeply embedded in numerous government contracts, and nobody at a senior level at the Post Office will blame Fujitsu because it will reflect badly on them.
She is a shareholder...
...evidence at Companies House. 50%, but there appear to have been various filings listing different percentages over the years.
She could call a members meeting, but with just 2 members, and assuming the other member turned up, the vote would be deadlocked. Then what?
I take your point about an IP needing money, and maybe that's what needs to happen. Next question ...who to turn to ...London firm, local Bath/Bristol firm?
Special Resolution
Thanks Black Knight.
I am assuming the 50% shareholder would be a creditor because she received no dividends, whereas the other 50% shareholder did. However, she would not be recorded as such because the company is denying it and won't provide the accounts.
If an order was made on the company to pay the shareholder what she's owed, it would not have the assets to do so.
Unfortunately, I do not know where to look for someone who would act on a contingent fee basis.
Action Fraud referred it to Bath Police for investigation...
...which is unusual, given the volume of fraud complaints they receive each day. So, there is a prima facie case, which you would have thought worth investigating, and which would be substantiated if they obtained the other 3 years of accounts (and bank statements for good measure). Inexplicably, Bath Police are refusing to obtain them, but won't say why.
The one thing Fraudsters hate is exposure. It would be perfect if they could be exposed by a newspaper or the BBC, but they won't do anything unless the fraudsters are charged.
Maybe, the answer is to take direct action which will challenge them to take action themselves e.g. accusation of libel or harassment, or the shareholder petitions for winding up. Harassment would involve the Police, who would then need to consider the evidence. I don't know enough about winding up, but it sounds costly.
If I knew of a way to get HMRC interested, I would use it!
Small businesses are not immune from paying tax...
...yet many (one-man-bands) believe they are a law unto themselves, and are so clever, that they can fool their accountants, Police, Customs, and HMRC, and defraud their shareholders.
It is not an excuse to not pay for an accountant. Unfortunately, there are accountants out there who will turn a blind eye to what their clients are saying or, worse still, will proffer bad advice.
These 'small' frauds have gone unchallenged for far too long. They damage the economy and also shareholders. The Police do nothing. So, HMRC needs to step up to the plate.
I am fed up seeing Directors getting away with blatant fraud, while I go out of my way to understand what I need to do as a director, and make sure I do it and pay for it.
I know of one example where a small consultancy based in a village just outside Bath, has defrauded its co-shareholder to the tune of nearly £100,000, and because the directors say they haven't, the Bath Police simply believe them rather than the victim, despite having been provided with one set of accounts which alone clearly shows serious irregularities worth some £23,000 to the co-shareholder at the very least, with supporting commentary from 2 experienced forensic accountants. That's not taking account of a very high minus score against the HMRC Business Entity test because the ex-director and sole employee, worked full time for and at Lloyds Banking Group since 2006, yet the company manages to 'spend' many £000s on 'marketing'!
These directors do not fear HMRC or the Police, because they do not believe their crimes are of interest to the authorities. Indeed, the Police's comment is their investigation was 'proportionate' ...against what tariff? They've done it before, and will keep doing it with impunity, unless someone brings them to account.
Let's see more of this from HMRC ...and the Police!
Rather a big generalisation...
Your blog implies all landlords are 'rackmanesque' scumbags, out to rip off unwitting tenants.
This attitude does nothing for the hardworking private sector landlords who treat their tenants well, often at a cost to them.
You make no mention of the difficulty facing landlords when they need to evict a tenant who has refused to pay rent for months on end, or pays a little to delay the notice, then stops paying again.
You make no mention of tenants who destroy properties when they are evicted, at huge cost to the landlord (yes, repairs can be claimed but the rental void cannot!).
You make no mention of the fact that tenants on benefits have their benefit paid direct to them and, unsurprisingly, they fail to pay their rent.
You make no mention of who will provide the housing for non-social housing tenants.
You make no mention of how numerous BTL private landlords and increasingly, the retired, are being ripped off by unscrupulous Freeholders.
You talk a lot about how BTL landlords have inflated house prices, preventing first time buyers getting on the housing ladder, but make no mention of the fact that renting is less costly than owning your home (on a mortgage) and is responsibility-free.
I could go on, and on...
The law is now firmly on the side of the tenant.