Telecoms kit supplier shut down for carrying on work of two firms that had been... shut down

A Leicester-based IT supplier has been closed down after it carried on the work of two companies that courts said had traded in an improper manner. The UK government today announced that Bradwell Communications, which lists its business as the wholesale of electronic and telecommunications equipment and other telecoms …

[Anonymous Coward]

'..the closure of the latest firm should serve as a "strong warning" '

Er - probably not. Serial abusers don't care about this sort of slap on the wrist. Jail time, or the serious threat of it, might do the trick.

[Mark 85]

Re: '..the closure of the latest firm should serve as a "strong warning" '

Add: "and take their profits..." to that and it might just work but only if they actually follow through. A slap on the wrist does nothing and many times even jail time. Take away the money and that should do the trick and deter others.

[The Godfather]

This is getting silly....

I’ve seen this type of behaviour before, many times and quite frankly, Directors should merit far harsher penalties and jail time.

[tony2heads]

Re: This is getting silly....

asset seizure?

[GreggS]

No ban?

Did they apply to have the people involved banned from any further directorships?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No ban?

Normally, when a company is the subject of an involuntary winding up order, the Insolvency Service investigate the directors. So it is distinctly possible that the directors will already be under personal investigation and then may be barred. Let's hope so.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

to summ up ...

Bradwell Communications, did some work for ...

Direct United (Services) and Fibre Tex...

who were found to have "operated with a lack of transparency and had traded in an improper manner that resulted in both companies incurring significant liabilities". According to the Insolvency Service, Bradwell Communications had been carrying on the work of two firms that watchdogs had already sought to shut down.

So if you accidentally do some work for a dodgy company , you get fined?

Are we supposed to see accounts and "company of the year" awards for all customers?

I'm not sure what Bradwell Communications did wrong here.

[Peter Ford]

Re: to summ up ...

The director connections suggest that Bradwell may not have *accidentally* done work for dodgy companies...

[MrReynolds2U]

Re: to summ up ...

The implication is that Bradwell was actually carrying on the business of the shutdown firms under its own name. Perhaps they took on the client book and contracts of the other companies which would be a rather grey operation.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is they 'continued' to do work for companies that had been wound up and the directors were the same, perhaps you didn't read the article.

[adam payne]

David Hope, chief investigator for the Insolvency Service, said in a statement that the closure of the latest firm should serve as a "strong warning" the service will act against companies that break the rules.

What's the betting another company springs up from nowhere to continue the work carried out by the other three companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah Leicester

Home to all those honest Asian businesses

Just don't rent a flat above a takeaway

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies House have no power to remove a Director

Companies House are in practice exempt from the Government rules that Banks and others have to follow for KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti Money Laundering)

Companies House do not check if a Director is disqualified by bankruptcy and if notified they still cannot remove the person from the Register nor inform the Insolvency Service. Following is the Boilerplate sent by Companies House if violations are reported :-

"Companies House (CH) have limited powers and our main role under current parliamentary legislation only allows us to register and display information to the public. We do not have any powers of investigation beyond requesting that a director who is disqualified or is an undischarged bankrupt, terminates their appointments to active companies."

This failure is the partial reason fro many frauds and happened due to business lobbyists who would prefer companies house to be toothless and underfunded.

From my limited Knowledge I think the Insolvency service is more competent

[Anonymous Coward]

From my limited Knowledge I think the Insolvency service is more competent

I don't think it is a question of competence, it is a question of scope. The people running Companies House probably are not happy that they can't be more proactive in stamping on fraud, but they operate within a remit defined by law. Likewise, the Insolvency Service.

There's clearly a need for a proper overhaul of the rules and laws in this space, but looking at the mind-blowing incompetence on display in Westminster, I'd rather that they didn't meddle in this, or indeed anything.

[hayzoos]

Here's an idea

1) The Insolvency Service has the authority to act on a known banned Director, but must be informed.

2) And, the Companies House can only publish such information publicly even being specific as to request the Director to terminate, but not act.

3) Then should not somebody(ies) job(s) at the Insolvency Service be to review the public information published by the Companies House?

Sorry, makes too much sense; goes against business lobbyists desires; and a law or rule will then be passed concerning this very loophole.