Originally posted by poppy27
-
We are proceeding on the basis that we will recover money. There is definitely a pending problem with unpaid VAT money. I can't see any way of making this problem go away without legal action. -
Whats the general view about the whole Sunday Solution thing was it that it was just as a result of incompetence on the scheme provider side or 'possibly' something more sinister ?Originally posted by awaythelads View PostComment
-
-
Times News Article
All
Apparently, on New Years Day, there is scheduled to be an article in the Times on the SundayBradbury debarcle.
Hopefully this may trigger others to get in touch with the Action Group to increase the support and resources in fighting to get justice and some of our money back.Comment
-
The Times article - 1st January 2011
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2479...7-pm-875k?da=y
Tax schemes that fail to deliver
Tax class action by IT workers owed thousands highlights growing scandal, says Leah Milner.
Contract workers have been warned to be cautious when using companies that promise to minimise the amount of tax they have to pay after one such scheme went badly wrong, leaving many clients out of pocket by thousands of pounds.
Two of the companies involved in running a scheme called Sunday Solutions have been forced into liquidation by the High Court after an investigation by the Insolvency Service found that income tax was not paid on the workers’ behalf even though it had been deducted from their income. This meant that clients ended up paying twice because they still had to settle their bills with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
The case highlights the importance of using only reputable companies to manage your tax responsibilities as you will still be liable for any tax owed if a company fails.
The Insolvency Service says that the Sunday Solutions scheme, run by Sunday Solutions Limited and Bradbury & Co, both based in Bristol, was marketed as a partnership in which their income was to be paid into a joint bank account where their tax would be deducted and paid when due. The purpose of setting up partnerships was to allow the consultants to offset expenses, such as travel to work, that they would not otherwise be eligible to claim against their tax bills.
According to clients, Bradbury & Co was described as accountants to the partnerships that the scheme set up. The Insolvency Service says an estimated £80 million was handled by the scheme, which mainly targeted IT consultants, but many of the 1,500 people who used the service did not have their tax paid, leaving them in debt to the HMRC.
It found that the companies charged excessive and arbitrary fees, sometimes taking as much as 30 per cent of a contractor’s gross income. The service says that the directors had not fully co-operated with its investigation. Andrew Nyiri was a director of both companies.
More than 70 workers launched a court action against the companies to try to recover £1.24 million retained by the scheme. They also claimed damages to cover the penalties they had to pay to HMRC for failing to pay tax on time and other costs. The proceedings have been put on hold now that the companies have been forced into liquidation and the action group is looking at new ways to recover the money. The companies have not admitted that the allegations are true or entered a defence but did not oppose being pushed into liquidation.
Craig Orgill, 39, an IT consultant, claims to be owed more than £35,000. He had to cash in an endowment policy and borrow from his mother to pay the tax owed. Eugene McLaughlin, 42, also an IT consultant and one of the co-ordinators of the action group, says he is owed more than £24,000 in unpaid tax and fees that were deducted, which he claims should be refunded because the companies did not provide the services promised.
He says: “I was shocked that anyone could call themselves an accountant. . I have had sleepless nights over it. Others have had bailiffs at the door.”
Chris Mayhew, the investigations supervisor at the Insolvency Service, says: “The action taken in this matter sends a clear message: if you run a company that adopts unscrupulous business practices, we will investigate and where necessary take action to close them down.”
Anyone seeking an accountant should check that they are accredited by a professional body such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants or the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.John Chaplin of financial services firm KPMG says taxpayers should watch out for schemes that sound too good to be true.
Clive Lewis, of the ICAEW, says you need to establish in advance what the fees will be. The company should have professional indemnity insurance in case you need to make a claim against it.
Duncan McNair, a partner with the solicitors Child & Child, is acting on behalf of Mr Nyiri. He says: “Mr Nyiri is not a defendant to any proceedings and such allegations as have been made against him on a web chat forum have been strenuously denied and have been removed and any such allegations if made in the context of future litigation will be vigorously defended.”
He says that Mr Nyiri had made a formal complaint to the Insolvency Service over “serious mistatements and errors” in its statement. He claims Sunday Solutions never marketed a partnership scheme to contractors, administered partnerships or had financial control over them. Sunday Solutions ceased trading in 2007 and in its lifetime turned over only £13 million, while Bradbury & Co turned over £1.5 million, he says. He calls the claim that most of the Sunday Solutions and Bradbury & Co clients did not have their tax paid and remain liable “ridiculous” as he argues that only 50 or so had made claims.
According to Mr McNair, Sunday Solutions charged around 6 per cent of client’s turnover per account and Bradbury charged between 1 and 3 per cent of partnership turnover. He disputes the suggestion that any officer of Sunday Solutions or Bradbury & Co failed to co-operate with the investigation.
The accountancy firm called Bradbury & Co, that is based in East Yorkshire, is completely unconnected with this case.
Anyone wishing to join the action group should e-mail [email protected]. The action group’s solicitors are Varley Hibbs, Coventry.
'I lost about £9,000'
Case study
Maurice Burnett, left, an IT consultant from Old Windsor, Berkshire, says that he tried Sunday Solutions after receiving countless phone calls promoting the service.
Mr Burnell, 56, became suspicious when the companies failed to provide information on his partnership and stopped responding to phone calls and e-mails. When he searched online he was horrified to find many disgruntled clienls.
He says that he lost about £9,000 after having 10 settle his tax liability himself. "HMRC made it quite clear that it was up to me to sort this out. This has caused much worry to my family."Comment
-
Some corrections to The Times article
Just to point out (contrary to what was stated in The Times article): The proceedings have most certainly not been put on hold.
As for McNair's claims ... "Sunday Solutions never marketed a partnership scheme to contractors ..." ... "Sunday Solutions ceased trading in 2007".... Incredible!Comment
-
I was going to comment on that, the article suggested the court action had hit a stumbling block since the companies were shut down.....Originally posted by awaythelads View PostComment
-
Message from The Official Receiver
Winding up orders were made against Sunday Solutions Ltd and Bradbury & Co Ltd on 15 December 2010 in the High Court. The petitions were presented in the public interest by the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills following an investigation under the provisions of section 447 Companies Act 1985. The Official Receiver at Public Interest Unit [London], The Insolvency Service, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3SS is the liquidator. Creditors of the company should note that all claims should be addressed to the Official Receiver.
In the first instance the Official Receiver’s priority is to establish contact with all creditors of the companies. Please note that at present the Official Receiver is not in a position to discuss the particular details of any individual’s contract or dealings with the companies. The Official Receiver’s Report to Creditors will be issued to all known creditors within 8 weeks of the date of the winding up order and will contain details of the currently known position.
Please contact this office via [email protected] if you are owed money by the company. When contacting the Official Receiver, please can you provide the following information in the first instance:- Your name and address
- Email address
- Phone number
- Confirm which company you contracted with [Sunday Solutions Ltd, Bradbury & Co Ltd or another]. Please check your contract to confirm this information, as joining the “Sunday Solutions” scheme does not necessarily mean that you contracted with Sunday Solutions Ltd.
- The amount that you consider that you are owed by the company you contracted with
- The name of the partnership that you were supposedly a member of
It is likely that we will need further information and documentation from you in due course, but please do not send it in until requested. If any financial distribution is to be made to creditors in the future, the Official Receiver will write to all known creditors to notify them of the fact.Comment
-
The Official Receiver
Can all members of the action group (and non members) respond to this thread.
It is important that the receiver gets an idea of how big this actually was.
The action group will be in a position to take on new members this month. If anyone wishes to get involved please contact;
[email protected]
mikemloyComment
-
Hi,
I am one of the contractors affected and have been following this thread for a while and am logging in at the request above.
It's interesting to note that post #992 quotes the insovency service, saying that "the scheme was marketed to prospective clients as a membership of Limited Liability Partnership but no LLP names were registered at Companies House". Does that mean we are not partners then?
TomComment
Comment