Reply to: Best Employment Services Limited liquidation 'loan' repayments

[Chevalier]

Hi , is there any update with this. Does anyone know the current status of what is happening. .Thanks

Updated filed with companies house very recently…

[squiffy]

Hi , is there any update with this. Does anyone know the current status of what is happening. .Thanks

[Superfly]

As an addendum to this thread…

Mr Adrian Sacco has been banned from being a Director for 8 years


https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov...umber=09473810

I'd like to be happy, but people like Sacco lead charmed lives, they don't worry about such trifling matters.
They make their living skirting around the rules. This is just a minor inconvenience, he will have a lackey waiting in the wing, to be the front man for his nefarious operations going forward.

I don't feel the authorities showed enough teeth when dealing with this matter. Should have been dealt with by the criminal courts. They even withheld his address, contrary to how they dealt with others.

[cojak]

As an addendum to this thread…

Mr Adrian Sacco has been banned from being a Director for 8 years


https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov...umber=09473810

[Fred Bloggs]

Hi,

Has anyone had any luck finding out what is the situation with this?

See my reply to your post in the other thread.

[Singh1980]

Hi,

Has anyone had any luck finding out what is the situation with this?

[jonnyboy1]

Any progress?

These were not loans. They were salaries paid by an agency or employer to Best Employment Services who then paid them on. For the liquidators to now be demanding the monies back is preposterous.

They received the funds and now they want us to pay our salaries back? The analogy about a Barclays loan is so incorrect i don't even have the energy to pick the multiple holes in it.

Not to even get started on the single biggest issue of HMRC retrospectively making something illegal. How can that even be a thing?

Did you have any luck resolving this? I'm in the same boat and just made contact with WTT.

[eek]

LOL eek, those were company house records!

BEST EMPLOYMENT SERVICES LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)

It was the statement of affairs at 02.04.2019 and the Liquidator's statement at 11.03.2020

Thanks

You've done all that can be done then as any more will time out within 30 minutes.

Click on the link and then find the appropriate documents (currently it's the 3rd one down and the top 1).

It's worth saying that the Statement of Affairs lists debts of £3,365.716 but the Liquidator's statement mentions debts of £10,457,005 - so we don't know exactly what is owed to whom.

What we can also say is that the Anguilla company doesn't seem to have been assigned the assets as was planned (item 4.26 in the statement).

[piebaps]

LOL eek, those were company house records!

BEST EMPLOYMENT SERVICES LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)

It was the statement of affairs at 02.04.2019 and the Liquidator's statement at 11.03.2020

Thanks

[eek]

Bestemployee

Have you had a read of this https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/d...aa4ca6503759a9

Or this https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/d...dc8ee3529ef0e1

The creditors here are either HMRC or 2 other IOM companies which may or may not be linked to Sacco. The liquidator is looking to recover money for them and has a duty to determine whether the loans are recoverable. How they were treated for tax purposes is not strictly relevant.

You'll kinda get a flavour of what you were involved in. We have UK workers, but admin in the IOM, the debt book being sold to a company in Anguilla, incomplete records and a Maltese snake. This is why you need advice from someone who knows about these things.

Already timed out so you would be better linking to the company house records - tell me the companies and I will do it for you if you prefer.

[piebaps]

Bestemployee

Have you had a read of this https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/d...aa4ca6503759a9

Or this https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/d...dc8ee3529ef0e1

The creditors here are either HMRC or 2 other IOM companies which may or may not be linked to Sacco. The liquidator is looking to recover money for them and has a duty to determine whether the loans are recoverable. How they were treated for tax purposes is not strictly relevant.

You'll kinda get a flavour of what you were involved in. We have UK workers, but admin in the IOM, the debt book being sold to a company in Anguilla and incomplete records This is why you need advice from someone who knows about these things.

[eek]

[/B]


Fair enough to remove my email address but if anyone wishes to contact me by Personal Messenger on this site for any reason I will respond. I understand that Promoters or those seeking to profit may read this.

The fact that Promoters or liquidators (or HMRC) may read what is said is in this case irrelevant. There is no 'deal to be done' on terms, or some funny 'negotiation', but a court case to determine liability.

How can any tax consultants help me (or anyone else) with that? Or am I missing something?

There are no promoters involved here.

Your tax issues were caught in the loan charge

The loan issue is between you and a liquidator who has a built in success fee on amounts recovered.

WTT have already spent a lot of time looking at this case in far more detail than I believe you could have done (I'm sorry but they are dispassionate and no post of yours shows the level of unbiased level judgement required here).

And I know this will come to court but you will only have a single chance / law firm to protect yourself. To everyone reading this - choose wisely

[Best Employee]

A COUPLE OF POINTS

1 I am not seeking advice or am "in denial" (which is a bit insulting is it not?...but let's not discuss this aspect further)

2 I and other contractors do not need to be told to go WTT or similar. They are tax advisors. This is a legal (NOT A TAX) issue. And in any event I am not looking for advisors. I do not want/need legal advice but am looking for EVIDENCE to corroborate my case. (but yes any nice clever arguments that have not been thought about, are always welcome)

3 I need others who can support the oral representations made to me and can corroborate what is said. This "similar fact" evidence will be admissible in Court.

It is important we all (Contractors) stick together.

MY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CONTACTS IS HERE:

[SIZE=3]<modsnip>/SIZE]

PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU WANT TO HELP ME (or you wish me to help you in your case)

And 2 consumer credit points:

A your own link shows:

Carrying on consumer credit business without a licence
is an offence. The provision of loans to employees is
considered to be consumer credit business. However,
where a person only provides consumer credit
“occasionally”, they are not considered to be carrying on
consumer credit business and therefore do not need
a licence. The meaning of the word “occasionally” is,
unhelpfully, not defined. The provision of a one-off loan is
unlikely to be an offence and loans made to a few senior
executives are unlikely to cause problems. However, the
position is less clear where such loans are made once
to a whole workforce or on a regular (e.g. annual) basis.
Where loans are provided more than occasionally (and no
exemptions apply), the employer will have to apply to the
OFT for a consumer credit licence.

B Look at S140A and 140B Consumer Credit Act 1974 regarding unfair loans. S 140A is set out below.

AND

A PS

Why not discuss legal issues here? Don't you think that all claims and defences will be considered by those claiming monies.

Best are, I now realise (I did not do so at the time) crooks. They told lies to contractors and have made our lives a misery. I was naive then, but am not now.


------
The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—
(a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
(b)the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;
(c)any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

mod note: you may not post your email address. People may contact you via pm, but should be careful as we have had posters offering help who were either working for the Dodgy scheme providers, or were hoping to profit from people's misery.

Fair enough to remove my email address but if anyone wishes to contact me by Personal Messenger on this site for any reason I will respond. I understand that Promoters or those seeking to profit may read this.

The fact that Promoters or liquidators (or HMRC) may read what is said is in this case irrelevant. There is no 'deal to be done' on terms, or some funny 'negotiation', but a court case to determine liability.

How can any tax consultants help me (or anyone else) with that? Or am I missing something?

[Fred Bloggs]

The reason why I said to speak to WTT is because



As for everything else you've written did you not notice that the person who posted before your last post is Mr Richardson of Grant Thornton in Leeds.

I would suggest you read his post.

It seems some folk are beyond help to be honest.

[eek]

The reason why I said to speak to WTT is because

We've been kindly mentioned above and at risk of breaching whatever rules apply, I can confirm that WTT has a number of clients who made use of Best Employment Services and a number of related entities which are now under the control of Mr Richardson of Grant Thornton in Leeds.

We are presently collecting information and reviewing the circumstances of the alleged loans. Once complete, (perhaps by the end of this week), we will formulate a plan and calculate the likely costs.

We are happy to take enquiries from concerned parties.

I would also point out that I am not the only "expert" available and that a brief scan of the threads in this section would reveal others who are equally (or better) "expert".

As for everything else you've written did you not notice that the person who posted before your last post is Mr Richardson of Grant Thornton in Leeds.

I would suggest you read his post.