All posts by reidm

Limited company outlived its usefulness? A solvent liquidation may be the answer

For the vast majority of businesses, particularly those with annual sales greater than £100,000, operating through the medium of a limited liability company is the most popular choice.  It almost eliminates personal liability for business debts and creates a more favourable tax regime when annual profits exceed about £50,000.  Indeed, recent Government statistics estimate that there are over 5.6 million limited liability companies registered in the UK of which more than 3.1 million have a sole owner.

If you are running a business and decide to retire, or perhaps sell the assets held within the company rather than the company shares, steps are required to extract the cash/assets. Similarly, if a personal services company ceases operating activities (the introduction of IR35 created a large number of cases in this category in North East Scotland ) the cash/assets that remain within the limited liability company framework require to be released as tax efficiently as possible.

A solvent liquidation process, known as a members voluntary liquidation “MVL” may be the answer. The main reason for making this statement is tax driven.  If Business Asset Disposal Relief “BADR” applies, the recipient of cash from a company as a result of an MVL process will find that the first £1 million is taxed at 10%, with anything more taxed at 20%.  As a quick example, a person receiving £100,000 by way of a capital distribution from an MVL process might expect to pay about £9,500 tax which is contrasted with more than twice this sum if the monies are taken as a dividend, and more than three times this sum if the money is paid by means of a salary.

In general terms, qualifying for BADR means that, amongst other criteria, the person must have been active in the company (director/employee), held at least 5% of the voting share capital in the continuous two year period leading up to the time that the company is subject to MVL, and  receive the cash within three years of ceasing the company’s business activity.

As one might expect, there are some anti-avoidance provisions in order to stop a person accumulating cash in a company and instructing an MVL after, say, three years in order to withdraw the cash and pay tax at 10% rather than income tax at one’s highest rate on a salary, and then repeating that cycle.  Unsurprisingly, HMRC have thought of this possibility and will levy tax at the more punitive income tax rates if a person receiving a capital distribution from an MVL becomes involved in the same industry in an ownership/management capacity within two years of receiving such distribution.  Clearly, if a person is retiring, there is no difficulty in being able to state that such person will not be involved in the same industry in an ownership/management capacity.

The purpose of an MVL is to distribute monies to shareholders but, if desired, it is perfectly permissible for the liquidator to transfer company assets e.g. a building, book debt or vehicle, to shareholders rather than selling them. As the transfer is undertaken at fair value and wholly transparent, there is no problem.

When appointed liquidator, such person must take steps to ensure that all liabilities are known/settled before cash is paid to shareholders.  This is one reason why the law expects the liquidator to advertise the liquidation because it may be the only time that a creditor is aware of the intention to close the company and have it dissolved.  In one case, a solicitor telephoned me indicating that, upon seeing the notice of liquidation, two former employees of a joinery business contacted him because they were suffering from life-shortening breathing difficulties as a result of working for such company.  The fact that the company was subject to an MVL meant that cash was available and hence, the prospect of a successful claim arose.  The matter was dealt with but it was interesting to note that the directors of the company were unaware of the potential claim because trading had ceased many years earlier with no comment made by the former employees at that time.

The law provides that if a company’s assets exceed £25,000, a licensed insolvency practitioner must be appointed for an MVL to proceed and, in general terms, the cost of doing so is far outweighed by the tax benefits.  As with all tax planning and tax saving matters, one’s usual accountant tends to be the first place to seek advice, which will often lead to the door of the licensed insolvency practitioner on the basis that an MVL makes sense.

For the nine year period up to March 2020, the lifetime allowance was £10 million. This was reduced to £1 million at that time. How much longer the Chancellor will  keep it at £1 million is anyone’s guess.

This article is written by Michael J M Reid, licensed insolvency practitioner and partner of Meston Reid & Co, Aberdeen. The views expressed in this article are his rather than those of the firm.

London letting agent hit with 11-year ban after repeat abuse of Bounce Back Loan scheme

Laszlo Szabo, 49 of London, was the sole director of Letting Base Ltd, which was incorporated in 2009 and traded as a letting agency on Holloway Road until it went into liquidation in January 2022.

In October 2020, Szabo applied for a Bounce Back Loan of £38,000 to support his business, which had formerly traded as Hungarian Lettings Ltd. The company received the loan money the following day.

Bounce Back Loans were a government scheme to help keep businesses afloat during the Covid-19 pandemic, whereby companies could apply for loans of up to 25% of their 2019 turnover, up to a maximum of £50,000.

Under the rules of the scheme, businesses could only take out one loan, although they were permitted to apply for a top-up if the original loan was less than the maximum to which they were entitled.

Yet five days after applying for the first loan, Szabo applied for another Bounce Back Loan of £50,000 for Letting Base Ltd, this time from a different bank. And 10 days after this, he applied for a £12,000 top-up to the first Bounce Back Loan, taking the total borrowed through the scheme up to £100,000.

The following day he returned to the second bank, seeking a further top-up of £50,000 to the second Bounce Back Loan. This time the application was rejected.

Letting Base Ltd went into liquidation in 2022 owing more than £243,000, including the full £100,000 of the Bounce Back Loan money, triggering an investigation by the Insolvency Service.

Investigators discovered that Szabo had made the four separate applications for Bounce Back Loans and top-ups, despite signing a declaration each time confirming it was his only application, and that Letting Base Ltd was entitled to the money he was applying for.

On 21 November 2022 the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy accepted a disqualification undertaking from Laszlo Szabo after he did not dispute that he had misused the Bounce Back Loan scheme by claiming money to which his business was not entitled.

His ban lasts for 11 years and began on 12 December 2022. The disqualification prevents him from directly or indirectly becoming involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the permission of the court.

Due to Laszlo Szabo’s personal circumstances, it is unlikely that repayment of the Bounce Back Loans will be made.

Nina Cassar, Deputy Head of Investigations at the Insolvency Service, said:

The Bounce Back Loan scheme was set up to support businesses in genuine need during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the terms of the scheme were widely publicised to make clear that directors were required to self-certify their eligibility for support.

Laszlo Szabo made false declarations to his company’s banks, and then entered liquidation having made no repayments towards its Bounce Back Loans, which resulted in a loss of £100,000 of public funds.

His blatant and repeat abuse of taxpayer’s money has resulted in a lengthy disqualification, which will serve to safeguard the economy from traders who exploit financial support packages designed to help UK businesses.

8-year ban for Glasgow management consultant who failed to keep adequate company records

Article provided courtesy of The Insolvency Service

Steven David Hutton, 47, from Glasgow, was the sole director of Marchmount Consulting Ltd, which was incorporated in December 2008 and traded as a management consultancy offering business support services from Newton Place in Glasgow.

The company went into liquidation in March 2020 owing nearly £46,000, which triggered an investigation by the Insolvency Service.

But investigators were unable to verify the true financial position of the business, as Hutton had failed to keep adequate accounting records for the company from 1 January 2019 until it’s liquidation in March 2020.

Investigators analysed the three business bank accounts used by Marchmount Consulting Ltd, and discovered that around £63,800 had been paid into the company during this time.

However they were unable to ascertain whether these receipts were actually for services provided by Marchmount Consulting, and whether the income had been used for the benefit of the company.

The lack of financial accounting also meant that investigators could not verify the true nature of the expenditure paid out by the company, which included more than £8,000 to two connected businesses, one of which also listed Hutton as a director, and £4,500 to two people who were linked to the second business.

Payments of £2,700 were also made to Hutton himself, and around £40,700 of additional expenditure was unaccounted for.

And investigators were unable to discover what happened to assets of £137,340 that had been recorded in the company accounts up to 31 December 2018 – the last day that records had been kept.

The bank analysis also found that the company was owed more than £369,700, but due to lack of company records, there was no way to identify whether those owing the money, including around £137,355 owed by a connected company, had made any payments to the company bank accounts since 1 January 2019.

The Sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court granted a Disqualification Order against Steven Hutton on 24 October 2022. His ban lasts for 8 years, and began on 14 November 2022. The disqualification prevents him from directly or indirectly becoming involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the permission of the court.

Steven McGinty, Investigation Manager at the Insolvency Service, said:

Directors have a duty to ensure their companies maintain proper accounting records and, following insolvency, deliver them to the office-holder in the interests of fairness and transparency.

Without a full account of transactions it is impossible to determine whether a director has discharged his duties properly, or is using a lack of documentation to hide any wrongdoing.

Steven Hutton has paid the price for failing to do that, as now he cannot carry on in business other than at his own risk.

I’m struggling with personal debt but I don’t want to lose my house

My article in December 2022 regarding personal financial challenges provoked a certain amount of feedback because many individuals are struggling to pay their bills and have a concern that their personal financial position will worsen as costs continue to increase such as utilities, debt servicing, food and travel.

A key point to remember in a time of difficulty is that one should never suffer in silence. There are numerous sources of personal debt advice, many of them free of charge.  An experienced  advisor will normally seek additional information to that which is brought to the first meeting because, invariably, the concerned individual focuses on the one or two pressure points, whereas an overall view is likely to produce a more encompassing and suitably structured plan. Good advice takes time. There is usually no “quick fix” as one sometimes sees advertised.

Before Covid-19 arrived, the legislation in Scotland provided each person with the benefit of a six week moratorium.  The application process was straightforward and meant that an individual was given a six week bubble of protection against all creditors, thereby relieving the immediate stress of creditor pressure and allowing time to establish a plan of action.

Many aspects of insolvent legislation were changed during Covid-19 in order to cope with the situation, one of which was to increase the personal debt moratorium period to six months.  During this period, no creditor can take any formal action against an individual to recover a debt. Thus, if a person is thinking of applying for bankruptcy or signing a trust deed, the law provides a fairly lengthy period of time to consider matters.  Whilst the six month breathing space is helpful for many, it is important that an individual does not fall into the trap of increasing debts during this period simply because there is no immediate creditor pressure. That would be seen as an abuse of a process that is designed to help rather than exacerbate matters.

One debt moratorium can be applied for in every rolling twelve month period. It is accessed through the Register of Insolvencies maintained by the Accountant in Bankruptcy (www.aib.gov.uk), normally with the guidance of an accredited money advisor.  Access to the Register of Insolvencies is free and often used by credit reference agencies and banks in order to help obtain a picture of a person’s financial status.

When one looks at an individual’s spending pattern, a money advisor’s focus tends to review what are essentials.  Essential expenditure for one person is not the same for another and of course, there are other issues to consider that surround a person’s propensity to spend e.g. happiness, competing against others, bored, concern (if any) about the consequences, perception amongst friends etc.

Undoubtedly, the dominant factor for many individuals is the desire to retain the house where it is owned. If it is possible to establish a repayment framework for all debts within a period not exceeding, say, 7 or 8 years, the Debt Arrangement Scheme “DAS” may well be the preferred way forward. A DAS can be entered into either immediately or during the period of a debt moratorium because the decision is taken by the individual rather than a creditor.

The DAS process requires input from an accredited money advisor and the whole process is co-ordinated/monitored by the Accountant in Bankruptcy.  If a DAS is possible in terms of settling all known liabilities over a realistic period, interest is frozen and further, the Accountant in Bankruptcy is able to bind all creditors to a DAS should the view be taken that the individual’s proposal is reasonable in all of the circumstances.  After essential expenditure has been settled, the individual pays a contribution to a Payments Distributor who issues a regular dividend ( normally monthly ) to all known creditors pro-rata to the level of each claim.  The key attraction of a DAS is that the house is exempt from the process.

As one might imagine, a DAS can anger creditors when they see the person safely ensconced in their house, perhaps with large equity, whilst they are forced to wait 7 or 8 years to be repaid and cannot charge interest. Perhaps : but the law seeks to balance the perceived needs of all parties  in this type of situation.

A person subject to a DAS can still have a bank account. Clearly, a bank is unlikely to offer an overdraft facility, and other lenders will decline to offer credit whilst the DAS is in place. However, the fact that the house is safe, creditor pressure is removed and someone else deals with regular creditor payments are significant advantages and explain the increasing numbers of individuals who have entered the DAS process on an annual basis since its introduction in 2004.

Any accredited money advisor will be able to provide more information and that is why, as mentioned at the start of this article, don’t suffer in silence. Arrange for a proper assessment to be undertaken, listen to the options, and create a clear plan of action that includes saving the house if at all possible.

This article is written by Michael J M Reid, licensed insolvency practitioner and partner of Meston Reid & Co, Aberdeen. The views expressed in this article are his rather than those of the firm.

Bankruptcy restrictions for property developer who misled investors

  • Glenn Armstrong gave false and misleading information to obtain £273,000 from four individuals after a creditor applied to make him bankrupt in April 2018
  • Creditors lost hundreds of thousands of pounds because of transfers Armstrong made following the presentation of the bankruptcy petition
  • The Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) places a number of restrictions on Armstrong until March 2036

A property developer who misled four individuals and deprived creditors of hundreds of thousands of pounds has had tough bankruptcy restrictions imposed on him.

Glenn Armstrong was handed a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order lasting 12 years at the High Court on Thursday 7 March after investigations by the Insolvency Service.

The 64-year-old was previously subject to an 18-month interim BRO secured in August 2022 which imposed restrictions until the court made a final decision on the case.

Armstrong, of Pearcy Close, Harold Wood, is unable to borrow more than £500 without telling a lender that he is subject to extended restrictions, or act as a company director without the court’s permission for 12 years under the order.

Joe Sullivan, Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service, said:

Glenn Armstrong’s conduct in misleading investors was unacceptable and we are pleased to have secured stringent bankruptcy restrictions against him.

The 12-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Order which follows on from an interim 18-month BRO reflects the seriousness of the case and misconduct identified by the Insolvency Service.

We will not hesitate to take robust action when financial wrongdoing is uncovered.

Bankruptcy proceedings began against Armstrong in April 2018, when a creditor petitioned to make him bankrupt.

Following this petition, Armstrong provided false and misleading information to four individuals, enabling him to obtain £273,000.

Armstrong had signed an undertaking with the Financial Conduct Authority in December 2018 where he stated he would not enter into any further loan agreements either directly or through his companies.

Armstrong also deprived creditors of £458,738 through transfers he made to associated parties.

He was declared bankrupt in February 2021.

Bankruptcy restrictions for property developer who misled investors

  • Glenn Armstrong gave false and misleading information to obtain £273,000 from four individuals after a creditor applied to make him bankrupt in April 2018
  • Creditors lost hundreds of thousands of pounds because of transfers Armstrong made following the presentation of the bankruptcy petition
  • The Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) places a number of restrictions on Armstrong until March 2036

A property developer who misled four individuals and deprived creditors of hundreds of thousands of pounds has had tough bankruptcy restrictions imposed on him.

Glenn Armstrong was handed a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order lasting 12 years at the High Court on Thursday 7 March after investigations by the Insolvency Service.

The 64-year-old was previously subject to an 18-month interim BRO secured in August 2022 which imposed restrictions until the court made a final decision on the case.

Armstrong, of Pearcy Close, Harold Wood, is unable to borrow more than £500 without telling a lender that he is subject to extended restrictions, or act as a company director without the court’s permission for 12 years under the order.

Joe Sullivan, Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service, said:

Glenn Armstrong’s conduct in misleading investors was unacceptable and we are pleased to have secured stringent bankruptcy restrictions against him.

The 12-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Order which follows on from an interim 18-month BRO reflects the seriousness of the case and misconduct identified by the Insolvency Service.

We will not hesitate to take robust action when financial wrongdoing is uncovered.

Bankruptcy proceedings began against Armstrong in April 2018, when a creditor petitioned to make him bankrupt.

Following this petition, Armstrong provided false and misleading information to four individuals, enabling him to obtain £273,000.

Armstrong had signed an undertaking with the Financial Conduct Authority in December 2018 where he stated he would not enter into any further loan agreements either directly or through his companies.

Armstrong also deprived creditors of £458,738 through transfers he made to associated parties.

He was declared bankrupt in February 2021.

Bankruptcy restrictions for property developer who misled investors

  • Glenn Armstrong gave false and misleading information to obtain £273,000 from four individuals after a creditor applied to make him bankrupt in April 2018
  • Creditors lost hundreds of thousands of pounds because of transfers Armstrong made following the presentation of the bankruptcy petition
  • The Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) places a number of restrictions on Armstrong until March 2036

A property developer who misled four individuals and deprived creditors of hundreds of thousands of pounds has had tough bankruptcy restrictions imposed on him.

Glenn Armstrong was handed a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order lasting 12 years at the High Court on Thursday 7 March after investigations by the Insolvency Service.

The 64-year-old was previously subject to an 18-month interim BRO secured in August 2022 which imposed restrictions until the court made a final decision on the case.

Armstrong, of Pearcy Close, Harold Wood, is unable to borrow more than £500 without telling a lender that he is subject to extended restrictions, or act as a company director without the court’s permission for 12 years under the order.

Joe Sullivan, Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service, said:

Glenn Armstrong’s conduct in misleading investors was unacceptable and we are pleased to have secured stringent bankruptcy restrictions against him.

The 12-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Order which follows on from an interim 18-month BRO reflects the seriousness of the case and misconduct identified by the Insolvency Service.

We will not hesitate to take robust action when financial wrongdoing is uncovered.

Bankruptcy proceedings began against Armstrong in April 2018, when a creditor petitioned to make him bankrupt.

Following this petition, Armstrong provided false and misleading information to four individuals, enabling him to obtain £273,000.

Armstrong had signed an undertaking with the Financial Conduct Authority in December 2018 where he stated he would not enter into any further loan agreements either directly or through his companies.

Armstrong also deprived creditors of £458,738 through transfers he made to associated parties.

He was declared bankrupt in February 2021.

Bankruptcy restrictions for property developer who misled investors

  • Glenn Armstrong gave false and misleading information to obtain £273,000 from four individuals after a creditor applied to make him bankrupt in April 2018
  • Creditors lost hundreds of thousands of pounds because of transfers Armstrong made following the presentation of the bankruptcy petition
  • The Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) places a number of restrictions on Armstrong until March 2036

A property developer who misled four individuals and deprived creditors of hundreds of thousands of pounds has had tough bankruptcy restrictions imposed on him.

Glenn Armstrong was handed a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order lasting 12 years at the High Court on Thursday 7 March after investigations by the Insolvency Service.

The 64-year-old was previously subject to an 18-month interim BRO secured in August 2022 which imposed restrictions until the court made a final decision on the case.

Armstrong, of Pearcy Close, Harold Wood, is unable to borrow more than £500 without telling a lender that he is subject to extended restrictions, or act as a company director without the court’s permission for 12 years under the order.

Joe Sullivan, Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service, said:

Glenn Armstrong’s conduct in misleading investors was unacceptable and we are pleased to have secured stringent bankruptcy restrictions against him.

The 12-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Order which follows on from an interim 18-month BRO reflects the seriousness of the case and misconduct identified by the Insolvency Service.

We will not hesitate to take robust action when financial wrongdoing is uncovered.

Bankruptcy proceedings began against Armstrong in April 2018, when a creditor petitioned to make him bankrupt.

Following this petition, Armstrong provided false and misleading information to four individuals, enabling him to obtain £273,000.

Armstrong had signed an undertaking with the Financial Conduct Authority in December 2018 where he stated he would not enter into any further loan agreements either directly or through his companies.

Armstrong also deprived creditors of £458,738 through transfers he made to associated parties.

He was declared bankrupt in February 2021.

Bankruptcy restrictions for property developer who misled investors

  • Glenn Armstrong gave false and misleading information to obtain £273,000 from four individuals after a creditor applied to make him bankrupt in April 2018
  • Creditors lost hundreds of thousands of pounds because of transfers Armstrong made following the presentation of the bankruptcy petition
  • The Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) places a number of restrictions on Armstrong until March 2036

A property developer who misled four individuals and deprived creditors of hundreds of thousands of pounds has had tough bankruptcy restrictions imposed on him.

Glenn Armstrong was handed a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order lasting 12 years at the High Court on Thursday 7 March after investigations by the Insolvency Service.

The 64-year-old was previously subject to an 18-month interim BRO secured in August 2022 which imposed restrictions until the court made a final decision on the case.

Armstrong, of Pearcy Close, Harold Wood, is unable to borrow more than £500 without telling a lender that he is subject to extended restrictions, or act as a company director without the court’s permission for 12 years under the order.

Joe Sullivan, Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service, said:

Glenn Armstrong’s conduct in misleading investors was unacceptable and we are pleased to have secured stringent bankruptcy restrictions against him.

The 12-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Order which follows on from an interim 18-month BRO reflects the seriousness of the case and misconduct identified by the Insolvency Service.

We will not hesitate to take robust action when financial wrongdoing is uncovered.

Bankruptcy proceedings began against Armstrong in April 2018, when a creditor petitioned to make him bankrupt.

Following this petition, Armstrong provided false and misleading information to four individuals, enabling him to obtain £273,000.

Armstrong had signed an undertaking with the Financial Conduct Authority in December 2018 where he stated he would not enter into any further loan agreements either directly or through his companies.

Armstrong also deprived creditors of £458,738 through transfers he made to associated parties.

He was declared bankrupt in February 2021.

Two Glasgow company directors banned for a total of 21 years for Bounce Back Loan Abuse

Article courtesy of The Insolvency Service

Shahzad Arshad, 43, and Alexander Stewart Cooper, 70, from Glasgow, have been disqualified as company directors following separate investigations which found they had both made false claims in order to receive Bounce Back Loans for their businesses.

Shahzad Arshad was the director of two companies – Town Discount Ltd and Naz Accessories Ltd – which were both based in Glasgow.

Town Discount Ltd was incorporated in January 2020 and began trading a month later as a retailer of games, toys, clothes, watches and jewellery, until it went into liquidation in December 2021.

Naz Accessories was incorporated in December 2017 and traded as a clothes retailer until it went into liquidation in January 2022. Both companies traded from Dougrie Drive in the city.

Arshad applied for Bounce Back Loans for the two companies during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, stating in the loan application that Town Discount’s turnover for 2019 was £250,000, and Naz Accessories’ turnover was £200,000.

Bounce Back Loans were a government scheme to support businesses through the pandemic. Under the rules of the scheme, companies could apply for loans of between £2,000 and £50,000, up to a maximum of 25% of their 2019 turnover.

Both companies received the maximum £50,000 loans based on Arshad’s application, but later went into liquidation owing a total of more than £106,000, including around £93,400 that was owed for the Bounce Back Loan, triggering an investigation by the Insolvency Service.

Investigators discovered that Arshad had made a false claim about Town Discount Ltd’s turnover, as it had only begun trading in February 2020. It was therefore not entitled to any funding through the Bounce Back Loan scheme. And they found that Naz Accessories Ltd’s true turnover had been around £98,300, which meant the maximum loan it could have claimed was £24,500.

Investigators also found that between June 2020, when Town Discount Ltd received the loan, and August 2020, £16,000 had been withdrawn from the company bank account in cash, and the remainder of the loan money was paid out to expense and trade creditors.

But Arshad had been unable to prove that the money had been used to provide an economic benefit to the business, as per the rules of the scheme.

The second Glaswegian boss, Alexander Stewart Cooper, was appointed as a director of Traprain Homes Ltd in August 2016, becoming sole director in October 2019. The company traded as a construction company until it went into liquidation in June 2021.

Cooper applied for a Bounce Back Loan for Traprain Homes in June 2020, stating that the company’s turnover was £1,014,930. Traprain Homes received the maximum loan of £50,000.

The company later went into liquidation, owing the full amount of the loan, which triggered an investigation by the Insolvency Service.

Investigators discovered that Traprain Homes Ltd had been insolvent at the time Cooper applied for the loan. Company accounts to January 2020 had shown a loss of more than £113,000, and the company had not been actively trading since February 2020. The business bank account had shown a balance of just £96 when the loan was received.

They also discovered that once the loan had been received, Cooper paid more than £9,400 to himself from the firm’s account, and later transferred more than £40,000 of the money between the company’s different bank accounts before paying it out to himself.

In October 2022 the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy accepted disqualification undertakings from both directors.

Cooper did not dispute he had caused his company to breach the rules of the Bounce Back Loan scheme by claiming the loan when he knew, or ought to have known, that Traprain Homes Ltd was not eligible, and later misused the funds, resulting in Cooper being banned for 10 years from 14 November 2022.

Arshad did not dispute that he had caused Town Discount Ltd to apply for a loan to which the company was not entitled, and failed to show that it had been used for the economic benefit of the company.

And he also did not dispute that he had breached the terms of the scheme by overstating Naz Accessories Ltd’s turnover to obtain a loan of £50,000 – more than twice the amount it was entitled to – resulting in Arshad being banned for 11 years from 21 November 2022.

Cooper has fully repaid the loan for Traprain Homes following recovery action by the company’s liquidator. Arshad had repaid £3,549 and £3,333 respectively towards the Bounce Back Loans for Town Discount Ltd and Naz Accessories Ltd, prior to their liquidation.

Steven McGinty, Investigation Manager at the Insolvency Service, said:

Bounce Back Loans were an emergency measure made available to help British businesses trading through the most testing of times.

Cooper breached the eligibility criteria and then took the money for personal gain, while Arshad should have known his companies weren’t entitled to the loans, yet he took them anyway.

This abuse of government support has led to lengthy bans and should serve as a warning to others that we will not hesitate to take action against directors who have abused Covid-19 financial support.