Have got this back from Companies House. All thoughts on the subject welcome... "Following our investigations it may be clear that a breach of non-notification may have happened however, a breach of the Companies Act is not the only factor we will take into account before considering whether or not to pass this case to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills for a prosecution to be considered. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills must comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code requires prosecuting authorities to take account of various matters when deciding whether to prosecute. When considering is it in the public interest to prosecute, we have to consider the detriment of the non-notification of the creditors, especially in terms of their legal position to pursue any debt. Having read through the correspondence in this case, although you say you were not notified of the application for voluntary strike off, your solicitors became aware shortly afterwards and registered an objection to the dissolution. It was open to you and your representatives to maintain that objection in order for the debt to be pursued. Unfortunately as we received no further objections the company was subsequently dissolved. Should you want to pursue your Claim you would need to restore the company to the register. Companies House cannot do this on your behalf. Details about restoring a company can be found on the treasury solicitors website at tsol.gov.uk. Finally, Should it prove necessary, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you would be agreeable for your identity, as the complainant, to be disclosed to the directors of the company."

Ah, right. Knowing them, then, I'm guessing they will have found a point of law to contend and woven their spin around it. Just three months to find out though hopefully I will get some feedback from Companies House in the interim.

Thanks, steampowered. To reply... "The fact that the appeal was rejected at the sift stage suggests that it is hopeless" That's made my day "I am also mystified as to what the previous hearing was about" If you mean the point of law to which they are now hoping to orally gain merit (?), I'm as mystified myself and don't seem to be able to find out an answer.

In relation to rightsforme's post: It certainly does help - many thanks! In relation to the February EAT the opposition has mentioned - this is EAT's head office email reply, although they once again don't go into the specifics: This appeal has been rejected under Rule 3(7) as showing no point of law so as to give the EAT jurisdiction to consider it. The Appellant challenged that, asking for a hearing under Rule 3(10) and that hearing is listed for 3 February 2014. That is a hearing at which only the Appellant need attend. I know this subject has been touched on, but if anyone with any knowledge of this type of thing wants to add something, great, because it seems to me that their 'challenge' must have had considerable merit to be given a hearing?

Apologies if I over-detailed that last 'panicked' post. An original hearing - which turned into two hearings - was set up to determine which owner was accountable for my employment. It turned out to be the new owner, and it is he - or, rather, his company - who I have been suing ever since. I've emailed my lawyer for details of this latest appeal. London EAT have also offered to send me details via email, which I'm waiting on too. Thanks for putting my mind at rest regarding the P45, though I still regret sending it him because I'm more than sure he'll use it to muddy the water.

HELP - I'VE MESSED UP! I think I made a huge and costly error when I tried to contact the other side the other day, though not in my first letter but my second. Just so that you can make an informed reply on the matter, I'll have to take you briefly back to the start of all this. On 12th Aug 2010 the owner of the bar approached me to say it was being sold, and that the new owner would be in by Monday 16th August 2010 (but that I would be staying). Just after the new owner took occupancy, however, he rang up the door agency through which I worked and told them my services were no longer required. Hence, as far as the door agency were concerned, my stint with the bar therefore concluded Sunday 15th August 2010. Then the new owner rang me personally to let me know the same, but did agree to let me work out the week (in the event, only 3 days). He didn't make provisions with the door agency for this, paying me directly - and thus why, or part of the reason why, the judge ruled there had been a TUPE transfer. A couple of weeks later the door agency sent me a p45 with the end date 15th August 2010. The p45, like most of any paperwork I receive, was soon misplaced and then forgotten about. During the final (April 2013) Tribunal, an appeal to decide only whether I was self employed or PAYE, I had but one p60 (from about 4 years earlier) and a handful of recent payslips. Fortunately the judge accepted these meagre offerings, along with my answers, one of which is now relevant. In point 25 of his summation (which I've just read, but wish I'd read it last week), he says: "I accepted the claimant's evidence that once he had signed the contract he had in 2000...he never received a new contract or a P45 at any stage prior to the purchase of the bar in August 2010 by XXX Limited" As it was, I hadn't fibbed. Apart from having long forgotten I had received the misplaced P45, technically speaking I wasn't incorrect: I literally didn't receive a P45 "prior to the purchase of the bar", because its being dated 27th August and landing on my doorstep about 30th August, was two weeks after the bar had been purchased. Now then, here's the rub: I'm not as bright as I look. The relevance of a P45 was lost on me until I started reading the judge's comments today. By this I mean, when I emailed the opposition for a 2nd time the other day, since they were still adamant I was self employed, I decided to attached two P60s that I'd found since the last hearing. Another thing I found (actually only this past week) was this P45. I noticed it had on my PAYE all the way up to 15th August, so thought I'd be 'bright' and send a copy of that along with the P60s. I'd show them for sure I was employed throughout, I reasoned. Doah! Of course, having now read the judge's words, I'm realising a P45 ending 15th Aug is not the best thing to send to your opposition when he didn't take control of the bar until 16th Aug (groan). Have I just totally shot myself in the foot - and I've lost the case and am not to pester any of you ever again - or is it a case of: (a) Like the judge said, you didn't get the P45 (dated 27th Aug) until after the bar was sold, so it's not an issue. or (b) The case was always a complex one, and since the agency had no idea you had transferred to the opposition (until after they had sent you a P45) then their sending you a P45 won't matter in this instance. Please can someone put me out of my misery. Need to know one way or another.

I totally agree with you about why, fear of liability, he responded. And thank for your comments, MrHat. I feel I been very blessed to have so many people go out of their way to pass comment.

Oooh, I like it - thanks BazzaS ! And if anyone out there knows the law on this matter, even better

Many thanks, rightsforme! Very interesting stuff. Can you give me more details regarding how you went about getting this information: "I also made enquiries with the authorities and additionally found that tax and n/i had not been paid by the company and they had no records at all of the company names he was trading under and I reported him" Also, I took Pusillanimous advice and found (a little) out about the opposition's appeal - left a message with them and they've just come back to me this morning. The specifics they wouldn't tell me over the phone but they did confirm that 3rd February is all go. They said they have sent correspondence to my lawyer, so I will attempt to prize more info from him. With any luck February will be the end of the matter on that particular score, but I'm not counting my chickens.

Thanks for the info. The "extremely expensive" put me straight off So I might just ring them up like you said, or take a mooch down there, good idea/s. Re the letters I sent him: In my present financial position it just made sense to try that approach prior to any legal moves (not least because he seems well versed in playing the legal system). I checked with Companies House before I contacted him and they were cool with it. He didn't bite, though, so I will have to look towards legal means. Firstly, though, I've now shopped him to Companies House. I pity the guy lined-up going to read my seven-page diatribe

I downloaded the annual return, which is four pages long but gives zero information in terms of actual money. The date of the return is 25/01/12; there's a SIC code, whatever that is; there's one company director and secretary, the same guy; number of shares is 1, attributed to him, and that's it. Order of events, including my lawyer's efforts to halt the strike off. 11/11/2010 My lawyer sets ball rolling. 08/02/2011 Pre-hearing review (he didn't show and used the lamest lie, so was granted a 2nd hearing) 22/07/2011 Re-scheduled hearing (it goes in my favour, there is a case to answer) 09/03/2012 Tribunal (I win but he is granted an appeal and lodges it) 03/04/2012 Five months after its alleged sale, my lawyer receives a note from him to say he sold his bar back in Nov, 5 months ago. This is out of the blue, & I know people who work there who say he never left and is still in command. Investigations show the 'new' company - whose address is the same as the old! - is 'owned' by his brother. 16/04/2012 Remedy. He doesn't show up. He has to pay over £20K. 07/06/2012 He applies to be struck off but we aren't informed and know nothing of it. 20/07/2012 Six weeks later my lawyer finds out about it & lodges an objection, which is granted. 23/10/2012 My lawyer emails to advise me not to contest their appeal due to my not being able to afford a barrister's letter. The appeal isn't about me specifically but technical stuff. 30/10/2012 Appeal hearing. They're told the next Tribunal is only to decide whether I was an employee or self-employed. 27/02/2013 My lawyer informs me that, despite his objecting to their strike off, it has now been granted, but that he is contacting Companies House to put in a strong protest. I think you have to keep objecting every three months. Whether he forgot to object again after the first three months, or companies House didn't accept it, I don't know (I sense the former) but the strike off was granted 13th November 2012, over three months ago. 23/04/2013 The 2nd Tribunal again went in my favour. The other side launched an EAT soon after. 24/05/2013 My lawyer emails to say he is still trying lodge a complaint with Companies House. 09/07/2013 He emails to say Companies House responded with a letter telling him it's tough. Up to this point I - regrettably - didn't take an active part in the legal proceedings, leaving it up to my more-clued-up lawyer, but as time went by I decided to start looking into it myself. Hence the 7-page complaint I forwarded today to Companies House - I think my lawyer was just complaining that we had an on-going case, whereas I also sent details that proves the opposition is still very much running the company.

"The other thing that does not make sense to me is why he is bothering with an appeal if the company has already been wound up and he thinks he is safe." *Think you've hit the nail on the head - he probably doesn't yet think he's safe. "The first thing to do is to go on Companies House and download a copy of the documents (cost £1 each) to see if you can get any information about what assets the company had when it was struck off." I found this on director check... £12,286 Cash £-54,769 Net Worth £64,786 Assets £34,694 Liabilities Regarding Companies House's website: There are several documents I can download and I'm not sure which I'm looking for title-wise, so any ideas on that would be good, thanks. The following is what info there is for free... Status: Dissolved 13/11/2012 Date of Incorporation: 25/01/2010 Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC): 96090 - Other service activities not elsewhere classified Accounting Reference Date: 31/01 Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/01/2012 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL) Next Accounts Due: Last Return Made Up To: 25/01/2012 Next Return Due: Mortgage: Number of charges: 1 ( 1 outstanding / 0 satisfied / 0 part satisfied ) Last Members List: 25/01/2012

Solicitor Error: I'm convinced my solicitor messed up with the strike off. He managed to get the strike off halted initially, but that only lasts for three months and I'm pretty sure he missed the deadline to put in another objection. Should I be annoyed with my lawyer if that's proven to be true, or am I nit-picking?

The actual total was just over £20K (see below), but the money I would personally keep I worked out at just under £17K. The £6K paid immediately - I might have that figure wrong, but I recall well the judge saying it as he read out the below. Words to the effect of "Six thousand of which must be paid immediately". I took this to mean, you can't expect someone to pay £20K right off the bat, so would have to come to an arrangement, but that a portion of the money had to be paid because it's the right thing to do. Was I hearing things? 1) The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £2,789.04 as damages for breach of contract (including an uplift of 20% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992). 2) The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant a basic award for unfair dismissal of £3,162.50 and a compensatory award for unfair dismissal of £10,679.45 (including uplift of 20% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992), making a total of £13,841.95 2) The Recoupment Regulations apply. The prescribed period is between 18 August 2010 and 12 July 2011. The prescribed element is £10,319.45. The amount by which the total monetary award exceeds the prescribed element is £6,311.54 Also: Unfortunately the judgement was against the company, but I recall my solicitor saying that I am legally allowed to try get money from the director if the company folds. If Companies House agree there's been wrong doing and revoke the strike off, would that make a difference? I emailed the director a second chance to pay a reduced fee last night, giving him until 8pm tonight as a deadline. I don't see him paying, but if you don't try you don't get. Companies House have told me I have until Tuesday to shop him, which I fully intend to do (if/when he doesn't pay).

Regarding this February 2014 EAT: how do I go about getting the documentation/finding information about this? Can he have a judge's decision overturned? Am I allowed to present further evidence if it looks like they may well believe the judge didn't have enough evidence to come to the conclusions he did? Also, is it the case that, because he has requested this EAT, he is as yet under no obligation to pay me anything? At the Tribunal I'm pretty sure the judge said he had to pay me x-amount (I think it was £6K) of what he owed me immediately.

PS I nearly forgot. Do I need to worry about this: "In any case, your threat of a claim against me personally is frivolous and, of course, entirely without merit and will be met with an immediate application under CRP 3.4(2)(a)(b). Again I will make an application for costs against you should the application succeed."

Thank you for your continued contribution, Steampower. The Tribunal began in 2010, the judgment came about in 2012, and their subsequent appeal was heard and rejected in April of this year. My lawyer did tell me that they had appealed, but I just assumed it had petered out. I agree that the chances of him coughing up anything up prior to litigation is indeed slim, but I see no harm in having one more bash? I'd also like to think that if it comes to another hearing, and I can prove that I've already shown him conclusive proof that I was PAYE, legally speaking it might not hold any weight, but 'aesthetically speaking' it won't do him any favours. I'm also determined to shop him to Companies House on the 19th Nov (the final date they have given me), should he again reject my - generous - offer. Would I be correct in assuming this won't have a bearing on my trying to get money out of him via litigation?

Thanks for this, Pusillanimous. The Franey case is our case (Franey is the pseudonym of the Judge - apologies for not pointing that out). It's definitely faux bravado and I've just spotted a giant hole in their reply, regarding Companies House. Check out these two comments: "i) A copy of the request to strike the company from the register was sent to both you and your legal representative in the required time. iii) The company was not "subject to any legal proceedings, current or proposed" at the time the request to strike off was made, given the date of the Franey Judgment" They totally contradict each other. If he believes his company wasn't subject to any legal proceedings (with me), then for what reason would he send me or my lawyer a copy of the strike off? Answer: you wouldn't. Surely it would be the last thing you would do. Indeed, my lawyer swears he received nothing (I certainly didn't). He found out by accident. Also, I've just rang Companies House up, who told me that my lawyer lodged an objection with Companies House SEVEN weeks AFTER the strike off proposal. Why on earth wouldn't he have lodged an objection at the time of the strike off? Answer: he clearly didn't know about it. The opposition also seem to be fixated that I was self employed, despite my producing a p60 and several wage slips at the Tribunal. Infuriatingly, at the time I genuinely couldn't find any other p60s, but the judge was satisfied with what I gave him. Straight after the Tribunal, I found the rest but didn't think I'd need them. So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to get back to the opposition and email them copies of the ten p60s (one for each year I worked there). I'm also going to offer to walk into any tax office with a member of the opposition's side, to get confirmation of my PAYE status. Secondly, I will draw their attention to the strike off slip up. Thirdly, the Companies House representative I just spoke to confirmed that the opposition were 100% classed as being subject to legal proceedings with me. I doubt it, but hopefully all that little lot will get them to cough up. What do you think? Or anyone else out there?

Reply received. I got the following reply from the other side. Just to remind the good people of this forum: I sent the other side notification that I wanted money owed, albeit a large reduction, or I would go to Companies House. I should also point out that their beef throughout the Tribunal was that I wasn't actually an employee of anyone but rather self employed (not true). Judging from their response, it is more than clear that they still contend this... "I am in receipt of your undated letter regarding a demand for payment from me on or before 14th November 2013 of £3,900. I am unaware whether you are still represented, but you should know that the case of the Manchester Employment Tribunal No: 2409218/2010 is pending appeal at the EAT. A hearing date to determine whether the appeal shall proceed (which will be heard ex parte) has been set for February next year, and the likely date of a full appeal hearing will not be till August 2014, given the current backlog of cases pending. It is my strong belief that the perverse Judgment of the Franey Tribunal will be overturned, as before, and it will be found that you were working as a self-employed sub contractor - but such a decision is at least 9 months away. If you pursue legal proceedings against me with regards to the Judgment of the Manchester ET, you should be aware that I will make an application for a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the EAT appeal which will, no doubt, be granted. You are now on notice that should such an application be made I will seek an order for my costs against you given that I have now informed you of what my actions will be and the likely outcome. In any case, your threat of a claim against me personally is frivolous and, of course, entirely without merit and will be met with an immediate application under CRP 3.4(2)(a)(b). Again I will make an application for costs against you should the application succeed. I note your letter makes several false and malicious allegations against me. To confirm: i) A copy of the request to strike the company from the register was sent to both you and your legal representative in the required time ii) Your legal representative confirmed to me over the telephone that they were aware the request had been made, same is alluded to in correspondence iii) The company was not "subject to any legal proceedings, current or proposed" at the time the request to strike off was made, given the date of the Franey Judgment Back to me: He obviously genuinely thinks I was self employed, and whilst I guess this would absolve him in some was of being unscrupulous merely for the sake of it, it doesn't alter the fact that in my opinion he's tried shifting the goal posts in order not to pay. With this in mind, I'd like to know what anyone thinks about the following... He says his company wasn't subject to legal proceedings (and hence why he didn't notify Companies House). This sounds as though he genuinely believes that, because his request to be struck off was made 07/06/2012, and because our final hearing wasn't until 2013, that the rules didn't apply to him. With this in mind, is it worth my responding to his email clarifying the exact rules regarding his being subject to legal proceedings (ie it's not just the date on which you have a Tribunal) and also, to alter his mindset about my being self employed, offer to take him or a representative of his to the nearest tax office and have them tell him face-to-face that I was in receipt of p60s throughout my ten year employment (would the tax office be able and willing to confirm this?). How does that sound? Any other thoughts, or questions, on the subject would of course be most welcome.

If everyone is happy with this revamped effort, I'll whip it off??? "Without Prejudice Dear XXX, Having gone through the time, effort and stress of a tribunal, it seems that you still have no intention of compensating me, despite the outcome of that tribunal insisting that you must. I want to make it clear that the efforts you have made to avoid having to pay me what I was always entitled to are not acceptable, and will not be accepted. There is no question in my mind that the transfer of the bar was a transaction designed to defraud creditors contrary to section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, and that you have clearly remained in charge of XXX. AAA Limited was dissolved in November 2011 and the "new" operator of XXX became BBB Limited, but this was not a simple case of one company taking over the business from another – the latter company having your surname, and being originally registered at the same address as AAA Limited. The fact that the company changed its address and later applied to be struck off does not erase the coincidence, or your personal involvement, or its implications. Especially since the next “new”company taking over the helm at XXX was CCC Limited, and its registered director is you. Of the several companies you have started up over the years, you also have at least one other registered at the same residence as XXX. This is all on file, of course, not least **** City Council’s licensing department, who list BBB Ltd as the bar licensee from April 2012 until February 2013, when the licence was taken over (before our final Tribunal, by the way) by CCC Ltd. This information – a drop in the ocean to the many facts I have collated, including statements from employees that leave no doubt about your role – I have obtained while preparing legal action against you, which will certainly result in the debt increasing exponentially, since you will beliable for my legal costs. The pursuit of frankly illegal means to avoid recompensing me strikes me as being a severely false economy not just because of the aforementioned, but also the consequences of your actions once this information is given to Companies House, and other relevant authorities. According to Companies House (www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/windingUpCompany.shtml): “A limited company can request to be closed/dissolved...providing that it meets all of the following requirements: Not traded within the last 3 months Not changed the company name within the last 3 months Is not subject to any legal proceedings, current or proposed Has not made a disposal for value of property or rights” You have certainly breached at least one of those rules, bearing in mind you were most definitely subject to a legal proceeding – my employment Tribunal. I should also point out that you also had a strict personal obligation to notify all creditors (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1006)... A person who makes an...application for voluntary striking off...must secure that within seven days from the day on which the application is made, a copy of it is given to every person who at any time on that day is...© a creditor of the company. In relation to this section, Companies House offers this definition: “In this Chapter “creditor” includes a contingent or prospective creditor” (in other words, me). Moreover, the burden of proof is one you: you need to be able to conclusively prove I received a copy [*I'm not sure I should include this last sentence??*].This section goes on to say: (4) A person who fails to perform the duty imposed on him by this section commits an offence. If he does so with the intention of concealing the making of an application fromthe person concerned, he commits an aggravated offence. (7) A person guilty of an aggravated offence under this section is liable...to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine (or both). ‘Unfit conduct’ may also result in your being banned from being a director for fifteen years. There is, however, an alternative. At no time did I wish to see your role as the new owner of XXX to be challenged, or to cause you to incur damaging costs as a result of dispensing with my services. All I ever wanted was a fair level of redundancy – the Tribunal's award of over £16,000 is what happens when one ends up in court. Now that I’m dealing personally with this, my wishes remain as they have always been: to obtain a reasonable redundancy settlement, which along with my costs works out to be £3,900. My recommendation would be that you pay me this figure before the 13th November 2013, as after that date it will be impossible for me to halt legal proceedings, and we will be back to £16,000 plus costs and Companies House involvement [*not sure about putting in this last sentence?*]. Please contact me at this email address... ****@yahoo.co.uk ...regarding your intentions

Yes, that's better. Thanks.

The reason I originally went for this approach... "I will also be handing over copies of all documentation to Companies House, the tax office, the council, the press, and other bodies" ...and not... "theoptions open to me include (1) arranging for the company to be restored to theregister and an insolvency practitioner appointed to investigate its affairsand (2) seeking an order that the Director and/or the new company is liable forthe full amount. Either approach would result in the debt increasingexponentially, since you will be liable for your legal costs" ...is because I guessed he would probably believe the first, but not the second. He assumes - correctly - that I don't have the money to go down the insolvency route, but knows I don't need capital to have the powers that be crawling all over him. The ultimate aim of the letter is to scare him into making a payment. Given this, do you still feel I should abandon the 'scatter gun' approach and stick to the 'insolvency' one, or on reflection should I just re-word the scatter gun approach better?

Thanks for rescuing me ...again

Regarding: You've covered the point about when a company may or may not be dissolved. You haven't covered the point about the strict obligation on him personally to notify all creditors. I put it in brackets... "You have certainly breached at least one of those rules, bearing in mind you were most definitely subject to a legal proceeding – my employment Tribunal (I should also point out that you failed to inform me that you were applying to be struck off, which you were required to do within seven days of your application)." I didn't make much of it because I was worried that he saw the term "creditor" and decided that I wasn't one (he may take the view that because, at the time of his applying to be struck off, the decision hadn't yet gone against him, then technically speaking I can't yet have been classified as actually being a creditor. If I'm honest, in terms of scaring him into paying me £3,900, this remains my worry, and I can't help feeling that if I'm to quote Companies House rules as suggested, I should also relate some part of their policy that classifies me as a creditor.

I'm with you on this one, thanks.