Recommendations/affirmation of current practice How we will take forward



Improve the sense and understanding of ownership of the investigation   and final affidavit in section 8 disqualification cases



The Service will review the process by which section 8   disqualification cases are handled to ensure that

a) ownership of the disqualification  proceedings is clearly understood and   assigned

b) the evidence requirements for the disqualification (as   opposed to the section 447 report) are clearly understood and assigned.

c) the    responsibility of each director for the conduct complained of is   clearly understood and evidenced.

2 Increase the focus on any lessening of the public interest   in progressing disqualification proceeding as the case develops and as time   elapses. The Service will introduce a more structured process   whereby decisions at key points (for example receipt of defences, withdrawal   of allegations, decisions to proceed/discontinue etc) are recorded in a   structured way which demonstrates the public interest of that decision. The   time elapsed will be part of that consideration. [1]
3 Strengthening   assurance that witnesses are familiar with their evidence, its relevance and   significance (including all exhibits) and are clear about the process and   what is expected of them, especially where third parties my have prepared or   assisted in preparation of affidavits and where witnesses may be unfamiliar   with giving evidence. a)Any likely issues regarding the  availability of witnesses will be   highlighted prior to proceedings being considered.

b) Witnesses will continue to be appropriately supported   through the process with a new system of confirmation in place

c) Solicitors will continue to ensure that witnesses are   familiar with their affidavits and exhibits and what is expected of them   during the trial with a new system of confirmation in place.

4 Whilst it is not the Secretary   of State’s role to speculate on what actions directors might have taken,   explicit consideration should be given as to how the defendant ought to have   behaved.  In the majority of cases  the answer may be obvious but nevertheless   the exercise may be of value. This may prompt rewording or a recasting of the   affidavit and allegations.


This will be added to guidance and considered during the   process.  It is not suggested that this   be added into the affidavit itself.
5 Continuing   with the common practice that  Ministers   and others are informed regularly of the progress of high profile cases On   high profile cases that have clear Ministerial/public/media interest a   regular  ‘for information’  light   touch progress update will be provided to BIS, Ministerial offices and press   office


6 Ensure   that the contingent liabilities for cases are  reviewed regularly by the audit committee   and management board in the Service and regularly communicated through   the monthly forecasting process to BIS.


The Service will produce a register for cases that have   incurred significant cost or have the likelihood of significant adverse costs

[1] The lessons learned review panel recognised that this case was conducted under S8 CDDA 1986, where there is no statutory time limit to commence proceedings; the vast majority of disqualification cases brought by the Service are under S6 CDDA which requires proceedings to be brought within two years from the date of the company’s failure.


  1. 1) BANCA ON – LINE Made by Dishonest , V A Simmons Bennett Verby 7 ST Petersgate stockport Cheshire SK1 1EB , Used ID ID4870000561994B A , Name Muhammad Fazal , Account 00/000 Main Account . There was no High Court Case Number , from 22/08/1994 to 27/10/2005 ,Fraud Statement been used,
    2) V A Simmons Pay to IP Banking Ladywood House 45-46 Stephenson street Birmingham b2 4uz ID4870000561994BA as above Date from 22-Agu-1994 A/C Opened ( fraud ) Because V A Simmons Received Money Bank draft £2000 /00 dated 24 May 2005 . this statement is a proof that V A Simmons and IP Banking DX713899 Birmingham,37 both , Malpractice , injustice ,fraud, dishonesty and maladministration .
    3) I have no idea which Local Office Ledger Account , under the same ID 487 0000056 1994 B ,OR 33 Manchester , Estate Account
    (MEO1 , DR01 , FR01 ,Combined) Start date,27 Oct 98 TR 33 CU/7019749 . TO 29 NOV 2003 TR05 33/7078847 transferred to IP £0.00 . It was Relevant my Title Deed Certificate OL5850 Stolen from January 2003 , when Mortgage was Payoff totally in respect of 17 Osborne Road Oldham OL8 1SJ. it was High level of Dishonesty of All Parties. this is a proof . ( Under fraud warrant and Possession Order and Notice of Eviction) and relevant fraud Value report along with TR1 Form demand ,Family Home was sold £30.000/00 V A Simmons and his Solicitor taken £28.997.62p in banker Draft Dated 08 / 08 /2005 .
    4) An other Ref Number issued BV20510187/1/AD .BONA VACANITA
    In respect of Fraud of Official Receiver , Regional director , Examiner NAAL. Malcolam MP 21 Bloomsbury street London . HQ Birmingham and MP McFadden used 2009 N0 487 ,and Linked IP 5708 ,IP8898
    For fees, Totally injustice Fraud , Malpractice. Relevant GW FIVE LTD
    also Farepak Compensation was not paid yet .

    2009 No 487 and BKT0111930

  2. Regarding bankruptcy order dated 12 July 1994 [Oldham county court no56 of 1994] , Oldham court and its Judge order was Totally Fraud and Misconduct of Judge ,Needham and Groggy relevant CASE NO 93 SD 31 and 56 of 1994 , without Bankruptcy References, But case was concluded on 28 April1995 and 21 May 1996.Judgment was given to all parties, in 2003 On what ground DLR Lytham used s306 of insolvency Act 1986 and Official Receiver Established INHIBITION dated 26 June 2003 FRAUD and Fraud of HQ Birmingham. BERR MP Pat McFadden wrote a letter dated 11 March 2009. totally wrong , Fraud, Injustice, Also Fraud of MEDIA London, [ Ade Daramy Manager customer and Communication teem, USED BKT01119364 is a closed case ,latest Discharge Date 12 / 07 /1907 [ therefore 4th Floor Abbey Orchard Street London SWIP 2HT ,established / Advertised in London. it was High level of BERR FRAUD , and holding money £28,997.62p from 08 /08 /2005. Land Registry Fraud , they pay the price of my family home £1,35000/00 and Damage £1200/00 PER MONTH. BERR FRAUD Labour BERR FRAUD .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *