BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Phorm Discussion :: Phorm Talk
 
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
Phorm to CH: Please don't prosecute us
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy, revrob
Author Post
felixcatuk
Fri Aug 13 2010, 04:37PM
felixcatuk


Registered Member #95
Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 12:03AM
Posts: 2626
 The dog ate our home work, our company secretary can't read, and our lawyers are rubbish, and then we forgot the cheque, and ... and.. please don't spank us.

Details here.

More here.
Back to top
felixcatuk
Fri Aug 13 2010, 04:38PM
felixcatuk


Registered Member #95
Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 12:03AM
Posts: 2626
 "BY HAND" too.
Back to top
PingusPeriratus
Fri Aug 13 2010, 05:35PM
Registered Member #657
Joined: Fri May 01 2009, 06:32PM
Posts: 1226
 couldn't afford the stamp

Rob Oh Rob, have they still got yours :)
Back to top
revrob
Fri Aug 13 2010, 05:54PM

Registered Member #372
Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 04:09PM
Posts: 640
 It was attached to a small envelope, probably not big enough for all the overdue the filings to go in. (Although come to think of it, the "income" side of the accounts would have fitted in easily)

But if Kent wants to send my SAE back to me it will save me applying to the official receiver for it's return. It won't be any good to anyone else.
Back to top
felixcatuk
Fri Aug 13 2010, 08:21PM
felixcatuk


Registered Member #95
Joined: Wed Mar 05 2008, 12:03AM
Posts: 2626
 Something stinks of fish in that FoI response;

"There has been no further correspondence between Companies House and the directors of this company."

So they claim.

Which is odd.

Because in the single item of correspondence disclosed, the unnamed writer says;

"Further to *your letter* of 29th April 2010"

and

"This submission is within the 14 day extension as agreed"

and they even ask CH to

"confirm receipt of the signed accounts and also confirm that, from your perspective, the matter is now closed"

and yet none of that correspondence, particularly the letter of the 29th April 2010 has been disclosed.

And the claim "there has been no further correspondence" would therefore be, erm, wrong.

Hence a Request for Internal Review.
Back to top
 

Jump:     Back to top
Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System