[Resolved]  Global Visas — How to sue Global Visas and where to complain about them

Ihave done some resaerch after I discovered that Liam Clifford was disqualified as a director under section 7 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

A diretor can be disqualified as a result of an investigation by the following authorities:
The pOLICE
DTI Investifgations
Companies house
The Insolvency service

The actual diretor now of global visas is Brian Palmer because in 2008 last year Liam Clifford was disqualified after 13 yaers of runnning Global Visas after a complaint from an individual, so it can be anyone of you !!!


So complain to the companies house

and insolvency service


www.companieshouse.gov.uk

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/insolvencyprofessionandlegislation/dearip/dearipmil...⇄


more details about who to complain against the directors





Home | Do It Online |About Us | Our Offices | Publications | Forms | Contact Us | FAQ | Links


Dear insolvency practitioner > Chapter 10 > Disqualification
[protected][protected][protected][protected]
[Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Chapter 6] [Chapter 7] [Chapter 8] [Chapter 9] [Chapter 10] [Chapter 11] [Chapter 12] [Chapter 13] [Chapter 14] [Chapter 15] [Chapter 16] [Chapter 17] [Chapter 18] [Chapter 19] [Chapter 20] [Chapter 21] [Chapter 22] [Chapter 23] [Chapter 24] [Chapter 25]


New guidance was issued by Disqualification Unit in December 1999; the following article has been reissued to remind insolvency practitioners of the compliance issues.

1. Company Directors Disqualification Act Compliance
The Service’s insolvency practitioner Compliance Unit (IPCU) has reviewed the processes for identifying practitioners who have failed to:

pay monies into the Insolvency Services Account;

lodge a disqualification report or return within six months of the relevant date, or

lodge a final disqualification return or report within a reasonable period of time after lodgement of an interim return.

The processes for notifying the respective authorising bodies of these defaults has also been reviewed.

CDDA

Office holders have a duty to submit a disqualification return or report within six months of the "relevant date" as required by section 7(3) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and rule 4(2) and 4(4) of the Insolvent Companies (Report on Conduct of Directors) Rules 1996. IPCU will send any practitioner not lodging a return or report within six months of the relevant date a reminder letter, and a further reminder 14 days later. If no return or report has been lodged within a further 14 days after that then a third reminder letter will be issued. The authorising bodies will be notified of any of their practitioners who have received a third reminder. The failure to lodge a return or report may also lead to the Department referring the matter to solicitors to consider whether it would be appropriate to bring proceedings under rule 4(7), i.e:

"If an office-holder without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph (5) of this rule, he is guilty of an offence and:

on summary conviction of the offence, is liable to a fine…….. and
after continued contravention, is liable to a daily default fine ….."
If a practitioner lodges an interim return, IPCU now notifies the practitioner of the date by which he is expected to lodge a final return or report. Although the practitioner has met the requirement to lodge a return within the strict definition of rule 4, an interim return by its nature imposes a requirement on the practitioner to lodge a final return to complete his reporting duties. Practitioners are encouraged to contact Disqualification Unit at an early stage if they require any guidance or assistance with a particular case. This assists both the practitioner and Disqualification Unit by ensuring that investigation by a practitioner is targeted correctly, and allows for Disqualification Unit to have input at an early stage. It is important that Disqualification Unit receives returns and reports from practitioners at the earliest opportunity in order that it can have a reasonable period to carry out any further work required, and to ensure that proceedings are issued in appropriate cases within the two year deadline, i.e within two years of the relevant date.

Consequently, when an interim return or report is sent, practitioners will be encouraged to lodge final returns or reports within nine months afterwards. In most cases this will be sufficient time to complete the necessary investigation, but extensions can be agreed provided the practitioner has contacted Disqualification Unit in advance. Practitioners who fail to lodge a final return or report within the time set by IPCU will receive a reminder letter. If within 14 days no return or report has been lodged, or an extension agreed, a second reminder will be issued of which the practitioner’s authorising body will be informed.

(Other matters are dealt with in the CAU Chapter No. 5)

(First published in Dear IP no. 38, May 1997)


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

2. Disqualification cases and IP’s costs

A significant proportion of the Secretary of State’s costs in conducting disqualification cases under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is made up of costs charged by IPs. These are the costs of preparation of the evidence (settling Affidavits and exhibits) and sometimes attendance at trial (for cross-examination).

The Courts, when assessing the Secretary of State’s bill of costs after an Order has been made, often look closely at the IP’s costs. Because the hourly rates charged are relatively high, the Courts are concerned about the total bill charged by the IP, knowing it will have to be paid by the disqualified director. The Courts frequently disallow some of the IP’s charges because they believe the amounts charged to be too much. The amounts disallowed have to be borne by Disqualification Unit ("the Unit").

To try to reduce or eliminate the number of occasions on which this happens and to ensure that the Courts are satisfied with the levels of charging in disqualification cases, the Unit proposes to introduce a standard form, to be completed by all IPs involved in disqualification litigation. This will include the type of information the Courts are likely to find helpful in assessing the costs so that they can be satisfied the amounts charged (taking into account the actual hourly rate) are reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The Unit would like the form to be completed as the case progresses and after each piece of work is completed. If a case is disposed of before trial the form can be called for at any time to evidence the work completed by the IP to that date.

The principles upon which the form has been devised are as follows:-

Reasonable Work
The work done must be reasonable in the context of the case. Relevant factors include the nature and complexity of the case, the amount of documentation, the number of Defendants, and so forth. The work should be performed at the appropriate (and no higher) level of seniority in the firm, taking such factors into account.

Reasonable Rates
The rates accordingly agreed with the Unit need to reflect the seniority of the people in the firm doing the work. The rates themselves need to be reasonable. In assessing what constitutes reasonable rates, the Unit recognise that disqualification work is litigation. However, the Unit, in setting rates, will take into account the following factors:-

the IP is already very familiar with the papers in the case;
the IP is supported by a professional client and their lawyers;
a great deal of work is done by Unit staff and solicitor agents, who are very experienced in this field;
only exceptionally does the IP attend Court for cross-examination. Whilst there may be, on occasion, the possibility of a Court appearance, the vast majority of disqualification cases settle or are disposed of at Court without the need for the IP to attend.
The firm’s standard charge out rates will inform the setting of appropriate rates, taking into account the above factors. Premium rates (if charged by the firm to other clients) will not be relevant to the Unit’s consideration for the reasons set out above.

Amount of Time
The amount of time likely to be spent by an IP on a particular piece of work needs to be accurately estimated. It will generally be inappropriate to set estimates by reference to ‘bands’ of hours (e.g. 4-8) or to the length of an affidavit. If more time is needed than provided for in the estimate the reasons need to be clearly identified. They may need to be produced to the Court (with any other relevant information as appropriate). The total time spent on a case needs to be reasonable and the actual work done needs to have been properly and necessarily performed.

Duplication of Work
The different roles performed by the Unit, its solicitors and the IPs need to be borne in mind. The Unit will be able to do much of the necessary preparation for an Affidavit and its lawyers will advise on whether the case, as drafted, is legally sound. The IP will wish to satisfy himself that the draft Affidavit accurately reflects his understanding of the position and exhibits the relevant material, but the material, both drafted and exhibited, is likely to be very familiar to the case-officer and should not therefore need to be approached as if it were new information. It is very important to avoid the misleading impression of any duplication of work, particularly since the bills fall, eventually, in successful cases, upon individuals. They are entitled to be satisfied, as is the Court, that what is charged to them in a Costs Order is fair at the end of the day.

The form for completion (see next page) in the future is intended to ensure that accurate records are kept of all work done by IPs. This will be presented to the Court in the future assessment or taxation of costs to explain and justify the total charges made by an IP for his work or any part of it.

Enquiries arising from the above should be directed to enforcement.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk



NEW FORM

IP’s WORK RECORD

Click Here to download/view the form in "Word" format

Click Here to download/view the form in "PDF" format


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

3. CDDA Guidance visits

IPCU Monitoring Inspectors are carrying out a programme of CDDA guidance visits to insolvency practitioners, both those authorised by the Secretary of State and the other Recognised Professional Bodies, to discuss ways in which disqualification reporting may be better targeted and to provide guidance on the content and format of reports. These visits are currently initiated by IPCU.

These visits are conducted on an informal basis in order to provide an opportunity for an exchange of information on the disqualification process. The objectives are to improve the quality of reporting, assist insolvency practitioners with their reporting duties and improve The Service’s disqualification effort. A brief report of the visit will be provided both to the IP and to Disqualification Unit, although the report will NOT be passed to the relevant Recognised Professional Body.

During the visit our staff examine a number of recent cases, usually four to six, and a mix of D1 report/D2 final return cases. A review of the investigation work carried out by the IP takes place in order to ascertain whether allegations of misconduct are appropriate and well evidenced. In addition, in one or two cases the company books and papers examined. In cases where a decision not to submit a report was made, the reasoning behind that decision will be considered. Once the cases have been examined constructive feedback is provided on those cases. They will also deal with any particular matters which IPs may wish to raise. Each visit lasts around three hours and whilst IPCU will continue to initiate some visits, we also want to hear from any IPs who are interested in receiving a guidance visit.

To arrange a visit please contact: IPU.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

4. INSOLVENCY ACT 2000 (IA 2000) AND THE COMPANY DIRECTORS DISQUALIFICATION ACT 1986 (CDDA)

The various amendments to the CDDA brought about by the IA 2000 come into effect on 2 April 2001. Those principally affecting office holders are set out below:

‘D’ forms

The form of the report to be made under Section 7 (3) of the CDDA has been amended (by The Insolvency Companies (Report on Conduct of Directors)(Amendment) Rules SI 764 of 2001) to include the details of the insolvent company’s registered office in the 6 months prior to the office holder’s appointment as administrative receiver, the making of the administration order or the passing of the resolution to voluntarily wind up. This is because of the changes to Section 6 in particular the court in which the disqualification proceedings are issued. In effect the disqualification proceedings will now generally be issued where the company traded rather than where the office holder is located. Also in calculating the date for the registered office in S.6 (3A)(a) it is important to know the date that the company passed the resolution for winding up.

Disqualification Undertakings

It is now possible for a defendant to offer to the Secretary of State a disqualification undertaking rather than the case having to go to court. This will enable proceedings to be conducted more quickly and cheaply. However, if it is going to be quicker there is a need for office holders to adhere to the reporting guidelines and comply with section 7 (3) which requires unfitted conduct to be reported forthwith to the Secretary of State.

Another advantage for a potential defendant will be that if a disqualification undertaking is offered prior to the issue of proceedings the Secretary of State will not usually seek to recover his costs. It will still be possible for the Secretary of State to accept an undertaking after proceedings have been issued, but in that situation the Secretary of State would normally seek his costs.

A disqualification undertaking will normally include a schedule setting out the basis on which it has been accepted by the Secretary of State and will be a public document in the same way as a court order.

It will normally come into effect 21 days after acceptance by the Secretary of State. .

Permission to act and applications to vary a disqualification undertaking

Section 1(A)(b) of the CDDA as amended absolutely prohibits a person who is subject to a disqualification undertaking from acting as an insolvency practitioner as is the case where a person is subject to a disqualification order (see section 1 CDDA as amended). The court does not have any power to give leave. In addition S.17 CDDA has been amended. The amended section also provides that only the Secretary of State is required to appear on any application for permission. It will also be open to a person who has been disqualified by giving a disqualification undertaking to apply under S.8 (A) of the CDDA for the court to reduce the period or discharge the undertaking.

Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP)

When the legislation introducing LLPs comes into effect a disqualified person will also be unable to be a member of an LLP.

General enquiries may be directed to enforcement.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

5. Update on procedures where an IP needs an extension of time for submission of a final disqualification return/report and clarification of roles of IPCU and Disqualification Unit

Article 1 of this Chapter covers the procedures followed by IPCU to ensure compliance with requirements to report on the conduct of directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Office holders are reminded that where they submit an interim return they are encouraged to submit a final disqualification return/report within 9 months of the relevant date. If a longer period is required a request must be made to Tony Dakin of Vetting Section in Disqualification Unit, either by email, or by fax (contact details below). Requests for extensions of time sent to Tony Dakin should explain the reasons for the delay and include a note of the expected date by which a final return/report will be submitted.

IPCU, based in Birmingham, receives all disqualification returns/reports from IPs and enters information from them on to The Service’s database of cases, the Central Index. In maintaining the Central Index, IPCU also monitors statutory compliance, such that it is IPCU that issue reminder letters should an initial submission not be received within 6 months or, following an interim return, a final return/report is not received within 9 months, or such longer time scale agreed with Tony Dakin.

Information from disqualification returns/report is usually entered on to the Central Index by IPCU on the day of receipt, and all disqualification reports are then sent to Disqualification Unit, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, again generally on the day of receipt. Once an IP has been submitted a final report then all further contact should be with Disqualification Unit rather than IPCU.

Upon receipt of a D1 report by the Vetting Section of Disqualification Unit, the case goes through a pre-vetting procedure, in order to look into the financial history of the directors, and to identify links with any previous or current insolvencies in which they may be involved. The case is then vetted using a grading system, and a decision is made. The decision is to either “take forward” for further investigation, which happens at present in about 36% of cases, or to “not take forward” for further investigation, if the vetter does not consider that it is appropriate use of Disqualification Unit’s resources. This can happen for a number of reasons, the most common being: the unfit conduct is criminal in nature and the matter will be referred to, or is already being dealt with by, another government department; the evidence to support an application for disqualification is not available; the Official Receiver is already involved and dealing with the matter or a related matter; or the allegations are not serious enough on their own.

If you disagree with the Unit’s decision, we are happy to review it, provided you contact us and make available any additional evidence you may have. Vetting cases is not an exact science, and sometimes we can reach the wrong conclusion.



Contacts:
Disqualification Unit – Vetting Section:
Extensions of time - Tony.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk
Fax –[protected]
Technical queries and reviews- Eileen.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone –[protected]
Fax –[protected]
Disqualification Unit – case officers:
IPs will be notified when a case is allocated to a case officer and will be given a contact name and phone number.
IPCU
Queries regarding receipt of a return/report - Inti Mushtaq
Telephone –[protected]
Fax –[protected]


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

6. D Return Reminder Letters
During June 2003, IP Unit in Birmingham will be piloting new workflow software covering the submission of D reports and returns, the initial sifting and targeting of cases, through to the final investigation stage (but only within the Birmingham Investigation Team). The Savvion software has been customised especially for The Insolvency Service.

If no D return has been received 6 months after the Insolvency date, an initial letter advising IPs that the D return is late will be produced by the system. If no return/report is received within 2 weeks of this notice a further letter will be sent and the failure by the IP will be reported to their licensing body. A reminder to the IP is then produced every fortnight until a return is received.

Extensions to the time allowed for submission of a full D report o[censored]p to 9 months will usually be granted. An extension over 9 months may be granted but only after discussion with staff in IP Unit and only if the extension is justified and appropriate.

The software will allow various performance reports to be obtained. This information in terms of quantity and quality will be used as part of the process of monitoring IPs. The consideration of D reports now takes place in Birmingham. The manager in charge of this is Tracey McLean, Tracey.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk. The aim of the section is to decide, within 3 months of the receipt of a report in the majority of cases, whether or not to further investigate. IPs will continue to receive a letter advising of the initial decision and giving some feedback.

If you wish to contact IP Unit regarding any of the decisions made, or the progress of D reports, please contact Tracey and her team in Birmingham. Full contact details were provided with Dear IP no.11.
[protected][protected][protected][protected]

7. Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 – "D" Forms

Following on from the Enterprise Act 2002, there are some consequential amendments to be made to the D Forms. The references to "administration order" in these forms should be read as to include all appointments of an administrator.

IPs are also reminded that there were changes to the D form brought about by the Insolvency Act 2000, article 4 Dear IP March 2001 refers, and that from now on, any incorrect forms submitted will be returned.

Any enquiries may be addressed to the disqualification team in Birmingham – see Dear IP no.11 for contact details.


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

8. Update on the procedure on disclosure of the D report or decision

All enquiries, made direct to insolvency practitioners about the D decision and requests for copy returns or reports must be referred, in the first instance, to Disqualification Unit, Case Targeting Section in Birmingham, Tracey McLean on[protected] or e mail Tracey.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk, and the Unit will arrange for disclosure if appropriate. This also includes all requests made under the Data Protection Act for report or return.

This includes all requests from creditors, licensing bodies, regulators and investigating authorities such as the Police and the Inland Revenue. This is because the report is produced in compliance with a statutory obligation under section 7 (3) and the purpose of the statutory regime under which that duty arose was to enable the Secretary of State to use the report in considering whether or not to procure the institution of disqualification proceedings. That being so, it would appear that in the ordinary course the SoS could not make use of the report for other purposes.

The Secretary of State’s current policy on disclosure of D reports to defendants in Director Disqualification proceedings, both in England and Wales and Scotland following the decision in Barings is that

1. Legal professional privilege is no longer claimed for D-Reports

2. Public interest immunity will only to be claimed for D-Reports in very exceptional circumstances

3. In each case where access to the D-Report is sought disclosure will be made so long as:

i) express Undertakings were given to the effect that the D-Report will only be used for the purpose of the proceedings i.e. the disqualification proceedings, and

ii) the D-Report was provided on the basis that it is not conceded that it passed the threshold test for relevance in legal proceedings.


D reports may also be passed to other regulators where there is an appropriate gateway. However the disclosure of all reports is cleared by solicitors to check for any Data Protection Act issues, particularly about sensitive personal information, but this is not a check to see whether the report may contain defamatory matters.

The Secretary of State has successfully resisted, on appeal, an application for disclosure by the defendants to a liquidator’s action on the basis that the report was not relevant to the action and merely reflected the liquidator’s personal view (see In Re Harris Adacom Limited 19 September 2000 unreported)

Whilst it may be possible also to claim some form of immunity from suit as practitioners are reporting as part of a statutory duty (see latterly the decisions of the ECHR in the cases of Taylor v United Kingdom and Mond v United Kingdom both on 10 June 2003) practitioners should bear in mind that disclosure of D report is more likely than not, in cases where proceedings are contemplated and therefore a report should contain only facts, not speculation, and only contain relevant and pertinent information and should not be a means for passing secret or dubious information.

General enquiries may be addressed to ctt.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

9. Extensions for Submission of D Reports/Returns

Enforcement Directorate, Case Targeting Team, welcomes Allan Mohan as the new Compliance Manager, replacing Ian Evans. IPs should contact Allan (email Allan.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk) in the first instance where they become aware of difficulties in achieving the six-month deadline for submission of D returns.

IPs are reminded that there is no statutory power for any extension and that they should submit returns as soon as possible, ie as soon as they are able to make a decision. It is not necessary for all lines of enquiry to have been exhausted if sufficient information is already available, and in particular where there are strong indications that the return will be a D1, then the earlier it is submitted the better.

IPs are also reminded that any extension over six months must be justified and merely stating that enquiries are continuing will not be sufficient. The request should provide details of the outstanding enquiries, how these will be progressed and what benefits they will have to the final report. In future extensions will only be granted in retrospect where there are exceptional circumstances.

When deciding whether to request an extension, consideration should be given to the nature of the outstanding information, eg the receipt of a director’s questionnaire is unlikely to influence the decision whether disqualification proceedings are appropriate and the submission of the report/return should not be delayed for this reason.

It should also be noted that it is the IP’s responsibility to decide whether disqualification proceedings could be commenced; it is the Secretary of State’s decision whether any such proceedings are in the public interest. Therefore any D2 submitted with accompanying documents will not be considered as a potential D1, it will be assumed that the IP has reached a decision to submit a D2 based on this information and it will not be reviewed further by the Case Targeting Team. The only exception to this is where notice has been received that there is a particular interest in an investigation of the case where a D2 has been submitted, this will then be reviewed and queries may be raised with the IP.

Exceptionally, where there is very strong public/media interest in a case IPs should advise the Case Targeting Team as soon as such interest becomes evident.

General enquiries may be addressed to ctt.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk



[protected][protected][protected][protected]

10. New Reminder Letters
The Insolvency Service is increasingly aware from court judgments, from legal advice and in applying the principle of fairness required of the Secretary of State, of the need to reduce the time taken to bring disqualification proceedings against unfit directors. From a wider perspective this also makes sense as earlier action against culpable directors will remove them from the market place and therefore reduce the risk to the public from future misconduct. It should also allow a comfortable period before the limitation date to allow defendants more time to make representations to the Secretary of State with a view to establishing all the facts of a case and so avoiding inappropriate proceedings.

One element of the time taken to bring proceedings is the time taken for the officeholder to report to the Secretary of State. The Service is currently reviewing all its investigation processes to identify efficiencies and must seek the co-operation of IPs in reporting within the statutory six-month period.

To assist IPs in their case management, from 1 April 2004 the Case Targeting Team will issue a reminder letter to IPs five months from the date of their appointment if they have not submitted a report or return by this time. A further letter will be sent if no submission is received, or extension agreed, by one week before the expiry of the six-month period.

If no report or return is received by the six-month deadline, and no extension has been agreed, a further reminder will be issued and the failure to comply with the statutory reporting duties will be reported to the IP’s authorising body at that time. The authorising body will be asked to deal with that issue as a formal complaint.

IPs’ attention is drawn to the guidance regarding the circumstances in which an extension will be considered set out in Article 9 of this chapter.

If an extension has been granted, but the report/return is not submitted by the agreed date, the IP’s authorising body will be notified of the breach without further reminders.

IPs are reminded that they may contact the Case Targeting Team[protected] to discuss a case if they are unsure whether particular conduct warrants submission of a D1 report, although the Team will not direct the IP’s enquiries/investigation and the responsibility for the decision to report either fitted or unfitted conduct remains with the IP.

General enquiries may be addressed to ctt.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

11. Disqualification Undertakings In Northern Ireland

Legislation recently introduced in Northern Ireland allows disqualification undertakings to be accepted from directors, which will have the same effect as if they were disqualification orders made by the court. Those whose undertakings are accepted in Northern Ireland are banned from being involved in the management of a company in Northern Ireland.

Parliament anticipated that this legislation would be introduced in Northern Ireland, and section 7(2) of the Insolvency Act 2000 incorporates a power to allow the Secretary of State to make an Order to provide that a person subject to a Northern Ireland disqualification undertaking is also prohibited from running a company in Great Britain.

This power has now been exercised and The Insolvency Act 2000 (Company Directors Disqualification Undertakings) Order 2004 (S.I 2004 No. 1941) came into force on 1 September 2004. This will provide a greater degree of protection for the public by preventing those considered “unfit” in Northern Ireland from running companies here. The effect of this new Order is to mimic provisions that already exist here (section 12A Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986) which prevent those subject to disqualification orders made by the courts in Northern Ireland from acting as directors in Great Britain.

Simultaneously, The Companies (Disqualification Orders) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I 2004 No. 1940) have been made, which permit information about disqualification undertakings accepted in Northern Ireland to be kept on the disqualified directors register at Companies House. This means that those searching the register will be able to obtain information about persons who are banned from running companies in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

General enquiries may be directed to Policy.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk; Telephone[protected]
[protected][protected][protected][protected]

12. Changes to the procedure for filing D returns/reports in respect of Scottish registered companies

With effect from 1 April 2005, the Enforcement Directorate, Case Targeting Team, Ladywood House, 45-46 Stephenson Street, Birmingham, B2 4UP will be responsible for receiving and dealing with all disqualification returns/reports from IPs, including those reporting on the conduct of directors of Scottish registered companies.

IPs reporting on directors of Scottish registered companies should note that reminder letters are issued by the Case Targeting Team, Birmingham at earlier intervals (i.e. at 5 months after date of appointment, 1 week prior to 6 months after date of appointment and a final reminder at 6 months) than those currently issued by the Edinburgh office. After 1 April 2005, reminder letters will be issued to IPs reporting on Scottish registered companies, as per the time frame identified above. If no report or return is received by the six month deadline and no extension has been agreed with the Case Targeting Team, the final reminder will be issued and the failure to comply with the statutory reporting duties will be reported to the IP’s authorising body at that time.

For guidance on full guidance on the issuing of reminder letters and on requesting extensions for submission of D reports/returns, please refer to Dear IP issue no.17 – March 2004.



General enquiries may be directed to dit.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk; Telephone[protected]


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

13. Submission of Conduct Reports under the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986

With effect from 3 April 2006, two changes come into force which will affect the submission of director conduct reports to the Case Targeting Team .

1) The reference number for the submission of conduct reports by DX has changed to: DX 713901, Birmingham 37.

The previous address (DX 713897) remains effective for all correspondence to the Insolvency Practitioners Unit in Birmingham.

2) The Case Targeting Team will take over the vetting of all conduct reports for cases located in Scotland. These reports were previously submitted to, and vetted by, the Disqualification Investigation Team in Edinburgh.

Insolvency Practitioners appointed in Scottish cases are therefore reminded that from 03 April 2006 they should send conduct reports to the Case Targeting Team in Birmingham, using either the new DX number shown above, or the following postal address:



The Insolvency Service, Case Targeting Team, 5th Floor - West Wing, Ladywood House, 45-46 Stephenson Street, Birmingham B2 4UZ.

Any queries in respect of these changes should be directed to CTT.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

14. Targeting D1 Conduct Reports for Investigation

The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 places a duty on liquidators, administrators and administrative receivers to report suspected unfit conduct by company directors to the Secretary of State, those reports being prescribed by The Insolvent Companies (Reports on Conduct of Directors) Rules 1996 and The Insolvent Companies (Reports on Conduct of Directors) (Scotland) Rules 1996. In all instances the Conduct Reports/Returns should be sent to the Case Targeting Team at Ladywood House, Birmingham. Current projections are that approximately 3900 D1 Conduct Reports will be submitted in the year to 31 March 2007.

The principal role of the Case Targeting Team (CTT) is to consider all D1 Conduct Reports with a view to identifying those cases that are appropriate for investigation. Each review includes a detailed consideration of the conduct report, supporting documentation, any other available information and usually includes telephone contact with the practitioner and searches of Companies House and other databases.

The decision whether or not to target a case for investigation takes account of the seriousness and timing of the alleged misconduct, the reasonableness and impact of the alleged misconduct on the solvency and failure of the company, the profile of those who have lost as a result of both the misconduct and the insolvency, the human rights and ability of the directors to defend themselves, and government policy towards both encouraging enterprise and detecting and deterring fraud and other misconduct.

Once the case has been targeted for investigation (usually within 8 weeks of submission of the D1), the case, complete with the D1 and supporting documentation, is forwarded to the Initial Investigations Team (IIT – see article 15) (for English and Welsh cases) and to the Disqualification Investigations Team in Edinburgh (for Scottish cases). Given the creation of IIT and in order to avoid nugatory work for insolvency practitioners CTT will no longer notify them that cases have been targeted for investigation or request letters of authority. CTT will notify insolvency practitioners in those cases not targeted for investigation in the usual way.

General enquiries may be directed to initial.investigation.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

15. Creation of the Initial Investigation Team

Background

The Department of Trade and Industry has suffered some unforeseen demands on its budgets in 2006/07 and as a result has been required to cut its expenditure on some of its activities. This in turn has impacted upon The Insolvency Service where the enforcement budget has been reduced by 7.5%. The consequence is that the Service will be unable to investigate as many disqualification cases as originally planned.

This means that The Insolvency Service has had to reconsider its priorities for taking cases forward and, to that end, the Initial Investigations Team (“IIT”), has been created within The Investigations Directorate. Based at Boulton House, in Manchester it is managed by Anthea Barker, Senior Examiner, and will be responsible for ensuring that available resources are allocated most effectively.

IIT will be responsible for the management of prospective IP disqualification cases in England and Wales, in the time between the selection of cases by CTT and the allocation of cases for investigation to the Disqualification Investigation Teams based in Birmingham, Manchester and London and Official Receiver’s offices.

Scottish IP disqualification cases will be categorised and investigated by the Disqualification Investigation Team in Edinburgh.

Classification of Cases

Once cases are received by IIT from CTT they will be classified according to the seriousness of the misconduct and the incidence of factors determining the “public interest”. Cases will be allocated to three categories, A, B or C.

Category A cases (which will be given the highest priority) will be those with high public interest criteria – for example fully listed public companies, cases which have attracted widespread media attention etc. The public interest decision is affected by numerous factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the number of complainants, prevailing case law, media interest and The Service’s overall investigative powers.

Category C cases will be those which, after some further limited investigation, experience suggests, taking account of mitigating factors, would be unlikely to result in any disqualification.

The remainder of the cases (the majority) will be classified as Category B cases, being cases that require investigation, and those cases will be further sub-categorised as cases likely to attract periods of disqualification of 2-3 years, 4-6 years and 7+ years.

The Investigations Directorate currently has sufficient resources, to investigate all Category A cases, all Category B(7+years) cases and a minority of the Category B(4-6 years) cases. The Secretary of State has therefore agreed the following guidance:

All category A and B7 + years cases will be further investigated.

All category C and B (2-3 years) cases and a majority of the B (4-6 years) cases will be concluded by IIT, with no further investigation carried out by the Investigation Teams.

The cases that are investigated will be selected so that they are drawn from all areas of England and Wales to ensure that there are no “disqualification free zones”. In addition the cases selected for investigation will contain a broad range of possible unfit conduct.

The initial classification of the cases by IIT will be based on the evidence and information in the D1. If necessary, IIT will request additional information from insolvency practitioners. Case categories and/or periods may subsequently alter if and when new evidence and/or information is received.

Shortly after the classification of the case by IIT, insolvency practitioners will be notified, in respect of Category A and B7+ cases, that the case is likely to be allocated for investigation and a letter of authority and some limited further information, as previously obtained by CTT, will be requested.

In respect of Category B2-3 and C cases, insolvency practitioners will be advised that no further investigation is likely and therefore no further information or documentation will be sought at that stage.

As regards Category B4-6 cases, most will be not be allocated for further investigation and no further information will be requested from insolvency practitioners. Such further requests will only be made where it becomes apparent that further investigation is likely.

As and when the Investigation Teams have capacity to investigate new cases, these will be allocated appropriately by IIT.

The Future

This policy will be kept under continual review, but the early conclusion of some cases targeted by CTT, with little or no further investigation, will continue until such time as more resources become available. Those cases will however be reconsidered if the director(s) is/are involved in any future company insolvency. Expenditure on enforcement work will be restored to planned levels in 2007-08 thereby increasing our capacity for investigating cases next year.

These decisions in no way reflect the quality of the conduct reports submitted by insolvency practitioners and insolvency practitioners are requested to continue to report unfitted conduct in the same manner as previously.

Once IIT has become fully established, it is envisaged that it will make some focussed initial enquires in relation to the potential misconduct identified in the D1, whether by way of telephone calls or correspondence and possibly even by visiting insolvency practitioners. The purpose of such enquiries will be to facilitate the decision-making process and/or promote the progress of the investigation and/or conclude cases at an earlier stage, in appropriate cases, in order to further prioritise the use of resources.

General enquiries may be addressed to ctt.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

16. Changes in procedure affecting Scottish cases

Since April 2006 the Insolvency Service’s Case Targeting Team, based in Birmingham, has reviewed all D1 full reports, including all those reports submitted by insolvency practitioners in Scotland. Centralising the targeting resource has lead to efficiency gains while also allowing the Disqualification Team in Edinburgh to focus on their core activity of investigating disqualification matters in Scotland. To this end, the Insolvency Service has been looking, where possible, to further unify the targeting, investigation and post section 16 letter processes irrespective of whether the case originated in Scotland or in England and Wales.

As a result, from 1 April 2008 cases originating in Scotland, England and Wales will be subject to the same vetting, investigation and review procedures. This will mean that once an investigation is complete, cases will be submitted to the Authorisation Team in London who will take the decision as to whether misconduct is made out and whether it is in the public interest to issue proceedings. Thereafter the Defendant Liaison Team in Birmingham will progress the matters to completion of the case (with reference to the investigation team). Defendant Liaison Team will negotiate undertakings and, where appropriate, instruct Solicitors to bring proceedings at court.

A further change within the process will see the Chief Examiner in Edinburgh take the role of the principal witness in disqualification matters. This change properly reflects the different roles of the investigator and the insolvency practitioner, and as has happened in English and Welsh cases (where it has been in operation since 2002) it will result in a reduction in the need for insolvency practitioners to review and swear affidavits and reports, or to attend court as a witness.

However, there will continue to be cases where the Insolvency Service would like the insolvency practitioner to act as witness of fact, particularly where the alleged misconduct occurred during the course of the insolvency administration and may have caused difficulties to the insolvency practitioner or losses to the estate. As now, where an insolvency practitioner is fulfilling such a role beyond his/her statutory duty the Insolvency Service will pay the cost of the practitioners’ time, although we would wish to discuss and agree the detail with the practitioner beforehand for cost control purposes.

Any enquiries regarding the above should be directed toward Enforcement.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk


[protected][protected][protected][protected]

17. New approach to “D” conduct reports

From 1 September 2008 the teams formerly known as Case Targeting and Initial Investigations will combine to bring a new approach to dealing with D Reports.

The new team, "Conduct and Complaints" will deal with all D Reports from receipt to allocation to an investigator, and will continue to operate the complaints 'Hotline'. Their working processes have been designed to handle the targeting of investigations in a more timely manner on a one-team basis; to reduce the contact with the insolvency practitioner to just one occasion prior to the usual visit from the investigator; to give a more in-depth consideration to potential investigation cases; and to give better quality and more detailed feedback to insolvency practitioners if cases are not to be taken forward.

The team will be looking to insolvency practitioners to submit substantive D Reports at the earliest possible date within the usual six month period, reducing the use of interim returns to a minimum. It would also be useful if a letter of authority could be sent with every D Reports as this would assist in the enquiries that will be made to facilitate future decision-making.

This change flows from recommendations made in the recent review of The Insolvency Services’ investigation and enforcement activity and should reduce the time insolvency practitioners are called upon to answer queries in the early stages of a case, improve the cases received by investigators so enhancing the likelihood of an effective outcome and improve the understanding between The Insolvency Service and insolvency practitioners about decisions relating to whether to take a case to investigation. With regard to that understanding the team will be happy to be contacted by insolvency practitioners who wish to discuss individual cases, find out what we are looking for in a D Report or if they wish to attend liaison meetings on appropriate subjects.

Any enquiries regarding this article should be directed towards Karen McConnell, Head of Conduct and Complaints Team, Insolvency Service, 3rd Floor, Cannon House, 18 Priory Queensway, Birmingham B4 6FD; telephone:[protected] email : Karen.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

General enquiries may be directed to cct.[protected]@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk



[Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Chapter 6] [Chapter 7] [Chapter 8] [Chapter 9] [Chapter 10] [Chapter 11] [Chapter 12] [Chapter 13] [Chapter 14] [Chapter 15] [Chapter 16] [Chapter 17] [Chapter 18] [Chapter 19] [Chapter 20] [Chapter 21] [Chapter 22] [Chapter 23] [Chapter 24] [Chapter 25]



Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | Complaints Procedure | Crown Copyright 2008





DO NOT FORGET THERE ARE MANY REASON YOU CAN ASK THE INVESTIGATION TEAM TO DISQUALIFY THE DIRECTOR, THEY ARE ALL PRESENTED BELOW


Director Disqualification Details

This screen shows details of current disqualification orders.

A director may be disqualified as a result of an investigation by one of the following authorities:-
The Police - if fraud is suspected.
DTI Investigations - for general misconduct whilst running a company.
The Insolvency Service - usually as a result of an investigation of failed companies where a director knowingly continues to trade whilst insolvent.
Companies House - for breaches of the filing requirements as specified in the Companies Act.
If a case is proven, an individual is disqualified by order of court. On such occasions, for the period of time specified in the order the director shall not without leave of court:-
Be a director of a company.
Be a liquidator or administrator of a company.
Be a receiver or manager of a company's property.
Be concerned or take part, whether directly or indirectly, in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
Disqualifications are made under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, Sections 2-12. For example, CDDA 1986 S6.

Sections 2 - 5: Disqualifications for general misconduct in connection with companies:-
2: On conviction of an indictable offence.
3: For persistent breaches of company legislation.
4: For fraud, etc, in winding-up.
5: On summary conviction.
Sections 6 - 9: Disqualification for unfitness to act as company director:-
6: Unfit directors of insolvent companies.
7: Disqualification undertaking made by an individual
8: Disqualification after investigation of company.
9: Matters for determining unfitness of directors.
Sections 10 - 12: Other cases of disqualification:-
10: Participating in wrongful trading.
11: Undischarged bankrupts.
12: Failure to pay under county court administration order.
The maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.Section 17 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 - Application for leave under an Order
A Director may apply to the Court to vary the terms of the original Disqualification Order. In certain circumstances the court may allow the disqualified individual to continue as a director of a specific company or companies for either an interim period of time or the whole term of the disqualification. Details of any exemptions will be provided.
For further information, please refer to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.



SO KEEP ON COMPLAINING SO THAT THE DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL VISAS, BRIAN PALMER GETS DISQUALIFIED

To people who dont know where to complain and they I have an idea: why dont you contact the daily mail news paper in the United Kingdom, they can run a story about the scam that Global Visas are running. So why dont you write your complaint to newspaper reporters, they would love a good story to investigate. For all the people who dont know where to send their complaint I have put together the email addresses of Daily Mail reporters, just send your complaints to the following email addresses( you can mention in your complaints that Global Visas has unfair terms in the contracts they offer to their clients, terms trapping their customers into paying full fees but Global Visas having no obligations at all in case of bad advice given – they call it expertise- or in case they would delay your visa or not return calls and emails):
so keep on complaining to:




s.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, s.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, v.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, e.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, d.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, j.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, d.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, r.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, m.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, peter.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, d.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, p.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, r.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, t.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, f.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk



Remember if you dont complain nothing will change so lets get this company investigated properly by the newspapers

Dear Valued Clients,

If you feel we let down – We want to hear from you directly.

If we have let you down we apologise. It is never our intention to let down a single client. We have put together this response to address the comments made about us. On this site. Firstly, it is difficult to address specifics of a case if you are not prepared to provide your information to us. We would also we to avoid disclosing any private information about any client which may cause them any embarrassment.

On this site some people are posting non specific emails as a shalow attemept to stir up discontent. This post is designed to assist you if you have a genuine grievence with Global Visas. We want to help you. We have even set up a special email address for you to contact us dirrectly with your complaint and we shall address it at the highest level with a view to help you.

Dealing with any Immigration case can be a stressful time for a person. We know this from over 20 years experience and we also accept we are often in the firing line and have to break bad news to people if they do not qualify for a visa. Our team does offer our clients the best chance of success and we appreciate if you do not meet the required qualifications bad news is never nice to hear. If a person does feel let down by the legal system we aim to do our very best to explain everything as best we can.

We are only human and even though 98.4% of our clients would refer their family to us it is possible we make the odd mistake out of 30, 000 cases per year. We want to learn from such mistakes and improve our service to you. If we have done absolutely everything we can and you still feel let down by the laws or our company, then we want to hear from you directly. We may not be able to change the situation but at least we can explain why not.

We would like you to shared your feelings with us, as we work hard every day to achieve 100% client satisfaction.

If an individual feels disappointed by the Immigration laws or our actions, we want you to know we care. That is why in our Client Care Letter and on our website we list all the governing bodies we are registered with around the world to investigate all complaints if you do not wish to speak with us directly. They will assess the complaint independently, and if we have let a client down these governing bodies will address it and ensure we correct the situation. We are Registered with more governing bodies world wide than ANY OTHER Immigration company.

We receive over 4 million visitors to our website and complete over 30, 000 immigration cases each year. We send EVERY client a feedback form to let us know what they think of our service. These feedback forms are distributed once a month to our entire company. Currently 98.4% of clients say they WOULD use us again or refer us to their friends and family. The comments on those forms are on the Testimonials page of our website.

Due to our clients’ on going support we are the largest and fastest growing Visa company in the world.

We are registered with more quality assurance governing bodies world wide than any other Immigration company.

We win cases other can not.

We are great listeners and really do care about you very much. Take the time to come and see us and we can sit down and listen to everything that is on your mind. We have several quality checks in place and also some of the highest skilled and best qualified Immigration law experts in the world. With over 100 staff world wide we operate a strict refund policy as mentioned in our Client Care Letter.

We obviously cannot respond to any specific issues on this site but we do want to hear from you.

On the issue of payment. We make our fees clear to all clients before we do any work and we explain everything in our client care letter. Offer payment plans for people who can not pay our full fees in one payment and do our best to accommodate our clients but, we can not work for free. Taking our knowledge and expertise and expecting not to pay for our service is unacceptable and we are certain 99.9% of clients would agree. If we allowed a person to take our services without payment all our other clients would suffer as their fees would need to increase to pay for the tiny percentage of people who believe it is right to take without payment.

Thank you in advance for getting in touch if you have anything to say to us. We look forward to receiving your email at [protected]@globalvisas.com We have put up this special email address to make sure if you have anything to say you can come straight through to us.

On a seperate note a person has been spread slanderous comments about our company on the internet. We would like to say thank you to everyone who has help in tracking this person down and the authorities are now assisting our legal team to ensure they answer for their actions in a court of law. We appreciate on the internet is full o[censored]ntruethful comments about all sorts of things but your efforts have been really helpful as it is hurtful to read things about us which are simply not true on this site.

All we ever ask is that if you like what we do please tell others, but if you don’t tell us.
We will do everything we can to meet your expectations.

Thanks,

Customer Services

Hi All,

I was looking to apply for hsmp so I filled a form online for my assessment.
There after I received a call from the representative of Global Visas named Mr. Swetabh Kumar. He told me that I am eligible and can proceed right away. He insisted me to deposit rs. 10000/- immediately.

I asked him a few queries regarding the charges and eligibility conditions. He told me that we charge Rs.45000/- which includes everything. And when I asked him that I don't have maintenance funds and at this he replied that I need not to have it
and I can apply.

So I deposited the money . After that I received a couple of
mails with assessment form, agreement and login details. I filled all the
forms and submitted back.

Thereafter I got a call that I will have to have £2800 in my account for at least 3 months. I cleared my situation to Mr. Kumar that I can't maintain these funds. I have asked you earlier abt this before applying. At this he promised me to get my money refund within a weeks time.

But now after almost six months had past, but no response from him. Even he
is ignoring my mails and calls. I am feeling cheated. I have reported the issue many times to Global Visas and Liam Clifford. But no one responds

Please let me know what can i do or where can i file a complaint against Global Visas.

Thanks,
Vishal Gupta

I won't go into too much detail as I'm still waiting for the money but I would absolutely endorse the advice above. I had really poor service from the same company and took them to the small claims court via the moneyclaims website. They admitted fault and the court found in my favour.

The actual process of raising the claim on the website is really straight forward and took me about 1 hour. No legal knowledge is required - just state your case

For the amounts taken in for visa fee's the small claims court only costs £80. If you win you get it back

Once everything is finally settled and I get the money back in my account I'll try to provide more details

how to sue global visas, make complaints and get your money back

First Global Visas they are not solicitors, barristers or lawyers, they are just advisers but they want to charge you 1000 pounds per hour for a phone call only giving you info that is free of charge on the home office website.


The person selling you the contract will promise you anything you want in order to make you sign a contract and get your credit card details. If after talking to your case worker it proves that what the sales agent told you is wrong they still want to charge you full fees for talking to the case worker even though what she told you is only a correction of the info the sales agent gave you .Even if the give you the wrong information they still want to charge you as whatever they say to you they call expertise and then guess what they talk to you on the phone and the phone call is not recorded so anything they say to you or you say to them cannot be proved in court because it was during an unrecorded phone call. So basically is your word against theirs. I believe it is an obvious way of misleading customers to sign a contract that is is clearly disadvantageous for them.


Even though the sales agent tells you the fee for the whole application is a sum, the contract you sign says that the fee is only for an initial consultation and the rest of the work is done for free. The sales agent doesnt actually tell you what it says in the contract, he tells you a lie to make you sign a contract.




So in other words if after the initial consultation ( we do not know exactly what that consultation implies as the contract is very slippery) they decide not to file a single document for you or do any work you cant get your money back because the work they said they would do for you and they didnt is free of charge according to the contract. The contract is designed basically with unfair and illegal contract terms in order to rob people off their money.I do not believe this company intends to do any work for you and help you in any way, they just want a signed contract and your credit card details so that they can ignore your calls and emails after that.

So to people who want to know what to do my advice is KEEP ON SENDING LETTERS, KEEP ON COMPLAINING

If you are from the UK you can follow the next steps, if you are in another country you may be able to sue them using www.moneyclaim.gov.uk if you have a friend in UK who can receive at his home address the court papers and can go to court in your behalf. So if you are in another country dug out all the skeletons in your closet, your relatives you forgot about in UK, friends and find someone in uk ;)

FIRST step is

complain to

http://www.oisc.gov.uk/complaints_about_immigration_advice/

they dont do much, wont help you get your money back but the fact that they investigate global visas
will be a proof for you in case you go to court against them as they will send you a letter saying your complaint was received and is being investigated. plus if there are enough complaints maybe oisc can withdraw these peoples licence?



then go to trading Standards and complain

Trading Standards www.tradingstandards.gov.uk

1 Sylvan Ct
Sylvan Way, Southfields Business Park, Basildon, SS15
[protected]
Get directions

After that try GORDON BROWN THE PRIME MINISTER


http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/contact-us



10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA


You can fax the Prime Minister on[protected]. (From outside the UK, the number is [protected])


COMPLAIN TO PHIL WOOLAS THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION


http://www.philwoolasmp.org/contact.html


[protected]@parliament.uk



after that complain to


Scambusters Team
Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
email: nalini.[protected]@oft.gsi.gov.uk

they may not send you an answer right away but they do take companies to court if there are enough complaints so keep on complaining

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3438415.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6194619.ece

then complain to the mirror newspaper investigators Penman and Sommerland, you can find them on this link http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2008/12/trading-standards-scambusters.h...⇄


[protected]@mirror.co.uk

try daily express

http://www.express.co.uk/haveastory


write to the TV stations
[protected]@bbc.co.uk, [protected]@sky.com

also daily mail




s.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, s.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, v.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, e.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, d.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, j.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, d.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, r.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, m.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, peter.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, d.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, p.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, r.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, t.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk, f.[protected]@dailymail.co.uk




if there are enough complaints sent to them they can take the company to high court

for people who write complaints and go to court it is worth knowing that Liam Clifford, the founder of Global Visas is registered as disqualified in 2008 under section 7 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 ( disqualification undertaking by an individual). and you can print this information from the internet from Companieshouse which is a website run by our wonderful government and use that in your court case

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/a85a5d03662557af141f486e229b8186/dis_pers_apps...⇄


http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/e7f1eab36255e4bb19dae841bd5a89eb/compdetails


Also his business partner Carl Thomas of Windsor and co -owner of Global Visas is also registered as disqualified



http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b2e8dc2604526be7f09bf6ac083147d0/dis_pers_apps...⇄

This website offers free information for the public under The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data protection Act 1998 give people the right to see or receive information.
The Freedom of Information Act gives the public the right to see official information held by public authorities and includes information held by Companies House.
The Data Protection Act allows a member of the public to see the personal information that is held about them by organisations of all types, including Companies House.
If you want to know what a disqualification means you can read

http://www.accaglobal.com/students/student_accountant/archive/2005/53/2342490


ALSO WHAT CAN HELP YOU IN YOUR COURT CASE AGAINST THIS COMPANY AND THEIR OWNERS IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY INCVESTIGATED BY THE NEWSPAPERS FOR RIPPING OFF THEIR CUSTOMERS AND POSTING FALSE ACCREDITATIONS


SO PRINT THE FOLLOWING THINGS AND TAKE THEM TO COURT WITH YOU




http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_method=full%26objectID=20987018%26siteID=93...⇄


http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2002/07/one-false-mover.html


also Liam Clifford was stupid enough to admit himself in a press release that he was in JAIL at the Old Bailey


http://rinf.com/alt-news/surveillance-big-brother/biometrics-slammed-by-uk%E2%80...⇄


I quote:




“Once he was even arrested and thrown in the cells of the Old Bailey due to his previous government job of keeping people outside the UK. During his time in the Old Bailey cells he realised his country needs help and people who work for HM Government. UK Plc should never have to spend time in the cells for a job well done”



My personal interpretation of his press release is that he went to sleep one night in jail and he woke up thinking he was the next Mahatma Ghandi. If this is the case then Liam Clifford is just deluding himself and he should stop this delusion for the sake of his customers who deserve a much better service from a guy who is only 40 years old but he has already been in jail, disqualified, investigated by the newspapers for posting false accreditations and ripping off his clients.
;))

In case people have any doubt about Mr Clifford disqualification they can call or write to

Main Office
Companies House
Crown Way
Maindy
Cardiff CF14 3UZ
Contact Centre : +[protected] available 08:30 to 18:00 (UK time) Email icon Email: [protected]@companies-house.gov.uk


in case you think you have something to report against a company you can also email it to

[protected]@companieshouse.gov.uk



Please note that any investigation that does not involve forms being filed at Companies House, but involves the conduct of a company and/or its officers may be carried out by Companies Investigation Branch.

Details of how to make a complaint to them can be obtained by contacting[protected] or visiting their website www.insolvency.gov.uk/cib/index.htm


Companies Investigation Branch
Ground Floor
21 Bloomsbury Street
London WC1B 3QW
Our e-mail address is:
[protected]@cib.gsi.gov.uk
Our Telephone Number is:
[protected]





complain to your local MP ( member of parliament appointed by your constituency to fight for your rights in the parliament I think)
to find your local MP use the following link


http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm

WITH EVERY COMPLAINT YOU WILL MAKE YOU WILL STICK METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING A CARROT UP MR CLIFFORDS ARSE. SO LETS STICK AS MANY CARROTS AS POSSIBLE SO HIS ARSE IS TOO SORE FOR HIM TO SIT DOWN.


BY THE TIME YOU FINISHED COMPLAINING A RIVER OF INK HAS FLOWN AND MR CLIFFORD HAS CURSED THE DAY YOU CALLED HIS OFFICE AND THEY TOOK YOUR MONEY:))

complain to God:))

I believe that by taking money from people wrongfully Mr Liam Clifford is committing a sin and the Bishop of the Catholic Church should receive from us a letter showing how Mr Clifford has sinned so he can lobby for us to Mr Clifford asking him to repent, pay the money back to people, and donate the money to the Church so that he doesnt burn in Hell in the afterlife.
Lets ask for help from the Catholic Church, there must be a Catholic Church near where Mr Clifford lives that can ask him to repent.

The work the Church does is illustrated here

http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/the_bishops_work

http://www.rcdow.org.uk/

so lets contact



Main Number - voicemail
[protected]

Archbishop’s House
Ambrosden Avenue
London SW1P 1QJ
[protected]
Archbishop's House
Archbishop Vincent Nichols
[protected]
Archbishop Vincent Nichols
Bishop John Arnold
[protected]
Bishop John Arnold
Bishop Alan Hopes
[protected]
Bishop Alan Hopes
Bishop Bernard Longley
[protected]
Bishop Bernard Longley
Bishop George Stack
[protected]
Bishop George Stack
Vicar General (Monsignor Seamus O’Boyle)
[protected]
Monsignor Seamus O’Boyle
Vaughan House
46 Francis Street
London SW1P 1QN
(Administration Departments)
[protected]
Vaughan House





I mean folks Liam Clifford is selling his soul to Lucifer for the sake of a house in Croydon, London and a second hand car he is driving. I believe this is very cheap for his soul and Clifford should ask from Lucifer for a 13 million pounds mansion in Oxfordshire, a Ferrari Diablo and a helicopter to supervise his international fraud operation.


after that prepare yourself to take them to court( only in the UK, I dont know how you do this in India)


I found on the internet an article written about someone else about going to court which I will present below as the guy was very explicit


after that prepare yourself to take them to court( only in the uk, i dont know how you do this in India)


I found on the internet an article written about someone else about going to court which I will present below as the guy was very explicit

my advice is ... keep on complaining, keep proof of everything you did so you have chances in court and complain coz this is the only way to change things. send all your true stories to the authorities because if you dont complain nothing will ever change

there are people who dont have the time to complain or they dont know to whom to complain and that is why global visas is getting away with lots of money for doing no work at all

when you take them to court you can complain about unfair charges, unfair feees, no work done for the money, unfair contract terms( there is a law in uk about it so research it)

the truth will always shine through your stories, you just have to complain

So here is below the story I found on the net about how to sue them from the UK
The name of this website, Moneyclaim Online, suggests a dodgy accident compensation service, like Claims Direct and all the other legal vultures who are pushing up our insurance premiums.

But Moneyclaim.gov.uk is actually a website produced by our own wonderful government. To be more specific this website is run by the Court Service of England and Wales, the people who do such a fine job of punishing all the baddies out there.

I stumbled upon Moneyclaim Online earlier this year when I was planning to sue Wilcon Homes over the faulty boiler in my house (that's a whole story in itself which you can read more about in my op about Wilcon Homes). I have sued a few people in the past; most notably NTL when they used to be called Cable & Wireless, and a dealer who sold me a car which I later found out was an accident write-off. I don't suffer fools (or crooks) gladly.

On both of these previous occasions I won my case, although I had found the system to be intimidating and rather bewildering for ordinary people (or the 'information underclass' as we are sometimes labelled - those o[censored]s who didn't go to public school and don't have dinner parties with friends in high places).

I am pleased to say, however, that the internet has changed the way in which ordinary folk can access justice. Or perhaps 'revolutionised' would be a better word. Although I have a very low opinion of Mr Blair and the New Labour machine, I feel that credit is due in one area. Several years ago Blair vowed that all government departments should be made more accessible to the public via the modern miracle of the worldwide web. This was one promise that Blair actually delivered - and the website I am reviewing is a good example of how Joe Public has been empowered with greater access to the "
system".

From what I can gather, Moneyclaim Online was only launched last year (2001). Before this time you had to go to your nearest county court in person and obtain forms and leaflets if you wanted to sue someone. From my experience these courts were far from user-friendly. They were designed for solicitors who knew the way things worked - information was sparse and the staff were unhelpful at the best of times. Anyone entering the court building without formal dress was treated in a sneering and condescending manner.

But all that has changed. Whether you're looking for recompense from a crooked builder, or trying to get someone to pay you back a debt, you can now launch a county court claim from the comfort of your own home. Taking legal action against somebody need not be as daunting or expensive as you may think. And you don't need to pay a solicitor in order to sue someone (although I would still recommend getting good legal advice if you're unsure about the chance of your claim succeeding). As every case will be unique, I can not give an exhaustive guide to suing, nor can I give a guarantee that you will win, but hopefully I can give you a clear idea of how to use Moneyclaim Online.

You have to pay a fee to use the service (the fees are identical to the conventional snail mail method of issuing a claim), but the fee will be relatively small in relation to the amount you are claiming for, and will have to be refunded by the defendant if your claim is successful. The court fees are on a sliding scale but work out very roughly at 10% of the amount you are claiming, eg. a claim for between £1000-£5000 will cost you £115. If your claim is below £5000, the court will automatically allocate the case to the 'small claims track' which is a basically a more informal way of dealing with it.

Crucially you are going to need evidence. In a county court, the rules of evidence are not as formal as in a criminal co
urt, so the judge is going to take a "common sense" look at the plausibility of the evidence presented by each party. Typical forms of evidence used in county courts are professional written reports, photographs and written statements from witnesses. You must be able to show that you gave the defendant a reasonable opportunity to settle the matter outside court. Keep a written log of every time you phoned or wrote to them. Send at least one letter to the defendant by Recorded Delivery (this will cost you 90p at any Post Office) in which you clearly outline the situation and set them a reasonable time in which to act, ideally 14 days. Clearly state that you are going to issue a County Court Claim against them unless they act within this time limit. Keep the Recorded Delivery receipt and a copy of the letter - these will form part of your evidence in court, in case the defendant denies that you gave them a fair chance to sort things out.

When you are ready to make your claim, log on to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk and register for a username and password. You then fill in a series of simple forms, providing information about yourself and the person you are suing. Finally you are asked to write the "Particulars of Claim" in less than 1080 characters, so keep it very concise and to the point. At this stage you only have to give an outline of the basic details of your claim, so limit it to a few sentences. You will have chance to go into more detail later on. The website then collects your payment of the court fee by credit or debit card. Once you're done, the claim will be posted off to the defendant at 10.00am the next working day. You will notice that your claim is issued by Northampton County Court who issue all online claims. The defendant will be given 14 days to respond. They may buy extra time for themselves by issuing an acknowledgement of service, which gives them a further 14 days to consider their options. If the defendant files a de
fence then you will have to pay an extra £80 for an "allocation questionnaire" which is basically the next step in the process (but it's free if your claim is below £1000). Again, this £80 will have to be refunded by the defendant if your claim is successful.

Whether you decide to settle outside court, or go to a hearing, is entirely up to you, but remember that you can drop the claim at any moment until the day of the hearing. If you are suing a company, and the case goes to a hearing, then you should make sure the case is heard at the court nearest to you. Private individuals are given this advantage when suing a registered company. You will need to ask the court to transfer the case to your nearest County Court - they will do this free of charge. To find out the address of your nearest County Court, visit www.courtservice.gov.uk/notices/county/ccadd/circu its.htm (this does not apply, however, if you are suing an individual person - the case will be automatically be heard at THEIR nearest courtroom).

If your claim is successful, either because you won the court hearing, or simply because the defendant entered no response to your claim, you can progress the case online by applying for a warrant of execution. Basically this means the court bailiffs pay a visit to your defendant to seize goods which they sell at auction in order to pay you what you are owed.

I found the website extremely easy to use. For any of you who are familiar with internet banking, the interface is a similar kind of thing: a status bar displays the current progress of your claim (ie. Claim Issued, Acknowledgement Filed, Judgement Issued, Warrant Issued, etc.). All the terminology on the website is written in plain English, rather than legalspeak, which I found pleasing. The website includes a user guide, and each stage in the process is accompanied by a 'Help' button which gives you a pop-up window containing a text based explanation. Moneyclaim
Online also has a helpdesk telephone number (charged at 0845 local rate) in case you get stuck at any point. I used the helpdesk on one occasion when I had a query and I found the staff to be prompt at answering the phone and extremely helpful.

As I mentioned earlier, I sued Wilcon Homes using Moneyclaim Online. I won the case by default because they did not enter a defence before the 14-day deadline, and I was able to complete the whole process through my computer without putting pen to paper. When my claim reached the stage at which I requested judgement, I was particularly impressed to see a feature on the site which enabled the claimant to add interest to the amount claimed. The website automatically calculates the interest at the current Bank of England rate. It was only about three pounds but I thought this was a great little touch which you would not get with the old paper-based system. Wilcon Homes paid me the full amount without a fight, which was slightly disappointing as I had been looking forward to pressing the 'Send Bailiffs' button!

I think this website is a breakthrough in the way ordinary people can access the legal system, which until now has been elitist, old-fashioned and arrogant. It's just a shame that nobody seems to know about the existence of this website - as far as I know it has not been advertised anywhere.

I hope this has been of some use to you. If you have any feedback on this opinion, or are aware of anything I have left out, please let me know.


DO NOT BE AFRAID YOU CANNOT GO TO COURT AS YOU DONT HAVE ANY RIGHTS, THERE ARE PLENTY OF LAWS IN UK TO PROTECT THE CONSUMERS, YOU CAN ALSO GET FREE ADVICE ABOUT YOUR CASE GOING TO A CHARITY CALLED CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU WHICH HAS OFFICES IN ANY TOWN IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Their website is


http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/


for free legal advice in United Kingdom go to


http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/


after all this I wish you good luck in recovering your money from Global Visas, if they dont pay after you win in court just send the bailiffs to their office

remember to tell the truth and do research and get lots of proof and witness statements, so get together with people who suffered like you



my advice is ... keep on complaining, keep proof of everything you did so you have chances in court and complain because this is the only way to change things. send all your true stories to the authorities because if you dont complain nothing will ever change

there are people who dont have the time to complain or they dont know to whom to complain and that is why global visas is getting away with lots of money for doing no work at all

when you take them to court you can complain about unfair charges, unfair fees, no work done for the money, unfair contract terms( there is a law in uk about it so research it), them wanting your credit card details before you submit any documents assessing your eligibility or chances of getting a visa, providing you with misleading information, there are endless reason but there are a few applying on your case so you have to stick to your case, just tell the truth and do your homework

the truth will always shine through your stories, you just have to complain



remember to tell the truth and do research and get lots of proof and witness statements, so get together with people who suffered like you, I had to do hours of researching myself into this matter, I was quite inexperienced and uninformed when I contacted Global Visas.


THE FUNNY THING IS THAT MR CLIFFORD, THE CONVICT, THE CROOK AND THE FRAUDSTER HAS THE NERVE TO BLAST MR GORDON BROWNS BIOMETRICS POLICY.;))


SO THE CROOK THINKS THE government IS NOOOOOO good:)) and he is the authority in immigration best to judge;))


http://rinf.com/alt-news/surveillance-big-brother/biometrics-slammed-by-uk%E2%80...⇄


I wrote a letter to Mr Brown pointing out Mr Cliffords press releases and asked Mr Gordon Brown to take his bazooka out and BLAST MR CLIFFORDS ARSE, NOW THAT MR BROWN HAS BEEN TO AFGHANISTAN LETS HOPE HE CAN AIM BETTER AT MR CLIFFORDS ARSE.


;)))))


HAHAHA


SO NOW DEAR READER, AFTER GETTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS 10 PAGES ARTICLE, ARE YOU READY TO FIRE SOME ROCKETS AT MR CLIFFORDS ARSE?:))


BECAUSE SURELY I GOT MY BAZOOKA OUT;)


HOW ABOUT YOU?;))
hahahah;)


EVERYONE LETS SUE HIS ARSE ;))


DO NOT WORRY HE WONT PAY THE COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENT, HE WILL, BECAUSE HIS companies WERE CLOSED DOWN ALREADY IN 2006 WITH A WINDING UP ORDER, HE DOESNT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN;))

You just have to complain people do your homework, be honest and fight for your rights so we can live in a fairer world with no scams.

I believe in the freedom of speech and I believe in the peoples right to have access to information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data protection Act 1998 which give people the right to see or receive information. I believe everything I have said is true.

The information on these pages is provided free and for information only, and is provided 'as is'. Whilst believed to be correct, it is in no way comprehensive. It is provided for your interest only and is not intended to be relied on as formal legal advice. The posting of information on these pages is not intended to create a lawyer-client relationship, and you should not act or rely on this information without seeking professional advice. No liability is accepted therefore for any errors, or for any losses that may be incurred if it is relied on

Global Visas Scammed Me £3000 for a Entrepreneur visa. They never did any work and would answer my calls. Google Lets them advertise with them. IM NEVER USING GOOGLE AGAIN!

Lets all let Google know and stop Global Visas comitting FRAUD.


Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com




Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com





Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com






Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com






Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com







Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com






Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com






Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com






Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com





Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com





Report www.globalvisas.com to Google. Tell them about what they did to you on the following email addresses.

[protected]@google.com AND [protected]@google.com