What a tangled web…

[Update 22/01/2014 - Anyone concerned with proceedings brought by Mr Ghopee under any company name should see this new post]

Since our post on Barons Finance Limited, we’ve heard various things about the property and landlord related activities of Barons Finance and assorted other companies under the control of Dharam Prakash Gopee. As it appears that Mr Gopee has on at least one occasion continued to pursue proceedings (including appearing in the appeal permission in the last post) for Barons Finance Limited, despite the company having been wound up and a liquidator having been appointed by the Court, we hope this post might be of use for people acting for Defendants in possession proceedings, duty scheme advisers and hopefully members of the judiciary who are unaware of the relevant court decisions and orders.

It is also a tale of the kind of things that go on when people are desperate and the people who prey on that.

As we have seen, Barons Finance Limited has been found to have been making secured loans in a form outside the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore unenforceable. The loans were, at least in some instances, at a high rate of interest, such that the monthly payments were effectively the same as the interest. Barons Finance Limited has been bringing possession proceedings against defaulting borrowers. Apparently a number of these cases have been brought together in the Mercantile Court – and we are keen for more details of this.

The OFT and Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal have determined that Barons Finance Limited was controlled by a director, Mr Dharam Prakash Gopee. Mr D P Gopee (for there is another Mr Gopee involved) apparently often appears for Barons Finance (and other companies, as we’ll see) in court proceedings. Mr D P Gopeee is also a director of a raft of other companies, at least some of which will feature as we go on.

In unravelling all of this, a place to start is the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal decision in CCA/2011/0004 and CCA/2011/0005 Appeals by Barons Bridging Finance 1 Limited and Reddy Corporation.

What this judgment makes clear is that of all of Mr Gopee’s companies, only Reddy Corporation had a consumer credit licence. That licence was revoked on 19 April 2011 and the appeal process expired on 18 August 2012. The associated companies named in the judgment are Ghana Commercial Bunks Limited (now known as Ghana Commercial Finance Limited), Barons Finance Limited, Barons Bridging Finance Limited, Barons Bridging Finance Public Limited Company, Moneylink Finance Limited and Barons Bridging Finance 1 Limited. All of these companies were found to have engaged in ‘unlicensed trading’ – making loans, usually secured on property/homes – and at least the majority of these were

defective because of the failure to comply with sections 60 and 61 of the CCA

and then, addressing the circumstances in which the loans were made:

the clientele of entities such as the Appellants are likely to be people who are in financial difficulties or those who are otherwise unable to obtain traditional credit resources from the usual outlets such as banks. It is all the more important, therefore, that the Appellants and their associates as well as their controller in the person of Mr Gopee properly adhere to the duties and obligations required of them under the CCA.

And:

In the hearing before the Tribunal, Mr Gopee confirmed that 75% of the loans extended by BBF, BFL and Ghana Bunks as associates and agents and alleged agents of Reddy, are to individuals seeking credit in order to stave off repossessions. The Tribunal agrees that represents strong evidence that the majority of the people to whom these businesses extend credits are themselves in financial straits.

It appears, then, that there are a substantial number of companies of which Mr Gopee is a director, and which are under his control, that have made loan agreements in ways which do not comply with the requirements of the CCA – in the absence of required information, or payment schedules and terms, in breach of

sections 60 and 61 of the CCA and in particular the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (CCARs).

– and/or made by an entity which was not licensed to enter such loan agreements.

Mr Gopee’s argument that all these other companies were ‘agents’ for Reddy Corporation was not accepted by the Tribunal or indeed by the Court of Appeal in Barons Finance Limited and Reddy Corporation Limited v Amir Ul Haq [2003] EWCA Civ 595. As the Tribunal puts it:

The Tribunal therefore, is of the firm view and duly finds with regard to the various reported agency agreements which have been said to be formerly in existence and which apparently continue to be used in some form or other, that no reliance can be placed on the existence of any claimed agency agreement or arrangement.

This has apparently been going on for some considerable period of time, over 11 years. The Tribunal judgment also notes another couple of companies under Mr Gopee’s control, Halifax Business Finance Limited and Halifax Repossessions Limited, but these seem to be no longer in existence. We should also note another director of some of the companies, Rajav Prakash Gopee, who is Mr Gopee’s son and, according to this record, a company director from the remarkable age of 13.

A full list of current companies in which Mr Gopee senior is a director, and/or which are raised in the Tribunal judgment is below, complete with registered office addresses – which aren’t always the addresses used…

So,the situation looks like this:

i) A loan made to private individuals by any of Mr Gopee’s companies, save Reddy Corporation, is very likely to have been invalid and unenforceable as not made by a company licensed to undertake regulated agreements and

none of these companies has applied for an order under section 40 of the CCA before seeking to enforce agreements entered into.

ii) A loan made by any of the companies, including Reddy Corporation, is very likely to be unenforceable as the agreement will not fulfil the requirements of the CCA as the necessary information will not have been provided, typically, no details of loan period and payment schedule, amongst other defects. Companies had sought to enforce such agreements

which fail to comply with section 60(1) of the CCA as well as with the CCARs without the previous obtaining of an enforcement order under section 65 of the CCA.

iii) Barons Finance Limited was wound up in the Manchester District Registry on 19 September 2012 (for unpaid legal costs by opponents) and no proceedings involving Barons Finance Limited could lawfully go ahead after that date without the agreement of the liquidator. (The registered office of Barons Finance Limited is now a Manchester address which appears to be the liquidator’s).

So, the list of currently (or recently) active companies:

Barons Bridging Finance 1 Limited (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Barons Finance 1 Limited (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Moneylink Finance Limited (Reg Office 169A PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Pangold Investments Limited (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)
Note this company is described as dissolved here, and under strike off proceedings as of 9 December 2012 here, but we have heard of active proceedings in the name of Pangold. This may be Pangold Estate Limited. See below)

Pangold Estate Limited (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Ghana Commercial Finance Ltd (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Barons Finance 1 Limited (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Ghana Commercial Bunk Limited (Yes, bunk) (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Barons Bridging Finance Public Limited Company (Not a plc) (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Reddy Corporation Limited (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

Ghana Commercial Finance Limited (Reg Office 169 PERRY VALE, LONDON, ENGLAND, SE23 2JD)

It is also worth noting that Halifax Repossessions and Halifax Business Finance had registered offices in the Southend area, one as PO Box 5467, Southend-on-Sea, SS0 9GY, the other as Gopee Business Centre, 9 St Vincent’s Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, SS0 7BP. In various forms of ‘Credit Agreement’, the address of both Ghana Bunks and Barons Finance Limited has been given as ‘PO Box 5467, Southend-on-Sea, SS0 9GY’, though neither was registered there.

It appears that as well as 169 Perry Vale SE23 2JD (And 169A Perry Vale), the Southend addresses also get used by Mr Gopee’s companies’ ‘credit agreement’ documents, though these are not the registered addresses (e.g for Reddy Corporation and Ghana Bunks).

So there we are. A mass of different companies, some allegedly operating as agents for the one company that had a consumer credit licence, (but this was found by both the Court of Appeal and the First Tier Tribunal to be a sham), making loans to people in desperate circumstances, secured on their homes. The agreements were/are generally defective in failing to meet the requirements of the CCA, as well as being entered by companies that had no licence to do so.

From what we have been told, Mr Gopee remains active in pursuing possession and eviction proceedings, often appearing on behalf of the companies he controls, and even in seeking to stay or prevent possession proceedings by lenders who hold the first charge.

From the Tribunal decision, the Court of Appeal decision, the permission to appeal decision in the High Court in our first report, it is clear that it is at least likely that the agreements and charges that Mr Gopee’s companies rely on are unenforceable. Anyone dealing with secured loan possession proceedings should be aware of this.

Posted in Housing law - All, Mortgage possession, Possession, Uncategorized.

About Giles Peaker

Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts, and still is Nearly Legal on Google +

33 Comments

  1. The registered office at 169 Perry Vale SE23 is a semi derelict and empty building. Land registry tells us me is owned by Pangold Estates C/o Barons Finance and also Montgomery Associates, also of SE23 and with a number of charges under Gopee company names including a new one on me Pinemarsh Estates of 169a Perry Vale, that was dissolved in 2010

    • The property iin Westcliff, Southend, is a rather tatty semi, according to google streetview. I have had a look at the Land Registry entry yet. I didn’t include comnpanies that had been dissolved for a while in the list . Perhaps I should have done. Who knows, they could still be pursuing proceedings ;-)

      • Yes indeedy, I fond many companies still trade under dissolved status

        I’ve got messages out to my council’s various money advice agencies and have alerted southend council too. I’ll report on anything that comes back

      • you are right, I recently was sent a letter by Ghana financial bunks asking for money and have also increased outstanding owed from £1600.00 to £45,000.00 plus what can I do as I do believe that the company no longer operates.
        can someone help to deal with all the mess created by this man. Many people are affected.
        Please help.

      • You will see from this thread you will see that Ghana Bunks does not have, and has never had, an OFT consumer credit licence. The agreeement is, therefore, unenforceable.

        The agreement is also very probably ‘improperly’ executed, i.e. not drawn up as requied by the Consumer Credit Act. If this is the case, the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable if it was made before 6.4.17, or enforceable only on an order of the court if it was made on or after this date.

        If you wish to challnge the enforceability of the agreement, you will need legal advice. However, as a first step, you could go to a CAB and ask the adviser to contact Specialist Support who could provide more information.

        • There are a number of different companies with variants on Ghana Bunks in the name. While it is quite possible that any consumer credit agreements with any of those variants is unenforceable, I wouldn’t want to state that with 100% certainty. Seeking Specialist Support advice via a CAB would be a very good idea. If there are ongoing court proceedings, advice should be sought urgently.

  2. I work at Citizens Advice Specialist Support and have had an interest in Barons Finance and the Reddy Corporation for the last two years or so.

    I have never come across a loan that has been made in the sole name of Reddy. However, should there be any such loans, they are unenforceable under s40(1) CCA 74 because Reddy does not currently have a licence to carry on a consumer credit business.

    Barons’ agreements are also unenforceable under s40(1) and, in addition, are unenforceable under s40(1A) because it did not have a licence when its agreements were made.

    However, although agreements are unenforceable due to the licensing issues, it appears that Barons can wait until the properties upon which they are secured are sold and recover what it is owed from the proceeds of sale.

    Had Barons applied for permission from the OFT to enforce the unlicensed agreements under s40(2), the OFT has said that it could have ‘de-securitised’ the agreements. However, no application was made, apparently leaving the OFT powerless to do anything about the security provided under the agreements. I have asked the OFT about prosecuting Gopee for unlicensed lending but got what amounts to a ‘no comment’ response. I think that there could also probably be a prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

    All Barons agreements that I have seen are improperly executed for numerous reasons, especially their failure to state how the loans are to be repaid, a prescribed term under Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations. This is because the monthly payment stated on the agreements is only for interest with no payments of capital provided for.

    The lack of this prescribed term means that all agreements made before 6 April 7007 are irredeemably unenforceable under s127(3). Also, where the court makes a declaration of unenforceability under s142, s113(3) is invoked that applies s106, under which the security is rendered void.

    Also, where the agreements included a broker’s fee, it is arguable that they fail properly to state the amount of credit, another prescribed term under Schedule 6.

    However, agreements made on or after 6 April 2007 cannot be irredeemably unenforceable but are, instead, enforceable only on an order of the court.

    This was the situation in Barons Finance Ltd v Olubisi (Mayor’s and City of London Court, 26 April 2010, unreported), an appeal from the possession order made by a district judge at Lambeth County Court. The appeal held that agreement, which was made after 6 April 2007, was improperly executed and gave rise to an unfair relationship under s140A. However, the court declined to write off the loan because Ms Olubisi had benefited from it by using it to pay her first mortgage arrears and avoid being repossessed, although it appropriated all the payments that had been made to capital, reduced the interest rate and set an affordable repayment.

    While Barons Finance Ltd has been wound up, it has subsequently become clear from the Liquidator that the Barons’ loan book was transferred by Mr Gopee to another of his companies prior to the Liquidation. The Liquidator has indicated that he feels he is able to challenge this transfer (I assume as an undervalue transaction) although it appears that no challenge has yet been made.

    I am currently involved in a case where Barons Finance Ltd is trying to enforce an old possession order with a warrant for possession. The borrower has applied for the possession claim to be struck out (see Barons Bridging Finance plc (2) Reddy Corporation Ltd v Nnadiekwe) and for a declaration of unenforceability (the loan was made before 6 April 2007). The hearing on 12 February was adjourned to allow Barons time to prepare its response and is now due on 1 March in Lambeth County Court. Unfortunately, the client will not be represented at the hearing (unless the duty solicitor can help) but has been assisted with his application and witness statements exhibiting the Tribunal decision, Makanju, Ul Haq and Olubisi. This was all done in a bit of a hurry due to the impending execution of the warrant and the court may, of course, require an applcation for a late appeal to be made.

    Also, the court has been alerted generally to the issues involved with Barons as there are apparently a number of other cases in the court where Barons are trying to enforce old possession orders.

    It would be very useful to have more information about the cases being brought in the Mercantile Court.

    Anyone coming across any cases where Barons Finance, Reddy Corporation, Ghana Bunks or Barons Bridging Finance etc. are attempting to enforce their agreements should report this to Emma Fox, Deputy Head of the Secured Lending Team at the OFT (Emma.Fox@oft.gsi.gov.uk).

    Guy Skipwith

    Citizens Advice Specialist Support

    PS for a case involving a dispute between Barons Finance Ltd and another secured lender relating to the priority of their respective charges, see Barons Finance v Kensington Mortgage Co Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1592.

    • I have tried to email Emma for some assistance but is bounced back. Is there another way to contact you please?

      • I am happy for you to email me directly but do not really want my email address to be published on the site.

        Therefore I have asked Nearly Legal to pass it on to you.

        Cheers

        Guy

            • Barons Finance Ltd – judgment set aside despite stay

              A victim of Barons Finance Ltd (BFL) contacted me via the Nearly Legal website.

              As regular readers of Nearly Legal will know, following the service of a winding up petition on BFL but before the company was wound up, Dharam Prakash Gopee, the owner of BFL, purported to transfer the BFL loan book to other companies that he owned. As a result, all cases involving BFL have been, or should be, stayed pending investigation by the transfers by the BFL liquidator.

              John works in IT in the financial services sector. In 2008, his parents signed a secured loan with BFL, and John purportedly co-signed the agreement, something he denies. At the time, the HR department at the bank where he worked told him that a routine screening check revealed that a CCJ had been entered against him by BFL. This was the first he knew about the CCJ and assumed that it must have been a mistake caused by he and his father sharing the same initials and surname.

              He was advised to apply to set aside the judgment and he did so, asking the court to deal with the application without a hearing and thought that this was the end of the matter. His employer was happy and John was subsequently able to get a mortgage and other credit. He was made redundant in early 2013 and was subsequently offered another job in October 2013. However, the offer was withdrawn when he failed a security screening because the CCJ was still on his credit file.

              In December 2013 John contacted the county court to which the set aside application was made in 2008 and was told that application had not be heard. This was because the court had tried to contact him but had mistakenly written to his father and had not listed the application for hearing in the absence of a response. The application was then relisted for hearing on 3 January 2014. At the hearing, Gopee filed a witness statement stating that John had signed the agreement in his presence, BFL was now in liquidation and its loan book had been transferred. The hearing was adjourned to 25 March for Gopee to produce evidence of the transfer but was vacated following the transfer of the case to HHJ Mackie QC in Mercantile Court in London.

              John contacted the Mercantile Court and eventually, after problems relating to his address, the case number and correspondence once again being sent to his father, he was eventually told that he should submit a new set aside application, which he did. The grounds for the application were that: he had not signed the agreement; the agreement was unenforceable because BFL was an unlicensed lender and because it was improperly executed; and that it gave rise to an unfair relationship. Because John had been offered another job, subject to a security screening, an expedited hearing was requested and a hearing date set for 17 June 2014.

              Before the application was made, contact was with the liquidator to request agreement to the stay being lifted. However, the liquidator said that there were no funds in the pot and that his solicitor would look into the request but that John would have to pay the solicitor’s charges of £400, which he could not afford. The application was made anyway and the liquidator’s solicitor informed.

              At the hearing John appeared in person and Gopee appeared for ‘a non-party’ (presumably on behalf of the company to which the loan was purportedly transferred). The liquidator did not appear or make any submissions to the court.

              I do not have full details of the hearing before HHJ Mackie QC but, apparently:

              • Gopee said that the loans had been transferred but HHJ Mackie responded by stating that Gopee knew ‘too well that these transactions are fraudulent’, saying ‘Mr Gopee you are more intelligent than this, you know these transactions are fraudulent and we’ve been over this before’.

              • Gopee said that regardless of the fact that none of his companies had consumer credit licenses and the agreements were improperly executed, he was entitled to recover the money on the basis of ‘restitution of gains’. HHJ Mackie apparently got irate at this stage and dismissed Gopee’s arguments, after which he did not have much more to say

              • HHJ Mackie said that he was concerned that there was more fraudulent activity going on and after he had set the judgment aside, asked John what his losses were, saying that he might want to bring a claim against Gopee but suggested that he should ‘get on with his life’ and wished him good luck.

              Fortunately, John’s job offer was kept open and following the set aside, he was able to take the job.

              This case illustrates that, where appropriate, HHJ Mackie QC is prepared to set aside BFL judgments that have been stayed, or should be stayed, without the agreement of the liquidator. This could be appropriate, for example, when BFL borrowers want to sell their homes without having to repay unenforceable BFL loans or where borrowers are facing repossession by first mortgage lenders and unenforceable BFL loans would be paid from the proceeds of sale.

              …………………………

              Not selling repossessed house

              In another case, BFL repossessed a borrower’s home. Since the repossession it appears that nothing has been done to market or sell the property; instead, it has been rented. The company to which the loan was purportedly transferred has been paying the client’s first mortgage, with the lender apparently unaware that the property has been repossessed.

              More details in due course when these are available.

  3. Pingback: Ben Reeve Lewis Friday newsround #96

  4. Unfortunately, it isn’t just people taking loans [edited by NL] who suffer. My daughter and two friends (students in their final year) rented 1 Tanners Mews, Deptford, London from a letting agent called Sol Properties. They handed over the deposit and the first months rent in good faith and signed their tenancy agreement. The landlord, Mr Gopee of Pangold ltd, was registered to Southend. Despite various repairs not being done the tenancy continued and they paid their rent. On 7th Dec 2012 they received a letter from Bank of Scotland informing them that there was to be an eviction. They were advised to stop paying rent and prepare for the eviction. Naturally we went to court but we discovered that the tenancy was illegal from the start. They were evicted on 18th February 2013 and are now homeless. There is no help for them, even the police wouldn’t help when [edited by NL] threatened to evict them illegally.

    Mr Gopee only put their deposit in a scheme on 14th Dec 2012, 5 MONTHS after the tenancy began because he was pressured to do so, and he is now saying that because they stopped paying rent AFTER BofS was given an outright possession of the property in November 2012., he won’t give them back their deposit.

    I am a law abiding citizen and I can’t begin to understand how this man has been able to continue with this [edited by NL] for so many years, without any consequences or penalty and as we were told by the letting agent of Sol Properties Mr Gopee ownes and rents out other properties in this country, [edited by NL]

    Mr Gopee is well known at Bromley County Court by judges, barristers and housing advice workers alike, and yet he continues without restraint.

    My daughter and friends have been devastated by these events, they have been lied to, threatened and are now homeless but he doesn’t care and apart from a man called Ben in a housing advice center in Lewisham, nor does anyone else. [Edited by NL]

    I also think Companies House should ban him and his associates from owning any ltd company which enable him to hide behind the limited status. It brings the whole process into disrepute and they should have a system of blocking certain people especially [edited by NL].

    [NL - I've edited this comment. While as should be clear, we are hardly fans of the practices of many of Mr Gopee's companies and are happy to highlight any findings against them, by Court or Tribunal, we cannot put allegations that have not been upheld by a Court or Tribunal on the blog.]

  5. I’m an insolvency solicitor by trade. I’ve loved the work of this blog generally for some time and thought it might assist to mention acouple of insolvency aspects.

    I’ve just had a look on Companies house and the liquidator of Barons Finance Ltd appears to have had his release in September 2012.

    Liquidators often bring (and even post Jackson have a 3 year exemption so they can still use a conditional, not contingent, fee agreement) claims for transaction at undervalue and misfeasance/breach of fiduciary duty under ss 212, 238 and 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

    However, more importantly, given the plethora of companies with apparent similar names to that which was liquidated, (i.e Baron), it might be worth considering the potential criminal offence committed/personal liaibility under ss 216 and 217 IA86 for a director of a liquidating company who is involved with a company of similar name. The Companies Investigation Branch of the Insolvency Service deal with such complaints.

    Hope this helps.

    • Thanks Howard. I have had contact with solicitors for the liquidator and also seen other subsequent court docs in a case. Mr Gopee affects to have transferred the loan book and charges held by Barons Finance to Barons Bridging Finance 1 Limited and Reddy Corp and is still pursuing cases (or trying to) on that basis, applying to substitute claimants. These transfers apparently happened after the winding up petition was issued in May 2012, thus not very lawful… I understand that the liquidator is not very impressed.

      • if the transfers happened post issue of a winding up petition, each transfer will be a void disposition pursuant to s127 IA86 and will be void against the liquidator unless ratified by the Court (retrospective ratification highly unlikely unless proper consideration was paid and failure to seek ratification from the court at the time was a genuine oversight).

        If each transfer was a void disposition then this will not automatically prevent enforcement of a loan, but any amounts under loans should be paid to the liquidator who can give good receipt. The liquidator is of course an officer of court and obliged to conduct himself as such.

        The liquidator has his own duty to report any concerns to the SoS at BIS so disqualification proceedings can be considered if appropriate. This is wholly separate to the jurisdiction under ss216/217.

        I’m sure the liquidator might have his own advice and advisors, but I’d be happy to try and help if that would be desirable/appropriate.

        Clearly, anyone who faces an attempt by the director to substitute claimants as you describe might want to consider these points. The Court would, at minimum, potentially want to hear from the liquidator before substituting any such claimants.

        • Howard,

          Yes, the liquidator’s solicitor is clearly of the view that they are void. They are staying any and all proceedings that they are aware of by writing to the court.

  6. I will be very interested in any update on
    court cases involving Mr Gopee as I am
    an affected person of his sham agreement .

          • The web gets even more tangled

            I have come across a new way that Gopee of Barons Finance and associated companies is trying to get around the fact that none of the companies have CCA licenses to lend to individuals.

            In the case I have seen, it seems to work like this:

            1. One of Gopee’s companies, in this case Ghana Commercial Bunks Ltd, buys a client’s property for £6,300.

            2. The ‘sale’ agreement states that Ghana Bunks has borrowed £6,300 from Barons Bridging Finance PLC, that £5,000 of this is paid to the client, with £250 paid to a named third party via a specified Lloyds account, with the balance covering Barons Bridging’s admin costs of £1,050 (which is presumably paid to barons Bridging although this is not stated).

            It also states that Ghana Bunks is paying interest at 3.5% on its loan from Barons Bridging, amounting to £220.50 per month and that the loan is repayable on demand.

            3. The client is given an option to re-purchase his property for £1 (one pound) providing that that he makes the payments due under the loan made by Barons Bridging to Ghana Bunks.

            As above, this seems to me to be a way of indirectly lending money to a borrower without there actually being a loan agreement with the client to get around the fact that none of Gopee’s companies have CCA licenses but I am not really sure how to approach it.

            Any thoughts appreciated.

            Guy Skipwith

            Citizens Advice Specialist Support

  7. hi can a company registered as dormant be legally active like taking one to court pls advise ie PANGOLD ESTATE LIMITED One of MR GOPEE’S

  8. hi Giles i have a copy of a judgement issued on the 19th of July 2013 by JUDGE MACKIE QC Stoping mr ghopee from bring or continuing any lagal proceeding in any county court to recover money due or to seek possession of any property without first obtaining an Order from the london mercantile court permitting him to do so

  9. I have a tenant that seems to have been caught up in the Ghopee web. She is under the impression that he repossessed her property yet her name remains on the property register.
    Several of the Ghopee companies are listed on the title deeds as restrictions and charges and I wondered if the repossession was legal.
    Who is the best person for her to speak to about this and pick through her complex financial history?

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>