Vs QLTR edinburgh



B  e  n  V  e  r  s  u  s    |    c  i  v  i  l     i  s  s  u  e s

B e n   C o l l i n s  |   Åkarhagsgatan 2C, 72337 Västerås, Sweden  | +46 727 447422  |  email  |  Website © 2014

R.I.P. Mum

Hop to the next page Hop to the previous page


Vs qltr edinburgh

Verba, acta

do as you say you do

Opens summary cartoon in a larger format in a new window

BC vs QLTR Edinburgh / Scottish Office - 2008

A Unpublished new rules, Payment Limit, old rules published

In 2008 the web-published limit for BV in the UK was £50,000 on the UK govt’s BV website, yet the limit in Scotland (unpublished) was £3,000, why? I am still waiting for a reasoned answer other than that ”is our (net unpublished) policy in Scotland”.

B Unfair Prejudicial Payment Limit

The web-published UK government assessment criteria is ”a fair payout” yet Edinburgh QLTR automatically administrates a £3,000 limit which is prejudicial protocol and means in some cases a fair payout is not made, certainly not in this case.

C Fair Payout Not Offered

QLTR Edinburgh were given plenty of time and information from which to make a fair payout in the case of involuntarily dissolved company Albatross Wulf Products Limited 154825, but have failed to do so, constituting malpractice and contradicting UK BV guidelines. This is the main complaint.

D Excessive BV Delays, Complications and Inefficiencies

A comprehensive BV application was made in March, A paltry £3,000 was paid out in late Dec 2008

Too late and too little for a reconciliation with my Mother before she died two weeks later.

I begged, called, wrote, emailed for proper payout five times in writing before complaining legally.

This was asking for the return of money saved up and worked such long hours for, so that I could take my personal life and my eco-technology to the next level. From my perspective this system rewards skullduggery and dishonesty, whilst punishing honesty, tax paying and saving.

Im frustrated by a process that all time pretends it is doing me a favour by ”letting me have £3,000”. I now live abroad and simply is not possible to restart a Scottish company when you live in Sweden without massive administrative complication. I have no office available to me in Scotland and my accounts were corrupted illegally in 1999 by a person wanting me to trade offshore - which i refused.

The reason I left my lovely life and house in 1997 Galashiels Scotland was to pay off the debt to the Scottish Office, I also paid off the grant I received for moving too Scotland, because I had since moved away from Scotland in order to pay off the loan received from Scottish Office (!). I do not complain however about having to pay money back and did so as an alternative to winding up the company. Yet now it is the Scottish Office that is refusing to pay out on the extra money earned and saved fair and square and reserved in the dissolved company. Had I simply wound up the company I would have been £36,000 better off in 1998. DUH for me being honest and DUH for a system that punishes debt repayment.

Finally, I made an appraoch to the SPSO, Scottish Public ServicesOmbudsman but their process requires surrendering of court rights before the case can be judged. The SPSO are  funded by the people you challenge, LOL! - See next page.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Who watches the watchmen?

Opens image in a larger format in a new window

this page sums up issue

Click to enlarge >>>>>>>>>>>>>





Opens BenCC website at 2008 as a PDF in a new window