The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation And Skills v Weston & Anor
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HHJ DAVID COOKE
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Weston and Mr. Williams, involved in fraudulent activities concerning tenant deposits, faced disqualification proceedings under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Despite their criminal convictions, the High Court found that considering the same disqualification issue after the Crown Court's previous refusal would amount to an abuse of process. It was highlighted that the essence of fairness and avoidance of double jeopardy play critical roles in such legal determinations.
The two companies were Premier Places (Letting) Ltd ("PPL") and Premier Places (Redditch Lettings) Ltd ("PPR") which both traded mainly as letting agents for residential properties, PPL from an office in Worcester and PPR from an office in Redditch. Mr Weston was the controlling director of both companies. Mr Williams is a director of Tax Haven (UK) Ltd, which provided accountancy services to both companies under the trading name 'Williams Maclaren'.
From April 2007 it became necessary for deposits paid by residential tenants to be held and administered in accordance with an approved scheme under Chapter 4 of the Housing Act 2004 . One such scheme is The Dispute Service ("TDS") and Mr Weston made applications on behalf of both companies to be registered with TDS. Those applications in turn required that the companies must (a) be regulated by an approved body and (b) hold tenants' deposits in a ring fenced client account. Mr Weston accordingly made applications for both companies to register with The National Approved Lettings Scheme ("NALS"), a voluntary accreditation scheme which would be an approved regulator. The applications to NALS required that an accountant's report, signed by a Chartered or Certified Accountant, be submitted confirming that the company applying complied with the NALS Accounting Standards, including the requirements of those standards for deposits to be held in ring fenced client accounts. Members of NALS were thereafter required to submit similar accountant's reports annually confirming continuing compliance with those standards.
The companies did open suitable client accounts and arranged with their bank for those accounts to be excluded from set off in respect of the companies own liabilities. What they did not do however was pay all the deposits they held at the time, or received afterwards, into those accounts. Instead they were mostly paid into the ordinary bank accounts of the companies and in effect used as working capital, as they had been before the statutory requirements had come into force. The tenants (and landlords) did not therefore receive the protection the Housing Act was intended to provide and their funds were at risk if the companies were to become insolvent.
This also necessarily meant that the statements made by Mr. Weston in the applications to TDS and NALS as to the way deposits were held were false.
Mr Weston accepts that this was a deliberate action on his part which he knew was in breach of the legisl