A company owner who “grossly inflated” his turnover to obtain a Bounce Back Loan has been banned from doing business for nine years, it has been revealed.

The Insolvency Service, who led the investigation, found that the Wolverhampton-based director had abused the Covid-19 support initiative.

The report comes after the launch of the Bounce Back Loans Scheme (BBLS) in May 2020. Under the scheme, small businesses were able to apply for a “quick and easy-to-access” loan of between £2,000 and £50,000.

Experts warned that the scheme could be abused, however, with application forms comprising just seven questions with little oversight.

In June 2020, the director of soft drinks company applied for and secured a £50,000 loan through the BBLS.

The owner stated that the turnover of the business was £250,000, but company accounts ending January 2020 showed turnover of just £2,000.

Had the director stated the company’s true revenue, it would not have been entitled to any money under the scheme.

The man was banned from running any other companies for nine years after he admitted to “grossly inflating the company’s turnover to secure the Bounce Back Loan”.

Commenting on the investigation, Dave Elliott, Chief Investigator at The Insolvency Service, said: “[The director] had significantly inflated the turnover on the application to obtain a loan to which [the company] was not entitled.

“The Insolvency Service will not hesitate to investigate and use its powers against those who have abused the COVID-19 support schemes.”

In December 2021, the National Audit Office (NAO) concluded that counter-fraud activity for the Bounce Back Loan Scheme was implemented too slowly to be effective.

The Government estimates that 37 per cent of Bounce Back Loans worth £17 billion will not be repaid – representing borrowers who would want to repay but are unable to, and borrowers who took out a loan fraudulently.

Jeremy Sirrell, a Director with Palmers Solicitors and Head of our Criminal Defence Services Department, said: “The Government had warned that it would get tough on directors who have, in effect, stolen from the public purse and this case illustrates that they are now acting on their warning.

“Any director who finds themselves under the spotlight, from either HMRC or The Insolvency Service in relation to bounce back loan discrepancies – even if they believe the figures they submitted were in fact correct at the time – should seek immediate legal advice.”

For help and advice, please get in touch with our defence team today.

An “exponential rise” in property prices is leading to a surge in civil litigation cases relating to contentious probate, a report has revealed.

The research, published by industry magazine Today’s Wills and Probate, suggests that a lack of estate planning is leaving families in the dark over who is entitled to what.

According to the authors, people who purchased properties a long time ago are now coming to the end of their lives without realising just how much their estate is truly worth.

For example, the average house price in London has increased from £25,000 in 1980 to £520,000 in 2021 – a rise of almost 2,000 per cent.

It means that some 300,000 properties in the capital – and many more across England and Wales – are now worth more than £1 million, not only pushing individuals firmly above the Inheritance Tax threshold but also exposing them to contentious probate claims.

These often relate to the validity of a Will, and where there is no Will at all, who is entitled to a share of the deceased’s assets and estate.

But with proper estate planning and the right specialist support, a watertight Will can ensure that your wishes are executed exactly as prescribed.

This sentiment is echoed by Solicitors for the Elderly (SFE), the leading national association of independent lawyers who specialise in legal services for older and vulnerable people.

“One of the biggest problems can ensue when a person does not have a Will in place,” said Michael Culver, Chairman of SFE.

“Where there is a spouse or children, typically these individuals will pick up the administration and deal with it.

“But if there is a circumstance where there is no spouse or children, there is often quite a delay between a person passing away and their estate being dealt with.

“This could be for various reasons, but usually there could be a bit of doubt about who is going to inherit, and who is sorting out the affairs.”

James Pettit, a solicitor with Palmers, who specialises in civil litigation and contested Wills, explained: “There are many reasons why someone may feel that a Will is unfair or wrong.

“In the UK we enjoy a freedom to leave our estates by Will to whoever we please. However, there are occasions when a Will may be challenged:

“The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 gives certain relatives, who may feel hard done by, the right to ask the courts to review a Will and to make amends if it is found that the Will is unfair.

“A Will might also be invalid because of the circumstances in which it was made. Or the person making the Will might have lacked mental capacity at that time.

“Alternatively, pressure and undue influence might have been applied so that the Will does not properly reflect the individual’s true wishes.”

For more information, on contested Wills and civil litigation issues, please get in touch with us now.

A woman verbally abused by her employer when he shouted at her that ‘she must on her menopause’, has won her case for unfair dismissal.

She was unfairly sacked after she raised complaints about COVID-19 safety, an employment tribunal found.

The panel found Leigh Best, aged 54, was harassed due to her age and sex and was dismissed as a sales assistant for pet food retailer Embark on Raw, based near Billericay, Essex, after raising concerns, according to the BBC.

The tribunal at East London Hearing Centre heard Mrs Best was employed by the company from 29 January 2020 until 11 May that year. She was on a ‘zero hours’ contract although it is not in dispute that she regularly worked ’full time’ hours every week.

The firm’s husband and wife co-directors, David and Andrea Fletcher, said she was dismissed due to her “rude and confrontational communication with co-workers and managers”.

But the tribunal panel found the principal reason was her whistleblowing during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that her dismissal took place with “little or no respect for a fair process or the rules of natural justice”.

It heard the company made efforts to be COVID-safe, but Mrs Best claimed these procedures were not implemented and enforced and that co-workers were not wearing face coverings and failing to follow social distancing rules.

The panel heard Mr Fletcher made inappropriate and derogatory comments to Mrs Best about her age and sex, but found her claim he had said her husband would start looking “at other younger women now” was not proven.

The tribunal was satisfied that Mr Fletcher had shouted that “she must be on her menopause” on 20 March 2020 during an argument about a mix-up with orders.

The panel found Mrs Best was less favourably treated after raising safety concerns and agreed that her employer “clearly had an issue” from that point, and that she also “added to their frustrations” by raising the issue of Mr Fletcher’s comments on her age and sex.

Any compensation Mrs Best may be entitled to will be determined at a separate hearing on 31 January 2022.

Samantha Randall, an Associate Solicitor who specialises in employment law, said: “Although the menopause is not a specific protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, if an employee or worker is put at a disadvantage and treated less favourably because of their menopause symptoms, this could be discrimination if related to a protected characteristic, such as age, gender or disability.

“As this recent case illustrates, Tribunals take a dim view of unacceptable, demeaning comments which have the effect of treating an employee differently based on their gender or age.

“Additionally, it should be noted that whistle-blowers receive special protection for their case to be heard at an employment tribunal if they have been victimised at work or they have lost their job because they have ‘blown the whistle’ on unsafe working practices.”

For help and advice on any concerns relating to employment law and unfair treatment in the workplace, please contact our expert team.