Originally Posted by Lee247

It's the unsecured creditors I feel sorry for. One Company I know went down and took a number of small businesses with them. Yet, the Company brought in to close the affairs, got thousands

Originally Posted by Devildog

Not sidestepping. The administrators did not follow proper procedure for a solvent company, but this is an insolvent company. The law needs to be changed.

The reason for the legal procedure is that employees need to go to a tribunal to be awarded anything more than the statutory entitlement (which is paid in insolvencies from the redundancy fund (ie the taxpayer)). That statutory entitlement covers wages unpaid, holiday pay unpaid, statutory redundancy and a compensatory payment fot failing to recieve notice It does not include protective awards for unfair dismissal (which is what effectively exists upon failure to consult)

Such awards (as have been made in this case) fall as a liability of the insolvent company (woolworths) but because woolworths can't pay, then the RPS will pay what the law dictates it should.

That exists because woolworths is insolvent, not because the administrators have acted negligently.

So anyone wanting to have a pop, should have a pop at either woolworths directors, or the law itself. The parties who are not responsible here are the administrators or, for once, the unions.

Be sure of one thing, the union has not won a victory against the administrators here. All the union has done is exploited a hole in the law which is, to be blunt, an ***.

Originally Posted by f1_fan

To be fair Lee they wouldn't do it unless they were going to get paid, no one would.

Originally Posted by Lee247

I understand that. I just don't understand how the fees they get paid are astronomical and could, if not paid to themselves, maybe stop a few small businesses from going under. Like I said, I may be over simplifying things

Originally Posted by f1_fan

To be fair Lee they wouldn't do it unless they were going to get paid, no one would.

Agree with you entirely on the unsecured creditors as have been there myself with two comoanies. They go out of business, you watch the administrators waltz in and get paid in full yet your debt that has been there for months before they ceased trading gets wiped off. That is the way of the world sadly.

Originally Posted by f1_fan

One postscript about your woeful command of English and a raft of logical comments on the points you raise and you choose to pick on the postscript which actually points to your explanations and excuses not stacking up which of course they don't.

So that adds hypocrisy to all your other miserable failings!

Originally Posted by mrmadcap

Like i said your hypocritical ramblings don't stack up to prove your theories. So the taxpayer pays for every freeloader and their extended families except the people of this country who have been regular contributers into the tax system and have lost employment through no fault of their own.

I think i may have seen you and your like regularly in the audience of BBC Question Time ie, not a cross selection of the typical UK population. More of the BBC multicultural utopia.

Originally Posted by f1_fan

OK but you implied in your first post that this payout was due to them from the RPS anyway so why have they had to go through the courts?

Originally Posted by Lee247

I understand that. I just don't understand how the fees they get paid are astronomical and could, if not paid to themselves, maybe stop a few small businesses from going under. Like I said, I may be over simplifying things

Originally Posted by Devildog

Bit here's the irony. If unsecured creditors were less apathetic, the fees would be less.

Originally Posted by Devildog

Yep. You ere

If you understood what we had to do, you'd get why the fees are so high.

Bit here's the irony. If unsecured creditors were less apathetic, the fees would be less.

Originally Posted by riiidaa

please explain

Originally Posted by mrmadcap

F1, I could have written exactly the same thing directed at you

Originally Posted by Devildog

2nd para explains

Originally Posted by Devildog

Let's get one thing very straight, the Redundancy Payments Service will only make payments that would have been due and payable to those employees anyway, hence the wording of their statement.

Originally Posted by Devildog

Ok. Here's the thing. The vast majority of unsecured creditors take no active part of any insolvency process. They don't attend creditors meetings and are unwilling to form creditors committees, one role of which is to agree fees.

What grates most is that retrospectively creditors will complain at the level of fees, but when invited to take an active role and have a say generally decline to do so

Originally Posted by Devildog

Ok. Here's the thing. The vast majority of unsecured creditors take no active part of any insolvency process. They don't attend creditors meetings and are unwilling to form creditors committees, one role of which is to agree fees.

What grates most is that retrospectively creditors will complain at the level of fees, but when invited to take an active role and have a say generally decline to do so

And don't start me on over trading by suppliers.

Originally Posted by f1_fan

Doesn't to me. Here is what you said



That implies they were due the payout regardless of any legal action etc. so why did they not just get paid out? Why are USDAW claiming a legal victory over the adminstrators?

Originally Posted by f1_fan

To be fair Lee they wouldn't do it unless they were going to get paid, no one would.

Agree with you entirely on the unsecured creditors as have been there myself with two companies. They go out of business, you watch the administrators waltz in and get paid in full yet your debt that has been there for months before they ceased trading gets wiped off. That is the way of the world sadly.