Partner's finances probed by LA
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The West Midland LA, Mr John Else, „ adjourned a hearing in Birmingham at which the applications of several concerns, in each of which Mr E. Patten had a financial interest, when they were considered on Monday.
Mr J. Back house, representing the companies, explained that the partnership of A. Hurst, E. Patten and P. Stubbs had taken over the vehicles and business of E. C. and V. Ellerton Ltd and that this was to be formed into a limited company, Haulage Contractors (Ellerton) Ltd. Mr Patten had a controlling interest in the partnership.
Other companies involved in the inquiry were W. Smith (Cobridge) Ltd, Smiths (Devon and Cornwall) Ltd and J. Badderley. All the companies operated from the same base at Stoke-on-Trent and the total number of vehicles involved in the applications were 39 of which 18 were in possession.
Mr Patten, said the LA, had been a director of Patten and Heap Ltd which had gone into liquidation. Mr Patten in evidence said fines imposed at Cheadle against this company amounting to £186 had not been paid off yet but said in answer to questions of the LA that these were being paid bit by bit as was his personal debt of some £9000 resulting from the liquidation of Patten and Heap.
The LA then. asked Mr Patten about his general financial situation. Mr Patten said that the deeds of his farm were lodged with the bank to cover his overdraft and if his debts were not discharged the farm would be possessed.
Af 'this point Mr Backhouse asked that the proceedings be held in camera as it appeared that the personal finances of Mr Patten and his family were being questioned, but this was refused by the LA who said that there was no entitlement to exclude the public when such matters arose.
Answering further questions from the LA, Mr Patten admitted that levies of execution had been placed on the farm by bailiffs and sheriffs. The farm had been bought with the savings of himself and his wife and his wife had laid claim to the stock. Mr Else expressed his doubts of the financial stability of Mr Patten as principal shareholder of a partnership that may or may not itself be solvent. Mr Else further made mention of writs and judgements against Smith (Cobridge).
As far as the partnership of Hurst, Patten and Stubbs was concerned this was to be formed into the limited company immediately and the total operating fleet consisted of 18 vehicles. There was an overdraft relating to the partnership which was a result of the debts of Ellerton and this was now being paid off from the earnings of the four vehicles concerned.
Evidence was then submitted by Mr J. Badderley for his own application for one vehicle. This was, he said, to be maintained at the Stoke-on-Trent base and he confirmed that there were facilities for 40 vehicles which he and three fitters would be able to maintain. His own vehicle would be working under contract to the other companies and the purpose of the application was to give him some independence of these companies although he did have a small financial interest in them. Mr Else remarked that the whole arrangement sounded like a solicitor's paradise. Mr Badderley said he was originally employed by Patten and Heap.
The LA concluded that he was far from satisfied that the overall finances would be adequate for the vehicles envisaged and he therefore proposed to adjourn the case so that he would be able to obtain more satisfactory answers to his questions. Mr Backhouse complained that his clients were quite unprepared for the type of questions and evidence being presented by the LA and that he had had no indications of the doubts expressed by the LA since the commencement of the matter.
Mr Else replied that the LA was under no obligation to let applicants know what was to be presented in court. It was up to the applicant to be prepared with all evidence to satisfy the LA of the suitability of the applicant. He advised the companies to produce certificates of solvency prepared by their accountants at the next hearing.