1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 
Rules are for everyone
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Down in the Mermaid Tavern tl regulars are grumbling about tF Vosa seems to be making up ti as it goes along. Peter Lamer for a pint and some answers.
Bill Heath is not kindly disposed towards Vosa at the rr and I don't blame him. He applied to the North-Easten Area Office to add an operating centre to his licence application has twice been rejected due to lack of f ina evidence. He had provided a signed copy of his audit accounts but this had not been accepted.
Hampstead pointed out that Vosa's own guidance state that they will accept "audited accounts, provided they show an annual turnover of £5.6m", which his did. "They must additionally show that the company is trading profitably", which his did; "and have positive ratios of more than 1.0 when dividing total assets by total liabilii which his did; "and 0.5 when dividing current assets L liabilities", which.., well you know the rest.
Hampstead duly checked with the office of the TC told the information he had provided was insufficient to the application.
Confused, he pointed out that neither their own guic notes nor form GV81 asked for any more than he had g he accused Vosa of being less than transparent. Partici its covering letter stated that this was. after exactly two a "final attempt" on its part to resolve the matter.
It seems absurd when you consider that his firm is of the most successful in the UK and a subsidiary of a large company.
Actually, this was part of the problem. All the overn funds were transferred to the parent company, which I them on deposit, so his bank statements showed only nominal balance. He sent a letter from the parent corn confirming the subsidiary had more than sufficient fur deposit. This was rejected too.
Presumably the TAO thought he should keep Elm current account earning no interest!
It's difficult to comply with the rules when only one knows what those rules are. Constant reassurances tr enforcement agencies want to reward best practice a target the 'cowboys' in our industry carry little weight v confronted with such pedantry.
"It's difficult with the rule only one part what they ar: