01516680386

But what exactly is there to liquidate?

Like there was nothing to wind up in the first instance there is nothing to do now but they still believe that the assets of capita oak are the assets of imperial. But they are most certainly not and never have been .

You are saying that the insolvency service is wrong and nothing belongs to imperial?  Shouldn't liquidators be brought in for capita oak? Don't they own all the store pods?

Controlled the assets, who else is responsible.
The role of the provisional liquidator is to protect assets in the possession or under the control of the company pending the determination of the petition. The provisional liquidator also has the power to investigate the affairs of the companies insofar as it is necessary to protect assets including any third party or trust money or assets in the possession of or under the control of the company

over 400 pages and this was what people were saying in the beginning.

Know and 400 pages later I think were a little clearer who was behind it.

If they are looking at this site do you not think that is a bonus? That would in turn get the naughty boys and girls think that they in turn are slowly but surely being scanned and that their every walk and every talk is being copied filmed and all of the information is slowly being put together. I for one are completely assured that the pods are coming good.

The trust deed was forged then technically doesn't the capita oak scheme exist and any assets/pods purchased still belong to Imperial?

There was no trust deed and imperial was not the trustee and has never owned the assets. They belong to the members of the capita oak scheme,nobody else.

bloody not be found to be owned by Imperial Trustees , who are not trustees , or HMRC would have a field day. The person that "did not" sign the scheme rules said he did not forge anything. I would use the term pods, not assets.

Which one?

Pods/third party in possession  or controlled by the company. Some would now call them a liability.

Some facts for clarification:

The pods are leased for 999 years, they are not owned freehold.

The owner is registered as:
IMPERIAL TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 08133190) of Tek House, Single Street, Downe, Kent TN16
3AB the trustee of The Capita Oak Pension Scheme.))

However, the parties to the lease are listed only as:

"Parties :
(1) Store First Limited
(2) Imperial Trustee Services Limited"

There is no mention of Capita Oak. The legal entity who owns the lease is Imperial.
It appears to be the same in all the pod title deeds.
Probably a [***] up by the solicitors rather than part of a conspiracy, but unhelpful none the less.

What price that .... up then? If not under trust, then what are the tax issues? Whose PI covers this eventuality?

I don't know. I was involved in a conveyancing error once where a solicitor got an address wrong when splitting title deeds and the law firm coughed up for the error rather than involving their insurer. However, the amounts of money were in the tens of thousands, so bearable by the partners. In this case, I don't know.

Founding partner of Metis left early this year, he was the contact given early doors on this site.

Hello Hi, you of such negativity, Let me explain,In the first place, money is moving, ok its not a lot , but it is something.The next point is i know that the money from those Rentals will not go to me, it will go to Store First for Ground rent on the Pods That amazingly have started being occupied is not really a surprise to me yet again when Rent is due, my pods will be let out to pay the rent again. so " Hi "i have not Changed my tune, i am simply playing a different song.

A claim against Metis PI Insurance for capita members to return them back to beginning plus interest. Pods then belong to insurance company and they Persue whoever just like a car crash.

Yes, I hard this last week. It is an LLP so each member has limited liability anyway.
Were appointed by Hadley to act for Imperial.

also Omni Trustees Ltd