SSG at Companies House: “Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off”

Phil Groom writes:

SSG’s status at Companies House has been flagged as “Active – Proposal to Strike off”:

Status Active - Proposal to Strike off (Screenshot taken 23.01.2009)

Status Active - Proposal to Strike off (Screenshot taken 23.01.2009)

If allowed to go through this means that the company will cease to exist, and whilst in many ways that would qualify as the Event of the Decade, what it means in practice is that anyone with outstanding legal claims against the company will be unable to pursue them unless they are prepared to pay to have the company restored.

If that’s you, whether as an unpaid employee, unpaid supplier or in any other capacity, I suggest that you contact Companies House sharpish to advise them of your concerns. I’ve already emailed them an outline of the current situation and Matt Wardman has a concise list of points available that should make the Registrar sit up and take notice.  Please ask if you’d like a copy of either of these, either via the comments section on this page or privately.

St Osmond’s Hall, the company’s registered address, may be contacted here: 

More info about what’s involved and what it means for a company to be struck off the register of companies may be found in the Companies House FAQs and About Us sections:

My thanks to those who helped with tracking down this information: you know who you are. 

Download this post as a PDF

Download this post as a PDF

15 responses to “SSG at Companies House: “Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off”

  1. Is this an effort on the part of the Brewers to avoid the Tribunal process?

  2. I suspect it’s more likely to be a result of their delinquent accountancy procedures: as per the screenshot, accounts were due earlier this month and haven’t been submitted. So not so much an effort as a lack of it…

  3. Wait until they have to file all their taxes by the end of the month! I don’t trust these guys though. I would not put it past them to try and play the legal system as far as they can.

  4. This is terrible news, I hope the Brewers don’t get this to go through, the ex employees should have there wages, maybe this is why the Brewers have been quiet, hoping that companies house would do this, and you wouldn’t find out, keep on fighting guys!!!

  5. Has anyone checked on the alias companies – (ENC, Durham Shop Management et al) to see if they have been filed at all at Companies House?

  6. ENC, Durham and Chichester are mentioned on the companies house register

    Here is the link for ENC –

    As such it may be possible for people to show how SSG and ENC etc are linked. Notice though that the address for ENC is still the Chester shop with Sue Dawson as the contact. If SSG is sturck off then do these contacts become liable for the debts?

  7. Here is the link for Durham and Chichester at Companies House.

    As these two shops are still up and running I would advise the staff there to check how they stand on the legal situation concerning employment remembering that St Stephen the Great awarded the traiding rights of ENC/Durham and Chichester when they attempted to make SSG LLC Bankrupt, and to check whether they are now liable for SSG’s debts.

    Also, any evdience we have that the Brewers are the controling parties behind ENC/Durham/Chichester will help keep them on the hook if SSG is struck off.

  8. All registered:
    • ENC Shop Management Company (Company No. FC028292)
    • Durham Cathederal [sic] Shop Management Company (Company No. FC028291)
    • Chichester Shop Management Company (Company No. FC028291)

    You can check their current status here: Companies House: Web Check

    Dave Walker flagged up their directorships a while back, which is part of what scuppered the US bankruptcy filing…

  9. Valiant for Truth

    Plus those who fear they have lost pensions and AVC’s. We do need clarification on whether a company which changes its name but still has exactly the same directors, means these directors are personally liable.

  10. On checking with Companies house I understand that the contact names listed on the Register are not legally liable. Only the Directors.
    Indeed anyone can put any name down as a contact without asking permission (as I gather happened in the case of Chester, Durham and Chichester) not nice ethically (no surprise there!) but Companies House don’t check on the validity of each contact.

  11. Phelim McIntyre

    Is Chester still the contact as far as those working in the shops are concerned? I think it has moved but am not sure.

    As the Brewers are listed as directors of ENC, Durham and Chichester how can we make sure that anything to do with SSG is applied to them and their on going operation?

  12. If they are removed from Companies House for not filing accounts each Director can be fined 5000 pounds and can be criminally prosecuted….

  13. Having received no reply to my message sent when this notice was posted, I’ve now written directly to Ian Smith, Companies House Customer Services Manager, to express my concerns again. His contact details here: Are you satisfied with our service?.

    I suggest that a few other do likewise to ensure that they get the message…

  14. Pingback: And so it ends? SSG “Dissolved 27/04/2010” « SPCK/SSG: News, Notes & Info

  15. Pingback: 2010: SPCK/SSG Blog Overview | SPCK/SSG: News, Notes & Info

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s