Firm’s boss banned from running businesses

THE boss of a former mobility equipment company has been banned from running businesses after accepting payments from new customers and paying himself back a loan of £125,000 despite knowing his firm was insolvent.

Trading from offices in Adelaide Street Macclesfield from 2013, Churchills Homecare supplied mobility equipment, often to elderly people in their homes.

Craig James Paterson 53, from Alderley Edge, Cheshire, was managing director.

He was later joined by Belinda Johanne Rogers, 52, also from Alderley Edge, who was appointed a director in October 2014.

Churchills Homecare began to incur losses and by December 2015, the company had ceased trading before entering into liquidation the same month.

Independent liquidators were appointed to wind-up the company before reporting to the Insolvency Service that the firm had continued to accept advanced payments from customers after the point it was in trouble.

After further enquiries, investigators found that in December 2015, the time when Churchills Homecare stopped trading before entering into liquidation, Craig Paterson secured close to £66,000 from 13 new customers even though he ought to have known that the company was insolvent.

At the same time Paterson caused the company to repay a loan worth £125,000 that he had previously made to it, the Insolvency Service said.

The repayment of the loan back to him was part funded by the £66,000 secured from the new customers who had no possibility of receiving the goods they paid for, officials said.

At the High Court in Manchester, HHJ Hodge QC made a disqualification order against Paterson for a period of six years.

Belinda Rogers did not dispute that she had failed in her duties as a director to prevent Craig Paterson accepting customers’ payments and was earlier banned for two years.

Rob Clarke, chief investigator for the Insolvency Service, said: “Directors who favour themselves over the interests of their creditors when their company is in financial difficulty, as well as removing company funds for their own personal benefit leaving customers high and dry, are in clear breach of their directorship responsibilities.

“This ban should serve as a warning to other directors tempted to help themselves before others that we have the necessary powers to investigate what has happened and seek to stop you from running a company for a significant amount of time.”