Government’s Refusal for Change Means More Heartache for Companies in Administration

Posted on 30 January, 2012 by MOVEHUT

When a company has worked through thick and thin to make the company work, it is always hard when they know there is no other way, other than administration. But shouldn’t the Government be helping companies in this situation, rather than hindering them?

According to R3, a trade body that represents insolvency practitioners in Yorkshire, the Government has refused to update and introduce new laws to help companies facing administration identify exactly what they should be paying for.

When a company enters administration, they usually have to pay for costs, such as outstanding supplies, rates, rent for commercial properties, and wages. But more and more companies are now being taken to court under court judgements, and are liable to pay for pension obligations as well.

Administrations with the last year:

  • Barratts
  • Blacks Leisure
  • BXL Services
  • D2 Jeans
  • Fountains Group
  • Jane Norman
  • Past Times
  • Peacocks
  • Pumpkin Patch

A simple change in the law could clarify exactly what a company is liable to pay for, therefore making the process a lot simpler and cost effective.

Speaking of the administration process, Andrew Walker, Yorkshire Chairman and Partner at Irwin Mitchell, expressed: “These court rulings and the continued uncertainty has had an unhelpful impact on the UK’s rescue culture, with far reaching, adverse consequences for the UK economy.

“Tinkering with the existing priority system makes it harder to bail out stricken businesses and means other creditors lose out. The Government is aware of the problem but seems to be unprepared to act.

“It has huge consequences on the ability to rescue businesses, the lending culture, and returns to unsecured creditors. The extension of the scope of what is an administration expense is bound to make lenders more sceptical about the value of their security and hence their willingness to lend to certain businesses.”


There isn’t a day goes by when there isn’t a story about a company struggling or one that has just entered administration. So with the situation on the rise, and companies not knowing where they stand, should the Government step in? Or do you think a company should be made liable for everything? But isn’t a lack of finances what got them into that predicament in the first place?




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Recent Posts

Interest Rates Impact on Commercial Property

Commercial Property Investment Outlook for 2023

The best places to stay on the Riviera

The latest property data has identified Newquay as the fastest property seller’s market in the UK

Investing in your garden can increase your property’s value

French Riviera temping high-end homebuyers

How can the ownership rights of my commercial property impact a business sale?

Should I incorporate virtual property viewings permanently?

Investment expected to increase across Asia-Pacific in 2021

UK property industry slows as the conclusion of tax break looms

BNP Paribas cautioned investors on Friday as debt-trading bonanza that increased its earnings this past year

Over 300,000 property purchases fell through in 2020 – we show the most frequent motives and the best way to get your house sale back on track

House Prices in the Capital Surpass £500,000

Optimism from the Bank of England’s chief economist

The most expensive commercial properties.

Businesses operating from shared premises will miss out on grants