The Administrators - am I alone in hating?
Discussion
This thread reminded me how frustrated with the administrators I've ended up everytime I've had to deal with a company that's been wound up.
Fortunately this has only been a few times but everytime I've got the impression that they'd make claim forms to include deliberately ambiguous or unclear questions resulting in me calling for clarification (thus increasing their fee), they'd ask the same information several times, charge obscene fees for everyones time (most people on hundreds of pounds an hour), send out pointless reports and generally milk the situation for all they could.
I know it's a bit of an over simplification but surely all they need to do is split the creditors into secured, unsecured and taxman then split the money.
Who appoints them anyway?
(I will admit that I only have limited knowledge and then from the bitter position of chasing money and seeing pennies in the pound if I'm lucky while the administrators walk off with a big chunk of what was left, please feel free to pick my rant apart )
Fortunately this has only been a few times but everytime I've got the impression that they'd make claim forms to include deliberately ambiguous or unclear questions resulting in me calling for clarification (thus increasing their fee), they'd ask the same information several times, charge obscene fees for everyones time (most people on hundreds of pounds an hour), send out pointless reports and generally milk the situation for all they could.
I know it's a bit of an over simplification but surely all they need to do is split the creditors into secured, unsecured and taxman then split the money.
Who appoints them anyway?
(I will admit that I only have limited knowledge and then from the bitter position of chasing money and seeing pennies in the pound if I'm lucky while the administrators walk off with a big chunk of what was left, please feel free to pick my rant apart )
Edited by rpguk on Wednesday 26th September 21:44
Just got a cheque from a claim I put in for just under £1500. Having jumped through hoops for as long as I can remember (must be 2 or 3 years) I've got under £150 for it.
The breakdown shows receipts to be £55,569.08, supervisor's fees £23,760. Just before I get annoyed, would I be right in saying they've taken half the bloody money for themselves?
The breakdown shows receipts to be £55,569.08, supervisor's fees £23,760. Just before I get annoyed, would I be right in saying they've taken half the bloody money for themselves?
Edited by rpguk on Friday 30th November 14:55
rpguk said:
Just got a cheque from a claim I put in for just under £1500. Having jumped through hoops for as long as I can remember (must be 2 or 3 years) I've got under £150 for it.
The breakdown shows receipts to be £55,569.08, supervisor's fees £23,760. Just before I get annoyed, would I be right in saying they've taken half the bloody money for themselves?
yep, you got it.The breakdown shows receipts to be £55,569.08, supervisor's fees £23,760. Just before I get annoyed, would I be right in saying they've taken half the bloody money for themselves?
Edited by rpguk on Friday 30th November 14:55
POORCARDEALER said:
wife invloved in this business........clerks who earn £8 p/h are charged out at £50 and partners/practitioners can be as much as 300 an hour
That's cheap. The rates are generally the same as the accountancies would provide for auditing, tax advising etc. Many of the people will not be purely focused on Liquidation.
I don't work for an accountancy now but the principle remains that why should my rate be significantly different for a job that uses the same skills?
JakeR said:
the timesheets I've seen that these leeches put in are total fabrications. No one checks them, and they can charge whatever they like. Hence, they charge every penny they can squeeze out of the corpse of the company.
Charges are stated at the start of the engagement and are in line with the other work they do. Why should someone charge less for their skills because they are working on an engagement that relates to company that is screwed rather than one is doing well?Time on site often does not equal time spent working on a client - something that many outside the industry don't realise. Of course, it's not unknown for them to be trying it on too.
bga said:
JakeR said:
the timesheets I've seen that these leeches put in are total fabrications. No one checks them, and they can charge whatever they like. Hence, they charge every penny they can squeeze out of the corpse of the company.
Charges are stated at the start of the engagement and are in line with the other work they do. Why should someone charge less for their skills because they are working on an engagement that relates to company that is screwed rather than one is doing well?Time on site often does not equal time spent working on a client - something that many outside the industry don't realise. Of course, it's not unknown for them to be trying it on too.
bga said:
POORCARDEALER said:
wife invloved in this business........clerks who earn £8 p/h are charged out at £50 and partners/practitioners can be as much as 300 an hour
That's cheap. The rates are generally the same as the accountancies would provide for auditing, tax advising etc. Many of the people will not be purely focused on Liquidation.
I don't work for an accountancy now but the principle remains that why should my rate be significantly different for a job that uses the same skills?
JakeR said:
I dont have a beef with the hourly rates. It's the hours they have supposedly put in. A pal of mine has recently gone through it. They got him to do all the leg work (unpaid) and then stuck in £35k worth of fees. I am an accountant btw, so I have a pretty good idea of what is involved.
Fair enough, if they are claiming for work they haven't done then that should be raised with the senior partner surely? If it's any of the big4, the staff will get a right bollocking/poss dismissal for falsifying T&E (and rightly so!)rpguk said:
This thread reminded me how frustrated with the administrators I've ended up everytime I've had to deal with a company that's been wound up.
Fortunately this has only been a few times but everytime I've got the impression that they'd make claim forms to include deliberately ambiguous or unclear questions resulting in me calling for clarification (thus increasing their fee), they'd ask the same information several times, charge obscene fees for everyones time (most people on hundreds of pounds an hour), send out pointless reports and generally milk the situation for all they could.
I know it's a bit of an over simplification but surely all they need to do is split the creditors into secured, unsecured and taxman then split the money.
Who appoints them anyway?
(I will admit that I only have limited knowledge and then from the bitter position of chasing money and seeing pennies in the pound if I'm lucky while the administrators walk off with a big chunk of what was left, please feel free to pick my rant apart )
Bit of common sense here I think. If you're an administrator, would you take a job on if you didn't think you would get paid? I wouldn't. So it makes sense that they are the first people to get a bite at the carcass.Fortunately this has only been a few times but everytime I've got the impression that they'd make claim forms to include deliberately ambiguous or unclear questions resulting in me calling for clarification (thus increasing their fee), they'd ask the same information several times, charge obscene fees for everyones time (most people on hundreds of pounds an hour), send out pointless reports and generally milk the situation for all they could.
I know it's a bit of an over simplification but surely all they need to do is split the creditors into secured, unsecured and taxman then split the money.
Who appoints them anyway?
(I will admit that I only have limited knowledge and then from the bitter position of chasing money and seeing pennies in the pound if I'm lucky while the administrators walk off with a big chunk of what was left, please feel free to pick my rant apart )
Edited by rpguk on Wednesday 26th September 21:44
If an operating business pulled in administrators to do another type of job, they would be incentivised to keep their costs low so the business made as much profit as possible. An insolvent business doesn't have this incentive, which is why administrator costs may be of such a concern to the business.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff