Rosso Corsa Sales Ltd
Discussion
Felt that all should be aware of the following which has been posted by Christopher Anderson on FerrariChat:
"This company was placed into compulsory liquidation on 02 May 2006. I am the examiner who is handling the administration and investigation of the company on behalf of the Official Receiver, who is part of the Department for Trade and Industry’s Insolvency Service. Additional information about the Official Receiver and the Insolvency Service can be obtained from www.insolvency.gov.uk.
If anybody is a creditor of the company or has any relevenat information I would be grateful to receive this. You may contact me on Christopher.Andersen@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk, please label the subject title “ROSSO CORSA SALES LTD”. Alternatively, you may write to
Official Receivers Office
London B
21 Bloomsbury Street
London
WC1B 3SS
Trust this is not seen as an abuse of this forum; just wish to bring the situation to people's attention.
"This company was placed into compulsory liquidation on 02 May 2006. I am the examiner who is handling the administration and investigation of the company on behalf of the Official Receiver, who is part of the Department for Trade and Industry’s Insolvency Service. Additional information about the Official Receiver and the Insolvency Service can be obtained from www.insolvency.gov.uk.
If anybody is a creditor of the company or has any relevenat information I would be grateful to receive this. You may contact me on Christopher.Andersen@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk, please label the subject title “ROSSO CORSA SALES LTD”. Alternatively, you may write to
Official Receivers Office
London B
21 Bloomsbury Street
London
WC1B 3SS
Trust this is not seen as an abuse of this forum; just wish to bring the situation to people's attention.
Seems like he's trying to sell his stock on Ebay. Check out item number 150023243884.
Of course, it may all be completely innocent but is it a complete coincidence that the picture has got Rosso Corsa on it and the text is word for word his usual sales patter.
Also, who is going to spend that much when the seller has got zero feedback.
Of course, it may all be completely innocent but is it a complete coincidence that the picture has got Rosso Corsa on it and the text is word for word his usual sales patter.
Also, who is going to spend that much when the seller has got zero feedback.
15hn said:
Thats clever... trading whilst insolvent when you are being investigated by the O.R.
Not standing up for anyone but you don't know that to be the case at all. FYI there are several entities, not just one, as follows:
ROSSO CORSA SALES LIMITED
FRANWILL HOUSE
DOWN ROAD PIMPERNE
BLANDFORD
DORSET DT11 8UP
Company No. 04731538
Status: Liquidation
Date of Incorporation: 11/04/2003
ROSSO CORSA LIMITED
9 CUMBERLAND AVENUE
PARK ROYAL
LONDON
NW10 7RX
Company No. 04768274
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 18/05/2003
ROSSO CORSA WORKSHOP LIMITED
9 CUMBERLAND AVENUE
PAKR ROYAL
LONDON
NW10 7RX
Company No. 04731565
Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 11/04/2003
ROSSO CORSA COACHWORKS LIMITED
9 CUMBERLAND AVENUE
PARK ROYAL
LONDON
NW10 7RX
Company No. 04768277
Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 18/05/2003
Hope this helps
Is this ebay item actually connected to RC? when customers go there to sell a car on a sale/return basis they take some good pics. It could be the owner just using the RC pics. Sellers description "Will be sadly missed...Family car replacement!!" suggests its a private sale.
If the seller is bone fide and private, i wouldnt have thought having RC logos on the pics would do him any favours.
Nigelo,
what does your post mean? that only 3 of his 4 companies are in trouble? how reassuring!
If the seller is bone fide and private, i wouldnt have thought having RC logos on the pics would do him any favours.
Nigelo,
what does your post mean? that only 3 of his 4 companies are in trouble? how reassuring!
nigelo said:
15hn said:
Thats clever... trading whilst insolvent when you are being investigated by the O.R.
Not standing up for anyone but you don't know that to be the case at all. FYI there are several entities, not just one, as follows:
Its an offence to continue to trade under a similar company name if you are a Director of an insolvent company. Google "s216 insolvency act". The ebayer could of course be nothing to do with RC at all.
andy355 said:
Nigelo,
what does your post mean? that only 3 of his 4 companies are in trouble? how reassuring!
what does your post mean? that only 3 of his 4 companies are in trouble? how reassuring!
I thought my post was crystal clear and responded to an unfounded allegation that an RC Officer was trading whilst their Company was under Administration - Nothing more, nothing less. I did not intend to reassure anyone and rereading my post I am fully satisfied it gives no such impression. I therefore suggest you reread it - carefully.
For the record, I do not know the circumstances surrounding RC and do not personally know any Officer of any of the 4 RC companies concerned. I do not even know if all 4 companies have the same Officers but would think not as 1 RC company appears to continue trading.
I referenced the seemingly related Companies from Companies House (wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk) so that we could all be aware of the FACTS instead of speculating.
I trust the matter is now clarified
Edited by nigelo on Sunday 20th August 01:35
15hn said:
....Its an offence to continue to trade under a similar company name if you are a Director of an insolvent company. Google "s216 insolvency act".
Not in this case as the RC company still trading has either obtained leave of a Court; has different Officers; or made use of exception 3 of S216 as follows:
"3. The court’s leave is not required where the company, though known by the prohibited name within the meaning of the section has:
a) been known by that name for the whole period of 12 months ending with the day before the liquidating company went into liquidation, and
b) has not at any time in those 12 months been dormant"
Again, reread my earlier post and take note of the dates of incorporation
Hope this helps
Edited by nigelo on Sunday 20th August 01:53
andy355 said:
Is this ebay item actually connected to RC? when customers go there to sell a car on a sale/return basis they take some good pics. It could be the owner just using the RC pics. Sellers description "Will be sadly missed...Family car replacement!!" suggests its a private sale.
You may be right, but I think the text "Serviced Ready 2go" suggests otherwise. RC regularly used this phrase on its web site. Unless of course, the owner used the blurb as well as the photos from RC. I can't really understand why anyone would do this as I have never considered them to be particularly good pics.
The Ebay seller also has also only recently registered since RC went into liquidation. Can't anyone one else detect the faint whiff of kipper?
Disclaimer - all IMO
Edited by doodlebug on Sunday 20th August 08:27
Nigelo,
Where does it say that RC are under administration? They are under compulsory liquidation.
How do you know that the other RC Co's have applied for leave of court? How do you know they have different officers?
How do you know that the other Co's have not been dormant. What have they been doing? I was under the impression that none of these Co's had filed accounts. If they are active why have they not filed accounts? Are you assuming they are all active just because it says "active" on Co's house.
Its also very unlikely that the other Co's will be given leave to trade in what the insolvent "Sales" company was trading in.
Unless you know any of the above as a matter of fact then most of your post is speculation much like my original post.
Setting our discussion aside, i think the overall message is that RC are insolvent. I would have thought that in this case, most people dont want to deal with an insolvent Co. no matter how many other Co's there are.
Where does it say that RC are under administration? They are under compulsory liquidation.
How do you know that the other RC Co's have applied for leave of court? How do you know they have different officers?
How do you know that the other Co's have not been dormant. What have they been doing? I was under the impression that none of these Co's had filed accounts. If they are active why have they not filed accounts? Are you assuming they are all active just because it says "active" on Co's house.
Its also very unlikely that the other Co's will be given leave to trade in what the insolvent "Sales" company was trading in.
Unless you know any of the above as a matter of fact then most of your post is speculation much like my original post.
Setting our discussion aside, i think the overall message is that RC are insolvent. I would have thought that in this case, most people dont want to deal with an insolvent Co. no matter how many other Co's there are.
15hn said:
How do you know that the other RC Co's have applied for leave of court? How do you know they have different officers?
Where have I said that? I stated
"Not in this case as the RC company still trading has either obtained leave of a Court; has different Officers; or made use of exception 3 of S216"
1) Note the singular form that I have used "..the RC Company still trading.."
whereas you erroneously misquote "the other RC Co's"
2) Note that I have used the word "EITHER". IIRC, there are only 3 ways an apparently associated Company can continue trading. FACT, one RC company still apparently trades - Ergo it must fall under 1 of the 3 exceptions.
15hn said:
How do you know that the other Co's have not been dormant. What have they been doing? I was under the impression that none of these Co's had filed accounts. If they are active why have they not filed accounts? Are you assuming they are all active just because it says "active" on Co's house.
Again you erroneously use the plural whereas I have used the singular. The remaining RC company (the sole entity I referred to) is stated as "Active" by Co's house, does NOT currently have a "Proposal to strike off" shown against it, and also has the following attributes
Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 18/03/2005 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 18/05/2005
Next Return Due: 15/06/2006 OVERDUE
The status is shown as ACTIVE albeit with overdue accounts not DORMANT.
15hn said:
Its also very unlikely that the other Co's will be given leave to trade in what the insolvent "Sales" company was trading in.
Agreed - That is presumably why there are outstanding "Proposals to stike off" on 2 RC companies but interestingly not the remaining one. Where have I said otherwise? 15hn said:
Setting our discussion aside, i think the overall message is that RC are insolvent.
Agreed. 15hn said:
I would have thought that in this case, most people dont want to deal with an insolvent Co. no matter how many other Co's there are.
Agreed - Where have I said otherwise?Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff