refused a business bank account

[Helicopter123]

Dejay1788 said:

Use a different bank, if their service is this poor whilst trying to pay them substantially for awful service, imagine how terrible they will be if they get her tied in to an account and can't be arsed to deal with you?

What's this got to do with the Bank? Step 1 of any credit application is a credit search, and this has thrown up a Red Flag. Bank have advised applicant who now has the opportunity to investigate further.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

2 & 3 are for the benefit of the individual and I can understand that. It's no 1 I can't understand. We make numerous payments to individuals, and small firms which aren't ltd co. I'm not sure what benefit there would be to us in insisting we only deal with Ltd Co. I'd rather sue an individual than a corporate entity.

AIUI, it comes down to the perception of regulation. Small companies are regulated by the CA2006, have to file accounts, have directors who have to meet certain standards of conduct, and so on. Sole traders aren't. It's also easier to credit check a small company than a sole trader.

Now just how accurate the perception is is a different matter. But I'm pretty sure that's the reason.

[mrpurple]

Helicopter123 said:

Dejay1788 said:

Use a different bank, if their service is this poor whilst trying to pay them substantially for awful service, imagine how terrible they will be if they get her tied in to an account and can't be arsed to deal with you?

What's this got to do with the Bank? Step 1 of any credit application is a credit search, and this has thrown up a Red Flag. Bank have advised applicant who now has the opportunity to investigate further.

Except that branch manager of said bank can't find the red flag when he did checks. No record of a credit search is even shown when doing our own checks (amazing how much info other does though). Further investigations (link kindly supplied on here)have been made and confirms that the information being used is incorrect and the said department that have apparently found this information will not reveal their source and has nobody available for a meeting for at least 3 weeks. Ergo we have no way of correcting said incorrect information as only this dept in this bank know where it is hidden.

BTW it was not a credit application of any kind just a basic business account to make occasional online transfer in and out of.

[Mr Pointy]

Countdown said:

Mr Pointy said:

The issue is not when everything is going right, but when it goes wrong. <snip>

We carry out the Employed vs. Self Employed checks for all Contractors providing services, regardless of whether they are ST or LtdCo. I'm not aware that paying a LtdCo (rather than a ST) absolves us from being lumbered with Ers NI issues if HMRC decide to investigate?

As I suspected, there is a substantial difference between the the two situations. See Eric Mcs' reply here:

Eric Mc said:

Mr Pointy said:

Eric

In relation to another thread does it make any difference to the employer having to pay the tax & NI due if the deemed employee is a sole trader or operating as a limited company?. Would they be liable if the former, but not if the latter?

It makes a BIG difference.

If the engaged individual is claiming to be a sole trader, then it is the deemed EMPLOYER who has to find the underpaid taxers.

If the engaged individual is operating through his/her own limited company, then it is HIS LIMITED COMPANY that has to find the missing taxes (i.e. IR35 should have been operated).

You may now understand why some organisations are insistent that contractors come to them through their own limited companies.

[Sheepshanks]

Helicopter123 said:

What's this got to do with the Bank? Step 1 of any credit application is a credit search, and this has thrown up a Red Flag. Bank have advised applicant who now has the opportunity to investigate further.

It's unusual to advise the reason for rejection - normally once a bank says "no" you hit a brick wall.

[mrpurple]

Little update:

Branch manager rang to say he is still pursuing the matter but the business dept are not getting back to him and he finds the whole thing, given her status as he can see it, rather strange.

[Countdown]

Mr Pointy said:

Countdown said:

Mr Pointy said:

The issue is not when everything is going right, but when it goes wrong. <snip>

We carry out the Employed vs. Self Employed checks for all Contractors providing services, regardless of whether they are ST or LtdCo. I'm not aware that paying a LtdCo (rather than a ST) absolves us from being lumbered with Ers NI issues if HMRC decide to investigate?

As I suspected, there is a substantial difference between the the two situations. See Eric Mcs' reply here:

Eric Mc said:

Mr Pointy said:

Eric

In relation to another thread does it make any difference to the employer having to pay the tax & NI due if the deemed employee is a sole trader or operating as a limited company?. Would they be liable if the former, but not if the latter?

It makes a BIG difference.

If the engaged individual is claiming to be a sole trader, then it is the deemed EMPLOYER who has to find the underpaid taxers.

If the engaged individual is operating through his/her own limited company, then it is HIS LIMITED COMPANY that has to find the missing taxes (i.e. IR35 should have been operated).

You may now understand why some organisations are insistent that contractors come to them through their own limited companies.

Thanks - that makes sense. Having said that however we personally don't rely on the fact that, just because somebody is "Ltd" we don't put them on the Payroll. We would still apply the HMRC checks and treat accordingly.

[mrpurple]

The irony of all ironies - just opened a basic business account in a matter of minutes online - confirmation came from, yep you guessed it, parent company which just so happens to be the same bank.

[audidoody]

>3) You don't lose your house if you get sued

Company directors can get sued.