"SavetheUKCC" petition

[John Upham]

Those who have criminal records will not be allowed to work with vulnerable adults and young children.

This has been the case since the introduction of the CRB scheme and latterly the DBS scheme.

What are you saying that is new or relevant to the bankruptcy of MJB?

[Alan Kennedy]

Trading under UKCC kills off that as an entity.

I do not agree the trading name can still and should be used in any phoenix - the biggest obstacle to the UKCC continuing is Mike Basman's statements - it is not uncommon for people in bankruptcy to adopt a similarly quixotic approach but it not helpful to any successor who may try and carry on Mike Basmans good work thus far.

[Michael Flatt]

Those who have criminal records will not be allowed to work with vulnerable adults and young children.

This has been the case since the introduction of the CRB scheme and latterly the DBS scheme.

What are you saying that is new or relevant to the bankruptcy of MJB?

I don't believe these statements are fully accurate. Whereas CRB could be demanded in all situations where adults worked with children the situation has changed with the introduction of DBS.

Before asking individuals to apply for DBS an assessment has to be made regarding that person's level and frequency of contact with children. If the required threshold is not reached there is no requirement for DBS and one cannot be demanded.

Although DBS is now 'transportable' in the sense that a single check is sufficient when undertaking the same role in different organisations, a separate DBS will be required for each different role. Registering with electronic updating service (£13 per year) avoids unnecessary form filling and makes it easier for organisations to check the status of an individual's DBS.

The ECF used to require all Arbiters to undergo CRB checks but that requirement has had to be dropped to comply with change in Law and introduction of DBS.

[1] DBS: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... ng-service

[Roger Lancaster]

It never was the case that a criminal conviction automatically barred a person from working with children and/or vulnerable adults but, rather, that it had to be disclosed. Typically, a white collar crime (and even more so, if committed in the distant past) might be judged by a potential employer as having no bearing on someone's suitability to work with these groups.

[Gary Kenworthy]

I could have written a long email to cover each point with many clauses and many extra details.

The main thrust is again missed. This is an overall generic plan. It also deals with future prevention and lessons learnt. It deals with a way ahead and not going around in circles.

The Michael Flatt post on the DBS is clear. It is mandatory that you must go through the Disclosure process. There are three levels (/ roles). Anybody, irrespective of your name, who directs works with children and those described as vulnerable adults. At lesser clearances you can definitely still get a job -- it will be hard with some employers, yes type of offence has a bearing. If your role changes, and you go for higher clearances then there will be mounting problems.

I was the BCF Director trying to implement Section IV of the Police Act, to vast opposition, my name hauled through the mud. Pillored. Really upset me. I packed it in. I said these things are coming, but few believed me. Now it is of an even higher set of standards.

The new company cannot have an identical name etc.

We drop the Mike Basman issue, we drop the petition. It is not about one single person only etc

Not going to go through each and every point, in every detail or the reasoning why - regards Gary K

[Alan Kennedy]

The new company cannot have an identical name etc.

that is not always correct. there are plently of circumstances where the brand could be preserved even if the managment are not. It is also not clear why the criminal issues are being raised. Bankruptcy is not a criminal offence and although tax evasion is potentially a criminal offence it is very rare for it to be prosecuted. I therefore am not sure the issue is relevant.

[Neil Graham]

The new company cannot have an identical name etc.

that is not always correct. there are plently of circumstances where the brand could be preserved even if the managment are not. It is also not clear why the criminal issues are being raised. Bankruptcy is not a criminal offence and although tax evasion is potentially a criminal offence it is very rare for it to be prosecuted. I therefore am not sure the issue is relevant.

Had Mr.Basman been operating as a company such as UK Chess Challenge Ltd this would not have happened. He wasn't operating as a limited company but as the documents show "Michael Basman trading as UK Chess Challenge". As a sole trader/proprietor you might have expected him to register "UK Chess Challenge" as a trading name with Companies House but bearing in mind he failed to bother with VAT this somehow also seemed to have escaped his attention, unless someone can tell the forum any different.

[Simon Brown]

Alan is correct again. But remember there is no "old" company - if I wanted to own a company called "UK Chess Challenge Limited" it would take me two phone calls, about £150 and about three hours.

In additional "UKCC" has no trademark (I have checked). I could own the UK IP with another phone call, and a single class fee of £820 plus VAT (!) plus £200 of legal costs, then there would be an opposition period before it was mine.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Wow, understand Alan, Simon and Neil. He did not even register the (old) company !. Amazing ! So, yes, somebody else could buy the off-the shelf company, or set one up and sell it. Zero protection. Thus the receiver does not have UKCC. As per Neil trading under UKCC...
Same with not registering the various forms of the IP. (best to register several the same).
e.g. Been involved in these situations before where the name lapsed and within a day a "friendly" company offered to sell our company name back to us. Happens a lot in the States as well with film stars and others.(Had similar with a chess company as well, also calls from similar companies that we must stop using our name as it sounds similar to theirs). I have set up companies before and have and do have a company house number, and they have VAT registration because of the turnover.

An aside: Anybody going to buy and set up the ECF and variants as a company name - or is that all covered? ?

The trademark / BCF logo was covered and discussed at BCF board meetings -- hence letters sent to folk "passing themselves off" or using the logo without permission.
Best Regards Gary Kenworthy
The government will press for their money...it is theirs, it is the taxpayers etc

[Alan Kennedy]

Wow, understand Alan, Simon and Neil. He did not even register the (old) company !. Amazing ! So, yes, somebody else could buy the off-the shelf company, or set one up and sell it. Zero protection. Thus the receiver does not have UKCC. As per Neil trading under UKCC...
Same with not registering the various forms of the IP. (best to register several the same).
e.g. Been involved in these situations before where the name lapsed and within a day a "friendly" company offered to sell our company name back to us. Happens a lot in the States as well with film stars and others.(Had similar with a chess company as well, also calls from similar companies that we must stop using our name as it sounds similar to theirs). I have set up companies before and have and do have a company house number, and they have VAT registration because of the turnover.

An aside: Anybody going to buy and set up the ECF and variants as a company name - or is that all covered? ?

The trademark / BCF logo was covered and discussed at BCF board meetings -- hence letters sent to folk "passing themselves off" or using the logo without permission.
Best Regards Gary Kenworthy
The government will press for their money...it is theirs, it is the taxpayers etc

UKCC was a trading name so I am not sure what he would have registered or if indeed it was worth registering. There is a company called UKCC Limited registered at compnanies house but it is nothing to do with Michael Basman. The goverment has already pressed for its money - it will have issued a demand or obtained a judgement before filing a bankruptcy petition. It is now up to the Trustee in Bankruptcy to realise Mr Basmans assets and then distribute them amongst creditors pari pasu (after payment of the insolvency practitiones fees and the mortgage on Mr Basman's house - if he has one.) With a certain sense of irony not only has Mr Basman underpaid VAT for many years he has almost certainly over paid income tax (or more particularly national insurance) to the extent 9% of his profits above the primary threshold The precise computation of the tax savings on incorporation is quite complex but I would be interested to know if the savings exceeded the fees sought to avoid. The break even point is usually around 22K!

[Gary Kenworthy]

Thanks Alan.
I got it wrong by assuming he must be limited liability. So obvious to work that way.
I do know Mike, and co-operation is key. He is bright, but his stubborn streak for natural justice, a crusade, a campaign or be have martyrdom will not wash in this situation. These are not blocking chess officials, this is about the prevail law of the land. The risks are high, for insubordination, non co-operation and further charges. The risk of High court is too high. Additional risks will grow over time.

Even the brand UKCC will suffer from due diligence checks, reputational risk and those not wanting risk by association. I do not see it as a way ahead. even though the Companies House will currently be ok. The whole thing is not nice.

I prefer we look forward. As I have posted elsewhere on other threads. Go down the route of metrics, studies, proof, educational studies collecting years of data to demonstrate the advantages and benefits of chess. Then use that to gain a right of say why chess should have a higher status in these lands. Thus with that backing seek tax exemptions to alter the law of the land.
Regards Gary Kenworthy

[Roger de Coverly]

With a certain sense of irony not only has Mr Basman underpaid VAT for many years he has almost certainly over paid income tax (or more particularly national insurance) to the extent 9% of his profits above the primary threshold

It occurred to me that if he was paying income tax on his earnings from UKCC, he would have paid too much if his gross income from £ 40 per school and £ 15 per qualifying player was reduced by up to 20%.

[Michael Flatt]

The Delancey UK Schools Chess Challenge was conceived by Mike Basman and has run successfully for twenty years. It is unlike any other Junior competition and there is no event that comes close to rival it. Parents and children absolutely love it.

It is for Mike to decide for himself whether it will continue and who will manage the financial side.

The entry packs normally go out to schools just before Christmas so we will just have to be patient and see what Mike Basman decides.

[Michael Farthing]

The Delancey UK Schools Chess Challenge was conceived by Mike Basman and has run successfully for twenty years. It is unlike any other Junior competition and there is no event that comes close to rival it. Parents and children absolutely love it.

It is for Mike to decide for himself whether it will continue and who will manage the financial side.

The entry packs normally go out to schools just before Christmas so we will just have to be patient and see what Mike Basman decides.

I assume this is a wind-up??
But actually you're behind the times. He has now already been wound up and has no further part to play.

[Alan Kennedy]

The Delancey UK Schools Chess Challenge was conceived by Mike Basman and has run successfully for twenty years. It is unlike any other Junior competition and there is no event that comes close to rival it. Parents and children absolutely love it.

It is for Mike to decide for himself whether it will continue and who will manage the financial side.

The entry packs normally go out to schools just before Christmas so we will just have to be patient and see what Mike Basman decides.

Michael Whilst I understand and agree with the sentiment I regret that you have failed to understand the law of bankruptcy. All Mr Basmans assets including the right to make decisions about his business passed to his Trustee on 8 August. Mr Basman has a duty to cooperate with his Trustee and that would include facilitating the sale of the business to anyone willing to buy it. To do otherwise could be contempt of court. You are also incorrect to say that Mr Basman has successfully run the UKCC for many years. One of the difficulties in running a business is not only that you have to sell the product which as you rightly point out Mr Basman did very successfully but also you have to comply with the regulations that apply. This Mr Basman failed to do. You may argue that the regulations are unfair but that does not alter the point - he failed to pay tax lawfully due and it is estimated that you and I pay approximately 2% extra tax per annum because of tax not paid either due to insolvency or evasion. We also pay extra tax as a result of big business using tax planning and avoidance but that is another issue not for this thread.

In any situation such as this (and I am not talking specifically here about Mr Basman as I do not know him and have not met him) there is always a problem in the bankrupt having anything other than minimal involvement because (a) the practicalities - where will they get credit card facilities from (b) the reputational disadvantage of having him involved - will the schools and the sponsors trust any organisation that employees or uses him and (c) the competence of the bankrupt - Mr Basman is a brilliant chess player and junior tournament organiser but is he a skillful businessman - his will take a lot of effort and skill to successfully rescue the UKCC and I would want to be certain that Mr Basman has that skill set before entrusting him with the future of the "UK chess challenge" whatever that may be.

As I have said elsewhere (in response to the comments by John Foley the the parallel thread) all of this seems very harsh to those not familiar with insolvency but necessarily so - otherwise the insolvency law would simply not work. I also would not wish the experience that Mike Basman is currently going through on almost anyone - it is very unpleasant to say the least. As always these are general comments - specific advice should be taken from an Insolvency practitioner before proceeding.

Alan