Malcolm Philip Herbert and his wife Esther May Herbert of Redditch, directors of Machermore Castle Care Home Limited (Machermore), have been disqualified from being company directors for a total of seven years for failing to provide for taxes due following an investigation by the Insolvency Service.
The investigation found Mr and Mrs Herbert allowed Machermore to trade while failing to pay full Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and National Insurance Contributions (NIC). The company traded as a care home from premises in South West Scotland but was registered in England.
Mr Malcolm Philip Herbert, 58 and his wife Esther May Herbert, 52 of Redditch, Worcestershire, each gave undertakings to the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) not to manage, control or act in the promotion of limited companies for a period of three-and-a-half years with effect from 7 November 2012
During the investigation, Mr and Mrs Herbert admitted that although the companys turnover exceeded 1.6 million between 1 June 2005 and 28 February 2010 only 27,933 was paid to HMRC during this period.
As a result of the couples failure to provide for or pay PAYE or NIC in respect of employees wages, Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (HMRC) were owed 179,970 at 18 August 2010, the date the company went into voluntary liquidation.
Commenting on the disqualification undertakings, Clive Tranter, Head of Company Investigations North East and Edinburgh a part of The Insolvency Service said:
The undertakings signed by Mr and Mrs Herbert send a clear message that there are certain responsibilities that come with being director of a company and that failure to perform those duties have consequences.
The Insolvency Service has strong enforcement powers and we will not hesitate to use them to remove from the business environment directors who fail to properly carry out their responsibilities, as has been demonstrated in this case.
Mr and Mrs Herbert failed to attend to the companys tax affairs, causing the company to trade to the detriment of HM Revenue & Customs. In doing so, the conduct of both directors fell far below that expected of directors of a limited company.