VIDEO: Young woman with learning difficulties facing eviction from home due to legal action against bankrupt parents

OUTRAGED: Tom, Bridget and Clare McCabe

OUTRAGED: Tom, Bridget and Clare McCabe

First published in News
Last updated
by

A young woman with learning difficulties is facing eviction from her home as a result of legal action taken against her bankrupt parents.

Clare McCabe, 25, currently lives in a house in New Milton along with two other vulnerable adults and a support worker.

She is due to be evicted at the end of this month because of a dispute between her parents Tom and Bridget and accountancy giant Grant Thornton.

It stems back to 2008, when Tom McCabe sold his telecoms company VIP.com. He failed to ensure he and his wife were removed as directors and the company went on to run up a £330,000 debt with BT.

They were later hit with a bill for £750,000 – the original bill and Grant Thornton’s costs of more than £400,000.

The legal fees increased again, taking the total bill to around £1.3million. Mr McCabe claims he has never been provided with an itemised breakdown of costs. He said they had to declare themselves bankrupt.

Grant Thornton were then appointed to be Mrs McCabe’s trustees in bankruptcy, which could add a further £600,000 to the fees.

A possession order has already been issued for the couple’s home in South London, and, at Bournemouth Crown Court, District Judge Martin Dancey issued a possession order for the New Milton property. This property is in Mrs McCabe’s name because of Clare’s learning difficulties.

Zac Goldsmith, the McCabe’s MP, has written to Grant Thornton stating: “The fundamental question is just how a disputed debt of £333,000 could increase virtually sixfold to an amount just short of £2million with no real attempts being made to seek a sensible and just solution to the original dispute.”

A spokesperson for BT said: “BT had no choice but to take legal action to recover this large debt.”

A statement issued on behalf of Kevin Hellard, partner at Grant Thornton UK LLP, and David Standish of KPMG – the trustees in bankruptcy of Mrs McCabe, said: “The trustees have made every effort to realise their interest in the property without the need for evicting the tenants.

"They have investigated agreeing a sale with a party nominated by Mrs McCabe, who did not proceed with the purchase.

“The trustees also sought to obtain rental agreements for the occupants to explore if the property could be sold with the occupants in place, however Mrs McCabe has resisted the attempts to obtain the information and the trustees’ agents advised that the documentation eventually produced is not satisfactory to enable the trustees to market the property with the occupants.

“The trustees had no option but to seek vacant possession and the court, having heard all the arguments and reviewed the evidence, has agreed that this is the appropriate course.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:25pm Thu 6 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

The MP has a point. If this has escalated to a dispute concerning nearly £2million then it sounds like the usual 'professional' suspects, who engage in this sort of entangled corporate, legal and financial case, are all going to do rather nicely on the back of what started off as a far more modest problem - in this case a £330k debt.

But this part of the story does not entirely add up "He failed to ensure he and his wife were removed as directors and the company went on to run up a £330,000 debt with BT." because even as Directors (past or present) they would not automatically be personally liable for the debts of a Limited (liability) Company. There are gaps in this story.
The MP has a point. If this has escalated to a dispute concerning nearly £2million then it sounds like the usual 'professional' suspects, who engage in this sort of entangled corporate, legal and financial case, are all going to do rather nicely on the back of what started off as a far more modest problem - in this case a £330k debt. But this part of the story does not entirely add up "He failed to ensure he and his wife were removed as directors and the company went on to run up a £330,000 debt with BT." because even as Directors (past or present) they would not automatically be personally liable for the debts of a Limited (liability) Company. There are gaps in this story. muscliffman
  • Score: 17

1:39pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Huey says...

Whole thing stinks
Whole thing stinks Huey
  • Score: 11

3:04pm Thu 6 Mar 14

60plus says...

That's ok the council will provide the daughter and carers with a council house.
That's ok the council will provide the daughter and carers with a council house. 60plus
  • Score: 7

3:37pm Thu 6 Mar 14

BoscVegas says...

muscliffman wrote:
The MP has a point. If this has escalated to a dispute concerning nearly £2million then it sounds like the usual 'professional' suspects, who engage in this sort of entangled corporate, legal and financial case, are all going to do rather nicely on the back of what started off as a far more modest problem - in this case a £330k debt.

But this part of the story does not entirely add up "He failed to ensure he and his wife were removed as directors and the company went on to run up a £330,000 debt with BT." because even as Directors (past or present) they would not automatically be personally liable for the debts of a Limited (liability) Company. There are gaps in this story.
they may do. lots of directors take loans out the company as it is a tax efficient way of taking drawings. The moneys are only loans so when it all goes pete tong they can be called back. there are other things that would mean the directors limited liability is waived.

If I was him I would look that the statutory time limits as 2008 has got to be close to 6 years ago.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: The MP has a point. If this has escalated to a dispute concerning nearly £2million then it sounds like the usual 'professional' suspects, who engage in this sort of entangled corporate, legal and financial case, are all going to do rather nicely on the back of what started off as a far more modest problem - in this case a £330k debt. But this part of the story does not entirely add up "He failed to ensure he and his wife were removed as directors and the company went on to run up a £330,000 debt with BT." because even as Directors (past or present) they would not automatically be personally liable for the debts of a Limited (liability) Company. There are gaps in this story.[/p][/quote]they may do. lots of directors take loans out the company as it is a tax efficient way of taking drawings. The moneys are only loans so when it all goes pete tong they can be called back. there are other things that would mean the directors limited liability is waived. If I was him I would look that the statutory time limits as 2008 has got to be close to 6 years ago. BoscVegas
  • Score: 6

4:22pm Thu 6 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

BoscVegas wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
The MP has a point. If this has escalated to a dispute concerning nearly £2million then it sounds like the usual 'professional' suspects, who engage in this sort of entangled corporate, legal and financial case, are all going to do rather nicely on the back of what started off as a far more modest problem - in this case a £330k debt.

But this part of the story does not entirely add up "He failed to ensure he and his wife were removed as directors and the company went on to run up a £330,000 debt with BT." because even as Directors (past or present) they would not automatically be personally liable for the debts of a Limited (liability) Company. There are gaps in this story.
they may do. lots of directors take loans out the company as it is a tax efficient way of taking drawings. The moneys are only loans so when it all goes pete tong they can be called back. there are other things that would mean the directors limited liability is waived.

If I was him I would look that the statutory time limits as 2008 has got to be close to 6 years ago.
Quite, that is exactly the sort of 'gap' in the story I was suggesting. Personal guarantees on the Company's finances and certain corporate irregularities could be amongst the many others. However I don't believe the six year debt 'rules' will apply to a case that is on going and remains active/in dispute.
[quote][p][bold]BoscVegas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: The MP has a point. If this has escalated to a dispute concerning nearly £2million then it sounds like the usual 'professional' suspects, who engage in this sort of entangled corporate, legal and financial case, are all going to do rather nicely on the back of what started off as a far more modest problem - in this case a £330k debt. But this part of the story does not entirely add up "He failed to ensure he and his wife were removed as directors and the company went on to run up a £330,000 debt with BT." because even as Directors (past or present) they would not automatically be personally liable for the debts of a Limited (liability) Company. There are gaps in this story.[/p][/quote]they may do. lots of directors take loans out the company as it is a tax efficient way of taking drawings. The moneys are only loans so when it all goes pete tong they can be called back. there are other things that would mean the directors limited liability is waived. If I was him I would look that the statutory time limits as 2008 has got to be close to 6 years ago.[/p][/quote]Quite, that is exactly the sort of 'gap' in the story I was suggesting. Personal guarantees on the Company's finances and certain corporate irregularities could be amongst the many others. However I don't believe the six year debt 'rules' will apply to a case that is on going and remains active/in dispute. muscliffman
  • Score: 7

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree