View more on these topics

John Charcol’s debts revealed

Documents filed on Companies House reveal that John Charcol had liabilities of over £3.7m when it entered into voluntary liquidation earlier this year.

The mortgage brokerage was bought from administrators Grant Thornton in February by Towergate Financial.

It officially entered into voluntary liquidation on April 6 at which time it had outstanding liabilities of £3,726,834. The bulk of this debt was owed to Lloyds TSB Bank, which was owed just over £1.2m.

Towergate Financial bought the staff, assets, brand, customers and services of John Charcol when it entered into administration.

It also made arrangements so the brokerage’s customers were protected by professional indemnity insurance and did not suffer any loss.

Recommended

3

No typical customers

There has been much discussion on the timing of the return of the sub-prime mortgage market.

Three firms to offer MarketGuard’s rate protection product

MarketGuard has signed up three adviser firms to distribute its RateGuard product that protects against rising interest rates. First Action Finance, HomeLoan Partnership and Julian Harris have signed up for the RateGuard product, offering protection against increases in mortgage payments as a result of a rise in the Bank of England base rate or LIBOR. […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
Comments
  • Post a comment
  • Mortgage Broker N3 26th April 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Charcol were lucky to find a buyer – many, sadly were not and its the advisers who lost their commission during a very difficult time.

    Its unfortunate John Garfield didnt mention the extent of their financial problems when I asked about their finances after he interviewed me 6 months ago for a job.

  • GRF 26th April 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Sadly you will find that this administration process is usually done to get out of rental agreements. So sad to say that the banks lose and the landlord loses also. I think it is a joke however that the FSA were not aware of this and that they allow firms to just walk away from their responsibilities.

  • Only interested in personal profit? 26th April 2010 at 11:43 am

    The mess which created the £3.7m loss remains. And I might suggest from an FSA perspective JC is actually pretty low down the ‘high profile’ definition.

    Let us not give too much respect to a failed sales/commission driven enterprise which was always more a successful brand then a robust business due to the focus on simple shallow mercenary gain. Quite amusing really; I might suggest the clients of JC need to take time out to read the ‘Emperors New Clothes’.

  • John Brett 26th April 2010 at 11:23 am

    The idea is to become too big to fail.

  • John Lacy 26th April 2010 at 11:09 am

    I know where you’re coming from anonymous @10:49 but doesn’t this prove once again that the FSA have one set of rules for the “big” players and much more stringent ones for the rest of us.

  • Jeremy 26th April 2010 at 10:49 am

    Is there not a capital adequacy issue that the FSA should have been on top of? Or did the FSA see this and ‘forced’ the sale through to prevent another high profile collapse.

  • Jeremy 26th April 2010 at 10:49 am

    Is there not a capital adequacy issue that the FSA should have been on top of? Or did the FSA see this and ‘forced’ the sale through to prevent another high profile collapse.