Tarquin Traders on BBC South NOW

Deleted User said:
I don't think that the inference is that he retained the £10k personally. It seems to me that the £10k was an extra slice off the top for his company which I guess was in addition to any commission his company deducted. Interesting scam. I guess he produced one set of sale documents for the seller with £290k on it and another set for the buyer with £300k on it. With the buyer being in Denmark and the seller in the UK, I assume he thought the two would never meet. I wonder how many other times he used this scam or indeed whether other brokers use it?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. The problem the Danish guy had was that TC would not forward him any documentation relating to the sale (the Danish guy admitted to being naive for paying the money on the strength of a handshake). Maybe TC didn't want to send a BOS with the 300k figure on because it documents an act of fraud, whereas with no paperwork he can do exactly what he's doing now, and apologise for forgetting to send the balance of the proceeds?

With no sale invoice why would he bother putting the £10k through the co? OK, due to his losses he probably wouldn't be facing a CT bill, but the losses also mean there's probably no retained earnings to dividend out, and even if there was, he would be taxed on the dividends. Far more likely to have pocketed it personally IMO.

Oh, and can people stop using words like phrryic and vexatious, some of us are struggling to keep up as it is :-)
 
Nick_H said:
I'm not so sure. The problem the Danish guy had was that TC would not forward him any documentation relating to the sale (the Danish guy admitted to being naive for paying the money on the strength of a handshake). Maybe TC didn't want to send a BOS with the 300k figure on because it documents an act of fraud, whereas with no paperwork he can do exactly what he's doing now, and apologise for forgetting to send the balance of the proceeds?

With no sale invoice why would he bother putting the £10k through the co? OK, due to his losses he probably wouldn't be facing a CT bill, but the losses also mean there's probably no retained earnings to dividend out, and even if there was, he would be taxed on the dividends. Far more likely to have pocketed it personally IMO.

Oh, and can people stop using words like phrryic and vexatious, some of us are struggling to keep up as it is :-)
Click to expand...

I guess because the Danish guy would have paid over the £300k in a lump sum to one of Tarquin's accounts so how could Chappell have pocketed the £10k personally? And if then Chappell had written himself a cheque for £10k, it would have left a trail for auditors and HMRC to find. I certainly couldn't write myself a cheque for £10k from my company without an auditor asking me why at the end of the year. My guess is that this was a little scam he perpetrated from time to time whenever he thought he could get away with it and he extracted the cash from his company in other ways such as expenses or directors loan
 
jfm said:
Yeah, but as he/family are 100pc shareholders, the distinction is academic?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course but I can't see how he could have got £10k in cash directly out of it. It's not as if the Danish guy would have paid £290k into Tarquin's a/c and £10k into Chappell's personal a/c
 
If the sales invoice said 290k, then the cash balances so it's easy, he doesn't need to get the buyer to split the payment. Anyway, as you say it's not difficult to get relatively small sums like that out of a family controlled co, so he could have done it either way.

If i'm right about it being the reason he didn't send the paperwork to the Danish guy (why else not, he's given him the boat) then he's even lower than I already thought, as the Danish guy was blaming the lack of paperwork for his charter business folding and the bank seizing the boat, although I'd add a disclaimer that there's lots of speculation in that, and I don't think charter businesses are that lucrative at the best of times.
 
Malthouse said:
Our sale agreements are signed by both parties who literally exchange documents so everyone (including us) has a copy which matches the others.

Strange that this is not the norm?!
Click to expand...

That is of course how it should be but if buyer and seller are in 2 different locations, he could have done one of 2 things. He could have got the seller to sign the documents at £290k, scanned them into his puter and changed the figure to £300k before presenting them to the buyer or produced 2 different sets of docs and forged buyer's and seller's signatures on them. The fact that the buyer didn't get his docs probably indicates that he was hoping to get away without doing either knowing that it would leave an incriminating paper trail. All imho and allegedly, of course, without prejudice etc etc
 
Deleted User said:
Yes, of course but I can't see how he could have got £10k in cash directly out of it. It's not as if the Danish guy would have paid £290k into Tarquin's a/c and £10k into Chappell's personal a/c
Click to expand...


(a) A normal person could take it as divi/bonus (with tax cost)
(b) An unscrupulous person might make an invoice on Microsoft Office for "roof repairs to office £10k" or something

I leave it to you to guess whether this is an (a) or a (b) case :-)
 
Malthouse said:
The I guess there is an element of the buyer (and seller) needing to be aware? For a third of a million quid I would want to see ink on an original.
Click to expand...

Why, I'd just want to see my money:)
 
jfm said:
(a) A normal person could take it as divi/bonus (with tax cost)
(b) An unscrupulous person might make an invoice on Microsoft Office for "roof repairs to office £10k" or something

I leave it to you to guess whether this is an (a) or a (b) case :-)
Click to expand...

Nah, b) still leaves a trail and leaves him wide open to HMRC investigation. Much simpler to fill his plane up on the company a few times for personal jaunts dressed as business trips
 
Deleted User said:
Yes, of course but I can't see how he could have got £10k in cash directly out of it. It's not as if the Danish guy would have paid £290k into Tarquin's a/c and £10k into Chappell's personal a/c
Click to expand...

But there you may have it, Dane looks at boat in Uk and likes it.

Pays £10K holding deposit - say even in cash.


Then later the £290K balance is paid electronically/cheque/ throu Danes finance house.

Bingo!
 
Deleted User said:
I guess because the Danish guy would have paid over the £300k in a lump sum to one of Tarquin's accounts so how could Chappell have pocketed the £10k personally? And if then Chappell had written himself a cheque for £10k, it would have left a trail for auditors and HMRC to find. I certainly couldn't write myself a cheque for £10k from my company without an auditor asking me why at the end of the year. My guess is that this was a little scam he perpetrated from time to time whenever he thought he could get away with it and he extracted the cash from his company in other ways such as expenses or directors loan
Click to expand...

If my memory serves me correctly, HMRC are decidely unenthusiastic about directors loan accounts, especially if a company is trading and is to all intents and purposes trading in an insolvent manner. But I suppose we are dealing here with a guy who is decidely 'gung ho' and when the books are finally completed for the trading year is not going to care a jot that he has a huge directors loan account. I can only hope for the creditors sake that the Revenue take a dim view of this and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. It will of course not help them in the recovery of their funds, but it may give them some satisfaction if they put the so and so in the slammer and sequestrate any assets he may have.
 
mjf said:
But there you may have it, Dane looks at boat in Uk and likes it.

Pays £10K holding deposit - say even in cash.


Then later the £290K balance is paid electronically/cheque/ throu Danes finance house.

Bingo!
Click to expand...

Yup, thats possible. Actually I found the Danish story a bit odd altogether. The Dane said that he paid £300k to Tarquin/Chappell but because Chappell didn't send the docs thru, he lost the boat to the bank. How does that work? If he paid for the boat himself even if he later intended to finance the boat, surely the boat remains his. If the finance co was going to pay for the boat, they wouldn't have paid the money over until they got the signed bill of sale and if they didnt get that, they wouldnt have paid Tarquin. And how did this all ruin his charter business? More to this than meets the eye IMHO
 
Adrianwool said:
If my memory serves me correctly, HMRC are decidely unenthusiastic about directors loan accounts, especially if a company is trading and is to all intents and purposes trading in an insolvent manner. But I suppose we are dealing here with a guy who is decidely 'gung ho' and when the books are finally completed for the trading year is not going to care a jot that he has a huge directors loan account. I can only hope for the creditors sake that the Revenue take a dim view of this and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. It will of course not help them in the recovery of their funds, but it may give them some satisfaction if they put the so and so in the slammer and sequestrate any assets he may have.
Click to expand...

They won't be interested in prosecuting him. First if he's paid over any o/s VAT and PAYE/NI, he's in the clear as far as they are concerned. Second, they are invariably preferred creditors in any administration so, if the co has any realisable assets, they get first dip. Also, the 'family' paid £440k for the assets of the business to the Administrator. It wouldn't surprise me if £440k was coincedentally just enough to pay off HMRC and any bank loans/mortgages.
If HMRC get their money, they don't give a toss about anything else the directors have done. It's a Police matter if they've acted fraudulently in other ways
 
Deleted User said:
Yup, thats possible. Actually I found the Danish story a bit odd altogether. The Dane said that he paid £300k to Tarquin/Chappell but because Chappell didn't send the docs thru, he lost the boat to the bank. How does that work? If he paid for the boat himself even if he later intended to finance the boat, surely the boat remains his. If the finance co was going to pay for the boat, they wouldn't have paid the money over until they got the signed bill of sale and if they didnt get that, they wouldnt have paid Tarquin. And how did this all ruin his charter business? More to this than meets the eye IMHO
Click to expand...
Yes there is more her than meets the eye. Thats exactly how the 'C's of this world get away with this stuff too IMHO.

Quite how he lost the boat but still cleearly has access to it with a camera crew begs a question. The 'missing' $58/59K' from the lady's claim was never explained either - thats a lot of £800/m.


Its a shame as the issue is real and people clearly have suffered a loss - yet the reporting and now the retribution appear vague in the first instance and nil in the second.
 
Deleted User said:
Yup, thats possible. Actually I found the Danish story a bit odd altogether. The Dane said that he paid £300k to Tarquin/Chappell but because Chappell didn't send the docs thru, he lost the boat to the bank. How does that work? If he paid for the boat himself even if he later intended to finance the boat, surely the boat remains his. If the finance co was going to pay for the boat, they wouldn't have paid the money over until they got the signed bill of sale and if they didnt get that, they wouldnt have paid Tarquin. And how did this all ruin his charter business? More to this than meets the eye IMHO
Click to expand...

My guess is he took a bank loan for the charter business, as opposed to a mortgage on the boat, with a general debenture over any assets. Without the papers he maybe couldn't get some form of charter licence/insurance/permit etc. so couldn't rent the boat out. With no income he fell behind with the loan repayments, so the bank sent in the bailiffs?
 
Nick_H said:
My guess is he took a bank loan for the charter business, as opposed to a mortgage on the boat, with a general debenture over any assets. Without the papers he maybe couldn't get some form of charter licence/insurance/permit etc. so couldn't rent the boat out. With no income he fell behind with the loan repayments, so the bank sent in the bailiffs?
Click to expand...

Yup that sounds plausible but with that hanging over his head, you'd think the Dane would be camped outside Chappell's office in Emsworth with a shotgun until he got the papers, not just sitting in Copenhagen waiting for the world to fall about his ears?
 
mjf said:
Yes there is more her than meets the eye. Thats exactly how the 'C's of this world get away with this stuff too IMHO.

Quite how he lost the boat but still cleearly has access to it with a camera crew begs a question. The 'missing' $58/59K' from the lady's claim was never explained either - thats a lot of £800/m.


Its a shame as the issue is real and people clearly have suffered a loss - yet the reporting and now the retribution appear vague in the first instance and nil in the second.
Click to expand...

Yes people have been badly hurt by this guy but the Chappells will have great difficulty selling another boat ever again because this is a small industry and word gets around so, to some extent, retribution has already been exacted
 
I am in South Africa now and have limited time to respond at present. I will respond in more detail soon.

There is a lot more to it all than the BBC could show - a reporter in the BBC contacted me and I had uncovered a deplorable history I could not report when I had my battle with him but I did know that he was a person who had damaged some so much their lives were changed and they refused to appear on the programme.

My main concern and that of the programme is to expose this man and the family purchase of the assets so that I do my very best to minimise victims.

I would have liked to have exposed more before but there was a community sticking up for TC and I had enough on my plate using techniques ti ensure I got my money back. My campaign brought his sales to its knees so he was forced to settle with me and I then had to shut up.

Now that company has gone bust I was free again and horrified to hear of new victims.

Boating magazine articles need to be written on the BBC programme ans trade bodies need to act to ensure their members follow strict guidelines.

The more publicity on this the better.

We approached potential customers in our troubles to try to warn them and they reported us to TC so it backfired.

I will respond in more depth later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

O
South Coast - Cheap boating option
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
3K
Chiara’s slave
Chiara’s slave
T
Yellow special buoy’s south of the medway channel.
Replies
3
Views
869
Taura
T

Share this page

Top