Decision

Decision on Pendragon Consultancy Ltd Payroll Account Limited

Updated 16 May 2022

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3635

For a change of company name of registration No. 13614908

Decision

The company name PENDRAGON CONSULTANCY LTD PAYROLL ACCOUNT LIMITED has been registered since 10 September 2021 under number 13614908.

By an application filed on 23 September 2021, PENDRAGON CONSULTANCY LTD applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act).

A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 26 October 2021, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and also by standard mail. It was returned “RTS- Person use this address for making a fraud/complaint against Action Fraud Ref no. NFRC 210904 751056”. On 26 October 2021, the Tribunal wrote to Prashantkumar Patel to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. The letter sent to Prashantkumar Patel by standard mail was returned “RTS”. On 3 November 2021, Prashantkumar Patel wrote to the tribunal alleging that the respondent had been incorporated without his knowledge. He was advised by the Tribunal that he should contact Companies House, the contact details for which were provided, to dissolve the company. However, as the company was not dissolved by 22 November and he remained (and remains to date) listed on the official record as a director and person with significant control, on 14 January 2022, Prashantkumar Patel was joined to the proceedings. On 14 January 2022, the parties were advised that no defence had been received to the application and so the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed. The parties were granted a period of 14 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. The letters sent to the primary respondent were returned “RTS” and “addressee gone away” respectively. No request for a hearing was made.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the two month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3). Rule 3(4) states:

The primary respondent, before the end of that period, shall file a counter-statement on the appropriate form, otherwise the adjudicator may treat it as not opposing the application and may make an order under section 73(1).

Under the provisions of this rule, the adjudicator may exercise discretion so as to treat the respondent as opposing the application. In this case I can see no reason to exercise such discretion and, therefore, decline to do so.

As the primary respondent has not responded to the allegations made, it is treated as not opposing the application. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act I make the following order:

(a) PENDRAGON CONSULTANCY LTD PAYROLL ACCOUNT LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name;^{[footnote 1]}

(b) PENDRAGON CONSULTANCY LTD PAYROLL ACCOUNT LIMITED and Prashantkumar Patel each shall:

(i) take such steps as are within their power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change;

(ii) not cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with a name that is an offending name.

In accordance with s.73(3) of the Act, this order may be enforced in the same way as an order of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, I will determine a new company name as per section 73(4) of the Act and will give notice of that change under section 73(5) of the Act.

All respondents, including individual co-respondents, have a legal duty under Section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 2006 not to cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with an offending name; this includes the current company. Non-compliance may result in an action being brought for contempt of court and may result in a custodial sentence.

PENDRAGON CONSULTANCY LTD, having been successful, would normally be entitled to a contribution towards its costs. However, the applicant has confirmed that it did not contact the respondent prior to making the application. In accordance with 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice Direction 2014, an award of costs will not be made in this case.

Any notice of appeal against this decision to order a change of name must be given within one month of the date of this order. Appeal is to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland.

The company adjudicator must be advised if an appeal is lodged, so that implementation of the order is suspended.

Dated 28 February 2022

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator

1. An “offending name” means a name that, by reason of its similarity to the name associated with the applicant in which he claims goodwill, would be likely to be the subject of a direction under section 67 (power of Secretary of State to direct change of name), or to give rise to a further application under section 69. ↩