Insolvency practitioner sanctions: Mark Tailby 30 September 2020
On 30 September 2020 a disciplinary consent order was made against Mark Tailby of CBA Insolvency Practitioners
Documents
Details
This Order is made in relation to complaints that:
- Between 1 October 2014 and 19 November 2015 Mr Talby, in his capacity as liquidator of X Limited, breached the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care set out at paragraph 4 of the Insolvency Code of Ethics by failing to submit a D1 report on the conduct of the directors of X Limited as required by Statement of Insolvency Practice 4 in respect of a failure to produce Company books and records and a preference payment made by X Limited for £30,000 and/or failed to document the reasons why a D1 report was not deemed appropriate.
- Between 1 June 201 and 31 March 2016 Mr Tailby in his capacity as liquidator of various companies breached the Fundamental Principle of Objectivity and/or Professional Competence and Due Care and/or Professional Behaviour set out at paragraph 4 of the Insolvency Code of Ethics by:
a) Failing to identify a self-interest threat as set out in paragraph 10(a) of the Insolvency Code of Ethics arising from his shareholding in Bridgewater Financial (Leicester) Ltd, and/or
b) Failing to introduce sufficient safeguards to reduce that threat to an acceptable level as required by paragraph 19 of the Insolvency Code of Ethics, and/or
c) Between 1 June 2013 and 31 March 2016 breached paragraphs 55-56 and 60-62 of the Insolvency Code of Ethics and Statement of Insolvency Practice 9 by
a. Directly, or indirectly, allowing payments totalling £24,366 (the Payments) from UKELC (NE&M) Ltd to be received by Bridgewater Financial (Leicester) Ltd, a company of which the Respondent was a 50% shareholder. These payments were referral fees paid to Mr Tailby for his referral of the directors or employees of Companies being liquidated by Mr Tailby (or by another office holder at his firm, CBA Insolvency Practitioners) to UKELC (NE&M) Ltd. UKELC (NE&M) Ltd submitted claims to the ROS on behalf of the referred directors and employees and received commission from the sums received by those directors and employees form RPS and,
b. Failing to disclose his interest in Bridgewater to the directors and creditors of the relevant liquidating companies.
Summary of sanctions: The Tribunal concluded that Complaint 1 fell into the serious category and Complaint 2 fell into the very serious category.
The Tribunal identified the following mitigating factors in this case:
- Mr Tailby has an unblemished professional history going back to 1994;
- There are no concerns regarding his current compliance;
- He has engaged with the regulatory process;
- There was no financial loss to the estates or the public purse;
- He has apologised for and shown insight into his actions.
The Tribunal did not identify any particularly aggravating factors.
Taking into account the above factors as well as Mr Tailby’s personal and financial circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that in respect of Complaint 1, the appropriate and proportionate Order is one of a Reprimand and a fine of £2,500.
In respect of Complaint 2, the Tribunal concluded the appropriate and proportionate Order is one of a Severe Reprimand and a fine of £29,366 (£24,366 for the profit element and £5,000 for the sanction element).
The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Tailby pay costs of £10,500.