Madeleine's Fund - account OVERDUE

I still cant understand how on earth their website figure could be £37K.

The £550,000 was brought in as a Debtor in the Accounts and then used up the following year., I presume the Accounts have still not been filed at Companies House ......and , fingers crossed , it may just be because they are under investigation.

Just bumping. Accounts are still showing as OVERDUE......

It seems last year the annual accounts were filed on January the 8th

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/madeleines-fund-leaving-no-stone-unturned

---

A bit of info:

AND what of the FUND money so generously donated by the public, what happened to it ?..The McCanns on their return to Rothley used it to hire a PR Team to clean their image and gain sympathy . HANOVER.

David Quainton, PR Week Worldwire, 14 September 2007, 4:05pm

McCanns hire Hanover for PR in face of media onslaught

LONDON - PR Week can exclusively reveal that Hanover, the agency owned by John Major's former press secretary Charles Lewington, has been hired by Kate and Gerry McCann.

The couple, in a surprise move, have turned to the agency that also works with Nationwide Building Society, NHS Cancer Screening and mobile company 3.

Lewington, managing director of Hanover, said: "At the moment we're providing temporary press office facilities for the McCanns. Justine (McGuinness) has been overwhelmed by the press interest.

The case is very fast moving and our position could change by Monday or Tuesday, depending on what lawyers tell us over the weekend.

"The McCanns have been treated extremely badly by the press, it's only right to help them out."

The McCanns are fighting to clear their name as allegations and suspicion rises concerning the disappearance of their missing four-year-old daughter.

The McCanns previously used Bell Pottinger crisis management consultant Alex Woolfall (who represented holiday firm Mark Warner), Sheree Dodd, a former spokeswoman for the Government, and former treasury special advisor Justine McGuinness.

http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/search/%20...%20onslaught/

Not Born Yesterday wrote:With acknowledgement to the Jill Havern site, the accounts for the year ended March 2011 came in on 30th December 2011.

http://www.jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4172-fund-accounts-2011?highlight=accounts+2012

I'm not sure about that JD16 as, according to the information on the above link, it was 30th December 2011.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:With acknowledgement to the Jill Havern site, the accounts for the year ended March 2011 came in on 30th December 2011.

http://www.jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4172-fund-accounts-2011?highlight=accounts+2012

I'm not sure about that JD16 as, according to the information on the above link, it was 30th December 2011.

What have you done NBY, your posts don't make sense? Unless it's me?

JD16's link said that the acounts were posted on 8th January but, according to the printout from Companies House, it was 30th December.

I will apologise in advance if I've got things wrong - it's my age, poor old soul, one of the disadvantages of not being born yesterday!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:JD16's link said that the acounts were posted on 8th January but, according to the printout from Companies House, it was 30th December.

I will apologise in advance if I've got things wrong - it's my age, poor old soul, one of the disadvantages of not being born yesterday!

Ah ..... you're right l saw that myself, not sure what to make of that discrepancy.....

margaret wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:JD16's link said that the acounts were posted on 8th January but, according to the printout from Companies House, it was 30th December.

I will apologise in advance if I've got things wrong - it's my age, poor old soul, one of the disadvantages of not being born yesterday!

Ah ..... you're right l saw that myself, not sure what to make of that discrepancy.....

CH logs receipt of accounts on the day of receipt. It may take several days for them then to be processed and for receipt to be recorded on the CH website. The key date is the "logged" date printed on the accounts when received, the date of appearance on the website is irrelevant. It doesn't normally take 8 or more days though for the website to be updated but I guess it depends on how busy they are/staffing etc.

The date of the post on Jills topic was Jan 10th, so this might be right that they were filed on the 8th

I doubt the mccanns care anyway if they are late. They can do what they like, when they like, say what they like, change what they like...nobody in authority will challenge them it seems and just lap up every word the mccanns utter. The mccanns probably get paid a reward filing their accounts rather than face a fine or scrutiny

It helps when you have 'friends' desperate to cover up their own little sordid secrets

jd16 wrote:The date of the post on Jills topic was Jan 10th, so this might be right that they were filed on the 8th

I doubt the mccanns care anyway if they are late. They can do what they like, when they like, say what they like, change what they like...nobody in authority will challenge them it seems and just lap up every word the mccanns utter. The mccanns probably get paid a reward filing their accounts rather than face a fine or scrutiny

It helps when you have 'friends' desperate to cover up their own little sordid secrets

The 31 Mar 2011 accounts were filed on 30 December 2011 - the date barcode is on the first page.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id394.html

Chris wrote:

jd16 wrote:The date of the post on Jills topic was Jan 10th, so this might be right that they were filed on the 8th

I doubt the mccanns care anyway if they are late. They can do what they like, when they like, say what they like, change what they like...nobody in authority will challenge them it seems and just lap up every word the mccanns utter. The mccanns probably get paid a reward filing their accounts rather than face a fine or scrutiny

It helps when you have 'friends' desperate to cover up their own little sordid secrets

The 31 Mar 2011 accounts were filed on 30 December 2011 - the date barcode is on the first page.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id394.html

the company will be kaput by the end of the year as the operating loss exceeds what they have in the bank.

Will they bankrupt because the money they have got hasn't been enough for their never ending multiple court cases in two different countries at least? Plus their PR machine in the same area.
If they declare bankruptcy, will that stop all future investigations to the Fund? If yes, that would be a good reason to wind it up, and continue just with their Legal Fund, supported by Branson.

After all, their devout supporter is Kennedy, who know everything about "making money/safe yourself with by declaring a bankruptcy" He has done it so many times.

Using Jd's link: http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/madeleines-fund-leaving-no-stone-unturned


Address
2/6 CANNON STREET
LONDON
EC4M 6YH

(194 companies also use this postcode)

Other social work activities without accommodation not elsewhere classified
Legal Information
Accounts Overdue (as of 9 Jan 2013)
Company Registration No.: 06248215
Incorporation Date: 15 May 2007
5 Years old
Financial Year End: 31 Mar
Company Accounts:
For period ending:
31 Mar 2011
Filed on:
8 Jan 2012
Purchase these accounts for £4.99 excl VAT
View sample
Company Return - Directors & Shareholder Information:
As at:
15 May 2012
Filed on:
28 May 2012
Purchase this document for £4.99 excl VAT
View sample
Information checked: 9 Jan 2013 - Refresh Now!
Map


Powered by Leaflet — © MapQuest, OpenStreetMap & contributors
Distaff Lane
Distaff Lane


© 2012 Google - Terms of Use


Distaff Lane, London, England
Address is approximate
Report a problem
Recently Filed Documents
39 available
28 May 2012Annual Return of company information (not accounts) AR01 (View Extract)
8 Jan 2012Annual Accounts AA
21 Dec 2011 CC04 (View Extract)
21 Dec 2011 RES01
10 Jun 2011Ending appointment as Director TM01
11 Jun 2010Change of particulars for Director CH01 (View Extract)
View all 39 documents


Directors and Secretaries
Bwb Secretarial Limited
15 May 2007 ⇒ Present (5 Years) Company Secretary
Jon Corner
9 Jan 2008 ⇒ Present (5 Years) Director
Brian Kennedy
16 May 2007 ⇒ Present (5 Years) Director
Michael Linnett
15 Aug 2007 ⇒ Present (5 Years) Director
Gerald Mccann
12 Nov 2008 ⇒ Present (4 Years) Director
Kate Mccann
12 Nov 2008 ⇒ Present (4 Years) Director
Edward Smethurst
9 Jan 2008 ⇒ Present (5 Years) Director

If they have a put a notice saying the accounts are overdue as of 9th January 2013, then this means the accounts are not late because of staff processing them but because of the company No Stone Unturned Ltd themselves....Come on Linnett hurry up!!

And while you're at it....maybe in the "name of transparency" as your other directors have clearly stated this fund is....you could simply name who the fund manager is?...what is the big secret?

Dr. Doug Skehan, McCann's boss and Clinical Director in Cardiology at Leicester's Glenfield General Hospital is probably counting his blessings after his resignation from "Madeleine's Fund, Leaving no Stone Unturned Limited Company" back in 2010.

Perhaps he would like to share his reasons for leaving with any official investigation into potential fund misuse.

Accounts cannot be late due to processing backlog as companies house now processing
those which were received on the 5th January so if the accounts had been received by
3lst December they would have been processed by now.

MADDIE FUND
09.01.08, 8:32pm

"you can put your money in an envelope and send it direct to kate and gerry in Rothley"

quoted from an interview on the Jon Gaunt show with clarence mitchell on Talk Sport Radio

THere's no need for the accounts to be overdue, their year end was last March so figures only have to be put on a form. Sloppy.

ETA: And if the fund is low why incur extra fees for being late. That fund is badly managed IMO.

sorry forgot to say I gave the man I spoke to at companies house the
number of the company and he confirmed the name and said he would check re accounts -
he said "there is no sign of them" - they would get a fine for being overdue but couldnt say
how much the fine would be until they got them.

No excuse for any Company to have late accounts, but even more so when they have taken money from the public!!

The fine for being overdue at this point (less than one month) is £150

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/companiesAct/ca_lateFilingPenalties.shtml

margaret wrote:THere's no need for the accounts to be overdue, their year end was last March so figures only have to be put on a form. Sloppy.

ETA: And if the fund is low why incur extra fees for being late. That fund is badly managed IMO.

Exactly Margaret, and has been since it was established. Yet neither its board nor accountant has ever been challenged, (publicly) as to what may appear to be shoddy book keeping and misuse of the fund... 'Leaving No Stone Unturned to find Madeleine' hardly seems to equate to destroying people's lives, suing and taking out super injunctions on members of the public both here and in Portugal who disagree with the parents version of events.

margaret wrote:The fine for being overdue at this point (less than one month) is £150

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/companiesAct/ca_lateFilingPenalties.shtml

they wont give a flying one about fines its not their hard earned money they have worked for --makes me puke

cherry1 wrote:sorry forgot to say I gave the man I spoke to at companies house the
number of the company and he confirmed the name and said he would check re accounts -
he said "there is no sign of them" - they would get a fine for being overdue but couldnt say
how much the fine would be until they got them.

No excuse for any Company to have late accounts, but even more so when they have taken money from the public!!

I don't recall them ever being this late before, something is not quite right and they are up to something. They wouldn't give a 2nd thought about the fine, they've delayed them for a reason that will benefit them

jd16 wrote:

I don't recall them ever being this late before, something is not quite right and they are up to something. They wouldn't give a 2nd thought about the fine, they've delayed them for a reason that will benefit them

I'm thinking Scotland Yard may been looking at the fund too much for their liking? Whatever it is can only be good news IMO.