Jarvis Share Discussion Threads

[mike456] 04/5/2010 23:58

srpactive - I had almost forgotten about Colorvision .... I had a small amount invested there when it went down but didn't get a penny back so I don't think you can use it as a source of hope for Jarvis shareholders

[mitch101] 04/5/2010 22:56

gawd....just popped in outta curiosity and imagine my surprise......srp gushing, vomitting fer so long.............give it a rest loser...........remember this is RTD relived..........lol

[srpactive] 04/5/2010 21:58

pwilk

yes Labour giving more contracts out to
bby before they are kicked out, you can see
the pattern drop jrvs give to bby.

Dear dear dear.

active

[srpactive] 04/5/2010 21:04

yuka

I suppose the same as when the government would
not permit lloy buying northern rock because
they wanted to nationalise the banks as stated
in the lp 2005 manifesto, thus ensuring northern rock
remained weak.

Just a question which asset dramatically reduced to
support burdale not continuing to lend?

regards

active

[pwilk47490] 04/5/2010 18:42

Congrats to balfour on their NR contract renewal today.............Not!

[yuka] 04/5/2010 16:09

OK so when you say "we were wrongly pulled" you just mean Burdale got it wrong rather than anything more sinister?

[srpactive] 04/5/2010 12:16

Not saying a link between burdale and
Labour but labour would not have been to helpful
with jrvs due to Norris being a past tory
cabinet member.

dyor

[yuka] 04/5/2010 12:12

What is the link between Burdale and Conservative/Labour politics?

[srpactive] 03/5/2010 20:37

no covenant breach, asset backed funding,
what changed in assets except the increase
due to the contract wins and pfi benchmarking,
if anything our asset was gainging strength.
We were wrongly pulled in I have no doubt of that.

Pure politics, before the support from the conservative
government if successful at the polls.

Maybe if the conservatives win Norris could look
at the decision why burdale chose not to continue
to support jarvis based on assets.

dyor

regards

active

[truckertee] 03/5/2010 12:49

Shaggers been very quiet, thought he might have had something to say about all this.
Pity he wasn't going on Question Time, could have sent in a question asking if we were stitched up.

[stepin1] 02/5/2010 20:43

srpactive, i have to again reiterate....

the directors placed jarvis plc into administration

we did not have money to pay bills

the banking facility we had in place could not be extended to cover payment

to hmrc which was legally due.

this is not the fault of hmrc burdale or network rail but of jarvis plc.

yes the 3 above could had played ball and given some breathing space

but none of the 3 were legally obliged to do so...

so who are going to sue ? in colorvision the directors got paid damages..

in our case we are trying to say the directors were @ fault.

[srpactive] 02/5/2010 19:51

Colorvision case costs OFT £4.7m


By Malcolm Moore
Published: 12:01AM BST 25 May 2002

The Office of Fair Trading made an unreserved apology yesterday after admitting that a breach in its Chinese walls led to the collapse of Colorvision, Britain's fourth-largest electrical retailer.

The OFT agreed to pay Neville and Bernard Michaelson, who founded Colorvision in 1964, a total of £4.73m in compensation, including reparation for damaging their health and reputation.

Related Articles


1 August 1996: Administrator is called in at Colorvision


Colorvision, which relied on selling its electrical goods on credit, went from a company with 90 outlets and a turnover of more than £70m to bankruptcy within seven months of the OFT announcing it was going to revoke its consumer credit licence in January 1996.

The OFT claimed that Colorvision had misleading pricing and advertising, dishonestly sold second-hand goods as new, and did not carry out adequate repairs on faulty goods.

But after a four-year investigation, the parliamentary ombudsman found deep flaws in the OFT that allowed the investigative team looking into Colorvision access to the independent adjudicator.

He added that some of the breaches were "so serious and, in one particular instance, if not intentional, fundamental, that I am unable to accept the proposition that they had no relevance to the adjudicating officer's decision".

The report concluded that the process had been "so thoroughly compromised and unsound that it should have been abandoned".

John Vickers, the director-general of the OFT, yesterday apologised to the Michaelsons for the misfortunes they had suffered as a result of the ruling. He said: "Since that time the OFT has reviewed its procedures to ensure this could not happen again."

The OFT now says that those taking licence revocation decisions do so only on the basis of sound evidence.

Neville Michaelson said yesterday that he was relieved that the investigation was over. "We have fought this case for six-and-a-half years, and we're glad the nightmare is over," he said.

"No amount of compensation can make up for the OFT's destruction of our business reputations, 32 years of work, and for the devastating effect it has had on our lives and families."

He added: "The OFT had no reason and no evidence for the ruling and we are delighted to be totally vindicated by the parliamentary ombudsman's report and welcome the unreserved apology."

[srpactive] 02/5/2010 19:39

yuka

please do not start being sarcastic, as this
is not really the time, I have moved on to
other holdings, but as this has not yet
crystalised as a loss yet for cgt purposes
I will still follow events.
If you do not like me posting here, please
filter me.

PWhite73

Colorvision took a few yrs but the major
shareholders got their money back under
labour rule as the initial situation
happened under the conservatives, so
a change of government may possibly
bring something especially with our
mr norris.
But yes this will take at least 12 months.

Pls keep posting.

regards

active

[belhus] 02/5/2010 18:11

PWhite73

how will this come to light if nobody tries to make a case against the guilty parties.
If that is the case I for one would put in a fighting fund to see what came out even if I lose MY 100grand.

[stepin1] 02/5/2010 14:23

PWhite73 my paper loss with allow me to move assets around that i hold and offset this against capital gains that i have in properties.... so in reality i am not loosing anything

what i dont understand is you have contridicted yourself from several posts earlier...

you mention now you havent invested in jarvis yet prevously mentioned it would be curtains for all of us.. so unless you have some other involvement in jarvis
this to me seems a contridiction..

may i just also clarify.. in the last rns it points to the fact the board wanted burdale to extend the banking facitility which is not the same as drawing down existing facility.. the banks were quite within their rights to call it a day if they felt others (HMRC) would get in there first..

there is a clear difference here....

[pwhite73] 02/5/2010 13:00

stepin1 - 26 Apr'10 - 20:21 - 7527 of 7542

"looks like he his just like the rest of us.. and lost a packet"

I have not invested a single penny in Jarvis, may have done years ago as I trade regularly but I am not a victim of the lastest events.

What I do know from experience is that these things take time to unravel. A company the size of Jarvis does not go into administration one month and shareholders receive compensation the following month or even the month after. Compensation can take 2 - 3 years.

It does seem to me Jarvis did not collapse through a lack of business but through a concerted effort by Network Rail and its favoured contractors to get them out of the picture for financial reasons. It is important to remember what the Chairman said just a month before administration:-

"However, through our greatly improved focus on business development and our
success in being awarded the Chiltern Railway's Evergreen 3 contract, as
previously confirmed on 15 January 2010, in association with our partners BAM
Nuttall, a significant proportion of anticipated work has already been secured
for the next financial year whilst the business is experiencing a healthier bid
pipeline overall. The majority of the GBP55m of rail associated work on the
first phase of Evergreen 3 will be undertaken in the next financial year and the Jarvis team is now working very closely with BAM Nuttall on the mobilisation and design phase of the contract. The focus on business development opportunities outside Network Rail has progressed well. The team now has good visibility of future works with new customers and as well as the Evergreen 3 contract has also recently secured its first small signalling contract with London Underground Limited."

Then suddenly out of the blue the lights are switched off for a paltry £15 million. Bank of America and Burdale Financial Limited had already agreed to extend Jarvis a credit facilty of £50 million until January 2011 so the pulling of the credit facilties was in fact a clear breach of contract. See RNS Number : 3584V 09 July 2009. Many shareholders invested on the back of this credit facility.

I have no doubt that emails and correspondence between the actions of the creditors and Network Rail will surface at a later date. I am truly sorry to hear about your £100k loss but I do not believe it will be any more permanent than the losses initially incurred by investors in Railtrack. But these things take time.

There was clearly fraud and corruption at play here in order to wrestle nearly £100 million worth of contracts away from Jarvis who were too financially weak to fight back.

[stepin1] 01/5/2010 22:40

its is a shame as i can remember posters on here over the past years...

[yuka] 01/5/2010 22:07

LOL - a few weeks ago you said you had moved on with Jarvis as well. Thought not.

[srpactive] 01/5/2010 21:39

yuka

this happened many yrs ago with anyother company
colorvision, the fsa pulled a credit licence
and then admitted fault, the major shareholders
got their investments back.
Just look back the articles are there, I have
moved on with my other investments, but will
not rest until someones head is on a stick for this
wrong doing.

regards

active

[yuka] 01/5/2010 13:01

Active - for the institutions losing a few hundred k or a few million is almost irrelevant. Just a rounding errror for most of them and not something they will invest time and money trying to recover from government/network rail. If Jarvis had been worth 1bn then perhaps different story. Just give up and move on.

[srpactive] 01/5/2010 07:49

Do not forget we had big institutions involved,
barclays for one and with the recent run in
with bob diamond and mandelson, he might get
involved who knows.

But you are both correct, but I live in hope.

When you hear the labour supporting unions stating
openly that Jarvis have been stitched up, there
must be a case for recall somewhere I would have
thought.

regards

active

[yuka] 30/4/2010 22:18

Even £8k wouldn't get you very far.