On 14 Oct 2009 at 6:39pm frankfurtersausage wrote:
So, philcox has finally gone under. Owing thousands and thousands, much of it to other lewes companies. Poor Martin Elliott. what will he do now? . Oh hes starting another company from Monday. New trading name.. T***er
On 14 Oct 2009 at 7:26pm mr happy wrote:
Similar to the company in Lewes who ended up not being able to pay wages but just didnt tell the staff for 4 weeks!! Hope they didnt owe you monay?
On 14 Oct 2009 at 10:00pm Bothered wrote:
Here's a thing. Lewes FC owed Philcox about £200k in loans. If Philcox's creditors want their cash, have they got a right of recall against the club?
On 14 Oct 2009 at 11:45pm sluth wrote:
"""New trading name.. T***er"""
What, Twitter? I think you'll find ME may have missed the boat on this one as well.
p.s. who says Philcox has gone bust?? Can find nothing on google to that effect.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 1:05am Innocent Bystander wrote:
I like the Google Ad Sense ads for this thread.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 1:06am Innocent Bystander wrote:
Err... they changed from bankruptcy and payday loans to other things 
On 15 Oct 2009 at 9:48am avenue girl wrote:
Really - is that really true ? Will that mean the controversial development on the Avenue won;t go ahead ?
On 15 Oct 2009 at 11:27am Down and Out wrote:
avenue girl - Development is Rees Elliott. Philcox were just their associated building company. What is interesting is that the hoardings were tidied up and repainted within the last two weeks. My hunch would be that we must getting fairly close to the three-year expiry on the planning approval; hence Rees Elliott will be going for a renewal. The thing is that unless there's been a substantive and formal change of LDC policy they cannot reasonably refuse the renewal. What the Philcox problem does tend to suggest is that the company generally is skint, so I can't imagine that there'll be an immediate go-ahead. The alternate view is that they're now more likely to sell some of their approved development sites on to get cashflow sorted. Say what you like about RE but they do spend money on their developments. If it gets sold on to a more cheapskate developer the results could be horrific.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 12:29pm ERE BE MONSTERS wrote:
What could possibly more horrific than the rubbish they have already ruined parts of the town with.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 2:37pm avenue girl wrote:
ah - yes i saw them painting the hoardings - apparently because the gate lock had been broken and they didn't want to give the impression the site wasn't derlict and encourage vandalism. I know some of the local residnets are dead set against the development so anything that could hinder it would be welcome news for them.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 2:44pm No Pot Pourri wrote:
As long as work has begun on the development within three years, which it has, the planning will remain valid and no resubmission is needed.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 2:48pm avenue girl wrote:
there's no actual building work going on
On 15 Oct 2009 at 2:53pm Down and Out wrote:
NPP. Think you're wrong there. There have been all sorts of test cases where developers have tried to chuck a bag of concrete in the ground and called it a foundation, so as to say they've started, but it has to be meaningful construction progress not just a bit of site clearance.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 3:33pm Small Bon wrote:
The site has been sold to another developer
On 15 Oct 2009 at 4:47pm No Pot Pourri wrote:
Demolition of existing house and site excavation is a little more than chucking a bag of concrete on the ground.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 5:01pm Down and Out wrote:
NPP. What has been taken away has no bearing. For the development to have commenced, building work has to have commenced.
On 15 Oct 2009 at 9:10pm No Pot Pourri wrote:
D & O: I am positive that if you enquire with LDC they will confirm that the development has commenced, because it clearly has. Let me know if you discover otherwise (which you will not).
On 16 Oct 2009 at 11:17am Down and Out wrote:
NPP - I don't doubt that what you say is correct. However I'm also aware of instances where the LA has taken a different view. I've a meeting with a planning lawyer in a couple of weeks and if I get the chance I'll mention it.
On 16 Oct 2009 at 6:08pm No Pot Pourri wrote:
It is a pity that this firm went bust, but not surprising. Much of their business was through Rees Elliott and that dried up. Philcox were always bad payers and no doubt was run with little cash in the bank.
I think Rees Elliott was one of the better Lewes developers, but getting involved with the football club, coming across as a flash git and not paying people was a bad combination of decisions.
On 16 Oct 2009 at 10:47pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
And yet I'm hearing that Charles Style has gone bankrupt.
Do you think he changed his name by deedpoll to STYLE (because he is anything but)!!!?
On 16 Oct 2009 at 10:48pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch re "Snivelling Little Rat-Faced"
On 17 Oct 2009 at 8:13am Darwin wrote:
Elliott and Style - this is another example of a recession working toward the survival of the fittest. And we've all known for a long while that Style is particularly unfit. I'm wondering what words of comfort Lindsay Frost is giving both of them.