Questions of Cash: 'We paid Harrison Berkeley Ltd £1,194 but we were unable to contact the company'

An Independent reader approached the company with an offer to appeal against a small firm's business rates bill but voicemail messages went unanswered, as did recorded delivery letters

Voluntary groups providing aid to Palestinians ran into problems with the Co-op Bank (AFP/Getty Images)

Q. I was approached in January 2012 by Harrison Berkeley Ltd with an offer to appeal against our small firm's business rates bill. I took up the offer at an agreed fee of £1,194, which we paid.

We understood that Harrison Berkeley [a commercial surveyor that describes itself as a business rates specialist] would handle the rates appeal for us, but when we received the appeal notice, we were unable to contact the company. Voicemail messages went unanswered, as did recorded delivery letters. Trading standards officers told us the offices were empty.

We then discovered we had been wrongly advised about our grounds for an appeal, which had to be withdrawn.

We took a case to the small claims court, which was challenged by Harrison Berkeley. We won the case and the court ordered the firm to pay £1,510.34 by 12 December, 2013 – which it did not. We have since pursued an oral examination of Harrison Berkeley, at an additional cost of £522. It has not attended any of the set hearings.

Harrison Berkeley has applied to Companies House to voluntarily dissolve, so we applied for its application to be suspended. A director of the company has conducted similar business under the name of Webster and Long. VR, by email

A. Companies House said an application to dissolve Harrison Berkeley was received in February 2013. You objected to this in March 2013, but your application was rejected on the grounds of lack of evidence. Your further request to reject the application for dissolution was submitted in January 2015 and, as a result, the dissolution was suspended until March 2015.

But Companies House said you made a technical error in this request by failing to include the word "Limited" in the company name. An application you made in March still didn't use the full name, according to Companies House, and you were given two weeks in which to make this correction. You then made a further request, using the correct title, and it was agreed to suspend the dissolution until June 2015.

Companies House said you were advised you would need to write again at least two weeks before the end of the suspension to extend this, but you failed to do so. With no further objections lodged, the company was dissolved on 29 September.

We also contacted the Insolvency Service, which said that although you requested that it stop the company being dissolved, it does not have the power to do this unless there are exceptional circumstances. A person with a potential legal claim against a firm, or who is a creditor, can make the request.

We took advice from Ian Snaith, a specialist in company law, who recommended that you lodge a complaint with the Insolvency Service "so it can decide whether to launch an investigation of the company and its directors". He added: "Remedies against directors are usually triggered when the company is wound up."

Webster and Long has now also requested to be dissolved, though it continues to have an apparently functioning website. Our email and voicemail messages to Webster and Long went unanswered.

A director of Harrison Berkeley and Webster and Long registered a new company called Melville Consulting in September this year, based. like the other two firms, in Manchester. We have been unable to contact Melville, which does not have a website and is not listed in the phone directory, or the director concerned, who is also not listed.

Co-op bank turns away Palestinian aid groups

Q. I am a supporter of voluntary groups providing aid to Palestinians. Three groups – the Liverpool Friends of Bil'in, Abu Bakr Scholarship Fund and Palestine Solidarity Campaign – have been told by the Co-operative Bank that they cannot bank with it. I am angry and upset about this. PF, Manchester

A. A spokesman for the Co-op Bank said: "We have to perform due diligence on our accounts to ensure they comply with anti-money laundering obligations... For customers who operate in, or send money to, high- risk locations throughout the world, advanced due diligence checks are required by all banks to ensure that funds do not inadvertently fund illegal or other proscribed activities.

"Depending on the particular circumstances of an individual or an organisation, it may not be possible for us to complete these checks to our satisfaction. The decision to close a small number of accounts is the inevitable result of this process."

We requested clarification of which transfer destinations are affected by this. The bank's spokesman responded: "These are countries that are subject to financial sanctions by UK, EU and US governments and the United Nations, or those in which sanctioned organisations operate. or those that can be considered at high risk of bribery and corruption or have links to terrorist activities."

He added: "We treat each case on its own merits, based on the structure of an organisation, its governance and the activities it undertakes – as well as the countries and territories in which it operates."