Guardian storage scandal - director banned for five years but NO criminal charges brought

Guardian storage scandal - director banned for five years but NO criminal charges brought

Guardian storage scandal - director banned for five years but NO criminal charges brought

First published in News
Last updated
Worcester News: Photograph of the Author by

THE boss of a Worcester storage company has been banned from acting as company director for five years after cashing in on the sale of containers, but no criminal charges have so far been brought against him.

People finally gained entry to Guardian Self Storage Ltd, in Sherriff Street Industrial Estate, in November 2012 only to find their belongings were gone.

Some stood stony-faced while others wept after finally gaining entry follow ing an anxious four-month wait only to find their worst nightmares had come true.

Now Graham Michael Bradbury, the director of a Worcester-based storage company which went into liquidation owing £178,626 to creditors, has been disqualified from acting as a director for five years, for selling assets that did not belong to the company and paying some creditors to the detriment of others.

Mr Bradbury’s disqualification follows investigation by the Insolvency Service.

The 42-year-old, of Malvern, traded out of premises on estate in Worcester from April 2006 until the firm was liquidated in October 2012.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills accepted a five-year undertaking from Mr Bradbury, banning him from acting as a company director or from managing or controlling a limited company from 13 May 2014 until 2019.

One of those affected was Jeanette Weir, a widow of Droitwich, who lost up to £30,000-worth of possessions, some of which were irreplaceable photographs, gifts and family heirlooms of great sentimental value.

She said: “I think a lot more should be done. A lot of people have been affected by it.

“People have lost everything but received no compensation, the way everything was handled was disgraceful.

“He should be held personally and financially responsible.

He did not contact customers to forewarn them. He failed in his duty of care. All my stuff disappeared. The padlocks were cut off the containers.

My stuff was removed.  What happened to my stuff is criminal. Someone has stolen that stuff or sold it on. There is no way I can ever replaced those photographs. It was devastating." The investigation showed that baliffs working to recover rent arrears on behalf of the company's landlord had seized assets on Guardian's premises. Following this Mr Bradbury did not dispute selling 29 containers owned by Guardian for £29,000 in October 2012.

This money was not used to pay tcreditors, includ - ing the landlord, the bank and HMRC. Instead, Mr Bradbury stated the money was used to pay wages to sub-contract labourers, re - dundancy, a solicitor, an accountant, the prospective liquidator and to repay a loan made by an employee.

Sue MacLeod, chief investigator of Midlands and West at the Insolvency Service, said: “The law is very clear: all creditors of an insolvent company should be treated fairly so that each gets a share of any pay-out.”

Mr Bradbury was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:49pm Mon 9 Jun 14

CJH says...

How can this not be a criminal offence? Surely at the very least it's theft.
How can this not be a criminal offence? Surely at the very least it's theft. CJH
  • Score: 15

2:03pm Mon 9 Jun 14

denon says...

This offence relates soley to the operation of a LTD Company. As the article says "no criminal charges have so far been brought against him." I am sure a crimal case will stack up much better once the Insolency agency have got the failings sorted out. The law in this country where civil and criminal matters overlap is very very slow
This offence relates soley to the operation of a LTD Company. As the article says "no criminal charges have so far been brought against him." I am sure a crimal case will stack up much better once the Insolency agency have got the failings sorted out. The law in this country where civil and criminal matters overlap is very very slow denon
  • Score: 10

8:39pm Mon 9 Jun 14

DarrenM says...

CJH wrote:
How can this not be a criminal offence? Surely at the very least it's theft.
Not in Worst Farcia, its a "Civil matter" because otherwise they'd have to do some work to establish a prima facie case to establish a case against an individual rather than the limited company and also it might make the figures look bad if a 200,000 grand theft appeared on the books as unsolved because it was committed in theory by a liquidated limited company. They must think we're daft....
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: How can this not be a criminal offence? Surely at the very least it's theft.[/p][/quote]Not in Worst Farcia, its a "Civil matter" because otherwise they'd have to do some work to establish a prima facie case to establish a case against an individual rather than the limited company and also it might make the figures look bad if a 200,000 grand theft appeared on the books as unsolved because it was committed in theory by a liquidated limited company. They must think we're daft.... DarrenM
  • Score: 7

10:38pm Mon 9 Jun 14

ray1111 says...

graham micheal bradbury is a dogs arse...laughing at all of you
graham micheal bradbury is a dogs arse...laughing at all of you ray1111
  • Score: 8

1:40pm Tue 10 Jun 14

denon says...

It will become a crimal matter now
It will become a crimal matter now denon
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree