Cargo bike delivery company Pedal Me goes into administration after failing to reach agreement with HMRC over debts

indeed, fuck the tories!

I don't think anyone plans to be in debt with HMRC, but being in debt because of mis-managed company finances and not being able to pay the tax bill, is a sign of company not worth investing in

Totally, but people appeared to do just that.

Never heard of PAYE ? Corporation tax? VAT ?

If the tax police are as efficient as the road police, could the directors simply say "sorry mate, didn't see the bills"?  Or perhaps claim the contrast on the paper wasn't high enough and the sum was in their eyes?  Or that someone else was operating the company at the time in question?

I suspect (for the smaller fish at least) the authorities are slightly more motivated to chase unpaid tax though.

No, educate me, the whole fucking lot, especially the bits I don't know and more importantly the bits a business owner didn't know when setting up a business.

don simon fbpe wrote:

No, educate me, the whole fucking lot, especially the bits I don't know and more importantly the bits a business owner didn't know when setting up a business.

This probably isn't the place to educate you on what you don't know, but in my experience, often the founders of a business that have the vision and/or the technical knowledge to produce a great product or service sometimes don't have the skills or knowledge to do the management bit, which is why it's important to get the best lawyers, accountants and IT infrastructure you can afford, plus later down the line, coaching based around capacity, growth and functionality. 

I'm not going to speculate on what happened here with Pedal Me as I don't know anything other than what's reported. Other than to wish the staff & creditors all the best and hope that things can be resolved.

mark1a wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

No, educate me, the whole fucking lot, especially the bits I don't know and more importantly the bits a business owner didn't know when setting up a business.

This probably isn't the place to educate you on what you don't know, but in my experience, often the founders of a business that have the vision and/or the technical knowledge to produce a great product or service sometimes don't have the skills or knowledge to do the management bit, which is why it's important to get the best lawyers, accountants and IT infrastructure you can afford, plus later down the line, coaching based around capacity, growth and functionality. 

I'm not going to speculate on what happened here with Pedal Me as I don't know anything other than what's reported. Other than to wish the staff & creditors all the best and hope that things can be resolved.

 

Still not educated. And you're right, probably not the best place to educate me. But it does seem to me that small businesses should remain small and if you want to grow you need to benefit those that already have wealth, and keep it there. Isn't there a fundamental problem here that a good business, assuming they had a business plan and could demonstrate where the customer base was and revenues were coming from, failed? When was the last time a good product, not a well marketed product, but a good product, sell well?

don simon fbpe wrote:

Still not educated. And you're right, probably not the best place to educate me. But it does seem to me that small businesses should remain small and if you want to grow you need to benefit those that already have wealth, and keep it there. Isn't there a fundamental problem here that a good business, assuming they had a business plan and could demonstrate where the customer base was and revenues were coming from, failed? When was the last time a good product, not a well marketed product, but a good product, sell well?

I think the quick & easy answer to those two questions is "social enterprise", two big examples being The Big Issue and (keeping it cycling) Green Commute Initiative. With this model, everyone is paid fairly, the profits are reinvested in the business and overheads can be much lower.

I got out of the IT company I was involved with for 20 years in 2019, probably on reflection burned out a few years before that. Admittedly I did "OK" from that financially, but now I work in a social enterprise (neither of the above mentioned). It's financially secure, and everyone is happy. Still uses the levers, efficiencies and opportunities available in a commercially based capitalist society but benefits many, many others apart from the shareholders.

I'd be suspicious of any capitalist business that is providing levers, efficiencies and opportunities that don't offer opportunities to shareholders. It defeats the objective of being a business. That's not to say that a good business plan doesn't result in a good business, it is to say that the failure of this business may be a result of a poor business plan.

don simon fbpe wrote:

I'd be suspicious of any capitalist business that is providing levers, efficiencies and opportunities that don't offer opportunities to shareholders. It defeats the objective of being a business. That's not to say that a good business plan doesn't result in a good business, it is to say that the failure of this business may be a result of a poor business plan.

I have to disagree with you on the shareholder comment. Yes, the standard business model is "directors have a fiduciary duty to maximise return to the shareholders" but the social enterprise model is not that at all. Maybe (respectfully) do some research on social enterprises - put aside the fact that the owner of my workplace is a revolutionary Marxist who makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Paddy Ashdown, he's also an exceptional businessman and visionary who has made it work. When I say "social enterprise" I don't mean the B Corp bollocks, there are businesses that do it properly. 

mark1a wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

I'd be suspicious of any capitalist business that is providing levers, efficiencies and opportunities that don't offer opportunities to shareholders. It defeats the objective of being a business. That's not to say that a good business plan doesn't result in a good business, it is to say that the failure of this business may be a result of a poor business plan.

I have to disagree with you on the shareholder comment. Yes, the standard business model is "directors have a fiduciary duty to maximise return to the shareholders" but the social enterprise model is not that at all. Maybe (respectfully) do some research on social enterprises - put aside the fact that the owner of my workplace is a revolutionary Marxist who makes Jeremy Corbyn look like Paddy Ashdown, he's also an exceptional businessman and visionary who has made it work. When I say "social enterprise" I don't mean the B Corp bollocks, there are businesses that do it properly. 

 

I wouldn't confuse a stakeholder with a shareholder, social enterprise is awesome as long as it's a viable business, as we know, any society that relies on charity is a failed society (or however Hening Wehn phrased it). I'm pretty sure that Pedal Me isn't a social enterprise, so that's a different debate for a different day.

don simon fbpe wrote:

I wouldn't confuse a stakeholder with a shareholder, social enterprise is awesome as long as it's a viable business, as we know, any society that relies on charity is a failed society (or however Hening Wehn phrased it). I'm pretty sure that Pedal Me isn't a social enterprise, so that's a different debate for a different day.

I'm not confusing stakeholders and shareholders, the owner I'm referring to is 100% "shareholder" of a £7m turnover social enterprise. The "stakeholders" are many who benefit.

Equally, don't confuse "charity" with "social enterprise" they are very different. 

Agree, if Pedal Me wasn't a social enterprise previously I hope it comes back as one. 

Hopefully it does and hopefully many more businesses become social enterprises and many more start ups follow the model, solid business with an identified need with a required profit.

Allow me to speculate for you - I dealt with Ben when he first used Crowdcube. He is a pure fantasist - no interest in facts or the truth or business. This biz was ALWAYS going to go bust it was just a Q of how many peeps he ripped off before it did. Seems rather a lot. 

don simon fbpe wrote:

Who the fuck invests in a company that plans to create a debt with HMRC?

People they have lied to!

Most likely a vat liability plus social security. HRMC hate it when co uses vat due to pay other bills and pretty sure founder Ben can't count so would have been struggling. 

COVID. It's in the article. 

KiwiMike wrote:

COVID. It's in the article. 

The thing where pretty much the entire population stopped buying things in shops, and switched to having them delivered to their doors by a range of courier businesses?

Is that the thing where people were told to cycle to work instead of driving in an enclosed space, because cycling was seen as safe?

There wasn't one just Bens fantasies

The lack of one and following money raising activities was a huge red flag being waved.