Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I went to internal review on it with OGA With regard to your additional requests, while the OGA strives to be as transparent as possible, and our general approach to requests for information is to adopt a default position of looking to release information, there are circumstances where certain types of information cannot be released. Having assessed the information relating to those requests (focusing on discussions between the OGA and Xcite over the extension to the Bentley licence), it consists of sensitive commercial information that could harm the Xcite�s commercial position if it were to be released into the public domain. 5. Therefore, the OGA considers that those requests fall under the exemption in section 43(2) FOIA, on the grounds that disclosure of such information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, and also Regulation 12(5)(e) of EIRs, on the grounds that that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. 6. Furthermore, the OGA considers that the exemption under section 41(1) FOIA (information provided in confidence) applies, as does Regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIRs (interests of the person providing the information).
How about requesting a FOI report about discussions on the new lease ....that might be interesting
The OGA considers that, if the identity of the Company was to be disclosed along with the company it recommended, the commercial interests of those companies would likely be prejudiced. �Redacted is a Redacted firm that was established in the Redacted. They currently invest in Redacted in Redacted and Redacted; they have investment in Redacted in the UK; and they own the Redacted associated with the Redacted in Redacted. There is no debt or fees associated with their investment and their business model is to work with high quality firms. As there is no debt, there is no default risk. They look to work with an investment grade company for the coupon and for Xcite they have selected Redacted to manage this. They explained that they provide prefunding to try to mitigate any call on the guarantor. They seek to have a fast and efficient process to enable completion.� The above just leaves open more and more questions the main one being why there is a risk to anyone's reputation - who decided that that risk existed and why That OGA letter is bizarre
with ref to Blue City email.. Imo while nice to hear about, attacking XEL BoD on the basis of bubble Nsea investment not the right tack. The asset is there and proven now to FDP status at XEL investors cost. The problem has been the totally inadequate operating/management expertise of XEL/XER BOD, leading imo to individual fiduciary failures. This was compounded by DECC/OGA, and the final Bondholder who managed to effect the liquidation of XEL and the extension thereafter via old XEL/XER staff of the Bentley lease under mysterious circumstances and a preferential four year renewal in favour of newco XER. The way events unfolded in actuality with the stock options they held, as for XEL shareholders the gtz of XEL resulted in a huge financial loss to key BoD members. The main issues imo that need investigation and clarification are DECC's 'actions' in 2011 re FSP/SSP and the EWT, why were they not on the ball to assist rather than hinder a small Sea oilco, the transfer of XER status for the benefit of the Bondholders, parachuting BoD and staff, and the final XER/Bondholders/OGA negotiations that led to a four year lease extension being awarded preferentially to newco XER. Jmo..
I agree but it's not recorded as being worded as such by OGA, rather the phantom is reportedly advised OGA considered this to be a bad investment decision for them to venture into! Phantom must have evaluated and gone in with acceptable funding and opco for approval, otherwise why bother, and just why would OGA implicitly reject this. Their stated reasoning is ludicrous and makes no sense. And if it was the case and presumably it had to be OGA that decided to put off the phantom in this sort of oblique way, how was it immediately thereafter the next option that came up was to award newco XER this four year extension. Or had this plan and participants already been agreed by connivance of OGA, the phantom was a late arrival embarrassment. it's clear the XER moonlighting staff had to have by that stage been working on an alternative proposal, together with the bondholders support, which immediately after this discouraging meeting, as the Bentley lease approached termination date, this proposal of theirs was all ready to go and accepted. It had to have been made against certain guarantees being tabled and accepted by OGA, about which XEL shareholders knew absolutely nothing, other than viewing the XEL and XER BoDs and staff participating in the liquidation of XEL, jumping ship and a four year lease extension appearing immediately thereafter. Where under foi are the details of discussions that put this four year plan together favouring newco XER and not this phantom, when did they commence, and with whom. 'Investor confidence' was never an issue except to OGA, this investor was never revealed to XEL shareholders, who up to that time were the investors/funders of Bentley. Jmo..
To my mind and judging by the instantaneous falling apart of the deal it reads to me more as if the phantom investor was deemed unsuitable by someone at the meeting - why else would the phantom investor's reputation or investor confidence in the phantom company be undermined?
quite ambiguous really is it not. OGA does say parties. if the redacted phantoms here were not the Bondholders showing themselves and advising who they intended to bring in as operators, when did the discussion clearly that had to have been held between OGA with XER/the Bondholders re approval for the four year lease extension, conditions, and continuity they needed in connection with booting out XEL equity in XER by liquidation happen? Why was this not asked for by XEL/XER mid 2016 or presented as an option then by OGA to XER in good time for the upcoming expiry of the Bentley lease, yet seemingly was available later in 2016 to XER under new owners. And what on earth does OGA mean in clause 22 re the phantom investing in Bentley by saying they considered the phantom's reputation could be damaged by such an action?! This was not a beauty contest, but a proposed commercial investment on the part of that company it was prepared to fund and support. By their comment OGA is implying that if we were to assume the phantom was not the Bondholders the investment was bad for them, yet good still for XER in Bondholder owned guise for whom OGA were prepared to award a four year lease extension!
15. The purpose of that meeting was to allow Xcite to introduce the Company, who was a prospective investor in Xcite�s Bentley Field. The Companies� participation in the meeting was on the understanding that such participation would remain confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties or to the public at large. 16. The information contained in the Note, if released, along with other information in the public domain, is likely to result in the identity of the Company becoming known along with the company it recommended. The funny thing is that there was clearly a leak prior to the meeting and another post the meeting- that resulted in the company having to disclose the true position with that RNS a day or so later So they went into the meeting with a potential partner but it fell apart either that same day or the day after - what was said I wonder at that meeting that put them off. Or did OGA reject them as potential partners? 22. As mentioned, the said meeting was held to discuss the possibility of the Company investing in Xcite�s Bentley field. The OGA considers that should the fact that such an investment was considered, this could damage the reputation of the Company. 23. In addition, disclosure of the Company�s identity may weaken its position in a competitive environment by releasing market sensitive information, information which would be useful to its competitors and which could be used by its competitors to undermine investor confidence in the Company. How does it potentially damage a company's reputation if they consider an investment? It doesn't unless something happened like a rejection of their suitability by OGA.
From the contents of this OGA message all the XEL/XER executives seem to have been doing in the latter part of 2016 apart from future feathering of their own nests, was facilitating promotion of a four year lease extension of Bentley as was apparently available from OGA, but achieved instead for the particular benefit of an individual or group (Statoil?) that were not known shareholders in XEL. At no time were shareholders in XEL advised of possible availability of said lease extension, such partial action, or open requests to inform status of and authorise same, yet clearly now being taken by their executives for the benefit of themselves and others. Their action, with the support it seems of OGA, directly led to the decimation of the company by asset transfer to others, with the eventual gtz stock situation and liquidation of the company that resulted from this jointly concocted event. Jmho.
Thanks beltron, absolute crock. Re meeting mentioned on 8/9/16 why are the execs of XER allowed to participate in such a meeting representing new investors with their own parachutes clearly strapped on, could not OGA see the clear conflict of interest in their position. Why did not OGA offer this 4 year extension to these same XER execs three months earlier, XER not this newco having already expensed $450m at the behest in the main of DECC to develop an FDP for Bentley. Was OGA ever asked, and why did OGA not alternatively as the lease was due to expire, in fairness to others put the lease out to open re-tender, as they had done with Blackbeard at the time of award to XER. Re item 18-25 it's quite clear by their own admission OGA were aware of the contentious nature of the XEL liquidation and effect of same on XER, and the risk to OGA of litigation from their actions. Imo that risk is considerably increased by the content of this letter, the partiality shown to one party by OGA and the detriment by their actions shown to shareholders in old XEL/XER. To he** with the risk to Company xxxx's reputation, the shareholders in XEL going back years, have been with OGA apparent complicity shafted by same. It's also petty clear imo that Cole and particularly the parachuting CFO Fairclough should also be sued for fiduciary duty failure to XEL shareholders and old XER for their actions in failure to promote earlier the precise thing they were clearly, by attending that 8/9/16 meeting, the Bentley lease extension to a.n. other yet still held by oldco XER. They should have recused themselves or have first resigned from XEL/old XER, and notified XEL shareholders of their action. Just who are the shareholders in this new BVI owner company so acceptable on the quiet to OGA. OGA's obligations for confidentiality are absolutely not as they should be and completely one sided. Jmho..
17. The OGA considers that the circumstances, content and purpose of the meeting had necessary quality of confidence to justify the imposition of an equitable obligation of confidence. Further, the OGA considers that the information communicated in the meeting (including the Note) were communicated in circumstances which created an obligation of confidence. 18. The OGA considers that disclosure of that information over and above the information currently being disclosed would result in an actionable breach of confidence against the OGA, an action the OGA considers would be likely to succeed. 19. The OGA has considered whether it would be in the public interest for all the information contained in the note to be disclosed, which would provide the OGA with a defence to any action for a breach of confidence. On balance, the OGA does not consider that it is in the public interest for all the information in the note to be disclosed. 20. The Note summarises discussions that arose in circumstances of a professional relationship and, as set out above, disclosure of this information would likely affect a continued supply of information from Industry and other stakeholders, as well as chill investment opportunities in the UK continental shelf. Section 43(2) FOIA & 12(5)(e) EIR � Commercial Interests 21. The OGA considers that, if the identity of the Company was to be disclosed along with the company it recommended, the commercial interests of those companies would likely be prejudiced. 22. As mentioned, the said meeting was held to discuss the possibility of the Company investing in Xcite�s Bentley field. The OGA considers that should the fact that such an investment was considered, this could damage the reputation of the Company. 23. In addition, disclosure of the Company�s identity may weaken its position in a competitive environment by releasing market sensitive information, information which would be useful to its competitors and which could be used by its competitors to undermine investor confidence in the Company. 24. The OGA has considered whether it would be in the public interest (including the passage of time between the meeting and the date of the request) for the name of the company to be released. 25. In light of the risk to the Company�s reputation, and noting that the matters surrounding Xcite�s liquidation remain contentious, the OGA considers that the public interest in favour of withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the name of the Company. 26. Please note that other exemptions/exceptions are likely to apply.
8. The meeting of 8 September 2016 was intended as a way for those attending to have a safe space to have discussions related to the funding of projects. 9. One of the functions of the OGA, as the regulator of the oil and gas industry in the UK, is to facilitate and take part in discussions on a range of matters (which may, from time to time include discussions on sensitive matters such as the topic of the meeting) in order to achieve outcomes in the best interests of the UK Continental Shelf and Industry. 10. It is necessary and appropriate for those discussions to be conducted in a safe space so that the best decisions can be reached without fear of subsequent disclosure or external interference. 11. In the discharge of such statutory functions, companies in the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders (e.g. UK and International governments) provide the OGA with wide ranging and often commercially and politically sensitive information. The OGA has no statutory power to demand the information provided to it by Industry, and particularly other stakeholders, in this particular context. 12. Further, the OGA considers that, if information which is voluntarily disclosed to the OGA in this way is disclosed as part of this information request, both Industry and other stakeholders would likely not provide such information in the future. This chilling effect would likely inhibit the OGA in the discharge of its statutory functions and thus would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. 13. The OGA understands that disclosure of the requested information may lead to interested parties being confident that decisions are taken on the basis of the best available information. However, the OGA considers in this case that the public interest supports the non-disclosure of the information, not least to ensure that the OGA can provide companies with such safe places to explore their funding options, and has before it relevant information on which to make appropriate decisions in the exercise its functions. Section 41(1) FOIA and Regulation 12(5)(d) � Information provided in confidence 14. The Note was from an introductory meeting between Xcite, the company in question (the Company), DIT and OGA, which was held at the OGA�s London offices. 15. The purpose of that meeting was to allow Xcite to introduce the Company, who was a prospective investor in Xcite�s Bentley Field. The Companies� participation in the meeting was on the understanding that such participation would remain confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties or to the public at large. 16. The information contained in the Note, if released, along with other information in the public domain, is likely to result in the identity of the Company becoming known along with the company it recommended. 17. The OGA considers that the circumstances, content and purpose of the meeting had necessary quality o
We have considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and, where relevant, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs). Following a search of the Oil and Gas Authorities (OGA�s) records, we have found no record of a meeting taking place on 16 September 2016, involving the OGA and Xcite. However, on the 8th September 2016, a meeting between the OGA, Xcite and third parties took place. On 24 May 2017 the OGA received and responded (on 27 July) to a request for the notes of the meeting on 8 September 2016. In its response to that request, the note Readout of meeting between OGA, DIT, Redacted and Xcite: Thursday 8 September 2016 �Redacted is a Redacted firm that was established in the Redacted. They currently invest in Redacted in Redacted and Redacted; they have investment in Redacted in the UK; and they own the Redacted associated with the Redacted in Redacted. There is no debt or fees associated with their investment and their business model is to work with high quality firms. As there is no debt, there is no default risk. They look to work with an investment grade company for the coupon and for Xcite they have selected Redacted to manage this. They explained that they provide prefunding to try to mitigate any call on the guarantor. They seek to have a fast and efficient process to enable completion.� 4. While no meeting was held on 8 September 2016 between the �OGA, Xcite Energy LTD's (XEL) Board of Directors and XEL's proposed project guarantor�, we can confirm that a meeting between Xcite, the Department for International Trade (DIT), a company whose details are being withheld (further details as to the reasons this information is being withheld is set out below), and the OGA took place on 8 September 2016 at the OGA�s London office. A copy of the note from that meeting is attached to this response at Annex 1 (the Note). 5. Some of the information contained in the Note has been redacted. While the OGA tries to be as transparent as possible, and our general approach is to disclose as much information as we are able, there are at times reasons and circumstances in which the OGA cannot disclose information requested. 6. The OGA considers that the redacted information from the Note is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Sections 36(2), 41(1), 43(2) FOIA and Regulations 12(5)(d) and (e) EIR. A detailed explanation of the reliance on each of the exemptions is set out below. Section 36(2) � Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs 7. The OGA�s qualified person considers that disclosure of the redacted information (a) would likely inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation (Section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA) and/or (b) would otherwise prejudice or would be likely to otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (Section 36(2)(c) FOIA). 8. The meeting of
About par for the course for these idiots imo, either stupidity or over confidence to be charitable without having a guaranteed exit setup in place before ever agreeing these conditions.
...not to mention that they went from a NON-secured loan to Bolted down secured Loan that was tighter than a submarines hatch!
Read the 12/2011 letter on the subject from the jobsworth at DECC at the time. XER were a contributory factor but they were basically shafted by this gent imo. XER should have at the time of the ON well or immediately thereafter got clarification and acceptance from DECC of that well results and their intended FSP/SSP plan going forward into 2011. Failing to get this in writing, or perhaps someone (Smith?) felt he had a 'gentleman's' agreement as to how to proceed and what would be accepted after the 6 well. Especially before committing $60m in advance of an approved plan for the RN, plus now a $250m EWT thrown in, was imo the reason for him quite justifiably falling on his sword in 2012. Whatever that allowed this DECC 'expert' into the driving seat when XER went in mid 2011 with their proposed FDP plan and suddenly found, as is clear from DECC's letter, FSP/SSP was not approved. So with a rig all ready to go, this EWT was concocted by XER and sold to shareholders and DECC as the bee's knees. Who knows, one can think of a few, what persuaded that guy to to fail to assist with a small company's woes in what in actuality was a perfectly acceptable plan, from which any additional data DECC supposedly required could have been obtained from the first well. If the reservoir particulars or further development were considered of concern from that, the work could equally well have been shut down at that time. In the meantime also concurrent with that work, the reservoir size could have been expanded, as it was with the EWT, to assist with further funding applications against enhanced reserves. So basically there was no positive guidance or help from DECC re their declared aim to assist small companies in developing North Sea fields, unless they thought loading an additional $250m expense to XER was that, in addition to what had already gone from XER into the 5 and 6 wells. Of course XER compounded the issue by developing this desperation EWT plan, it's cost, and not having any prior agreed support, other than the BP offtake agreement, from a major or funder if the EWT as it was, proved successful. Then this useless BoD dropped the company further in the hole by terminating, again without plan B fixed and in place, the RBL the company had. As a 'management' quite unbelievable, they gave away the farm to someone nameless, but imagine who with the name change, for 1/3rd the cost it was to develop and prove up. Jmho..
Didn't someone contact DECC/OGA & they more or les said that it was not a requirement of Decc that an EWT had to be executed ?? More waffle/bluster from Cole, did he intimate this on a efficent , no strings YOUTUBE video...Come to think of it when we had these ridiculous videos popping out that should have made us think Eh ?? Easier to pin down an eel than that tool
The problem is the 'new' staff were actually the old staff, let by the CFO who had proven to be incapable since appointment to line up funding for XEL. Complete conflict of interest that he then allowed himself to be rolled into the newco. Just saving his skin, completely unprincipled. Why was the old company not first awarded a four year lease extension, that was available to this effective newco, seemingly without quibble. OGA had to have been perfectly aware of the parlous state of the o&g market environment, why did they not offer old XER in mid 2016 this four year lease extension they were perfectly prepared to trot out for the effective newco just a few months later. Could have been game changer for XEL with regard to sp, and being able to negotiate refi or partnership agreements later in 2016. You are quite right, just where were these major shareholders in XEL from way back, as illusory as the phantom as it turned out financiers that persuaded the idiot XEL BoD to cancel the RBS led funding that was in place without an alternative backup first being set. Smith imo had to go as a result of the DECC and rig fiasco in 2011 where without a prior tied in FSP/SSP FDP agreement with DECC based on successful and approved ON 6 well results, led to the necessity for the wantonly expensive cover exercise called EWT. This again was approved, conducted/expensed without first having a prior agreed partner or funding against results in place.
...was this "deal" with the "new" staff brought about by the B/holders sanctioned that as long as Rupert was not involved...was a "step aside payment" made to Cole? Why did Smith leave so suddenly & Cole inserted ...did Weiss have a hand in this ...are they still involved...no surprise if this was all engineered by the special group of private investors who stayed anonymous, under the guise of Weiss (as did the bondholders) to loan money through Cole into bently as long as the puppet danced to their tune...when he slowed the strings were cut !
Good post, but think you need to go further back under foi to the time OGA were harping on about the benefits of Quad 9 and participants in same. Just how did OGA thereafter from mid 2016 on clearly knowingly allow themselves to be negotiating with the same executives planning to jump ship as they did from old XER when owned by XEL, to XER under new 'owners' who had foreclosed on oldco, the old shareholders having been shafted by the inability of XER executives supposedly to seal the lease extension deal for old XER that seemingly magically materialised immediately 'new' XER surfaced. Could OGA not see the conflict of interest minefield XEL/XER executives were in, and they actively allowed themselves to be placed in, to the detriment of the shareholders that had funded and taken the risk on Bentley in the first place. Why did OGA not in good faith, if they decided as they did there would be no re-tender, not offer in the first instance in good time a four year lease extension to old XER. Did they not appreciate the potential value of such an award in relation to a proven by then field. Were they ever asked by said executives to agree this term extension, prior to XEL having to be put in liquidation, despite the debt that XER owed XEL. Or did this issue only arise after the bondholders had succeeded in persuading these same executives for future job security to promote and implement a plan that left XEL shareholders with no option but see XEL killed off, XER maintained in the process through this, and then have them step over to new owner XER, concurrent with OGA's magic award by that stage of this four year Bentley lease extension. The whole issue imo stinks of connivance on the part of all insider parties involved, in the case of XEL/R executives from the time of the arrival of the new bondholders and the revision of the legal status of XER at that time. But what left XEL with no chance of redemption was the failure of XER's executives at the time to promote, and/or OGA, to award XER in mid 2016, a four year lease extension that was available to the same company but by then under new manipulated ownership, later that same year still prior to expiry of the old lease. Jmo.
Dear Mr -----------, Thank you for your request about �minutes of the meeting held on the 16th September 2016 between the OGA, Xcite Energy and possible funding partners� I apologise for not having contacted you sooner. Your request is being treated as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. It will be taken forward by the Oil and Gas Authority, which vested as an independent Government company on 1 October 2016. Your request has been allocated the unique identifier of FOI----- � please quote this reference on all correspondence with us. FOI requests are normally subject to a 20 working day deadline of your request being received at the OGA. Yours sincerely, FOI Officer OGA
I haven�t posted on here for a while but there has been a development which you may find of interest. Some of you will know I have been hosting an xcite action group. xciteaction@outlook.com I have recently approached a company who may be interested in looking into the actions of the various parties to this debacle. They are a professional outfit and from my initial conversation already have a grasp of the issues involved. These people can dig in places we can�t. There will be a requirement for funds, which some of those who have written to me seem happy to put forward. I hope to have some idea of initial costs soon. I will be writing to all of those who have been in touch with me at the outlook address some time next week. I will be away for a few days but will be back on Tuesday.
With respect to the approaching end of the XER Bentley lease end 2016 OGA failed imo to act impartially in the matter of negotiations with oldco XER staff, and showed partiality in awarding a four year lease extension without re-tender or first considering oldco XER under it's ownership by XEL, and for award of such extension by mid 2016. There was a clear conflict of interest that should have been evident to OGA by the fact they allowed the same oldco XER execs to negotiate a lease extension that was to be granted to an effective newco in which the old shareholders had been ejected, yet comprised the self same executives. Why was not the opportunity being given first by OGA in view of evident market conditions then, to oldco XER mid 2016, whose shareholders had paid for the cost, at the insistence of DECC, in determining to FDP state the size and prospects for Bentley. Alternatively, as the old lease extension was expiring, OGA should have demonstrated impartiality by way of an open re-tender, knowing that XER parent XEL was in danger of being placed under liquidation by one party within it's capital structure. Partiality was shown thereby to one group of lenders or investors in XEL. The conflict of interest is clear on the part of the XEL/XER executives who failed to best protect the interests of oldco XEL/R and it's shareholders they had a fiduciary duty to represent, as they had to have negotiated on behalf of then stepped over as they did to newco XER. Imagine what might have happened if OGA had been requested or persuaded in good time to offer XEL/R a four year lease extension, as they eventually did to this effective newco. Were they ever asked by old XEL/R, and if this had been available, what effect might that have had on the XEL sp. Could this have re-energised prospective partners. Might shareholders have been persuaded to participate in a rights issue thereafter, as opposed to the prospect of what transpired, gtz. At 50 cents this would have enabled the ejection of the Bondholders. In addition there still remained Stg31m ELF that could have been tapped on an sp bounce for ongoing w/c. Jmo, but imo OGA should be publicly dragged over the coals over how they allowed this XER crew to secure their futures v that of the shareholders in XEL/R who had paid for the Bentley field to be brought to the current state of development and prospect. By their action OGA allowed one group to sink and another to survive. If the generous lease extension had been agreed earlier all likely could have at worst taken a comparable hit, but the company as was remain afloat..
Forget that incompetent imo, he should have been taken care of by the useless FCA, example of their uselessness the recent RBS report. Concentrate alternatively on HMG/DECC/OGA and under foi just what was said, when, with and by who, leading up to the Bentley 4 year lease extension. Jmo..
Below is his new address where he as set up a new business. Lovely looking place take a look on Google earth. I doubt very much he as the guts to answer his door, but if you get to speak to him good luck on receiving the truth. Parsdown Ltd Hambledon Beech Drive Kingswood KT20 6PS https://www.companieslondon.com/uk/10795922/parsdown-limited