Engineering firm closes with the loss of 130 jobs
Administrators Leonard Curtis have been appointed to Workington Engineering Limited, trading as Chapel Bank Engineering in Workington, Cumbria, after a failure to secure private investment.
The business on Curwen Road had been trading since 1939 under various ownership and names and offered heavy engineering services in the nuclear, oil, gas and steel sectors.
The administrators said they were working with various parties including the Unite union to ensure employees received all their entitlements.
The company, then TSP Engineering, was sold to Workington Engineering in September which was able to protect some contracts and was seeking private investment to help the business recover, the administrators said.
But the investment was not "forthcoming" and the company has had to cease trading, they said.
Workington MP Josh MacAlister said on social media the closure was a "devastating blow" and that he was working with the union to get employees into alternative suitable jobs as quickly as possible.
Iain Nairn, from Leonard Curtis, said directors at Workington Engineering had "no option" but to close the doors.
"It's a very sad day for everyone involved," he said.
"There have been big challenges in the last few years in the steel sector and the inability of the company to raise investment has caused its closure."
Workington job centre is holding an open day between 10:00 BST and 16:00 on Wednesday to support affected employees.
Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump attacks ‘woke' Jaguar as carmaker names first Indian chief
Jaguar Land Rover has appointed its first Indian chief executive as Donald Trump accused the company of being in 'absolute turmoil' following a 'woke' marketing campaign. PB Balaji, chief financial officer at the the carmaker's Indian owners, Tata Motors, is to take up the post in November as Jaguar deals with the fallout of a rebrand in which it ditched its big cat logo and embraced a new hot pink aesthetic. On Monday, the US president contrasted the fortunes of Britain's Jaguar with American Eagle, a US clothing brand that recently saw its share price surge after debuting an advertising campaign with actress Sydney Sweeney. Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social social media platform: 'Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the 'HOTTEST' ad out there. It's for American Eagle, and the jeans are 'flying off the shelves.' Go get 'em Sydney! 'On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER! The CEO just resigned in disgrace, and the company is in absolute turmoil. Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad.' It comes days after Adrian Mardell, the 64-year-old boss of Jaguar Land Rover, announced his intention to retire. Under Mr Mardell, the car company sought to shake off its traditional image as a brand for 'Jag Men' and instead target a younger demographic. As part of plans to relaunch the brand, Jaguar last year debuted an advertising campaign depicting a bright pink, Mars-like landscape and catwalk models wearing unusual, brightly coloured clothing – but no car. The clip was widely mocked online. Jaguar has also ditched its jumping cat logo and last December debuted a 'Barbie pink' concept car at Miami Art Week. Credit: Jaguar Critics have accused Jaguar of abandoning its core customers. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, accusing Jaguar of going 'absolutely bonkers … showing a bunch of weirdos'. He predicted that the carmaker would 'now go bust. And you know what? They deserve to'. The appointment of Mr Balaji marks the first time Tata Motors has appointed a Jaguar Land Rover leader from within its own ranks since buying the two distinguished British brands from Ford at the height of the financial crisis. Mr Balaji, a mechanical engineering graduate, has worked at Tata Motors for almost eight years and has overseen a turnaround at JLR's parent company. The company has long been a dominant player in the Indian car market but was loss-making when he arrived. Tata Motor's share price has soared around 270pc since he arrived. At Jaguar, Mr Balaji must oversee a make-or-break relaunch of the brand. New Jaguars are currently unavailable in the UK as the carmaker prepares to launch an all-electric range next year. On Monday, Mr Trump said that Jaguar should have 'learned a lesson from Bud Lite, which went Woke and essentially destroyed, in a short campaign, the Company.' Two years ago, Bud Lite enraged Right-wingers in America and saw its sales plummet after it used transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in its marketing. Mr Trump said on Truth Social: 'The tide has seriously turned – Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be.' His comments also came after it emerged that Ms Sweeney was a registered Republican. Records uncovered over the weekend show she registered with the party in June last year. Shares in American Eagle jumped 17pc after the president's endorsement. Jaguar Land Rover's sales dipped to £25.2bn for the year to March 31, down from £25.7bn a year earlier. The company said this was driven by 'the prioritisation of higher margin vehicles'. More recently, the company's business has been hugely disrupted by US tariffs. JLR's sales to the US were temporarily paused in April after Mr Trump announced a 25pc tariff on car imports. The British carmaker sells around 100,000 vehicles each year in the US and the trade war put some £6.5bn in sales at risk. The US-UK trade deal secured a 10pc tariff for the first 100,000 British vehicles exported, seen as predominantly benefitting JLR. Aston Martin has pushed for rules to stop the system becoming 'a JLR tariff agreement'. Last week, the company said: 'Adrian Mardell has expressed his desire to retire from JLR after three years as CEO and 35 years with the company.' Jaguar Land Rover has been approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why people on £35K should opt out of winter fuel payment by September deadline to avoid HMRC headache
People earning £35,000 or more will still receive the benefit in their bank accounts - but will then be forced to pay it back in tax. Millions of pensioners will once again receive the winter fuel payment later this year. After the government sparked uproar last winter by taking the benefit from 10 million people, chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed in June it would be restored to pensioners who have an income of less than £35,000 a year. Those who earn more than the threshold will actually receive the winter fuel payment in their bank accounts as well, though it will be taken back at a later date in tax - prompting experts to urge them to opt out of the scheme before the September deadline to avoid a potential "tax clawback headache". What is the winter fuel payment? It's money from the government to help pensioners pay their heating bills over the winter. The payment is between £100 and £300, depending on each person's circumstances, and will automatically be paid into bank accounts in November or December. People will receive letters before then telling them how much they will get and what account it will be paid into. The winter fuel payment has been one of the most contentious issues for Sir Keir Starmer's government. Last summer, it decided to limit the payment to only those who claimed pension credit in one of its first acts, aimed at balancing what was described as a £22bn 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million: from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. YouGov polling suggested 57% of Britons were against this. Who is eligible? Everyone who was born before 22 September, 1959, and lives in England or Wales, will receive the winter fuel payment. What are the tax implications for people earning £35,000? The approximately two million pensioners whose annual income is above the £35,000 threshold will also receive the payment if they don't opt out - though it will be taken back in tax. The government will take the money back by either changing their 2026/27 tax code or adding the figure to their 2025/26 self-assessment return. John Havard, a consultant at tax advisors Blick Rothenberg, warned on Monday that anyone who doesn't opt out and earns even £1 above £35,000 could face a "tax headache". "A 'wealthier' individual with an income over £35,000 will be subject to a tax 'clawback', where the winter fuel payment they receive is required to be returned to the government," he wrote in a blog. Watch: Reeves on pensioners earning under £35k to get winter fuel payments "Given this will be a complex process, and just £1 of income above the £35,000 limit is enough to trigger a clawback, those in favour of a simple life will need to opt out." He said the clawback process is "potentially complex" and an "administrative headache". Havard also said people near the threshold should watch out for any small increases to their income, such as a pension payment, interest or part-time earnings that could "tip someone over the limit and cause them to fall into the clawback process". Can you opt out of the winter fuel payment? People can choose to opt out of the winter fuel payment by contacting the government. This has to be done before 15 September. Contact details can be found here. Read more Winter fuel allowance: the scammers pounce on government U-turn (The Guardian) Millions to lose up to £18,000 from pension reforms (The Telegraph) What is a wealth tax – and would it work in the UK? (The Independent)
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Motor finance sector braces for operational test after Court ruling
The Supreme Court's dismissal of fiduciary duty claims has narrowed legal exposure for motor finance lenders, but the operational burden is only beginning. With the FCA preparing a sweeping redress scheme covering historic discretionary commission arrangements, banks and brokers now face the challenge of unpicking years of legacy data, contracts, and consumer interactions — often dating back to 2007. Legal experts say the UK Supreme Court has handed down one of the most consequential rulings for the motor finance industry in years — dramatically reducing the scope of legal liability for firms involved in discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), while leaving the door open for regulatory redress on a vast scale. Announced on 1 August, the judgment in a trio of linked cases — Johnson v FirstRand Bank, Wrench v FirstRand Bank, and Hopcraft v Close Brothers — determined that motor dealers arranging finance do not owe a fiduciary duty to consumers, even when they fail to disclose commission arrangements. Observers say this wipes out a key legal argument underpinning many of the thousands of historic motor finance complaints lodged in recent years. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has since announced plans for a much smaller redress scheme, that could ultimately cost lenders between £9 billion and £18 billion. Banks avoid worst-case scenario, but not cost-free According to Fitch Ratings, the Supreme Court ruling 'materially reduces the potential scope of consumer redress for UK banks,' especially since it rejects the fiduciary duty argument. Large-scale claims based solely on the non-disclosure of commissions are now unlikely to have legal traction. However, this doesn't mean banks are off the hook. The FCA has already confirmed it will launch a consultation this October on a sector-wide redress scheme. The scheme would require lenders to reassess complaints relating to DCAs issued between 2007 and 2021 and compensate customers for overcharging — plus interest. Fitch estimates that of the £9–18 billion in potential costs, £5–11 billion may fall on banks, with the rest borne by non-bank lenders such as car manufacturers' captive finance arms. While Fitch says this is largely 'absorbable from earnings or actions already taken,' it expects banks will need to increase the £2 billion in redress provisions they've already set aside. The rating agency adds that the financial impact is unlikely to be evenly distributed, since lenders had differing commission structures, sales volumes and documentation quality during the review period. Legal clarity, but operational complexity ahead From a legal standpoint, experts broadly welcomed the clarity provided by the ruling. Jonathan Butler, legal counsel to the Vehicle Remarketing Association (VRA) and a partner at Geldards, highlighted three practical implications for motor retailers and lenders. 'Firstly, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is good news,' he said. Potential exposure is 'well below the largest forecasts,' with many claims likely capped at under £950. Secondly, he stressed that firms can now begin assessing their risk. 'They should be tracking down all relevant paperwork dating back to the 2007 cut-off point… If it clearly explained that a commission was due and they can show the level was less than 55%, they roughly know the maximum that will be payable.' Butler's third point is more of a warning: firms must scrutinise old contracts with finance providers to check for indemnity clauses. These sometimes required dealers to cover the cost of customer claims — and may now be enforceable. He also cast doubt on the practical viability of the FCA's redress model: 'The Johnson-type threshold is actually a value judgment… These are highly fact sensitive matters. It needs qualified people to make assessments… It's far from clear how the FCA envisages this working in the real world.' The legal profession weighs in Across the legal sector, most commentary saw the judgment as a partial win for the industry, but not a clean slate. Tim West, dispute resolution partner at Ashurst, said the ruling clarifies that claimants now face a higher bar to prove dealers owed them an undivided duty of loyalty. 'This will make motor finance claims based on undisclosed commissions more difficult to bring,' he said. However, he added that the door remains open to unfair relationship claims under the CCA, where commissions were particularly large or hidden. Lorraine Johnston, Ashurst financial regulation partner, agreed. 'The decision on Johnson will give the government stronger grounds to progress CCA reform with greater vigour,' she said, adding that the FCA will now likely pursue 'a more limited redress scheme' for DCA cases over a defined period. Steven Francis of Faegre Drinker described the ruling as a 'real vindication' for lenders, given the rejection of fiduciary duty arguments. But he warned: 'The Supreme Court also found that the relationship [between Mr Johnson and FirstRand] was unfair… The importance of this should not be overlooked.' That aspect, he said, would require lenders to revisit their historic practices. Richard Coates, head of automotive at Freeths, reinforced the point: 'The judgment opens the gateway for consumers to bring claims under the Consumer Credit Act, where particularly large commissions have been paid.' Mixed reactions from consumer law firms Unsurprisingly, law firms representing consumers saw the decision differently. Coby Benson, solicitor at Bott & Co, called it a 'serious setback for financial justice' and warned it 'sends a concerning message to the industry that a lack of transparency can go unpunished.' Nonetheless, he insisted that 'we will not stop here,' suggesting new legal arguments may be pursued under the CCA. Robert Whitehead, chairman of Barings Law, described the judgment as a 'major blow to consumer protection' and a missed opportunity for accountability. 'Thousands of car buyers were sold finance deals without ever being told that brokers and dealers were pocketing secret commissions,' he said. 'It's disappointing that the Supreme Court has chosen not to hold the industry accountable.' Operational and reputational consequences Even if litigation risk has narrowed, the motor finance sector still faces an enormous operational burden, reputational challenges and regulatory scrutiny. Richard Barnwell, partner at BDO, warned that while fiduciary duty claims have been ruled out, redress for unfair relationships could still reach '£5–13 billion or more.' Brian Nimmo, head of redress at Broadstone, added that lenders must now 'review all of their DCA cases, assess whether they are unfair and then calculate potential redress, which will be a significant exercise.' Greg Huitson-Little, of Menzies LLP, pointed to the long-term consequences for public trust: 'Although the Supreme Court's decision reverses much of the Court of Appeal's earlier decisions, the reputational damage is already done… The days of opaque 'deals' must come to an end.' And from a market-wide lens, Ian Hughes, CEO of Consumer Intelligence, summarised the ruling as 'clarity the industry needed' but also a call to action. 'The industry must meet this challenge constructively… This is a consequence of legacy practices from a minority of market participants.' Looking ahead Industry observers say the FCA's upcoming consultation will be crucial in determining how redress is structured — especially whether it requires consumers to opt in, or whether lenders will be expected to proactively compensate affected borrowers. With final rules not expected until 2026, the industry now enters a period of preparation, calculation and, for many, negotiation over who ultimately bears the cost of past practices. The legal questions may be answered — but the financial, operational and reputational challenges are only just beginning. "Motor finance sector braces for operational test after Court ruling" was originally created and published by Leasing Life, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
