THE Pensions Regulator is to prosecute former BHS owner Dominic Chappell for allegedly failing to provide information to an investigation into the sale of the collapsed retailer.
The former bankrupt headed up Retail Acquisitions, the company that acquired BHS for £1 from billionaire Sir Philip Green in 2015.
TPR said it is prosecuting him for failing to comply with three notices issued under the Pensions Act 2004.
Chappell has been summoned to appear at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on September 20 to face three charges of neglecting or refusing to provide information and documents without a reasonable excuse.
Frank Field, the Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons’s Work and Pensions Committee, urged the TPR to go after Green as well. BHS plunged into administration last year, affecting 11,000 jobs and around 19,000 pension holders, leaving a £571 million pension deficit.
Under Chappell’s tenure, £8.4m was taken out of BHS by Retail Acquisitions, with £6m still owed when it collapsed last year.
The Serious Fraud Office and the Insolvency Service are carrying out their own investigations into the retailer’s demise.
Retail Acquisitions itself was put into liquidation in May, although Chappell said at the time he would challenge the court ruling.
Green, who owned BHS for 15 years before selling it to Chappell, had hoped that an agreement struck with The Pensions Regulator in February would draw a line under the saga, which has seen a parliamentary inquiry and public outcry over his conduct.
The agreement saw the Topshop tycoon agree to pay £363m to settle the BHS pension scheme.
However, Field claimed the settlement was “inadequate”.
The veteran politician, one of the billionaire’s most fierce critics during the episode, said: “If The Pensions Regulator is frightened of landing the whale [Green], I suppose going after the sprat is the next best thing.
“Why was Sir Philip Green allowed to get away with an inadequate settlement, in which pensions have been cut, yet Dominic Chappell is going to be prosecuted?
“I’ll be consulting the House of Commons’s lawyers on when I can begin to unlock that puzzle, so that Chappell has a fair trial.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here