What three new company director bans mean for PSCs

The famous, not-so-famous and tech-focussed have been lining up behind football legend John Barnes to effectively follow in the ex-England player’s footsteps as a disqualified company director, albeit for their own infamous deeds, writes Gareth Wilcox, partner at Opus Business Advisory Group.

I want to look at three cases, starting with the most high-profile (featuring SAS: Who Dares Wins host Ant Middleton), in which the Insolvency Service decided that the conduct of the company directors fell short of legal standards.

Fame and size don’t matter if you breach fiduciary duties…

Before I look at each of the three individually, contractors running a Personal Service Company (PSC) should note that, as a whole, the trio highlights several forms of corporate misconduct (italicised below for emphasis). And the consequences that they, as directors, face when fiduciary duties are breached.

While each case is distinct in its circumstances, these Insolvency Service cases collectively underscore the importance of transparency, accountability, and compliance in corporate governance for directors of all companies, big or small.

Case 1: Ant Middleton – Misuse of Company Funds and Tax Evasion

Television personality Ant Middleton, best known for his former role on SAS: Who Dares Wins, was disqualified as a company director for four years after his company, Sway and Starting Limited, failed to pay over £1 million in corporation tax and VAT.

Despite receiving more than £4.5 million in income between 2020 and 2022, the “media representation services” company neglected its tax obligations.

Overdrawn director’s loan account, liquidation, and settlement

Middleton and his wife, Emilie Middleton, who was also a director, withdrew nearly £3 million through an overdrawn director’s loan account.

The company went into liquidation in December 2022, and Ant Middleton later agreed to repay £300,000 as a settlement.

Emilie Middleton was also banned for four years for her conduct.

Uncomfortable reading

For both fans of the hit Channel 4 show which he hosted between 2015 and 2021 and hard-working company directors today in 2025-26, the details of Middleton’s case do not make for comfortable reading.

They indicate a case of directors prioritising their personal gain over paying due regard to their tax obligations with HMRC.

The Insolvency Service emphasised that such behaviour deprives the public sector of vital funding. Four-year bans for both Sway and Starting’s directors serve as a warning to other directors about the consequences of financial mismanagement (although a company director ban can run for up to 15 years).

Not the end of a gruelling course for the ‘SAS: Who Dares Wins’ host?

Concurrent with the Insolvency Service’s action, it appears that Mr Middleton is subject to a bankruptcy petition (here) and being forced to sell his matrimonial home to pay the amount agreed in settlement of his loan account.

Therefore, there may be further developments on this matter beyond the disqualification.

Case 2: Manchester Tech Firms – Consumer Deception and Non-Cooperation

In a separate case, two Manchester-based tech companies -- Affinity Technology Solutions Limited and RCSR Tech Limited -- were shut down by the High Court for allegedly operating a direct debit scam.

The two companies, which claimed to offer online identity protection and social media enhancement services, were found to have withdrawn monthly payments of around £30 from consumers without their consent.

The subscriptions were often linked to online loan applications, and customers reported being unable to cancel or receive refunds.

Ghost director and official directors? All snubbed Insolvency Service officials…

Investigations revealed that the companies were controlled by an individual not listed as a director, and all official directors failed to cooperate with the Insolvency Service.

Both companies also failed to file required accounts. The lack of transparency and deliberate obfuscation of control structures made regulatory oversight difficult, prompting the court to intervene to protect consumers from further harm. 

The Official Receiver has been appointed as liquidator of both entities, with the power to investigate the conduct of directors (and any individual acting as a shadow director) and bring any claims arising against them. 

Opaqueness, exploitation, and bad faith

The Affinity Technology-RCSR Tech case highlights the dangers of opaque corporate structures and the exploitation of digital platforms for fraudulent purposes.

It also illustrates the regulatory challenges posed by companies that operate in bad faith and refuse to engage with oversight bodies.

Case 3: Jenna Lennon – Failure to Maintain and Provide Financial Records

The third case involves Jenna Lennon, who has no connection to the famous musician and peace-loving Beatle John Lennon! (N.B. Lennon is, however, the ex-wife of far-right activist Tommy Robinson).

Director of her own limited company, Hope & Pride Limited, Ms Lennon’s Bedfordshire-based “information service” business entered liquidation in September 2023, owing over £300,000 in unpaid corporation tax.

Lennon failed to maintain adequate accounting records and did not provide them to the liquidator, as required by law.

A limited company that NEVER filed accounts with Companies House

No accounts were ever filed with Companies House, and the liquidator was unable to verify the legitimacy of over £1 million in transactions, including £151,000 in dividends paid to Lennon.

As a result, Lennon was disqualified from acting as a director for seven years.

The Insolvency Service stressed that maintaining proper records is essential for protecting creditors and ensuring fair treatment in insolvency proceedings.

When doing nothing costs you more in disqualification order terms

The Lennon case underscores the foundational role of record-keeping in corporate governance.

Unlike the other two cases, which involved active misconduct, Lennon’s case appears to reflect a failure of basic compliance.

Nevertheless, the consequences were severe, reflecting the importance of administrative diligence.

Three lessons for PSC directors from Middleton, Lennon et al

The three cases provide some interesting analysis when placed side-by-side, with a slightly odd outcome concerning the lengths of disqualification.

• Misconduct vs. Negligence: The cases of Middleton and the Manchester tech companies cases seemingly involved deliberate actions -- inappropriate extraction of funds and consumer deception, respectively. Lennon’s case, by contrast, seemingly stemmed from negligence and failure to meet statutory obligations.
• Impact on Stakeholders: The Manchester technology companies case had a direct impact on consumers, while Middleton’s and Lennon’s actions (or inactions in the latter’s case) primarily affected HMRC and creditors.
• Regulatory Response: The Insolvency Service acted decisively in all three cases. But the length of disqualification varied -- four years (per director) in the Middleton case, and seven years for Lennon. Some may consider this to be a curious outcome given the higher sums involved in the former case, and it relating to proactive conduct rather than (apparent) apathy.

Small company? Still expect a big punishment for corporate wrongdoing

These three Insolvency Service cases should serve as cautionary tales for all UK company directors, particularly personal service company (PSC) directors.

Whether through deliberate fraud, financial mismanagement, or administrative neglect, breaches of corporate responsibility can carry significant consequences, even in relation to small and contractor companies.

The Insolvency Service’s actions reaffirm the principle that directors must adhere to their duties and act with integrity, transparency, and accountability --or face legal repercussions.

Rob Cross is the latest high-profile company director to be banned

Indeed, just as the virtual ink was dry on my write-up of these three cases, it emerged that Rob Cross, a former world darts champion, had been banned as a company director for five years.

While I will separately explore for ContractorUK readers the Cross case (including him reportedly taking out an Individual Voluntary Agreement), it is tricky to always rationalise the disparity between the length of disqualification orders, from the outside looking in.

Agreement almost always lowers company director ban length

However, in the Lennon and Middleton cases, it should be noted that they agreed to disqualification undertakings, i.e. by consent with the Insolvency Service, rather than forced by court order. 

Typically, a lower length of company director ban is obtained by undertaking, in consideration of the avoided court costs (and associated other costs) than if an order is required to be pursued. 

A final thought on company director bans of 4, 7, and 5 years?

My take? The Middletons may have been able to negotiate harder, which is a timely reminder that taking early advice on receipt of any Insolvency Service action is always a prudent step, regardless of whether you or your business is in information, technology, or even on the tele.