The Sentor group of companies, comprising Sentor Solutions Commercial Ltd, Fabcourt Developments Ltd, Sentor Solutions Advisory Ltd and Sentor Solutions Ltd have been wound up by the High Court. The Official Receiver has been appointed liquidator of the companies.

The latter two companies changed their names and most recently traded as Hall Contracting Services Ltd and Clarkson Murphy Partners Ltd respectively.

Promotional material provided by Fabcourt Developments to investors stated that Sentor Solutions Commercial and Clarkson Murphy Partners were the Security Trustee for the investment scheme, which promised fixed rate investment products known as ‘convertible loan notes’ with high monthly or quarterly interest rates for a duration of 2-3 years.

Fabcourt Developments was in fact the successor to Sampson Property Developments Ltd, previously known as Texmoore Limited, which had operated the same scam until it entered into compulsory liquidation on 23 March 2022 following a creditors petition.

Between them, the companies took over £2 million from investors, plus a further $500,000.

Both Clarkson Murphy Partners and Hall Contracting Services had also been said to be Security Trustees for Sampson Property Developments scam.

In addition, the companies also told investors that the loan notes were “government-backed”, and even that their investments were covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (which would have entitled them to compensation if the investment failed).

The Insolvency Service investigation into the companies established that the Sampson Property Developments and Fabcourt Developments schemes were part of an investment fraud collectively operated by the companies.

The investigation found that, having received funds from would-be investors in the Sampson Property Developments and Fabcourt Developments schemes, the companies would make a handful of monthly interest payments on their investments before going silent and leaving investors substantially out of pocket.

The properties set out in promotional materials were found to be owned by unrelated entities, and videos promoting the investment schemes had been cloned.

Edna Okhiria, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said:

It is undeniably in the public interest for these companies to be prevented from continuing to trade, which will enable the Official Receiver to carry out further investigations into the activities of the Companies to establish the extent of its liabilities, the position as regards any assets, the whereabouts and conduct of the directors and any other culpable parties.

These companies operated a fraudulent scheme whereby they mislead the public, falsely claiming that the Texmoore and Fabcourt investment schemes were regulated to provide the veneer that funds invested were protected when in fact they were not. These claims induced investors to invest substantial sums. The companies then failed to make more than a few monthly interest payments, leaving investors substantially out of pocket.

The Insolvency Service, alongside our partner agencies, continues to investigate schemes such as these and to pursue enforcement against those responsible for facilitating them.

Notes to editors

Sentor Solutions Commercial Ltd (company no. 12309797)

Hall Contracting Services Limited formerly known as Sentor Solutions Advisory Ltd (company no. 12139495)

Clarkson Murphy Partners Limited formerly known as Sentor Solutions Ltd (company no. 08327930)

Fabcourt Developments Limited (company no. 08890452)

The petitions were presented under s124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 on 20 and 22 June 2022 at the High Court of Justice.

All enquiries concerning the affairs of both the 4 companies and SPD should be made to:

• The Official Receiver, Public Interest Unit, 16th Floor, 1 Westfield Avenue, Stratford, London, E20 1HZ
• Email: piu.or@insolvency.gov.uk

Investors in both these and other schemes are being contacted by suspected fraudsters, falsely representing that recoveries may be made if an advance fee is paid. Please note this general advice, which follows for any instance where an advance fee is requested

Company Investigations, part of the Insolvency Service, uses powers under the Companies Act 1985 to conduct confidential fact-finding investigations into the activities of live limited companies in the UK on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Further information about live company investigations is available here.

Further information about the work of the Insolvency Service, and how to complain about financial misconduct, is available here.

You can also follow the Insolvency Service on:

The reviews find that most schools prioritised English and maths tuition, while further education providers offered English and maths alongside a range of other subjects. Teaching staff and pupils were positive about their tutoring programmes. However, the quality of tuition varied greatly depending on the school or provider, and most teachers did not know the extent to which tutoring was having an impact.

Ofsted was commissioned by the Department of Education to look at the overall quality of tutoring provided, how it was integrated into schools’ curriculum planning and delivery, and the likelihood that it will help pupils catch up.

The reviews draw evidence from visits to 63 schools and 21 further education and skills providers.

Ofsted Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, said:

Tuition is an expensive intervention, but used well it can help pupils who fall behind. The government’s tutoring programme is potentially an important part of helping pupils catch up after the pandemic. There is evidence of tuition working effectively, but most schools and colleges lack a system to assess it properly and so do not know if that’s the case.

I hope these reviews help the government develop its tuition programme and help school leaders implement tutoring better.

Schools

Most leaders in the 63 schools visited had chosen to use existing staff to tutor pupils through a school-led route, rather than external tutors or academic mentors, because this gave them greater control and oversight of quality.

Schools that had strong tutoring in place used assessments, supplemented by teachers’ knowledge, to identify the pupils who could benefit most from tuition. Ofsted found that sessions taught by qualified teachers tended to be of higher quality than those taught by other types of tutors.

Nevertheless, inspectors saw that tutoring cannot really work without a well-considered and constructed curriculum in place. In the stronger schools, teachers and tutors were able to use the curriculum to identify the core knowledge that pupils had either missed, or did not fully understand, and made sure this could be covered in tutoring sessions. Tutors and class teachers collaborated to keep one another informed of a pupil’s progress.

In a minority of schools, the tuition provided was haphazard and poorly planned. These schools had not understood the purpose of having small tutoring groups and frequent sessions. Most schools had not yet found a good way to assess pupils’ progress and to decide when to stop tuition for individual pupils.

Some leaders found it difficult to extend the school day for tutoring, leading to many providing tutoring during school hours. Some schools had mitigations in place to minimise the impact of tuition on other lessons and extra-curricular activities. However, leaders in one fifth of the schools visited had not thought through the risks of disrupting children’s learning by taking them out of regular classes.

Despite some of the issues, leaders, staff and pupils were positive about the tutoring provided, and overall, the national tutoring programme, particularly the school-led tutoring route, has been well received by schools.

Further education and skills

The review found that 16 to 19 providers used the funding differently and had interpreted ‘tuition’ activities in a variety of ways.

In the stronger examples, tutors used regular assessment to understand learners’ progress and identify specific subject areas where they needed further assistance. Collaboration between teachers and tutors was strong.

Tutors were often recruited from existing teaching staff, which meant they already knew and taught the curriculum well. Sometimes there were challenges in recruiting specialist teachers, with some providers commissioning industry experts to deliver vocational tutoring sessions.

Learner groups were too large in some cases, which limited the ability of the tutor to tailor sessions to specific learners’ needs.

In a minority of cases, tutors did not set clear goals for learners, there was poor collaboration between tutors and teachers, and tutors did not refer back to the core knowledge in the course curriculum. This meant they did not always address an individual’s learning gaps.

Overall, leaders, staff and learners saw the value in the tutoring provided. Many suggested that tuition had re-engaged learners, increased their confidence and resilience, and changed their attitudes to learning. However, many providers acknowledged that they had not fully developed arrangements for overseeing and monitoring tuition.