Plus: A chat with the Transport for London boss running the tube strike negotiations — and how the "hardworking businessman" putting up flags in south London tried to scam an insurer.
Criterion's solicitor claims their only responsibility is to hold their tenant to the terms of their retail commercial lease, but in my experience, it is normal for retail leases to include a clause that the occupier must pay their taxes. e.g. here's the clause from a Sainsbury's commercial lease for a store premises I am familiar with (these leases are usually available to buy from the Land Registry as the rent is high enough to meet the requirement for mandatory registration): "To pay all existing and future rates, taxes, charges, assessments and outgoings which may at any time during the Term be assessed charged or imposed upon or payable in respect of or by the owner or occupier of the Premises ". I assume they include these clauses to reduce the risks of the local and national tax authorities coming after Criterion. It sounds to me that they may be selectively enforcing the terms of the lease, but it obviously depends on the tenant's covenants in the specific lease.
When the phoenixing happens and a new company takes over operations, is Criterion varying the existing premises lease to switch the company name to the new one (in doing so, without good reason, it could be at risk of enabling tax evasion), or is it accepting payment from the new company in relation to the existing lease with the old company, when there is no contract between Criterion and the new company? Wouldn't a properly run landlord business want their actual tenant paying the rent, not some other company?
I can't help but wonder why the local authority and HMRC, given the debts are so large, are not going to the High Court to get a writ and sending enforcement officers in to take control of all the stock and shut the businesses down - they have the power to enter commercial premises and seize stock and cash. There may be good reasons they can't do that, including it being under Scottish law, and maybe the process is too slow to be effective or phoenixing gets around it, but it seems absurd that a shop can deliberately not pay rates or VAT and suffer no consequences, and worse than that, be expanding their dodgy tax avoiding business empire.
I'm a surveyor working in commercial real estate and was about to highlight these exact points - and the payments issue also mentioned by another commenter. Criterion really can't be washing their hands of this. There is UK legislation (anti money laundering / proceeds of crime) that require them to report suspicious behaviour to the relevant authority. Have they done this? After this kind of investigation you'd expect them to do so and also be undertaking their own checks on these tenants now. I'd also be interested to know if these lettings are agreed via independent real estate agents or if they are doing the deals in house. An agent would also have liability in this respect.
Great reporting. It feels like there is so much more to this story!
I work for a property company and while I'm not on the property management and rent collection side of thing, I know we are very careful about who pays the rent. If the lease is in the name of "Kingdom of Treats" or "John Smith T/A Kingdom of Treats" we would expect the rent to be paid by that entity. If the rent suddenly started coming from "Kingdom of Sweets" or "Joe Bloggs T/A Kingdom of Sweets" we'd want to know what was going on.
Criterion clearly don't want to know what's going on. The question is if they have a legal obligation to know or report what's going on. They most likely have some very expensive lawyers who have advised them that they don't need to know. Whether that holds up in court is up for debate but HMRC somehow don't seem interested enough to even try
Criterion must have some idea who the people are behind the phoenixing scam. It is completely unbelievable that they just sign a new contract every few months with a completely unknown person for the rent of these places.
Surely all government needs to do is pass legislation making landlords liable for unpaid business rates up to the value of the lease agreement and all this would go away? Immediately break clauses would be introduced to make sure that landlords could evict tenants who do not pay.
Each time the company is phoenixed a new bank account for the new company has to be opened with the new "director". Seems like some financial institution is failing in their "know your client" responsibilities. Be interesting what financial institution is providing the card readers, and the Financial Conduct Authority should have some interest in this.
Excellent reporting! I have tried to get my London Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft interested in this, unsuccessful so far. I will use your further reporting for another attempt.
You say here that Criterion Capital "evicted" the Central YMCA. Is that right? The charity says it was their decision to sell based on declining membership.
It’s hard because there appears to be a ready supply of people, who are willing to put their real names to legal paperwork and assume legal responsibility for the shops and the tax debts.
The only way I can see this being dealt with is to look into whether these people are truly running the shops - and why Criterion Capital keep renting to these people.
It's the same with a college and hostel business that has a string of three liquidated business and rebranded shop fronts with the same landlord Wallhill Limited owning 43-47 New Broadway Ealing and 41-47 Wimbledon Hill Road that had ownership deeds registered to Aziz's Colliers Wood Tower in the days when another Aziz firm Golfrate were there. A former Wallhill director was Haroon Abdul Aziz. The latest incarnation of the tenant college is Sterling College (London) Limited, operating 'Sterling Suites' hostel at the above Ealing address, with the same sole director (who called his old college at 2A Amity Grove in Raynes Park, "Phoenix House" as the Savills sales pack reveals); some of the same awful reviews the closed Amity Hostel used to get, and the same old staff running Sterling Suites! Unlike when Access College folded, since Amity College folded in 2023, the shop signage at Ealing has remained up, with many hostel guests reportedly confused by the old name and converted classroom dormitorys! A well known booking website are only too happy to service this latest incarnation despite further embarrassing and disturbing reviews. 'Hotel' has been added to Sterling's business topics on companies house, and I know the liquidated Amity College Ltd lot are eager to run Wallhill's under construction new hotel in the old Wimbledon Amity College (the Aziz family like running hotels). A very cosy ongoing relationship. A former Wallhill director was Haroon Abdul Aziz. I went down a rabbit warren trying trace the current buildings' Wallhill owner director, a supposed 40-something pharmacist (in charge of two sites surely worth millions) from an office (Delson Exchange) that since has vanished in Harrow and become flats.
This is a brilliant piece of work Jim. I live in Edinburgh and have had suspicions about tacky tat shops for a long time. Wondering if the only way to get to the bottom of it is for HMRC to follow the money. The leaseholders must be opening business bank accounts so where does the money go from there?
A “Kingdom of Sweets” shop used to exist in Criterion Capital’s London Trocadero building at Piccadilly Circus.
At some point a few years ago it was replaced by a “Kingdom of Treats” shop with near identical logos. The “Treats” variant has only popped up in two buildings owned by Aziz and Criterion.
This subtle tweaking of names and logos seems common in the gift shop world.
Criterion's solicitor claims their only responsibility is to hold their tenant to the terms of their retail commercial lease, but in my experience, it is normal for retail leases to include a clause that the occupier must pay their taxes. e.g. here's the clause from a Sainsbury's commercial lease for a store premises I am familiar with (these leases are usually available to buy from the Land Registry as the rent is high enough to meet the requirement for mandatory registration): "To pay all existing and future rates, taxes, charges, assessments and outgoings which may at any time during the Term be assessed charged or imposed upon or payable in respect of or by the owner or occupier of the Premises ". I assume they include these clauses to reduce the risks of the local and national tax authorities coming after Criterion. It sounds to me that they may be selectively enforcing the terms of the lease, but it obviously depends on the tenant's covenants in the specific lease.
When the phoenixing happens and a new company takes over operations, is Criterion varying the existing premises lease to switch the company name to the new one (in doing so, without good reason, it could be at risk of enabling tax evasion), or is it accepting payment from the new company in relation to the existing lease with the old company, when there is no contract between Criterion and the new company? Wouldn't a properly run landlord business want their actual tenant paying the rent, not some other company?
I can't help but wonder why the local authority and HMRC, given the debts are so large, are not going to the High Court to get a writ and sending enforcement officers in to take control of all the stock and shut the businesses down - they have the power to enter commercial premises and seize stock and cash. There may be good reasons they can't do that, including it being under Scottish law, and maybe the process is too slow to be effective or phoenixing gets around it, but it seems absurd that a shop can deliberately not pay rates or VAT and suffer no consequences, and worse than that, be expanding their dodgy tax avoiding business empire.
Great work, Jim.
I'm a surveyor working in commercial real estate and was about to highlight these exact points - and the payments issue also mentioned by another commenter. Criterion really can't be washing their hands of this. There is UK legislation (anti money laundering / proceeds of crime) that require them to report suspicious behaviour to the relevant authority. Have they done this? After this kind of investigation you'd expect them to do so and also be undertaking their own checks on these tenants now. I'd also be interested to know if these lettings are agreed via independent real estate agents or if they are doing the deals in house. An agent would also have liability in this respect.
Great reporting. It feels like there is so much more to this story!
Criterion has previously said that the lettings are arranged in house.
I work for a property company and while I'm not on the property management and rent collection side of thing, I know we are very careful about who pays the rent. If the lease is in the name of "Kingdom of Treats" or "John Smith T/A Kingdom of Treats" we would expect the rent to be paid by that entity. If the rent suddenly started coming from "Kingdom of Sweets" or "Joe Bloggs T/A Kingdom of Sweets" we'd want to know what was going on.
> we'd want to know what was going on.
Criterion clearly don't want to know what's going on. The question is if they have a legal obligation to know or report what's going on. They most likely have some very expensive lawyers who have advised them that they don't need to know. Whether that holds up in court is up for debate but HMRC somehow don't seem interested enough to even try
Criterion must have some idea who the people are behind the phoenixing scam. It is completely unbelievable that they just sign a new contract every few months with a completely unknown person for the rent of these places.
Surely all government needs to do is pass legislation making landlords liable for unpaid business rates up to the value of the lease agreement and all this would go away? Immediately break clauses would be introduced to make sure that landlords could evict tenants who do not pay.
Note to self: never stay in a zedwell! "Windowless by design". "No TVs or other distractions".
Each time the company is phoenixed a new bank account for the new company has to be opened with the new "director". Seems like some financial institution is failing in their "know your client" responsibilities. Be interesting what financial institution is providing the card readers, and the Financial Conduct Authority should have some interest in this.
Excellent reporting! I have tried to get my London Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft interested in this, unsuccessful so far. I will use your further reporting for another attempt.
Eddie Dempsey is utterly repellent so I've little sympathy with the RMT. If he wasn't a Russian asset how would we tell?
You say here that Criterion Capital "evicted" the Central YMCA. Is that right? The charity says it was their decision to sell based on declining membership.
Just read this in the Edinburgh Minute. Do you have any faith in the authorities to do anything?
It’s hard because there appears to be a ready supply of people, who are willing to put their real names to legal paperwork and assume legal responsibility for the shops and the tax debts.
The only way I can see this being dealt with is to look into whether these people are truly running the shops - and why Criterion Capital keep renting to these people.
This may change shortly, of course, with the new director identity verification process which is being introduced.
All of these directors are real people. They’d pass any verification check. The problem is whether they’re the real real people.
Interesting, I guess that’s why they target students. I love how when you asked Edinburgh council they pivoted to their tourist tax talking point.
It's the same with a college and hostel business that has a string of three liquidated business and rebranded shop fronts with the same landlord Wallhill Limited owning 43-47 New Broadway Ealing and 41-47 Wimbledon Hill Road that had ownership deeds registered to Aziz's Colliers Wood Tower in the days when another Aziz firm Golfrate were there. A former Wallhill director was Haroon Abdul Aziz. The latest incarnation of the tenant college is Sterling College (London) Limited, operating 'Sterling Suites' hostel at the above Ealing address, with the same sole director (who called his old college at 2A Amity Grove in Raynes Park, "Phoenix House" as the Savills sales pack reveals); some of the same awful reviews the closed Amity Hostel used to get, and the same old staff running Sterling Suites! Unlike when Access College folded, since Amity College folded in 2023, the shop signage at Ealing has remained up, with many hostel guests reportedly confused by the old name and converted classroom dormitorys! A well known booking website are only too happy to service this latest incarnation despite further embarrassing and disturbing reviews. 'Hotel' has been added to Sterling's business topics on companies house, and I know the liquidated Amity College Ltd lot are eager to run Wallhill's under construction new hotel in the old Wimbledon Amity College (the Aziz family like running hotels). A very cosy ongoing relationship. A former Wallhill director was Haroon Abdul Aziz. I went down a rabbit warren trying trace the current buildings' Wallhill owner director, a supposed 40-something pharmacist (in charge of two sites surely worth millions) from an office (Delson Exchange) that since has vanished in Harrow and become flats.
This is a brilliant piece of work Jim. I live in Edinburgh and have had suspicions about tacky tat shops for a long time. Wondering if the only way to get to the bottom of it is for HMRC to follow the money. The leaseholders must be opening business bank accounts so where does the money go from there?
This was an excellent (if enraging) read
I assume Kingdom of Treats has a close relationship to the purple-and-orange Kingdom of Sweets shops that were in Dublin until recently.
Interestingly… seemingly not.
A “Kingdom of Sweets” shop used to exist in Criterion Capital’s London Trocadero building at Piccadilly Circus.
At some point a few years ago it was replaced by a “Kingdom of Treats” shop with near identical logos. The “Treats” variant has only popped up in two buildings owned by Aziz and Criterion.
This subtle tweaking of names and logos seems common in the gift shop world.