Running a Land Rover restoration company with locations in several countries was a challenge. We relied heavily on the trust and honesty of our partners to maintain the quality and efficiency that our customers expected. Unfortunately, we were let down during this process, and as a result, it was our customers who trusted us with their dreams who were ultimately let down.

For years, our UK workshop grappled with significant issues in terms of productivity and quality control, compounded by mismanagement and rumors that recently came to light of extensive self-dealing by certain staff members. These problems ultimately forced us to make the difficult decision to close the UK workshop in an effort to protect our customers’ investments.

Initially, our intention was to transfer the ongoing UK projects to reputable third-party restorers for completion, ensuring that the high standards our customers expect would be met. However, this plan hinged on our ability to safely and efficiently recover the projects from the UK workshop. Unfortunately, due to the mismanagement and complications arising from the liquidation process, this recovery proved to be challenging. The difficulties we faced in reclaiming these projects prevented us from executing this transition smoothly, further complicating our efforts to help our customers out.

Sharing Our Lessons

This experience serves as a valuable lesson for others interested in building a custom Land Rover. Unfortunately, the Land Rover Defender import and restoration industry doesn’t always attract the most trustworthy individuals, and navigating it can be challenging. Despite our best efforts to uphold the highest standards of integrity and quality, we ultimately failed due to circumstances beyond our control, including the betrayal by trusted partners. We hope our story underscores the importance of diligence, transparency, and caution in this field. Aspiring restorers should be vigilant and thoroughly vet their partners to avoid the pitfalls we encountered.

We had hoped to resolve these issues privately and avoid making this a public story. However, we feel a profound obligation to those who trusted us with their cherished Land Rover Defenders to provide transparency and background information on what ultimately happened to the company. Sharing this account is essential to honor the trust our customers placed in us and to explain the unfortunate series of events that led to our current situation. It is with a heavy heart that we divulge these details, but it is necessary to ensure that our valued supporters understand the context and challenges we faced.

The Path to Liquidation

Despite facing significant challenges, we put an extensive turnaround plan in place in late 2023 to address the productivity and quality control issues at our UK workshop. This plan was designed to revitalize operations and ensure the continued delivery of high-quality restorations. Unfortunately, our efforts were severely undermined by the lack of support from our UK management team. Unbeknownst to us, one of our staff members had secretly started a competing company, using Bishop+Rook resources for their personal gain. This betrayal not only sabotaged our turnaround efforts but also diverted critical resources and attention away from our core mission, leaving us struggling to recover and fulfill our commitments to our valued customers.

After realizing there was no viable path forward, we opted for liquidation, hoping for a fair, transparent, and honest process. Unfortunately, the liquidation quickly turned sour. Promises of equity and transparency were not followed, leading to further complications and disappointments.

Over the years, we were fortunate to have some truly amazing and dedicated people work for us. However, it became evident that one bad apple can indeed spoil the whole basket, as the detrimental actions of a few undermined the hard work and integrity of the many.

We chose Creditors Voluntary Liquidation (CVL) because it was intended to be a legal and transparent process. It provided a structured way to address our financial difficulties while ensuring all actions were above board. This approach also promised to investigate the past actions of staff members that contributed to our operations’ insolvency.The CVL was our attempt to rectify these issues responsibly and transparently.

Troubles with Ruth Duncan at Maxwell Davies

We hired Maxwell Davies (Ruth Duncan) to manage the liquidation process, hoping their expertise would guide us through these challenging times. We reported very few assets and debts in the UK, as our primary challenges were related to cash flow, productivity, and quality control rather than financial insolvency. Our asset base was minimal because many items had already been sold off by a former director during our move to a new workshop in Kimpton.

From the outset, we made it unequivocally clear to Ruth Duncan that all projects in the workshop, including take-off parts, new parts, and panels ready for installation, belonged to our US customers. This critical information was communicated before we even began the liquidation process to ensure there would be no misunderstandings about the ownership of these assets.

The journey through liquidation has been fraught with difficulties, however. Despite numerous assurances that there would be no payments to stakeholders, the liquidation process continued, raising serious concerns about its purpose. Why expend so much effort to sell off our assets if no one stands to benefit financially? This inconsistency has been a source of great frustration and confusion.

The Ethos of Bishop: Preservation Over Profit

At Bishop, we have always prioritized retaining the original parts of each vehicle. This commitment ensures that each restoration project not only looks authentic but also performs as it was originally intended. We had an entire yard filled with parts that were being prepared for restoration, including several full containers with parts linked to each vehicle. Unfortunately, the liquidator, with the assistance of our former business partner, has undermined this principle by falsely identifying these assets as available for sale, ultimately selling off every take-off part, motor, gearbox, and more. What we are left with are mere shells of vehicles, stripped of their essence and historical value.

The Disheartening Reality: Stripped Vehicles and Removed Panels

One of the most distressing aspects of this process has been the removal of newly painted panels and other critical components. These actions not only devalue the vehicles but also disregard the painstaking work and dedication that went into their restoration. It’s a blow to see our efforts and ethos disregarded in favor of a quick sale that benefits the liquidator over the customers who actually paid money for these parts.

Unjust Demands from US Customers

Several of our US customers have tried to deal directly with Maxwell Davies, only to face similar challenges and frustrations. One particularly troubling case involves a customer whose project was 95% complete and ready to ship when its doors were removed and sold off. Despite overwhelming evidence showing that the blue doors, which were crucial to this project, were sitting right next to the vehicle in the workshop, Ruth Duncan sold them to a third party.

Despite our repeated requests and clear proof of ownership, she has refused to release the doors back to the customer, preventing him from completing and shipping his vehicle. This situation epitomizes the difficulties and injustices our customers have faced throughout this process.

We have stuck with our US customers, but the process has been extremely frustrating and has drained our resources as we battle to save these assets from being sold off. It’s disheartening to see this happen.

Timeline of Events

We are working to publish the timeline of events and communications from the entire liquidation process. We will post them all here once they are in a format that can be easily uploaded.  We feel it is important to lift the lid on the unethical practices that happen in this industry and how far people will go to scam for their own interests.

The Path Forward

As we navigate these challenging times, we are determined to overcome these obstacles and continue to help customers recover as much as possible. The liquidation process has been a tumultuous journey marked by inconsistencies, unjust demands, and actions that contradict the very principles of trust and transparency.

This document (below) serves as a draft of the complaint that Bishop+Rook LLC, represented by Michael Kraabel, intends to file in the United Kingdom. The complaint details the civil and criminal allegations against Andrew Fox, former Director of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd., and Ruth Duncan, Director of Maxwell Davies, who was responsible for overseeing the liquidation of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd. The purpose of this draft is to outline the factual background, the legal claims, and the relief sought, providing a comprehensive account of the grievances resulting from the actions of the Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to address the significant financial losses, reputational damage, and the unlawful denial of access to property, all of which have arisen from the Defendants’ conduct. This draft will be reviewed and finalized in consultation with legal counsel to ensure all relevant legal standards and procedural requirements under UK law are met.

Joint Civil and Criminal Complaint

Plaintiff: Bishop+Rook LLC/Michael Kraabel
Address: 6407 Penn Ave South, Minneapolis, MN 55423
Business Description: Restoration and export of vintage Land Rover Defenders

Defendants: Andrew Fox and Ruth Duncan of Maxwell Davies

Jurisdiction: TBD

Complaint:

  1. Introduction:The Plaintiff, Bishop+Rook LLC/Michael Kraabel, brings this joint civil and criminal complaint against Andrew Fox and Ruth Duncan. Andrew Fox was a former Director of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd., while Ruth Duncan is a Director of Maxwell Davies, responsible for overseeing the liquidation of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd. This complaint arises from actions leading to financial losses, reputational damage, and the unlawful denial of access to property, constituting both civil breaches and potential criminal offences under UK law.
  2. Parties:
    • Plaintiff: Bishop+Rook LLC, represented by Michael Kraabel, 6407 Penn Ave South, Minneapolis, MN 55423, engaged in the restoration and export of vintage Land Rover Defenders.
    • Defendants:
      • Andrew Fox, former Director of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd.,
      • Ruth Duncan, Director of Maxwell Davies, responsible for the liquidation of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd.
  3. Jurisdiction and Venue:This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to relevant UK laws, including the Companies Act 2006, Fraud Act 2006, and Theft Act 1968, as the actions occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, and the Defendants are domiciled within this jurisdiction.
  4. Case History and Factual Background:a. Andrew Fox’s Actions as Director:
    • Andrew Fox, while serving as a Director of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd., engaged in unethical and illegal activities, including the misappropriation of company resources, falsification of time tracking, and the establishment of a competing business, Artisan Motor Co., using company assets and resources​​. These actions were in direct violation of his fiduciary duties and contributed to the financial instability and ultimate collapse of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd. He also disabled security cameras to conceal unauthorized activities and manipulated customer relationships for personal gain​​.

    b. Ruth Duncan’s Actions as Liquidator:

    • As the appointed liquidator, Ruth Duncan was responsible for managing the liquidation process of Bishop+Rook UK Ltd. However, she is accused of unethical behavior, including denying access to the Plaintiff’s property and failing to provide detailed financial information or a clear account of the liquidation process​​. Despite repeated requests, she provided minimal response and incorrectly claimed ownership of assets that were legally owned by the Plaintiff. These actions have led to significant delays, financial strain, and legal complications for Bishop+Rook LLC and its customers​​.
  5. Claims for Relief:Civil Claims:
    • Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Against Andrew Fox for actions that breached his duties as a Director under the Companies Act 2006, resulting in financial losses and reputational damage.
    • Unlawful Denial of Property: Against Ruth Duncan for wrongful denial of access to property, constituting conversion and potential misfeasance in the liquidation process.

    Criminal Allegations:

    • Fraudulent Activity: Allegations against Andrew Fox under the Fraud Act 2006 for specific fraudulent actions, including side dealings and asset misappropriation.
    • Theft or Conversion: Allegations against Ruth Duncan under the Theft Act 1968 for the unlawful deprivation of property during the liquidation process.
  6. Damages:The Plaintiff seeks the following relief:
    • Compensatory Damages: For financial losses incurred due to the Defendants’ actions.
    • Injunctive Relief: To prevent further denial of access to property and to compel the Defendants to return any unlawfully withheld property.
    • Punitive Damages: For the egregious nature of the Defendants’ actions, if applicable under UK law.
    • Legal Costs: To cover the Plaintiff’s expenses in bringing this action.
  7. Prayer for Relief:The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the relief sought and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Signed:

Michael Kraabel
For Bishop+Rook LLC

Address: 6407 Penn Ave South, Minneapolis, MN 55423
Contact Information:
Date: