Allard and Dunlop: Five Liquidations, £705,820 in Creditor Exposure and a Trail of Failed Companies

Between October 2016 and March 2026, five companies linked to William Dunlop entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation with £705,820 in initial creditor liabilities or directors’ estimates. Georgia Allard was a director of three, accounting for £541,297.15 of that exposure; two further Dunlop-only insolvencies account for £164,523. These are company liabilities, not personal debts of either director, and the total includes money the companies said they owed their own directors. Across four of the five cases, identifiable HMRC estimates or claims amount to at least £232,641; Hythe Tanning Vault’s HMRC component isn’t available in the documents we have.

The £6,000 line

On 6 March 2026, William Dunlop signed a Statement of Affairs for IOH Deli Ltd. Under assets, one line stood out: “Proceeds from sale of assets” — £6,000. Against that sat £66,020.49 of creditors. Six days later the company, which traded as Ivy’s of Hythe from 17–19 High Street, went into creditors’ voluntary liquidation.

The document doesn’t identify what was sold, when it was sold or who bought it. That matters because IOH Deli wasn’t the first Dunlop company to fail, nor was “Ivy’s of Hythe” a new trading identity. It had previously been the name of Ivy’s of Hythe Ltd, another Dunlop company which entered insolvent liquidation less than three years earlier.

To understand why that matters, you have to go back to 2016.

The first High Street company

The House of Beauty Hythe Ltd was incorporated on 24 October 2016. Georgia Allard and William Dunlop (pictured)  were its directors and controllers, and it traded from 21–23 High Street, Hythe. Its first micro-company accounts recorded five employees, total assets of about £33,440 and liabilities of about £24,523. This was plainly a real operating salon business rather than some company existing only on paper.

By September 2019 the picture had changed dramatically. House of Beauty entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 12 September. Its insolvency accounting records £92,501 of trade and expense creditors, a £160,000 directors’ loan, £14,249 HMRC PAYE/NIC and £26,997 HMRC VAT. Total creditor liabilities were therefore £293,747. Importantly, the £160,000 was recorded as money owed by the company to its director or directors, not a debt the directors were shown as owing back to the company.

Those figures weren’t the same thing as £293,747 of finally adjudicated losses. During the liquidation six claims were actually submitted totalling £243,919.73. Because there wasn’t enough money for a distribution, those claims weren’t formally agreed. The final insolvency papers confirm that no dividend was paid to unsecured creditors.

But before House of Beauty went under, another company had already appeared.

S & L (Hythe) Ltd was incorporated on 6 August 2019 — 37 days before House of Beauty entered liquidation. Allard and Dunlop were directors from incorporation and each held five ordinary shares.

Then the business crossed over.

The Gazette records that on 24 September 2019, just 12 days after House of Beauty’s liquidation began, “substantially the whole of the business and assets” was acquired by S & L, which carried on the whole or substantially the whole of the old company’s business. Allard and Dunlop each gave statutory Rule 22.4 notice concerning their proposed involvement with the successor business.

That is phoenixing in the ordinary, descriptive sense. The Insolvency Service defines phoenixism as the same business or directors trading successively through companies which liquidate or dissolve leaving debts unpaid. Crucially, though, it also says the law allows former owners and directors to start another company and carry on a similar business. Abusive phoenixism is something different: repeatedly using companies to evade debts or for fraudulent purposes.

The House of Beauty transaction also had safeguards. The liquidator used Key Appraisals Ltd. S & L paid £3,500 for salon furniture and equipment, £1,500 for stock and £5,000 for goodwill — £10,000 plus VAT altogether. The liquidator recorded that the valuer weighed a swift sale against the possible benefit and extra cost of further marketing and recommended accepting S & L’s offer as likely to give the best net return.

Years later, House of Beauty’s liquidator recorded that the statutory director-conduct report had been submitted and separate enquiries into possible recovery issues or matters of public interest had concluded with “no further action being taken by the Liquidator”. So the evidence establishes a phoenix succession. It doesn’t establish that this 2019 phoenix was fraudulent or abusive.

A tanning company with no assets

There was already another Allard-Dunlop business in Hythe. Hythe Tanning Vault Ltd had been incorporated in July 2018 and traded from 47 High Street. Allard and Dunlop were both controllers.

It entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 14 March 2022. The directors estimated creditor claims at £124,825. Claims subsequently received totalled £116,031. The liquidator said no assets had been detailed in the Statement of Affairs, the directors personally funded the costs of placing the company into liquidation, and unsecured creditors would receive no dividend.

One sentence in the final report deserves to be stated precisely and no more strongly than the liquidator stated it: “The only matter reported to The Insolvency Service was the apparent lack of company records being delivered up by the Company’s directors.”

That isn’t a finding of fraud. It is a formal insolvency practitioner’s recorded concern about company records. The papers available to us don’t contain Hythe Tanning Vault’s original creditor-by-creditor schedule, so we can’t responsibly put an HMRC figure against its £124,825 total. Doing so would simply be guessing.

The phoenix company fails

S & L — the company which had acquired House of Beauty’s business — eventually failed as well. Its creditors’ voluntary liquidation began on 29 March 2023 and remains open.

Its original creditor figures show £71,024.52 of HMRC debt ranking as secondary preferential, another £4,447.05 attributed to Customs & Excise, £41,251.58 owed to a bank or institution, £5,502 of trade and expense creditors and a £500 director claim. Those gross creditor categories total £122,725.15.

HMRC’s position later grew significantly. By the May 2026 progress report, HMRC had submitted a total claim of £107,124.08, of which £90,507.81 was claimed preferentially and £16,616.27 unsecured. That later claim replaces the earlier HMRC estimate; it mustn’t be added on top of it. The liquidator said he still wasn’t in a position to agree all creditors’ claims.

Only £12,311.90 had been realised by March 2026: £11,282.94 cash at bank, £150 computer equipment, £800 fixtures and fittings, £50 stock and £28.96 interest. The report showed no distribution paid or anticipated to preferential creditors, HMRC, unsecured creditors or shareholders.

There was another connected-party transaction. Independent agents JPS Chartered Surveyors were instructed to dispose of S & L’s assets. Allard expressed an interest in the computer equipment, fixtures, fittings and stock, and the liquidator expressly identified her as connected because she was a director and shareholder. JPS recommended the offer and Allard bought the assets for £1,000, excluding VAT.

Again, the connected-party nature of the sale is a fact. Secret asset stripping isn’t. The insolvency report says an independent valuer considered the disposal method and recommended the transaction.

But the timing around another salon company is striking.

The Riverside Hair Lounge Hythe Ltd — originally called Hair & Beauty Salon (Hythe) Ltd — was incorporated on 21 February 2023, just 36 days before S & L entered liquidation. Allard and Dunlop were both directors.

By December 2023 the new business was sufficiently established to appear in the English Hair & Beauty Awards, where The Riverside Hair Lounge Hythe was listed as a finalist for Beauty Team of the Year. That trade-industry evidence matters because it shows this wasn’t merely another dormant company sitting on the register: a salon under that name was operating and attracting recognition after S & L’s failure.

Was Riverside a second-generation phoenix?

We can’t presently prove that. We haven’t found a document showing S & L’s goodwill, customer list, booking system, staff, telephone numbers, social-media accounts or the £1,000 of assets acquired by Allard subsequently passed to Riverside. Unlike House of Beauty to S & L, there’s no equivalent document before us saying substantially the whole business transferred. Calling Riverside a proven second phoenix would therefore go beyond what the evidence supports.

S & L itself is still unfinished business. The latest report says the liquidator discovered a directors’ loan account and was liaising with “the Directors” over repayment. It doesn’t state the amount or identify whether Dunlop, Allard or both are liable under that account. The same May 2026 report still listed “Conclude ongoing statutory investigations” among the matters preventing the liquidation from closing.

From Ivy’s to Ivy’s

While the beauty businesses were changing, Dunlop had moved into hospitality. Ivy’s of Hythe Ltd was incorporated in July 2021 with Dunlop as director and sole shareholder and traded from 17–19 High Street. It entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 27 July 2023.

Its Statement of Affairs showed £2,000 HMRC PAYE, £40,000 HMRC VAT, £44,502 owed to Square Up, £1 to C-Bas Accountancy and £12,000 to directors: £98,503 altogether. The summary showed no estimated assets available to preferential creditors, while the later final report clarified that cash at bank had been listed with an uncertain realisable value; the liquidator ultimately recovered £1,868.94.

The subsequent investigation went further. The liquidator’s final account says his initial assessment suggested a possible recovery issue, and further investigation supported suspicion of a claim “in relation to unlawful dividends”. After examining the company’s records, he decided the potential claim wasn’t economic to pursue. The report doesn’t identify an amount, recipient or dates, and it doesn’t amount to a court finding that Dunlop personally received an unlawful dividend.

Creditors nevertheless received nothing. The liquidator’s May 2025 notice expressly confirmed that no dividend would be declared and that funds realised had already been distributed, used or allocated towards liquidation expenses.

Yet one month before that first Ivy’s company entered liquidation, another corporate vehicle was already on the register.

IOH Deli Ltd was incorporated on 27 June 2023 — exactly 30 days before Ivy’s of Hythe Ltd entered CVL. Dunlop was its director. It operated from the same 17–19 High Street address. More importantly, The Gazette records its trading name as Ivy’s of Hythe.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s licensing records corroborate that continuity on the ground. IOH Deli’s premises-licence application named William Dunlop as designated premises supervisor, while representations published by the council repeatedly described IOH Deli as formerly or previously Ivy’s of Hythe. Environmental Health said the council had received a significant number of noise complaints about the premises, although it specifically recorded that it had not established a statutory noise nuisance.

That continuity creates a legal question which didn’t arise in quite the same way with House of Beauty, because House of Beauty’s statutory Rule 22.4 notices can readily be found in The Gazette.

The Insolvency Service says that for five years after an insolvent liquidation a person who had been a director during the preceding 12 months is restricted from becoming involved in another business using the old registered name, trading name or another prohibited name, unless an exception applies. Its guidance lists exceptions including court permission, a qualifying sale of the business and name during liquidation, or another company which had already been using the same name for at least a year.

Our searches have not located an equivalent Rule 22.4 Gazette notice for the Ivy’s of Hythe Ltd to IOH Deli succession, nor evidence of court permission. That doesn’t prove a breach. There might be another applicable exception, a filing we haven’t located, or facts which aren’t contained in the public material. The proper question for Dunlop (pictured) is therefore a simple one: on what statutory basis did IOH Deli continue trading as “Ivy’s of Hythe” after Ivy’s of Hythe Ltd entered CVL?

If no exception applied, the potential consequences are serious. Insolvency Service guidance says a breach can result in prosecution or disqualification and can make a person personally liable for company debts incurred during the prohibited-name breach. That is precisely why the question needs answering rather than us jumping to a conclusion.

The second Ivy’s failed as well. IOH Deli’s March 2026 Statement of Affairs lists HMRC at £42,271.77, Dunlop himself at £12,972.76, Castle Water at £6,181.14, Sysco GB at £1,513.22, Towergate Insurance at £1,455.30, BT at £1,026.30 and The Frank Accountants at £600. Total creditors were £66,020.49. Against that were £6,000 of asset-sale proceeds, producing an estimated creditor deficiency of £60,020.49.

Who bought those £6,000 of assets remains unanswered in the material presently available.

Strike-offs aren’t liquidations

Another part of the company trail needs handling carefully. The Riverside Hair Lounge Hythe Ltd was eventually dissolved following compulsory strike-off. The Riverside Hair Lounge Ltd, incorporated in July 2023 with Allard and Dunlop as directors, was also dissolved and is recorded as having filed no accounts. Tranquility Day Spa Hythe Ltd, incorporated the following month with both as directors and controllers, is now recorded as dissolved and likewise had no accounts filed.

Those businesses mustn’t be lumped into the five CVLs. Strike-off isn’t the same thing as insolvent liquidation and, without accounts or a Statement of Affairs, we can’t put a creditor or HMRC figure against them. “Unknown” doesn’t mean zero; equally, it doesn’t give anyone licence to invent a debt.

Loxletts River Ltd is different again. Dunlop incorporated it in June 2023 at 17–19 High Street. It was voluntarily struck off and dissolved on 3 March 2026, but its latest published financial summary showed about £7,410 in current assets, roughly £2,860 in current creditors and positive shareholders’ funds of about £4,550. It wasn’t a formal insolvency, so it would be wrong to add it to the £705,820.64.

Nor should two newer companies be prejudged. IOH The Lounge Ltd was incorporated in January 2025 at 21–23 High Street and Companies House currently records it as active with an active proposal to strike off; its first accounts are due in October 2026. Doll Dolls Ltd was incorporated in December 2025 at 17–19 High Street and remains active. Companies House’s identity-verification record expressly confirms that the “Will Stuart Dunlop” on Doll Dolls was verified by Tide Platform as William Stuart Dunlop. Neither company is presently evidence of another insolvency or an abusive phoenix.

So what does the decade actually show?

The hard numbers are substantial. Using the initial Statements of Affairs or directors’ creditor estimates, the five CVLs total £705,820.64. Three companies jointly directed by Allard and Dunlop — House of Beauty, Hythe Tanning Vault and S & L — account for £541,297.15. The two additional Dunlop-only CVLs — Ivy’s and IOH Deli — add £164,523.49. Dunlop was involved with all five; Allard with three.

But £705,820.64 isn’t £705,820.64 “lost to outside creditors”, and it certainly isn’t £705,820.64 personally owed by the directors. At least £185,472.76 of that headline figure comprises identifiable claims by directors themselves across House of Beauty, S & L, Ivy’s and IOH Deli. Hythe Tanning Vault’s creditor breakdown isn’t available, so the exact external-creditor component can’t be calculated from the evidence presently before us.

HMRC nevertheless appears again and again. House of Beauty’s Statement of Affairs put its HMRC liabilities at £41,246; Ivy’s at £42,000; IOH Deli at £42,271.77; and S & L’s later submitted HMRC claim reached £107,124.08. That produces £232,641.85 of identifiable HMRC exposure across four companies, excluding Hythe Tanning Vault because its tax breakdown isn’t available. It mixes Statement of Affairs estimates with S & L’s later claim, so it is properly described as documented HMRC exposure rather than a single standardised final-loss figure.

Does all this prove abusive phoenixism?

No.

It proves one explicit phoenix succession: House of Beauty to S & L. The records also show a strong phoenix-style continuity from Ivy’s of Hythe Ltd to IOH Deli Ltd trading as Ivy’s of Hythe — the same director, the same premises and the same trading identity — but the legal basis for reusing that identity still needs an answer. Riverside’s timing makes it legitimate to investigate whether it continued S & L’s business, but the evidence before us doesn’t prove that transfer.

What gives the story its public-interest weight is the wider pattern: five creditors’ voluntary liquidations; repeated HMRC liabilities; completed insolvencies in which unsecured creditors received no dividend; one liquidator recording apparent non-delivery of company records; another investigating a suspected unlawful-dividend claim; a third trying to recover an undisclosed directors’ loan account while statutory investigations remain unfinished; and several new companies appearing shortly before predecessors entered liquidation.

There is counter-evidence which matters just as much. The first phoenix asset sale was independently appraised; Allard’s later £1,000 purchase from S & L went through independent valuers; House of Beauty’s liquidator concluded his recovery and public-interest enquiries without further action; and the evidence we have uncovered contains no court judgment, director disqualification or regulatory finding declaring either Allard or Dunlop guilty of fraudulent or abusive phoenixism.

That leaves four questions more important than any label: what section 216 exception, if any, permitted IOH Deli to trade as Ivy’s of Hythe; who bought IOH Deli’s £6,000 of assets; how much is outstanding on S & L’s directors’ loan account and from whom; and what is the eventual outcome of S & L’s statutory investigation?

Those answers will determine whether this 2016–2026 company trail remains a story of repeated business failure — or develops into something more serious.

Have a story that needs telling, or information you think may interest us? Please get in touch. All correspondence will be treated in the strictest confidence TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime