The collapse of Danoli Solutions Limited, an IT services and computer repair firm based in Ormskirk, Lancashire, has become central to allegations of financial misconduct, questionable business practices, and significant unpaid debts.
Incorporated in August 2005, Danoli Solutions was run by Directors, Paul Ponting, and his wife, Anna Ponting, until its liquidation in July 2023. It demise and later outfall was meticulously investigated by Neil Wilby Media in a series of articles published on this website (read more here).
The Danoli Directors were notably unsuccessful in trying to have them removed, claiming, without specification, that they were ‘false and malicious’, in several civil claims and multiple reports to the police.
The company’s demise has raised numerous questions regarding the financial actions of its directors and has revealed concerns over unpaid debts totalling more than £103,000, alongside further alleged irregularities identified by the former company’s liquidator.
Danoli Solutions Ltd. commenced operations in 2005, shortly after Paul Ponting left his employment at a major plc in the Liverpool area. A whistleblower who contacted Neil Wilby Media alleges Ponting’s departure involved allegations of black hat hacking, which he denies and remain unsubstantiated.
The company initially appeared to thrive in the computer repair market. However, subsequent financial difficulties and eventual insolvency exposed significant concerns around its management and business practices, attracting the scrutiny of insolvency professionals and a report to the police.
Central to the company’s difficulties is a significant sum—£87,000—linked to its Director Loan Account (DLA). The liquidator’s report compiled by Jamie Playford of Leading Business Services Ltd identifies these funds as “matters of interest,” noting large lump sum transfers to unidentified parties shortly before insolvency. A paucity of accounting records hinder his investigation.
Despite requests from creditors and the liquidator, Paul Ponting has yet to provide a detailed explanation of these transactions, nor has any of the money been recovered. As a result, creditors remain unpaid, facing significant losses. Those creditors include His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) which means that public funds are in issue.
Further complicating matters is the emergence of Solar IT, a partnership operating from the same premises as Danoli Solutions Ltd, which has acquired Danoli’s contracts, assets, and even its predecessors domain name, danoli.com. No payment for these assets has, apparently, changed hands.
An image of the Solar IT website sits between the headline and the opening paragraph of this article. It clearly articulates the link between Danoli and Solar. Indeed, it couldn’t be stronger: It says Solar was ‘formerly Danoli’.
Critics have suggested this all has very much the appearance of ‘phoenixism’—a controversial, but, in some circumstances, legal, practice whereby a new entity continues the activities of a liquidated business, potentially avoiding its liabilities. In 2015 the government of the day issued guidance to the Insolvency Service on how phoenix operations should be monitored (read in full here).
The decision to structure Solar IT as a partnership rather than a limited company has raised additional suspicions, particularly given the liquidator’s potential recommendation for Ponting’s disqualification as a company director to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
According to an independent forensic accountant specialising in insolvency cases, the details outlined in the liquidator’s report may suggest evidence of fraudulent trading whilst insolvent—an offence under Section 993 of the Companies Act 2006.
Fraudulent trading occurs when directors knowingly continue business activities with the intent to defraud creditors or for fraudulent purposes. The expert pointed to Ponting’s continued withdrawals through the DLA during the company’s insolvency as potentially indicative of prioritising personal financial benefit over creditor obligations, which could be viewed as a breach of directors’ duties under the Insolvency Act 1986.
Penalties for fraudulent trading, if proven, include:Imprisonment (up to 10 years); unlimited fines; and disqualification from company directorship (for up to 15 years).
These allegations, however, remain unproven, and it should be noted that Paul Ponting has not yet been formally interviewed, charged or convicted of any wrongdoing related to these matters.
But, it has to be said, in strong terms, that the apparent disinterest Lancashire Constabulary, or, as previously reported, their laziness and ineptitude, is now even more remarkable: Public confidence in that police force is certain to be impacted.
A forensic accountant, consulted informally in preparation for this article, highlights additional financial liabilities arising from the overdrawn DLA, noting the likelihood of either significant Corporation Tax and National Insurance Contribution obligations.
Potential tax liabilities arising from these unexplained withdrawals depend significantly on how HMRC classifies the outstanding £87,000 Director’s Loan Account (DLA).
If the withdrawn sum is genuinely a loan but remained unpaid beyond nine months after the company’s accounting period ended, the company would face a temporary Corporation Tax liability (section 455 tax) at 33.75%, approximately £29,362.50.
Alternatively, should HMRC determine these withdrawals represent disguised remuneration—effectively salary or bonuses paid without the required reporting—the liabilities shift significantly. In that case, they could impose immediate Employee National Insurance Contributions at 12% (around £10,440) and Employer NIC at 13.8% (around £12,006), totalling approximately £22,446, along with unpaid income tax.
Notably, HMRC would not impose both Corporation Tax under section 455 and NIC liabilities simultaneously, as that would constitute double taxation. Rather, the critical issue is how HMRC ultimately classifies the withdrawals.
According to applicable tax regulations, unpaid director loans attract a Corporation Tax rate of 33.75% if not repaid within nine months after the end of the company’s financial year. That amounts to over £29,000 on Paul Ponting’s £87,000 DLA.
If HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) classifies these withdrawals as disguised remuneration—effectively unreported salary payments—they could attract immediate National Insurance Contributions (NICs), consisting of: Employee NIC at 12%: £10,440; Employer NIC at 13.8%: £12,006. Making a total potential NIC Liability: £22,446. Adding to that Paul Ponting could face significant Income Tax liabilities. Specifically, if treated as a single lump sum remuneration in one tax year, his potential income tax liability would amount to approximately £22,232, comprising: Employee NIC at 12%: £10,440; Employer NIC at 13.8%: £12,006; Income Tax (one-year scenario): £22,232; Total Liability (one-year scenario): £44,678 (excluding penalties and interest)
However, if this income was distributed evenly across three separate tax years, the tax burden could reduce significantly: Annual income would drop to £29,000 per year, reducing the income tax payable to just £3,286 annually. Over three years, this reduces the total income tax liability from £22,232 down to just £9,858.
Such a substantial difference underscores the critical importance of clarifying the exact timing and purpose of these withdrawals.
In addition, given the length of time these sums have remained unpaid, HMRC would likely impose both interest charges—currently approximately 7% per annum, amounting to a further ongoing liability of around £2,000 per annum on the best case scenario, based on the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%—and additional financial penalties.
HMRC typically applies a 5% penalty for substantial payment delays, resulting in a likely further penalty of approximately £1,450, again on the best case scenario. All this taking the potential tax liability of the Pontings to a figure in the order of £36,500 if one calculates that interest is applied for past three years.
This cumulative exposure significantly escalates the financial stakes involved, presenting further serious concerns regarding the financial governance of Danoli Solutions Ltd and increasing potential losses faced by both creditors and taxpayers. Heavily underscoring this public interest investigation and reporting by Neil Wilby Media: A company, and its Directors, owing £103,000 to its creditors and £36,500 to the Revenue is, on any independent, no trifling matter.
As the liquidator’s report indicates no repayments, there are questions over whether HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have been notified by the liquidator or police – or whether they have commenced any investigation jointly or severally.
The concerns raised in this article regarding Danoli Solutions Ltd. are not isolated incidents in the business history of Paul Ponting. According to The Ormskirk Vigilante website, Ponting has been associated with several other business ventures reportedly facing financial difficulty.
Allegations include questionable asset transfers and previous insolvencies, suggesting an emerging pattern. Paul Ponting has consistently denied wrongdoing, and it must be emphasised that these allegations remain unsubstantiated at this stage. Making the need for police and Revenue investigation even more pressing.
On 3rd December 2024, Neil Wilby, an accredited investigative journalist, reported concerns of alleged fraud by false representation under Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 to Lancashire Constabulary, supplying Inspector Iain Carr with the liquidator’s report detailing the irregularities and copies of the previous news articles chronicling the Danoli Solutions Ltd demise.
Despite a follow-up request in February 2025, no update or confirmation of investigation from Lancashire Constabulary has been received.
The journalist, understandably, has described the police’s response as inadequate, stating:
“The liquidator’s report contains prima facie evidence of financial misconduct. Lancashire Constabulary’s lack of engagement raises serious questions about their approach to investigating alleged white-collar crime.”
Lancashire Constabulary has been approached for comment, via its press office, but has not yet responded.
The Danoli Solutions case highlights potential weaknesses in the oversight of insolvency processes and the regulation of financial misconduct allegations. The rapid emergence of Solar IT and apparent ease of asset transfer suggest vulnerabilities that may disadvantage creditors and undermine public confidence in corporate accountability.
For the company’s creditors, prospects of recovering their losses appear limited to non-existant, with hopes resting primarily on the liquidator’s continuing investigation and a repayment of the Director’s Loan by Paul Ponting.
As investigations continue, the collapse of Danoli Solutions stands as a cautionary tale, highlighting the need for robust financial oversight, transparency in business conduct, and timely intervention by authorities. Whether the allegations against Paul Ponting, Anna Ponting and his associated entities lead to formal action remains uncertain.
But, wherever that trails leads, the self-positioning of Paul Ponting as an anti-corruption campaigner – using the Danoli premises as his base – does grate considerably given these latest revelations.
Neil Wilby Media will continue to follow developments closely, offering all relevant parties a right of reply to ensure fair and balanced reporting. Regrettably, in the past Paul and Anna Ponting, from whom comment would be much the most useful, have used such opportunities to make ad hominem attacks on the author, rather than addressing the content of the articles.
Further research has also identified additional concerns relating to the Pontings’ stewardship of five other dissolved limited companies. These will be explored in a separate, upcoming investigative piece, scheduled for publication later this week. For flavour, in the case of one of the collapsed businesses – a computer repair business in Southport – the blame for its closure was laid at the door of Merseyside Police.
Very recently, Paul Ponting told the High Court in London, in oral submissions, that Solar IT was formed, in January 2023, as a partnership rather than a limited company to avoid scrutiny by Neil Wilby Media via publicly accessible files at Companies House.
A flawed argument, because, in other submissions he made earlier the same day, he told the court that contact between Paul Ponting and Neil Wilby began at the end of March 2023. The first article concerning Danoli was written on 27th June 2023, ironically and accurately predicting financial woes ahead for the Ormskirk firm and, just as crucially, six months after life was breathed into the phoenix company.
The court also heard that Danoli failed ‘because of Covid’. Which does fall rather short of expolaining the behind the scenes transition to Solar IT.
Page last updated on Thursday 24th July, 2025 at 05h45
Right of Reply:
If you are mentioned in this article and dispute any claims or wish to respond, please contact Neil Wilby Media. All non-defamatory responses will be included in subsequent updates.
Corrections:
Please notify the author promptly of any factual inaccuracies, and corrections will be published at the earliest opportunity.
Disclaimer:
This article reports allegations that remain unproven. Paul Ponting has not been formally charged or convicted of any related offences described herein. Readers are reminded that all parties are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2025. Unauthorised reproduction or use without explicit permission from the author is prohibited. Extracts or references are permissible, provided credit is appropriately attributed to Neil Wilby, with clear links directing to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment