Name: ZOE JEFFRIES

Name: NU: Projects Limited

Date of Birth: 20 / 4 / 1975

Date Order Starts: 10 / 7 / 2025

Disqualification Length: 4 Years Years 0 Month(s)

CRO Number: 11090315

Last Known Address: 27a Southdown Road, Horndean, , , WATERLOOVILLE, PO8 0ET

Conduct: Between 06 February 2018 and 05 April 2018, and 21 April 2018 and 09 June 2021, whilst a formally appointed director of NU: Projects Limited (“NU”), Mrs Zoe Lauren Jeffries (“Mrs Jeffries”) allowed Mr Jeffries, her husband, to be concerned in promoting or managing NU, and to act as a director of NU whilst not formally appointed, while she was aware he was an undischarged bankrupt 

This information is correct as at 19 / 6 / 2025

Name: Nu: Projects Limited

Date of Birth: 29 / 3 / 1970

Date Order Starts: 10 / 7 / 2025

Disqualification Length: 11 Years Years 0 Month(s)

CRO Number: 11090315

Last Known Address: 290 Catherington Lane, , , , Hampshire, PO8 0TD

Conduct: • Acknowledges that he was aware that he was made bankrupt in 2008. His bankruptcy was suspended due to a lack of engagement with the OR. Mr Jeffries states that he failed to cooperate because otherwise his wife would lose her car – however he then goes on to state that she lost the car anyway because the finance was not being paid. • Mr Jeffries acknowledges that he was aware that he was not permitted to act as a director whilst his bankruptcy was suspended. • Mr Jeffries bankruptcy was discharged in December 2021; further information can be found here Case Header (BKT00885618 - NICHOLAS HOWARD JEFFRIES). • Mr Jeffries is adamant that he did not act as a director at any time during his bankruptcy. However, he also explains that he has “been involved” in the business since 2010, and in response to various questions makes clear that a) he had access to the company bank account, b) that his wife would act on his instructions to make payments from the bank account, and c) that the business of the company generally was conducted with his permission and instruction. • He describes Zoe Jeffries role in the company as general admin and making payments. • He states that Mr Hussain never had access to the bank account at any time. • When questioned, Mr Jeffries disputes the payments to him that are described as a “directors loan” in the bank statements, and claims that these are payments to himself to make payments to subcontractors. Mr Jeffries is unable to explain why he was paying subcontractors on behalf of the company if he is not a director. • He claims that other payments made to him were for rent, which he again asserts he paid on behalf of the company. When challenged as to why rent payments directly to the landlord are already detailed in the bank account, Mr Jeffries explains that this is rent for the use of an “office” at his home, which he rents. • Mr Jeffries is questioned about various other payments which appear to be for cars and other personal expenses; he denies that these are personal expenses but is unable to provide any adequate explanation for them. • Mr Jeffries explains Mr Hussain’s involvement in the company as follows: they met in January 2021. Mr Hussain’s company, Belmont Properties, was subcontracted to deliver projects on behalf Nu. It is noted that just 6 months later, Mr Hussain is appointed director of Nu when Mrs Jeffries resigned. • Mr Jeffries again confirms that Mr Hussain had no access to the company bank account; when asked to explain how someone could act as the sole director of the company without access to the company bank account, Mr Jeffries asserts that directors do not need access to the bank account, and only shareholders do. • Mr Jeffries asserts that Mr Hussain doctored evidence of payments and that Nu is the victim of a fraud perpetrated by Mr Hussain. Queried how this didn’t seem strange given that he was copied into these emails, and Mr Hussain did not have access to the bank account. He states that he did not actually open any attachments to these emails, so assumed that these showed payments to suppliers from Belmont, rather than Nu. • When asked about when he first had concerns about Belmont, he states in September 2021. Queried why payments to Belmont continued until late December 2021. He states that he was manipulated by Mr Hussain. States that he challenged Mr Hussain in December 2021; ZH was violent in response to this • Acknowledges that he was aware that he was made bankrupt in 2008. His bankruptcy was suspended due to a lac• Acknowledges that he was aware that he was made bankrupt in 2008. His bankruptcy was suspended due to a lack of engagement with the OR. Mr Jeffries states that he failed to cooperate because otherwise his wife would lose her car – however he then goes on to state that she lost the car anyway because the finance was not being paid. • Mr Jeffries acknowledges that he was aware that he was not permitted to act as a director whilst his bankruptcy was suspended. • Mr Jeffries bankruptcy was discharged in December 2021; further information can be found here Case Header (BKT00885618 - NICHOLAS HOWARD JEFFRIES). • Mr Jeffries is adamant that he did not act as a director at any time during his bankruptcy. However, he also explains that he has “been involved” in the business since 2010, and in response to various questions makes clear that a) he had access to the company bank account, b) that his wife would act on his instructions to make payments from the bank account, and c) that the business of the company generally was conducted with his permission and instruction. • He describes Zoe Jeffries role in the company as general admin and making payments. • He states that Mr Hussain never had access to the bank account at any time. • When questioned, Mr Jeffries disputes the payments to him that are described as a “directors loan” in the bank statements, and claims that these are payments to himself to make payments to subcontractors. Mr Jeffries is unable to explain why he was paying subcontractors on behalf of the company if he is not a director. • He claims that other payments made to him were for rent, which he again asserts he paid on behalf of the company. When challenged as to why rent payments directly to the landlord are already detailed in the bank account, Mr Jeffries explains that this is rent for the use of an “office” at his home, which he rents. • Mr Jeffries is questioned about various other payments which appear to be for cars and other personal expenses; he denies that these are personal expenses but is unable to provide any adequate explanation for them. • Mr Jeffries explains Mr Hussain’s involvement in the company as follows: they met in January 2021. Mr Hussain’s company, Belmont Properties, was subcontracted to deliver projects on behalf Nu. It is noted that just 6 months later, Mr Hussain is appointed director of Nu when Mrs Jeffries resigned. • Mr Jeffries again confirms that Mr Hussain had no access to the company bank account; when asked to explain how someone could act as the sole director of the company without access to the company bank account, Mr Jeffries asserts that directors do not need access to the bank account, and only shareholders do. • Mr Jeffries asserts that Mr Hussain doctored evidence of payments and that Nu is the victim of a fraud perpetrated by Mr Hussain. Queried how this didn’t seem strange given that he was copied into these emails, and Mr Hussain did not have access to the bank account. He states that he did not actually open any attachments to these emails, so assumed that these showed payments to suppliers from Belmont, rather than Nu. • When asked about when he first had concerns about Belmont, he states in September 2021. Queried why payments to Belmont continued until late December 2021. He states that he was manipulated by Mr Hussain. States that he challenged Mr Hussain in December 2021; ZH was violent in response to this • Acknowledges that he was aware that he was made bankrupt in 2008. His bankruptcy was suspended due to a lack of engagement with the OR. Mr Jeffries states that he failed to cooperate because otherwise his wife would lose her car – however he then goes on to state that she lost the car anyway because the finance was not being paid. • Mr Jeffries acknowledges that he was aware that he was not permitted to act as a director whilst his bankruptcy was suspended. • Mr Jeffries bankruptcy was discharged in December 2021; further information can be found here Case Header (BKT00885618 - NICHOLAS HOWARD JEFFRIES). • Mr Jeffries is adamant that he did not act as a director at any time during his bankruptcy. However, he also explains that he has “been involved” in the business since 2010, and in response to various questions makes clear that a) he had access to the company bank account, b) that his wife would act on his instructions to make payments from the bank account, and c) that the business of the company generally was conducted with his permission and instruction. • He describes Zoe Jeffries role in the company as general admin and making payments. • He states that Mr Hussain never had access to the bank account at any time. • When questioned, Mr Jeffries disputes the payments to him that are described as a “directors loan” in the bank statements, and claims that these are payments to himself to make payments to subcontractors. Mr Jeffries is unable to explain why he was paying subcontractors on behalf of the company if he is not a director. • He claims that other payments made to him were for rent, which he again asserts he paid on behalf of the company. When challenged as to why rent payments directly to the landlord are already detailed in the bank account, Mr Jeffries explains that this is rent for the use of an “office” at his home, which he rents. • Mr Jeffries is questioned about various other payments which appear to be for cars and other personal expenses; he denies that these are personal expenses but is unable to provide any adequate explanation for them. • Mr Jeffries explains Mr Hussain’s involvement in the company as follows: they met in January 2021. Mr Hussain’s company, Belmont Properties, was subcontracted to deliver projects on behalf Nu. It is noted that just 6 months later, Mr Hussain is appointed director of Nu when Mrs Jeffries resigned. • Mr Jeffries again confirms that Mr Hussain had no access to the company bank account; when asked to explain how someone could act as the sole director of the company without access to the company bank account, Mr Jeffries asserts that directors do not need access to the bank account, and only shareholders do. • Mr Jeffries asserts that Mr Hussain doctored evidence of payments and that Nu is the victim of a fraud perpetrated by Mr Hussain. Queried how this didn’t seem strange given that he was copied into these emails, and Mr Hussain did not have access to the bank account. He states that he did not actually open any attachments to these emails, so assumed that these showed payments to suppliers from Belmont, rather than Nu. • When asked about when he first had concerns about Belmont, he states in September 2021. Queried why payments to Belmont continued until late December 2021. He states that he was manipulated by Mr Hussain. States that he challenged Mr Hussain in December 2021; ZH was violent in response to this k of engagement with the OR. Mr Jeffries states that he failed to cooperate because otherwise his wife would lose her car – however he then goes on to state that she lost the car anyway because the finance was not being paid. • Mr Jeffries acknowledges that he was aware that he was not permitted to act as a director whilst his bankruptcy was suspended. • Mr Jeffries bankruptcy was discharged in December 2021; further information can be found here Case Header (BKT00885618 - NICHOLAS HOWARD JEFFRIES). • Mr Jeffries is adamant that he did not act as a director at any time during his bankruptcy. However, he also explains that he has “been involved” in the business since 2010, and in response to various questions makes clear that a) he had access to the company bank account, b) that his wife would act on his instructions to make payments from the bank account, and c) that the business of the company generally was conducted with his permission and instruction. • He describes Zoe Jeffries role in the company as general admin and making payments. • He states that Mr Hussain never had access to the bank account at any time. • When questioned, Mr Jeffries disputes the payments to him that are described as a “directors loan” in the bank statements, and claims that these are payments to himself to make payments to subcontractors. Mr Jeffries is unable to explain why he was paying subcontractors on behalf of the company if he is not a director. • He claims that other payments made to him were for rent, which he again asserts he paid on behalf of the company. When challenged as to why rent payments directly to the landlord are already detailed in the bank account, Mr Jeffries explains that this is rent for the use of an “office” at his home, which he rents. • Mr Jeffries is questioned about various other payments which appear to be for cars and other personal expenses; he denies that these are personal expenses but is unable to provide any adequate explanation for them. • Mr Jeffries explains Mr Hussain’s involvement in the company as follows: they met in January 2021. Mr Hussain’s company, Belmont Properties, was subcontracted to deliver projects on behalf Nu. It is noted that just 6 months later, Mr Hussain is appointed director of Nu when Mrs Jeffries resigned. • Mr Jeffries again confirms that Mr Hussain had no access to the company bank account; when asked to explain how someone could act as the sole director of the company without access to the company bank account, Mr Jeffries asserts that directors do not need access to the bank account, and only shareholders do. • Mr Jeffries asserts that Mr Hussain doctored evidence of payments and that Nu is the victim of a fraud perpetrated by Mr Hussain. Queried how this didn’t seem strange given that he was copied into these emails, and Mr Hussain did not have access to the bank account. He states that he did not actually open any attachments to these emails, so assumed that these showed payments to suppliers from Belmont, rather than Nu. • When asked about when he first had concerns about Belmont, he states in September 2021. Queried why payments to Belmont continued until late December 2021. He states that he was manipulated by Mr Hussain. States that he challenged Mr Hussain in December 2021; ZH was violent in response to this 

This information is correct as at 20 / 6 / 2025

If you believe this page contains any errors, please email legalservices@insolvency.gov.uk with details of the error that you have found.