Creditors are owed more than £3m by Andrew Woosnam’s companies, including more than £1m due to the UK taxpayer. Photograph: Robert Evans/AlamyView image in fullscreenCreditors are owed more than £3m by Andrew Woosnam’s companies, including more than £1m due to the UK taxpayer. Photograph: Robert Evans/AlamyThe boss whose twice-bust business appears to be back despite £3m debtsAndrew Woosnam took millions from his recruitment firms before creditors, including HMRC, were left out of pocket Companies revived in ‘phoenix’ deals more likely to fail, study finds For three decades, the recruitment industry treated Andrew Woosnam well.Having learned his trade during the 1990s, he graduated to create his own firm at the turn of the millennium – which allowed him to bank millions of pounds in salary, dividends and loans and to buy assets including a grand house in Berkshire once owned by the comedians Dawn French and Lenny Henry.But life has become much tougher of late for Woosnam, whose recruitment business has twice entered insolvency proceedings since September last year. His three-hectare (six-acre) property – which cost £2.2m in 2013 – is now being eyed by insolvency professionals chasing him on behalf of creditors owed more than £3m by his bust companies, including more than £1m due to the UK taxpayer.This all represents a stark change in how Woosnam’s Premier Group Recruitment appeared just a few years ago, when it was trumpeting its status as an award-winning business.Woosnam owned 99% of the shares in the company, which went into administration in September 2025 owing £2.9m, including £647,000 to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), who had begun enforcement proceedings against it.The recruiter’s assets were acquired three days later by a new company, called PGGBR Ltd, also owned by Woosnam, who made an initial £10,000 payment and promised administrators he would transfer a further £600,000 via monthly £25,000 instalments over the subsequent two years.Adding up the future promised payments meant Woosnam theoretically trumped the £321,000 of cash offered by a competing bidder for Premier’s assets, although his detractors might argue that this arrangement had all the hallmarks of a structure that has been criticised as being highly risky for creditors: pre-pack administrations.
These can allow a connected party to buy back a business on a deferred consideration, and have been cited in a series of studies that appear to show they tend to result in worse outcomes.So it transpired in the Woosnam case.The payments he had promised from his phoenixed business failed to materialise, while the new company ran up a further £400,000 debt to HMRC, according to the latest Companies House filings. The Guardian approached one of the Premier Group joint administrators based at KRE Corporate Recovery but he did not return phone calls asking about the case.Woosnam had received a £1.2m director’s loan from the defunct Premier Group and had taken dividends out of the company totalling almost £2m since 2022. He also appears to have received a further £200,000 via a director’s loan from PGGBR before the new phoenix company was placed into liquidation last month.If that sounds terminal, there is a possibility you may have underestimated Woosnam, whose twice-bust business now appears to have resurfaced for a third time. While it is unclear if the businessman is behind the rebirth or not, at least eight of Premier Group’s former staff now say they are working for a new recruitment brand called Xpertis Talent, which was created in July 2026 and looks so much like the two insolvent Woosnam companies that even employees seem confused.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOne Xpertis recruitment consultant, who previously worked for Premier Group, has attributed an industry award won by the original company in 2022 to the fresh venture in marketing materials posted on the professional networking site LinkedIn.Another employee has posted on LinkedIn that he started working for the third company before it had even been registered with Companies House.Woosnam, who did not respond to invitations to comment, is not a shareholder of the latest company, which Companies House filings show is wholly owned by an individual based in Thailand.
Woosnam is understood to have Thai family, although it is unclear if they are connected to the new business.Explore more on these topicsCorporate governanceHMRCTax and spendingBankruptcy and IVAsnewsShareReuse this content
Leave a Reply