Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide, which can point you to expert advice and support.

DH - incompetence or malice?

(171 Posts)
newnamenewnamenewname Fri 17-Feb-17 23:44:11

Name changed for obvious reasons...

It's not really a relationship question but I'm not strong enough for AIBU and I don't really know where it fits. I don't need relationship advice exactly just an opinion on this...

DH can't handle checking details, he often makes mistakes. But he can also lie and be manipulative.

Recent examples: No one watches Sky in our house so we decided to cancel it. It's in DH's name so he had to do it. He instead signed up for the basic package because "otherwise we can't get BBC". True, we don't have an aerial but you get BBC if you are churning. He just doesn't research or check things. On the other hand, in the same week he happily admitted to "screwing someone over a bit" (someone who works for us).

I don't want to influence people so I am going to set out the bare basics.

He set up a new business for us in November. The new business is based in an area of expertise that is my field but he also has some skills. We have an old business in a related field that we both have skills in but it is declining and not doing well. We own it 50:50.

In January, he closed the old business. He then needed to set up a bank account for the new business. He signed my signature for convenience. He told me he had signed after he had done it. He's signed things for me before.

Nothing arrived for me for the new bank account. I called the bank to ask why and they said that I was an "authority" on the account but not a signatory. DH says that he thought he the forms he had signed my name on made me a signatory. Having requested a copy of the forms, it is clear to anyone that reads the small print that is not the case. Except he doesn't read things...

Then I checked Companies House. I only have class B shares in the new company. He owns all the class A shares. I am company secretary. He is the only director.

I confronted him about the bank account. He was confused as to why I wasn't a signatory and said it was a mistake - he was in a rush when he did it. He pointed out that he had told the bank that I am company secretary so clearly he wasn't hiding anything, he had made things the same as they were with the other company. So I asked him about how he had set up the new company. His reply was "it's 50:50. Well, not 50:50, 'they" don't like that any more so I had to set it up with class A and Class B shares, that's how it's done now, but you can set them up so they have the same rights". He said that is what what the formation company who set it up advised him. I read to him from our company formation documents on Companies House, which doesn't give the class shares equal rights. He then said, "that's not how I did it, you can set them up differently" so I pointed out that it was our docs I was reading from. His reply was that he didn't tell them to do that, he'd had to speak to different people to do what he wanted because they didn't understand, they were multiple phone calls and an email because they didn't understand what he wanted, they must have got it wrong. He then said "I did it that way because you said you don't want liability". I didn't say that but I did say I was unhappy about things he had done with the old company without my knowledge.

I called the formation company. They seemed surprised that any of their staff would have said that 50:50 share distributions weren't normal as that is quite common.

Sorry for rambling. Please be objective, don't read between the lines to look for motivations. On the basic evidence, just what he said, do you think he is lying?

CheckpointCharlie2 Fri 17-Feb-17 23:47:34

I think that sounds exceptionally dodgy.

CheckpointCharlie2 Fri 17-Feb-17 23:48:50

It also sounds like he actually knows exactly what he is doing. So I would say he is being manipulative rather than incompetent.

Finola1step Fri 17-Feb-17 23:52:12

Dodgy as fuck. Sorry.

childmaintenanceserviceinquiry Fri 17-Feb-17 23:52:43

You are being manipulated. Close down vey quickly anything that relates to this new company. So many excuses in your op. Do you find your dh manipulates in other ways?

Dilligaf81 Fri 17-Feb-17 23:55:59

He is using a known flaw to hide his actions. Be wary and protect yourself.

iamapixiebutnotaniceone Fri 17-Feb-17 23:58:16

Definitely comes across as being manipulative rather than incompetent. Also sounds like he is much cleverer than he wants you to think. I'd make sure you are there to oversee any further important arrangements.

SparklingRaspberry Fri 17-Feb-17 23:59:59

First thing first, why do you allow him to sign things with your signature?

rollonthesummer Sat 18-Feb-17 00:02:45


rollonthesummer Sat 18-Feb-17 00:03:32

Horribly dodgy, I was trying to say!

newnamenewnamenewname Sat 18-Feb-17 00:06:57

Sorry to not answer questions, I will but not now. I just want an objective as possible evaluation whether his responses suggest he is lying this time so I am trying not to influence opinions. Although I appreciate my account is subjective.

TheOnlyColditz Sat 18-Feb-17 00:10:15


Nospringflower Sat 18-Feb-17 00:15:05

Was going to say that you can see why, if he didnt read it, think about it etc but you dont want motivations just an answer so it has to be YES he is lying. They have said you can set up 50:50 and he has said they said they couldnt / wouldnt.

ageingrunner Sat 18-Feb-17 00:15:41

He sounds like he lies lies lies and then lies some more. He gets caught in a lie then lies to cover it then gets caught again etc etc. I wouldn't trust him as far as o could throw him and I'd be very concerned he was about to fuck me over financially if I was you!

Somerville Sat 18-Feb-17 00:19:47

He actively structured the new company to advantage himself. If that's a mistake, it's a massively convenient one. On the balance of probabilities I'd say it's more likely to be done on purpose.

AshesandDust Sat 18-Feb-17 00:23:52


Muddlewitch Sat 18-Feb-17 00:25:24

Sounds very dodgy to me, and if he did this knowing you could find out fairly easily I would be wondering what else he has done that you have no way of tracing to be honest. Be very careful.

HarmlessChap Sat 18-Feb-17 00:26:32

I have a similar family member, who I have had business dealings with.

In his case it isn't so much malice towards anyone specific it is an uncontrollable self centred need to look after No.1 and he simply can not see that his actions will piss of everyone else off. He gaslights everyone and never reads things thoroughly and blames everyone else for the resultant errors.

However his superficial approach has proven incredibly successful which he further uses to justify to himself that how he acts is absolutely right.

AhYerWill Sat 18-Feb-17 00:30:52

It seems like there are too many 'mistakes' here to be a coincidence, given that they all seem to be in his favour (although I have little understanding of what the ramifications of these 'mistakes' would actually be if you split).

At the end of the day, he's either lying or massively incompetent (or both) - to the point where he appears entirley untrustworthy. Not an attractive proposition in either a business partner or DH.

HelenaGWells Sat 18-Feb-17 00:34:57

He has set up a company before 50:50 he knows how to do it ffs. My initial thought is do you think he is threatened by this new company revolving around your skill set rather than a joint one? Could he be trying to regain more control to "prove his importance" to himself?

newnamenewnamenewname Sat 18-Feb-17 00:35:27

Ok. Trying to counteract any cognitive bias. Particularly as plenty of us on relationships have had bad experiences. And he has lied. He also makes stupid mistakes. Other than intuition, is there anything specific that makes anyone think that this time it's a lie rather than a mistake?

Somerville Sat 18-Feb-17 00:38:24

Yes, the fact that the 'mistake' is entirely in his favour.

ageingrunner Sat 18-Feb-17 00:45:57

Yy Somerville. A long string of "mistakes" all in his favour, plus him asserting that he'd been misadvised more then once which seems unlikely

HelenaGWells Sat 18-Feb-17 00:55:09

For me it's because:

He already set up a company 50:50 so knows how to do it. I set up a company years ago and another a few months ago and the process is still basically the same. If anything it's easier and more foolproof now it's all online.

The line he fed you about the advice is utter bollocks as confirmed by the company you incorporated with. I'm inclined to think they would be far more likely to double check uneven shares between a married couple than to suggest incorporating in this way.

He gave the bank your correct details. He told them you were secretary and not director. If he thought he had made you director he would have told them this surely? Also If he didn't realise you weren't a signatory at the bank why didn't he notice that you were missing paperwork?

It is two big mistakes in a process he has done before.
Both mistakes give you less control, he didn't make an error that was detrimental to him.
He has a history of wanting to control your business shown by him making decisions about the old one without you.
He signed for you on both documents so you couldn't check them which is never good imo.

AbbieLexie Sat 18-Feb-17 00:56:14

He has lied. I don't have any sense of him taking any responsibility for his actions. His actions / 'mistakes' seem purposeful and in his favour. Deceitful and underhand are other adjectives I would use about this behaviour. Not trustworthy.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: