Company number disclosure

While lookong at VTsoftware site, I found this

Where to put the company number on accounts filed with Companies House

From 1 October 2009, new rules come into force governing where the company number should be placed on a set of full or abbreviated accounts filed with Companies House. The rules state the the company number must appear on at least one of the following:

• Profit and loss account
• Balance sheet
• Directors report
• Directors remuneration report
• Auditors report

Wow! The cover page is not listed above!

This new requirement is buried away on page 38 of the Registrars rules, and came as a bit of a surprise to VT Software when a few users mentioned it on 1 October. As far as VT is aware, this change was not publicised in any way.

VT took the matter up with their contacts at Companies House who said that it was not their direct intention to exclude the Cover page from the above list, but they unable to explicitly include it as it is not a document that one is legally obliged to file! They did confirm that they would not reject accounts, at least for the time being, that showed the company number only on the cover page.

VT Software has made representations to Companies House suggesting that the Registrars rules be changed so that a cover page can be considered as an integral part of the accounts and thus continues to be a sufficient place to show the company number.

 Digita pointed this out to their customers.

This piece of legislation seems to prove that laws are passed by people who have little understanding. I would have thought that the cover would be the ideal place to put the company number as long as this made the cover sheet part of the accounts.

Clearly we are moving towards electronic filing of the required parts and elimination unneccessary paper.

When I am doing small club accounts and so on I often put stat info all together as a front page, I have never understood why the abbreviated format on the Co Hse website has a cover page when all the information is or could easily be in each page header.

I think we all know that typescript (printed / photocopied) documents - including the abbreviated accounts - must be in black print on a white background.

However, reading the  "REGISTRAR’S RULES 2009" (91 pages!)   I find several references to handwritten data now being required to be in black ink (as opposed to blue, green, purple or whatever).

I haven't had time (sorry, got bored searching through 91 pages!) to ascertain for certain if this colour ban applies also to signatures.

If indeed signatures must now be in black ink, then we might be soon be seeing £150 late filing fee penalties being levied for signing in say blue ink ! (assuming that the re-signed in black ink re-submitted previously rejected accounts can't be got back to Companies House by the filing deadline).

Yes - it is my understanding that ALL signatures must be in black ink on any documents to be submitted to Companies House.

Another hoop to jump through!

There has never been any mention of the company number change on any (literally none) of Companies House documentation and website.

This was only raised by ICAEW audit faculty bulletin.

Which brings me to the belief that the intention was not to specify that the company number must be on one of the consituent 'documents' of the accounts, it is just that the only way to ask for it is to specify that it must be in a document that is filed, and only the balance sheet, p&l, audit report etc are known documents that are required.

To back this up, I asked CH if a balance sheet had a 'cover page' would it be acceptable to place the company number on this page under the new Registrars Rules. The answer was yes. The cover page is merely part of each of the other 'documents' contained in the accounts and therefore, I think that placing the number on the cover page complies with the registrars rules.

Someone else from CH who misunderstood my question regarding this simply said that 'CH prefer the number on a cover page as it is easier to process'.

I think that the ICAEW buletin has misinterpreted the meaning of the wording in the RR and CH has perpetuated this misinterpretation.

If carried out, a set of accounts with the company name and reg number on the cover page would be rejected over a set of accounts with the company name and number hidden away on an unspecified page in the accounts (remember that the requirement is that the number is only on ONE of the 'documents' and which 'document' is entirely up to the preparer). Common sense says that this is not what they intended.

Forget about the cover page being specifically mentioned as CH are right in this respect, this is just a preferred way of presenting what we call 'the accounts'. The confusion is around the use of the word 'document' as most people refer to the accounts as a document and the balance sheet etc as pages within this document.

If any accounts are ever rejected for this reason, I will be very, very, very surprised.

 I would have thought the best way to deal with this legislation is to include the number on the cover page AND one other page.

I spoke to Companies House this morning and they told me that yes, they will reject accounts without the company number on one of the aforementioned pages.

I asked about the signatures and she told me that yes, they do want signatures in black ink, but if an otherwise acceptable set of accounts were received that was signed in blue ink, they wouldn't reject it on that point alone.  If the accounts were otherwise rejected, then it would be mentioned.  I suggest asking clients to sign in black ink - if they don't and the accounts get rejected you can't say you didn't ask them!

Each one independent of the other.

I have 3 email confirmations from them that accounts will definately NOT be rejected if the registration number is only on a covering page and not on any other page.

 Companies House are a bit like HMRC - they don't have a lot of knowledge and simply make it up if they are not sure. What should happen is when they have a lot of enquiries on one point they should decide on what to do, tell all the call centre staff the decision and send all the enquirers their decision. They won't do that though.

Normal
0

Normal
0

At the recent Coho liaison committee meeting in London they confirmed the new (un-publicized/un-consulted) change to accounts formats had been imposed slyly by them. I can’t see it’s a biiig drama except why not make the change in a coherent way using ‘joined-up handwriting’, instead of  making yourselves look like amateurs? – perhaps they employ civil servants and lawyers……?!

Coho have had for aaaages in their “accounts” notes something mumbling about submitting printers version of accounts to them, with no graphics. This is to keep file sizes down, and ensure scand images r always readable. In same place they also said everything had to be in black, so there is actually no change.

Of course if a set of accounts was posted today to Coho with a dark blue sig, and was rejected when it arrived, perhaps a week b4 the deadline then u only find out about it well after the 1st £150 has clunked in, and probably too late to avoid the £250 - and we have postal delays - and do Coho care - officially  recently their big cheeseman said "not a toss it's your problem mate” i.e. we're here to cause as much stress and grief to you without giving any help at all to small businesses.......

And Coho abolishing the 14 days grace for invalid accounts filed is a pernicious money-grabbing vicious step that takes my breath away, as combined with the more than 50% whopping increase in fines means it is REALLY expensive now for small companies incompetently looked after…..!

After of course this is the REALITY of govts lying in words about reducing burdens on small businesses.