Share this content
12

Am I over pedantic?

Am I over pedantic?

Didn't find your answer?

Call me pedantic, but I have spotted that the standard Companies House template for dormant company accounts requires a statement on the Balance Sheet that "the company was entitled to exemption FORM audit".

I would have thought exemption FROM audit would be more appropriate!

David

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By carnmores
29th Apr 2010 16:04

well you are the one with the investigative typing skills if i r

N

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
29th Apr 2010 17:46

Maybe . . .

Pendantic was the name of an ex-girlfriend who dumped David many years ago. She obviously works at Companies House and David is imploring her to call him. Clever ruse. Somehow, this private message has found its way onto AWeb.

-- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
29th Apr 2010 18:40

Experience

Ask yourself a question David - Would Companies House reject a set of accounts if there was a typing error in them capable (at a stretch of the imagination) of changing the meaning of what was being said?

From experience (my keyboard skills were never great) I can tell you that the answer is YES.

So no you're not being over pedantic, but you are demonstrating that you could probably get a job at Companies House should you ever have a lobotomy and need something that didnt require any actual thought or intelligence.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nogammonsinanundoubledgame
29th Apr 2010 19:08

Isn't "over(ly)" assumed?

I was toying with whether it should be hyphenated (it should not) but then got to thinking that excess is assumed within the definition of pedantry, so to be overly pedantic is tautological.  Axiomatic, if you like.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
29th Apr 2010 19:33

It could have been worse . . .

I may (or may not) have been tautological, but I think I have avoided being an oxymoron (which always makes me think of Katie mindlessly crumbling brown cubes of gunk into the gravy for the family's Sunday lunch - is that what it means, or is it something to do with an honest manifesto?).

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
29th Apr 2010 19:44

Advice on honesty
 - is that what it means, or is it something to do with an honest manifesto?).

David

 

Posted by davidwinch on Thu, 29/04/2010 - 19:33

 

If you're concerned about honesty - ask Mr Brown.  After all he's renouned for his honesty ......once he thinks the microphone is switched off.

Thanks (0)
By Tonykelly
29th Apr 2010 19:45

not the only mistake

The members have not required the company to obtain an audit of in accordance with section 476 of the
Companies Act 2006

I don't think they really need the word "of" after audit.

 

 

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
29th Apr 2010 19:52

Morons

 It shows the lack of thought that Companies House puts into their work.

How many people are supposed to look at the form before it gets finalised?

And if you asked to speak to the person who was responsible for the form they wouldn't speak to you.

 

Thanks (0)
By GarethHughesFCCA
29th Apr 2010 19:58

Also

Refers to incorrect FRSSE.

You couldn't make it up could you?!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
29th Apr 2010 22:23

We couldn't - but they DID

You couldn't make it up could you?!

 

Posted by GarethHughesFCCA on Thu, 29/04/2010 - 19:58

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nogammonsinanundoubledgame
30th Apr 2010 11:12

As I understand it, ...

... the actual checking of accounts at companies house is undertaken by the YTS trainee on scanning duty.

I base this conclusion on two observations:

1) We regularly take on new clients where the quality of the accounts as (successfully) filed at companies house are quite obviously deficient, by a simple inspection, and

2) We once tried to file a set of accounts where properly prepared in every respect other than the fact that included in the directors' report was a pie chart in colour.  The accounts were rejected by reason of the presence of colour in the graph.

Who, other than the scanner operator, would notice the second but not the first?

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
30th Apr 2010 16:44

Further @ Companies House

the quality of service is declining and quickly

they have retuned a form for a change of name for one company saying that the  resolution was wrong but accepted another one in the same envelope in exactly the same form

they said the use of the word royalties was a protected word - which it is not

for the second time they have said that i have not paid and sent the change of name forms back despite having confimed on the phone that it has been paid

they are wasting my time - the people either dont care or are not properly trained or both and there is no quality control whatsoever 

Thanks (0)
Share this content