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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
We couldn't - but they DID
You couldn't make it up could you?!
Posted by GarethHughesFCCA on Thu, 29/04/2010 - 19:58
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
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