I, and previously, my accountants have been sending Companies House dormant accounts with the abbreviation Ltd rather than Limited in the title and page headings for years. This year they've been rejected for this reason. What should I do ? If I correct and reprint them with signatory date changed to 9th January, will this result in an even greater penalty then if I keep the date the same ?
Related resources
Replies (31)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Rejection Code
There must be some other reason for the rejection. Accounts would not be rejected merely because they are stated as Ltd in the title.
What was the rejection code given on attempted submission?
This was by post, so I don't not have a code, unless it's on the standard sticker barcode they put on - A38 #245
Their letter says -
Thank you for your enclosed document. Unfortunately, we have been unable to accept it for the following reason(s):
You have not shown the correct company name. We have shown what we believe to be the correct name. Xxxxx Xxxxx Limited.
Please amend your document and resubmit it as soon as possible.
Wrong company?
This was by post, so I don't not have a code, unless it's on the standard sticker barcode they put on - A38 #245
Their letter says -
Thank you for your enclosed document. Unfortunately, we have been unable to accept it for the following reason(s):
You have not shown the correct company name. We have shown what we believe to be the correct name. Southern Lettings Limited.
Please amend your document and resubmit it as soon as possible.
Is it that you have transposed digits in the company number in your submission and quoted the number for Southern Lettings instead?
I ask as their filings are up-to-date, and not dormant, and so would not appear to be the company that you are referring to.
Beg to differ
I am afraid Companies House sometimes do reject on this basis (if they notice). If they were due on 31st December, the fine will still be £150 assuming they were not late last year.
Taxpayer money hard at work.
I know this used to happen many years ago: they would compare the name to that held on the register. I once had a company called XYZ & Company, Limited - one year we omitted the comma, and the accounts were rejected.
Surely, though, the accounts approval date will not have changed. But that is irrelevant - if the accounts are rejected, it is the date that the correct accounts are filed that determines whether, and what, penalty is due.
Penalty?
What was the deadline for submitting them? Dormant accounts are the simplest set of accounts possible, so there really is no reason for them being submitted close to the deadline.
The signatory date makes no difference (unless it is in the future, which would be clearly wrong). It is the date the accounts are accepted at Companies House that determines any penalty due. If you could prove the rejection was incorrect, then the submission date would revert to whenever the original accounts were submitted. Otherwise, you are probably out of luck.
This is nonsense
This is just sucking the taxpayer dry with ridiculous fines for imagined offences. Someone suggested to me a few months ago that I had no reason to believe that the Government was jacking up their fines and penalty regime just to create a revenue stream.
Well, here's the evidence.
I'd appeal because I'm pigheaded and I hate injustice. I'd also write to my MP and complain.
And, in future, I'd file a lot earlier and online.
Imagined offences
This is just sucking the taxpayer dry with ridiculous fines for imagined offences.I wouldn't say that the Companies House fines were that excessive. The offence is also not an imagined one. There is an actual deadline to submit accounts, and that has been passed (subject to TerryD's post above. If the company per the OP is not Southern Lettings Limited, then the OP has apparently made an error in what they submitted) . There is also a good reason for having deadlines with penalties in most cases. For tax returns of all sorts, they are to ensure that HMRC know what is owed to them in good time. Whilst it does not always work as well as it could at times, doesn't HMRC need the same information any commercial organisation would have to chase overdue debts. For company accounts, the public availability of certain information in good time is part of the price for getting limited liability.
But the fines are also so easily avoidable for most people. 9 months to file company accounts, when there is a requirement to keep records that should allow them to be prepared instantly anyway. 10 months to file personal tax returns. It's not like people aren't given ample time to meet deadlines.
There are genuine cases where penalties are unfairly levied, and I do think there should be more scope for them being overturned. I don't see taking over 9 months to prepare a set of accounts that are last year's figures with the dates changed as a good candidate.
Catch you out
This is just sucking the taxpayer dry with ridiculous fines for imagined offences.I wouldn't say that the Companies House fines were that excessive. .
With due respect, stepurhan, this is a prime example of the "catch you out" mentality which undermines the very fabric of the Government's various penalty regimes and brings them into disrepute. "Ltd" is an accepted abbreviation of "Limited". There can be no misunderstanding or confusion here. It's just £150 for the coffers.
But I accept that the answer is - file earlier.
So no penalties for anything?
With due respect, stepurhan, this is a prime example of the "catch you out" mentality which undermines the very fabric of the Government's various penalty regimes and brings them into disrepute.So do you believe that there should be no penalties for any missed deadlines, or that there should be no deadlines at all? I only ask because your post seemed to suggest you see statutory penalties generally as money-making schemes.
As I said in my earlier post, there should be more scope for them being overturned with greater allowances for reasonable excuse. If the difference this time was genuinely just between use of "Ltd" and "Limited" then that would be a reasonable case for appeal. It could be argued that the OP could not know that the accounts they were submitting were (technically) wrong.
However, even in accepting that, I stand by my original statement. Penalties are only an issue at all if you miss a deadline, and the time people have to comply is pretty long in most cases. The only reason the government can "catch you out" is because the person needing to file has let it slide. This is especially true of taking nearly 9 months to file a set of accounts you don't even really need to compile.
The accounts for Southern Lettings Limited are not overdue - the December 2013 accounts DID have the correct name (the company seems to have ceased trading in that year). The previous five years were all wrong. I think you've been lucky not to have been pulled up on this before. But you have until 30 September to get the 2014 accounts right!
Choice
When you incorporate you can choose either Limited or Ltd.
If the name on the register says Limited, you have to file with Limited in the Name of the company.
It the register says Ltd, guess what..
Presumably when you incorporated, you chose to use the word Limited in the name of the company. Why did you even try and substitute it?
Do you use a software package to create the set of accounts? If you do, why have you manually changed the name that "was correct last year".
If you don't, why not?
It isn't that they are being funny, it is that you are filing a set of accounts where the name doesn't match (letter for letter) the name attached to the registered number.
They aren't becoming more pedantic, I just imagine that in the days of manually receiving and approving and filing, that nobody could be bothered to reject and return them only to have to receive and approve and file them all over again.
It has come about because of the use of electronic filing and the introduction of iXBRL.
It's simply a case of "computer says no".
Simple answer - file the accounts with the right name.
Online filing
I would also question why these were not filed using the online software? Usually would clear up any of these minor but annoying issues.
BananaMan is quite correct. How far do you think you should be allowed to abbreviate words in a company's name? United Kingdom to UK? Incorporated to Inc? John Smith to J Smith? A company has but one name, and that alone is correct.
Then CH is at odds with the Oxford English Dictionary where Ltd and Limited are one and the same in terms of legal meaning. This is about abusive pedantry - even more so for TerryD's missing comma example above.
The legal meaning is irrelevant. If your company were the The British Lift Company Limited, could you file accounts under the name of The British Elevator Company Limited? It's what the name actually is that matters.
We laughed when that missing comma company was rejected - but we've always made sure the name is EXACTLY as on the register ever since.
Frustration
I feel your pain!
We changed proceedures a few years ago to avoid this. Filing on paper close to the deadline carries this risk so we moved to electronic filing for CH when HMRC mandated electronic filings.
Awkward conversation to have with the client if they are to pay the penalty.
One thought; is the company needed as dissolution could avoid any Late Filing Penalty?
Choice is unhelpful
A pedant writes: The words "Limited" and "Ltd" do have the same legal meaning, which is why "A Pedant Limited" and "A Pedant Ltd" cannot both exist at the same time. The same is not true of "A Pedant Limited" and "Alan Pedant Limited", so abbreviating the word "Limited" is not the same as abbreviating another word in the name.
Wouldn't it be better if there were no choice to abbreviate "Limited"? What's the advantage in doing so?
I wish CH were as scrupulous with the company that i posted about earlier today at 12 noon!
personally...........
I would have you and/or your client burned at the stake for such an offence.......I jest of course.
We all understand the rules, the deadlines, how to avoid these things happening..... but this is simply a case of waving the big stick and hitting small companies where it hurts most.
Pity they didn't reject accounts for more serious things like not actually adding up.
Shocking
Pity they didn't reject accounts for more serious things like not actually adding up.
We've all seen examples of the most shocking breaches of disclosure requirements that seem to go un-noticed.
It's not an abbreviation
In CH's view LTD is not an abbreviation of Limited.
There are numerous examples of ABC LTD and ABC LIMITED which are completely separate companies. So they can't accept the "abbreviation".
Captain
Not so
In CH's view LTD is not an abbreviation of Limited.
There are numerous examples of ABC LTD and ABC LIMITED which are completely separate companies. So they can't accept the "abbreviation".
Captain
Sorry Cap'n that isn't so. Just try to register a variant of an existing company and you get an error message saying CH consider Ltd to be the same as Limited. There are lots of examples as you say but one or both will have been dissolved before the other came in to being. So I think CH are being overly pedantic in denying their own ruling.
Was convinced
Drat! I was convinced I had seen examples but on checking back I see you are right Gerrysims, one is always dissolved. I stand corrected!
Captain
(retreats to safer ground!)
It seems to me that these cases are only ever rejected when the accounts are submitted very close to the filing date and there is little chance of an amended set being filed before the deadline.
The cynic in me wonders if they don't perhaps look a bit more carefully at last minute arrivals!
Justifiably?
The cynic in me wonders if they don't perhaps look a bit more carefully at last minute arrivals!The Companies Act requires companies to keep records that show the financial position at any given date. The cynic in me says that a likely reason for someone taking 9 months to prepare their accounts is that they have failed to comply with that requirement. Following on from that, it's not unreasonable to consider them more prone to error (due to records written up long after the fact), and so worthy of more scrutiny.
Just to annoy CoH...
... I'd change the name of the company so it ends with Ltd instead of Limited and resubmit the original accounts. Doesn't change the fact that a penalty is due, but would give satisfaction!
If you submit electronically using the wrong word Limited or Ltd they are NOT rejected. Hence, there is no reason why a paper copy sent, which I believe is what was sent here, should be any different.