Share this content
19

What do Companies House actually check

Accounts with same figures two years in a row

Didn't find your answer?

Was looking at a set of accounts and the current year figures are exactly the same as the comparatives. Yet woe betide if you submit accounts with a word wrong.

Replies (19)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
20th Aug 2020 17:09

The Registry is now a bit of an embarrassment.

No oversight.

A vast number of companies on the Register and no increase in staffing. It's all the other bloke's fault.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Clinton Lee
21st Aug 2020 12:45

It's not just the number of companies, it's the number of new directors created by CH themselves.

I often find that they have multiple entries for an individual director. So they'll have him associated with 2 or 3 companies under one of their entries and a few other companies under another of their entries.

You cannot view a person's page on CH and be sure that those are all the companies in which he's involved.

Perhaps if there's a slight difference in name or address you can understand them making this mistake. But often there isn't any difference.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Clinton:
avatar
By johnt27
24th Aug 2020 12:35

Clinton wrote:

It's not just the number of companies, it's the number of new directors created by CH themselves.

I often find that they have multiple entries for an individual director. So they'll have him associated with 2 or 3 companies under one of their entries and a few other companies under another of their entries.

You cannot view a person's page on CH and be sure that those are all the companies in which he's involved.

Perhaps if there's a slight difference in name or address you can understand them making this mistake. But often there isn't any difference.

This particular issue should be addressed reasonably soon with the impending changes coming to require director IDs to be properly verified once the primary legislation is passed. The problem isn't necessarily with Companies House, but with the data they are receiving, which isn't always possible to verify as accurate ie is Joe Bloggs the same person as Joe David Bloggs?

https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/11/how-were-reforming-the-com...

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnt27:
Flag of the Soviet Union
By thevaliant
21st Sep 2020 00:36

Back when you had to have two offices of a company (so we are looking at over twelve years now), we had a client company, the director was down as:
John E. Jones
And the secretary was:
J. Edward Jones

Both the same person, but the lack of date of birth for the secretary didn't necessarily tell you this.

In case you are wondering, no, our firm never 'did' anything about this. I don't think we even warned the client.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
20th Aug 2020 17:14

Nothing important
Just spelling on reports

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
20th Aug 2020 22:52

And the colour of ink

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
21st Aug 2020 04:21

YES
Forgot that one, still use black but cannot remember filing a paper version since the problem of not small companies got fixed.
Still have a charity that goes in on paper, but client submits that

Thanks (0)
By Duggimon
21st Aug 2020 08:32

It's stated all over the place when filing that they don't check accounts are correct. They're a data repository and they ensure the data is correct with reference to the fields required for the database storing it, which is accounting date, company name, company number.

If you want to file rubbish there then anyone can do so, I would hope if you filed the corresponding full accounts with HMRC they might catch on though.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Aug 2020 09:11

That's the least of their farcical checks. I think you can establish a company using your name as Donald Duck etc. with no (proper) ID checks - impossible 30 odd years ago.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By AndyC555
21st Aug 2020 09:48
Thanks (0)
Replying to AndyC555:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Aug 2020 11:25

But that was the exception that proves the rule (obviously there's not just this one instance of this problem happening) and was only after that bloke goaded CH about the issue in the 1st place I think.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bernard michael
21st Aug 2020 09:06

Are the directors report and balance sheet "signed" with the current date.?? if so whoever "signed" them has a problem - maybe- if it's spotted by CH or drawn to their attention by the OP

Thanks (0)
AS
By AS
21st Aug 2020 14:32

I know one accountant that does this regularly to avoid a late filing penalty. He then files an amended set of accounts a few months later.

Thanks (0)
Replying to AS:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Aug 2020 14:36

Amazing (or perhaps not) if true.

Thanks (0)
Replying to AS:
avatar
By JD
22nd Aug 2020 13:09

Also seen and that was only scratching the surface. That particular individual had enough charm to get way with murder

Thanks (0)
Replying to AS:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
22nd Aug 2020 16:20

Just been looking at an odd little group.
A and B owned by H (100% subsidiaries)
A 100 shares
B 100 shares
H 100 shares

H dormat accounts show 200 shares and 200 investments
Dormant H
BUT A pays dividends, According to the accounts, to H

Respected firm with their names on accounts on all accounts submitted.
ICAEW registered Audit, Insolvency and everything, numerous listings when looking up the name on ICAEW find a chartered accountant

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
20th Sep 2020 19:20

At long last it looks like CH has at least called a halt on Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse etc. directors:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-companies-house-to-clamp-d...

Long overdue of course and this story confirms my above view re dodgy directors etc.: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54226107

Thanks (0)
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
20th Sep 2020 21:35

Going back to the original question, although it is highly unlikely it is not impossible that the current year results are identical to last. I don’t consider it CH’s role to take the place of auditors for audit-exempt accounts (or indeed audited accounts).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By paulwakefield1
21st Sep 2020 07:47

Especially if it is a dormant company.

As so often complained about, the OP does not give us all the information. :-)

Thanks (0)
Share this content

Related posts