My point is that if someone is being charged for filing something then that something should be of use to both the person filing it and any other person reading it. Affordability is not the issue and I have no problem with increasing fees if they do in fact have the effect of improving accuracy and usefulness of what is filed. In which context I consider Confirmation Statements to be part of that "any old swill". Not because they are inaccurate, but because they are in the main pointless.
My point is that I don't mind paying £34 to file something that contains usable/useful information. So IMO there should be different fees depending on what is filed - £34 for a 'full' CS, containing details of updates to PSC, shareholdings etc and a lower fee (how does £13 sound?) for simply clicking a link to say that there are no changes. Because, in the case of the latter, I fail to see where the cost is.
£34 for clicking a couple of links to file something that is of use to neither man nor beast. At least the Annual Return used to contain useful information.
My answers
Agreed - very misleading headlines
3...2...1...
Not so
As someone else has said (on this forum?) before we become invested in Artificial Intelligence we need to deal with the problem of Natural Stupidity.
My point is that if someone is being charged for filing something then that something should be of use to both the person filing it and any other person reading it. Affordability is not the issue and I have no problem with increasing fees if they do in fact have the effect of improving accuracy and usefulness of what is filed. In which context I consider Confirmation Statements to be part of that "any old swill". Not because they are inaccurate, but because they are in the main pointless.
Missing the point completely.
My point is that I don't mind paying £34 to file something that contains usable/useful information. So IMO there should be different fees depending on what is filed - £34 for a 'full' CS, containing details of updates to PSC, shareholdings etc and a lower fee (how does £13 sound?) for simply clicking a link to say that there are no changes. Because, in the case of the latter, I fail to see where the cost is.
In a word - yes.
£34 for clicking a couple of links to file something that is of use to neither man nor beast. At least the Annual Return used to contain useful information.
And of that 11%, what percentage use them for 'genuine' purposes?