[Misc] Companies House: Shooting the Messenger

[marlowe]

If anyone here has been the victim of the dishonest conduct of a limited company or its directors they might have discovered how inept, negligent and impotent Companies House is at enforcing its own regulations.

This however wasn't the case when a company director called Kevin Brewer tried repeatedly to highlight and alert Companies House to the weaknesses in their system and their failure to police and enforce their regulations.

To highlight how easy it is for limited companies to be formed by people giving false names and addresses without proper checks being carried out Mr Brewer set up a limited company naming former Business Secretary Vince Cable as a director and shareholder without Mr Cable's knowledge. He then informed Mr Cable to highlight the loophole. The company was then simply removed from the register with no further action being taken.

Mr Brewer then upped his game and started another limited company but this time naming Baroness Neville-Rolfe as a director who was the minister directly responsible for Companies House.

It was then that Companies House decided to take action and Mr Brewer became the first person ever to be successfully prosecuted for filing false information under Section 1112 of the Companies Act.

Companies House then issued a triumphant official statement stating that it showed their determination to "come down hard on people who knowingly break the law."

The irony of their statement was obviously completely lost on them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...ng-kevin-brewer-vince-cable-a8307246.html?amp

 

[Commander]

I added a Director to my company last year, and was astonished at how ridiculously easy it was to do, with virtually no checks whatsoever. Not only would I have been able to add anyone I wanted just by forging a signature, I'm pretty sure I could have added myself as a Director to any number of other companies. Their whole system is a complete farce.

 

[Weststander]

I added a Director to my company last year, and was astonished at how ridiculously easy it was to do, with virtually no checks whatsoever. Not only would I have been able to add anyone I wanted just by forging a signature, I'm pretty sure I could have added myself as a Director to any number of other companies. Their whole system is a complete farce.

You wouldn’t be able to alter anything online in companies with no connection to you. You’d need their individual company authentication codes, which are only re-sent out to the registered office address.

 

[beorhthelm]

are they supposed to actively policing the details, or just be simply a registrar, keeping a record of details?

 

[marlowe]

I recently phoned Companies House posing as a director who was trying to rip his creditors off by allowing his company to be struck off so he could then set up a new one. (The director I was posing as had done this before). I was really blatant in what "I" was trying to do and the response I was given was astonishing. The Companies House lady basically gave me all the advice "I" needed to avoid having to pay "my" creditors and she advised me to just make sure I transferred any assets into my name before it was struck off (for failing to file accounts). When I asked her about the accounts which "I" hadn't filed she said not to worry as the company would simply be struck off and they would make no further requests for the accounts. "I" made it clear that I didn't want my accounts to be looked into as I'd been a bit of a naughty boy and done a few things which weren't exactly above board. She reassured me not to worry and said as long as I transferred everything into my name and didn't provide accounts the company would then simply just be struck off with no further action being taken. She even ended her sentence with the phrase "happy days".

I was absolutely dumfounded. I certainly wasn't expecting that level of service.

 

[marlowe]

are they supposed to actively policing the details, or just be simply a registrar, keeping a record of details?

According to this government website if you are reporting a limited company for fraud and go through the various checklists it is Companies House who you are directed to report the fraud to. In practice they direct you to the Insolvency Service. The Insolvency Service then direct you back to Companies House. None of them want the responsibility.

https://www.gov.uk/complain-company/y

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If anyone here has been the victim of the dishonest conduct of a limited company or its directors they might have discovered how inept, negligent and impotent Companies House is at enforcing its own regulations.

This however wasn't the case when a company director called Kevin Brewer tried repeatedly to highlight and alert Companies House to the weaknesses in their system and their failure to police and enforce their regulations.

To highlight how easy it is for limited companies to be formed by people giving false names and addresses without proper checks being carried out Mr Brewer set up a limited company naming former Business Secretary Vince Cable as a director and shareholder without Mr Cable's knowledge. He then informed Mr Cable to highlight the loophole. The company was then simply removed from the register with no further action being taken.

Mr Brewer then upped his game and started another limited company but this time naming Baroness Neville-Rolfe as a director who was the minister directly responsible for Companies House.

It was then that Companies House decided to take action and Mr Brewer became the first person ever to be successfully prosecuted for filing false information under Section 1112 of the Companies Act.

Companies House then issued a triumphant official statement stating that it showed their determination to "come down hard on people who knowingly break the law."

The irony of their statement was obviously completely lost on them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...ng-kevin-brewer-vince-cable-a8307246.html?amp

Wow.

But I am not surprised.

I have been tempted to send obviously fradulent research to science journals I know are not checking for proper design and analysis in order to highlight their useleness. These journals pretend to be seeking to improve standards but it is all lip service. But if I did this I would almost certainlu be reported for fraud.....

Sadly Mr Brewer has been hoist by his own petard.

 

[marlowe]

Wow.

But I am not surprised.

I have been tempted to send obviously fradulent research to science journals I know are not checking for proper design and analysis in order to highlight their useleness. These journals pretend to be seeking to improve standards but it is all lip service. But if I did this I would almost certainlu be reported for fraud.....

Sadly Mr Brewer has been hoist by his own petard.

Your industry is notoriously rife with fraudulent practice especially with the money of the pharmaceutical companies behind it, but the problem doesn't stop there as as with Companies House those whose role it is to police the system, (in the case of the US, the FDA) also fail in their responsibilities according to this article from which this snippet is pasted which relates to what you stated in your post about the reliability of research articles in medical journals...

"The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire study to be “unreliable.” Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate....ct-are-hidden-from-the-public-and-doctors.amp

 

[tinycowboy]

I love the Companies House website, but I suppose I can be a bit of a snooper, although I call it forensic accounting. So many people out there with big houses, big cars and five companies with the grand sum of minus £300k assets and a trail of historic dissolved companies behind them. Saw one person I was looking up had been banned from being a director, but Companies House hadn't seemed to notice that his 17 year old son was now the proud director of 11 (insolvent) companies. How do these people get away with it so much?

 

[Weststander]

The Companies House staff on the phone are just admin people. Companies House can act on written letters about erroneous accounts. It’s literally just a register, which briefly examines filed documents.

Company administrators, Trading Standards, the Police and the Department for Business, all police directors acting illegally, or a succession of phoenix companies, etc.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Your industry is notoriously rife with fraudulent practice especially with the money of the pharmaceutical companies behind it, but the problem doesn't stop there as as with Companies House those whose role it is to police the system, (in the case of the US, the FDA) also fail in their responsibilities according to this article from which this snippet is pasted which relates to what you stated in your post about the reliability of research articles in medical journals...

"The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire study to be “unreliable.” Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate....ct-are-hidden-from-the-public-and-doctors.amp

Indeed. Here is the irony. I wrote the guidelines on design and analysis for a major journal, But the editor in chief doesn't really understand them. Neiter do the senior editors who make the acceptance decisions on papers submitted to the journal. So I was asked to rewrite the guidance to make it simpler. But the amount of papers published that violate the journal's own rules has not fallen. But the editor in chief won't appoint an overseer (like me) to police this going forward. Instead the editor in chief wants the senior editors to manage this themselves. But this is what they have supposed to have been doing for the last several years. And they say they need help....I pointed out the great quote from Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome*. I got a 'yes, but I really want to try this again' reply. Irony is lost on some people.

The FDA are generally better than the Brits....but there is no 'system'. People normally fall foul when someone (usually a disgruntled colleague) whistle blows. That said, actual retractions by science journals are too infrequent. Benveniste's paper in Nature still hadn't been retracted last time I looked despite someone showing 20 years ago that the dilutions his staff used means that only one in 50 samples (something like that) would have one molecule of substance in it. Benveniste defended the study by inventing the concept that molecules can imprint a molecular memory in water. Science (outside of the pharmaceutical industry) is awash with grandiouse delusional psychopaths, sadly.

I just checked online and you can read about all this bollocks in wiki!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste

In Industry the policy is keep your head down and your mouth shut; don't make outlandish claims....and just keep collecting the big salary, greasing people up, till you get sacked, then start again.

I am keen as mustard on nailing the truth about drugs, and am very strict about design and analysis, and ensuring peer review demands high standards, but am I thanked for it? I'll let you guess

*Like the Hughton's approach to matches (allegedly - but we have transformed our approach by going to 4-3-3.....after all ).

 

[marlowe]

The Companies House staff on the phone are just admin people. Companies House can act on written letters about erroneous accounts. It’s literally just a register, which briefly examines filed documents.

Company administrators, Trading Standards, the Police and the Department for Business, all police directors acting illegally, or a succession of phoenix companies, etc.

The Police tend not to want to know. A lot of them are under the misconception that any thing to do with the Companies Act is a civil matter. Many of them don't realise that there are a lot of criminal offences included in the Companies Act. The police aren't lawyers and I've discovered that their knowledge of the law is surprisingly naive when it comes to fraud relating to companies. They haven't got the expertise in Sussex to handle it. Any fraud with the most basic degree of complexity reported in Sussex is passed on to the City of London Police. I did a Freedom of Information request to Sussex Police asking about the percentage of crime reports which they screen out ( dont investigate). Theyre supposed to respond within 30 days. Despite frequent reminders they still haven't provided an answer four months later

 

[Weststander]

The Police tend not to want to know. A lot of them are under the misconception that any thing to do with the Companies Act is a civil matter. Many of them don't realise that there are a lot of criminal offences included in the Companies Act. The police aren't lawyers and I've discovered that their knowledge of the law is surprisingly naive when it comes to fraud relating to companies. They haven't got the expertise in Sussex to handle it. Any fraud with the most basic degree of complexity reported in Sussex is passed on to the City of London Police. I did a Freedom of Information request to Sussex Police asking about the percentage of crime reports which they screen out ( dont investigate). Theyre supposed to respond within 30 days. Despite frequent reminders they still haven't provided an answer four months later

I realise the police don’t generally investigate dodgy directors, but I mentioned them to complete the picture of agencies, as they have been involved in the proscecution of some directors. I guessed it might be City of London, thanks for that info.

Sussex Police probably have enough on their plate with violent and other crimes. I’ve found them to be incredibly helpful in recent times when I needed them, brilliant in fact.

 

[Sirnormangall]

The Companies House staff on the phone are just admin people. Companies House can act on written letters about erroneous accounts. It’s literally just a register, which briefly examines filed documents.

Company administrators, Trading Standards, the Police and the Department for Business, all police directors acting illegally, or a succession of phoenix companies, etc.

My experience of Cos House is ok, so far. I successfully got a CCJ against a company last year for the £200 they owed me. It wasn’t paid of course, so I paid for a warrant, but the Bailiff service is unbelievably poor and trying to get any response from them is impossible and has even defeated the Resolver complaints process.

I then spotted on the Cos House register that the company had applied to deregister, so I objected against it and since then Cos House has refused to deregister them. I may not get back my £200 but I’m getting a lot of satisfaction knowing that it’s costing the company a lot more by my continuing to object to their deregistration.

 

[Weststander]

My experience of Cos House is ok, so far. I successfully got a CCJ against a company last year for the £200 they owed me. It wasn’t paid of course, so I paid for a warrant, but the Bailiff service is unbelievably poor and trying to get any response from them is impossible and has even defeated the Resolver complaints process.

I then spotted on the Cos House register that the company had applied to deregister, so I objected against it and since then Cos House has refused to deregister them. I may not get back my £200 but I’m getting a lot of satisfaction knowing that it’s costing the company a lot more by my continuing to object to their deregistration.

Great spot. They had a 3 month window for the dissolution to go through. Whatever happens, you p-off the plans of the deviants.

 

[marlowe]

My experience of Cos House is ok, so far. I successfully got a CCJ against a company last year for the £200 they owed me. It wasn’t paid of course, so I paid for a warrant, but the Bailiff service is unbelievably poor and trying to get any response from them is impossible and has even defeated the Resolver complaints process.

I then spotted on the Cos House register that the company had applied to deregister, so I objected against it and since then Cos House has refused to deregister them. I may not get back my £200 but I’m getting a lot of satisfaction knowing that it’s costing the company a lot more by my continuing to object to their deregistration.

Rather than use bailiffs you should try the Sheriffs Office. Bailiffs are appointed by the Court and get paid regardless of whether they manage to satisfy the judgement so they're not that motivated. Sheriffs are more motivated because they're paid by results.

Having said that the value of your CCJ might not be sufficient. I believe the minimum threshold is around £800 but I'm not absolutely certain on that

 

[Norman Potting]

....and the relevance to BHAFC would be....?

Seriously though, interesting thread. Thank goodness the Club have never had dubious directors who threatened its future

 

[Adders1]

I love the Companies House website, but I suppose I can be a bit of a snooper, although I call it forensic accounting. So many people out there with big houses, big cars and five companies with the grand sum of minus £300k assets and a trail of historic dissolved companies behind them. Saw one person I was looking up had been banned from being a director, but Companies House hadn't seemed to notice that his 17 year old son was now the proud director of 11 (insolvent) companies. How do these people get away with it so much?

I get paid to do this for a living, investigating Phoenix companies etc - it’s so easy over here in Australia but they are really cracking down on it...the registrar back home needs to implement director IDs linked to passport data - they’ll never do it though, too intrusive and ‘antinbusijess’ (Which is code for anti idiot entrepreneur funding his lifestyle on creditors’ money)

It also wasn’t that easy to snoop a few years ago before info was free at CH - In AU the ASIC are almost complicit in the hiding of facts, i love my job!

 

[Gritt23]

I get paid to do this for a living, investigating Phoenix companies etc - it’s so easy over here in Australia but they are really cracking down on it...the registrar back home needs to implement director IDs linked to passport data - they’ll never do it though, too intrusive and ‘antinbusijess’ (Which is code for anti idiot entrepreneur funding his lifestyle on creditors’ money)

It also wasn’t that easy to snoop a few years ago before info was free at CH - In AU the ASIC are almost complicit in the hiding of facts, i love my job!

What an interesting job. Who employs you to do that? Is it a government organisation, with you effectively digging up information that can bring a prosecution if you are able to show ..... what? Breaches of the Companies Act (or whatever the Australian equivalent is).