Secondly, it is quite extraordinary that this company is still trading despite the fact that it filed its last account 13 months late, and it is now more than seven months late in filing accounts to 31 December 2023, with there being no indication provided as to when these might be published. This company is in gross breach of its obligations in UK company law, and it is the clearest sign that this law is not being enforced in this country that it is still being allowed to trade despite that fact, and despite its auditors having drawn attention to the doubts that they have on the ability of the company to settle its liabilities as they fall due. Given that this last issue is the supposed priority of UK company law, it would appear that government intervention should now take place to ensure that the affairs of this company are either regularised, or that its trade now be closed down, with priority being given to the settlement of all obligations.
Close down everybody who files late accounts. Yes, that’ll help, no doubt.
I’ll defer to the Spud watchers, but ISTR him being late on some of his filings?
I doubt the Fair Tax Mark has declared anything in a decade, albeit as it hasn’t accredited anyone new in five years it may be dormant already.
I’d wager many of his initiatives have withered on the vine. His evil continues however,
To be fair, I do think late filing should be sanctioned. Not shutting the company down entirely, obviously, but the deadline exists to stop companies stringing things out.
And if you’re not going to enforce it, why have it?
Companies House’s ultimate sanction is indeed to strike off. So long as you let them know the company is still needed and that accounts are going to be filed (within a reasonable period) they won’t strike off.
Companies are fined for late filing.
The penalty for a second consecutive filing more than 6 months late would be £15,000 for a public company.
Geoffers said:
”I do think late filing should be sanctioned… if you’re not going to enforce it, why have it?”
As Andrew said, there are fines.
But a deadline is useful even without sanctions, because everyone can see quickly that they’re overdue and then decide whether to do business with them or not.
The sort of people who can’t get their sh*t together to file their accounts by the deadline are the sort of people who are highly likely to be involved in sharp practice and/or fraud.
Personally I’d suggest executing the directors for late filing. Might concentrate their minds a bit.
Yes I do think and believe that suspending the activities of very late filers would help, especially to prevent defrauding creditors. Insolvency can also hurt customers. If the auditors have found it necessary to qualify the accounts that’s a very red flag. Tattie for once I’m on your side.
@VP
I bear bad news.
https://fairtaxmark.net/latest-news/
Sadly a whole tranche of fair tax marks have been handed out recently.
“Ethical mortgage adviser WR Ethical”
“UK building materials merchant Lawsons”
“financial trading business Bayesian Shift”
“Global energy company Repsol”
“Railway infrastructure organisation Network Rail” (!)
So an irritating mix of microbusinesses owned by members of the hyper-smug class, SJW-washing by big business, and public bodies needlessly shovelling cash towards activist groups. In the grand scheme of things, what difference would it make if Network Rail dodged tax bearing in mind it’s owned by the taxpayer anyway?
Anon
I must admit the site’s format looked rather refreshed. So thanks for pointing that out !! What I would say is almost certainly Murphy and the site have parted company and as you make the point with your customary excellence, it is super smug SjWs, often funded by the taxpayer who make up almost the entire roster of companies. I think Murphy had targeted 3,000 companies by the time of COVID so he’s well off the mark!
Just reading through the site and it was hard not to get depressed- what kind of person calls for a ‘Global Minimum tax’? Surely such people are on a par with child molesters, DEI/ Lockdown advocates, Alphabet Soup pederasts and Net Zero campaigners – shocking stuff…
@ Van Patten
Who might call for a “Global Minimum Tax”? A naive individual who expects governments to do more good to the poor than capitalists [so someone who hasn’t read Adam Smith]. I have met some such people.
@VP
There are at least three anons on here – I saw two of them, who weren’t me, posting on the same thread once and the second made it clear they were not the same anon as the first. It seems we are legion.
If you want to look on the bright side, it’s reassuring to see the little two-man band companies being lauded as major signing-ons to this initiative with the same fanfare as multi-billion dollar juggernauts. If the Fair Tax Mark had really caught on then they’d only have time for the latter.
Also, it is objectively hilarious the praise being lavished on a major petrochemical firm like Repsol. I mean they’re paying for the SJW-washing, so they have to be given it I guess. Bearing in mind the personnel floating around in these civil society ventures are all signed on to the same Omnicause, regularly flit from one campaigning shindig to another, just imagine how sick in their stomach it must have made them feel to have to say how great this big polluting exploitative climate-change-causing multinational must be. The same kind of firm who, when they’ve got a different campaigning hat on, they’re calling to be expropriated/shut down/criminalised. And that poor sad had to say how wonderful and progressive they are!! I’m surprised their head didn’t explode typing that out. Wonder if they were offered counselling after?
The National Rail thing was a bit annoying though . We are, after all, all paying for that. And we would have been neither richer nor poorer had Network Rail actually dodged tax. So their signing up is clearly a net loss.
Comments are closed.