Who enforces the companies act 2006?

[BliarOut]

The business link website said:

Companies Act 2006

Relevant to
Public and private companies and limited partnerships

Takes effect on
20 January 2007

From 20 January 2007, some electronic communications provisions of the Companies Act 2006 will apply to all companies, both public and private.

This means you will be able to use e-communications such as email and websites to:

*
communicate with shareholders - subject to shareholder approval
*
investigate who has an interest in your shares
*
file all basic documents with company registries
*
ask for and receive any documents you wish to inspect

You will be able to continue to file documents in paper form if you wish. You must continue to communicate in paper form with shareholders who do not wish to be contacted electronically.

The Companies Act 1985 already requires the company's name to appear clearly in all its business letters, cheques and other documents. And, from 1 January 2007, a company's name should also appear clearly on all its websites. Also, the company's business letters, order forms and websites have to include fuller particulars, namely:

*
the company's place of registration and registered number
*
the address of its registered office
*
in the case of an investment company, the fact that it is such a company
*
in the case of a limited company exempt from the obligation to use the word "limited" in its name, the fact that it is a limited company

All these requirements apply whether the document is in hard copy or electronic or any other form.

You should consult the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) website for further guidance.

Who enforces the above legislation? Is it a civil or a criminal matter? I just need to know so I can notify the right people about a company infringing it.

[tigger1]

First port of call should be companies house...but if you want to tell us more I'm sure somebody can shed more light on the matter.

[streaky]

The requirements now (wef 1 January 2007) to display the information - that has been for many years required on a letterhead - on a website and on emails (note!) stems from the E-commerce Regulations and a 2006 Statutory Instrument amending the Companies Act 1985 (now incorporated into the Comapnies Act 2006). This latter derives from the EU's First Company Law Amendement Directive. The information required to be displayed is more extensive than this article indicates. Further, if trading across the EU, the information may need to be provided in each official EU language of the countries traded in. For companies registered in other EU contries, the information required is that stipulated by the country of registration - Streaky

[BliarOut]

guam said:

Waste of time reporting anyone as they really do not give a monkeys IMHO, do knock yourself out though, I have tried with "known operators" who have infringed company law (let me rephrase driven a coach and horses through it) Absolutley Zero Effect.

One of the most useless govt departments IMHO.

Cheers

That's what I'm thinking.... Why have laws if they're not enforced? A double glazing firm has pissed me off (dissolved and reappeared) so I'm just making sure every I is dotted and every T is crossed. If they're using the law to get out of a guarantee I want to use it to piss them off.

If I know the right people to hassle I'll get onto them and make sure they make enquiries.

[7db]

Companies House are you first call.

They certainly do act on this stuff where they can - I know someone who until recently was making a very good living out of stopping dodgey directors.

[princeperch]

some matters as part of company law, are only civil offences, so companies frequently choose to break the law, as the risk and potential cost is worth it

some other breaches of legislation carry criminal sanctions, especially the provisions relating to financial assistance, or making declerations at meetings...

Edited by princeperch on Saturday 17th February 11:07

[BliarOut]

I shall ring Companies House on Monday

Trading Standards, Companies House..... It would have been cheaper for them to honour the guarantee

Any other bodies I can bring in to have a look at a ltd company?

[7db]

BliarOut said:

Any other bodies I can bring in to have a look at a ltd company?

HMRC are the ones who will "rough them up", but only if they have good grounds for thinking something is going on. FACT might provide a few annoying phone calls, but not much else.

Edited by 7db on Saturday 17th February 12:41

[princeperch]

BliarOut said:

I shall ring Companies House on Monday

Trading Standards, Companies House..... It would have been cheaper for them to honour the guarantee

Any other bodies I can bring in to have a look at a ltd company?

If you don't get any joy or the answers you want, chuck me an email at the end of next week. Can't deal with it monday to friday as I have exams..

Anyway I know a very good solicitor who I can ask. I dont think she would mind in assisting you in some pointers..

Edited by princeperch on Saturday 17th February 13:29

[BliarOut]

Thank you

I did give them the option to honour their obligations first. Perhaps they'll learn not to annoy someone with too much time on their hands in future

[becca_viola]

I suspect it is enforced via Companies House and annual reports etc - although the company I'm involved in is a voluntary organisation so it's a bit different.

[havoc]

BliarOut said:

guam said:

Waste of time reporting anyone as they really do not give a monkeys IMHO, do knock yourself out though, I have tried with "known operators" who have infringed company law (let me rephrase driven a coach and horses through it) Absolutley Zero Effect.

One of the most useless govt departments IMHO.

Cheers

That's what I'm thinking.... Why have laws if they're not enforced? A double glazing firm has pissed me off (dissolved and reappeared) so I'm just making sure every I is dotted and every T is crossed. If they're using the law to get out of a guarantee I want to use it to piss them off.

If I know the right people to hassle I'll get onto them and make sure they make enquiries.

Better speaking 'anonymously' to HMR&C - if they've dissolved and recommenced the same trade, quite possible they folded owing Her Majesty some money...and HMR&C aren't known for taking prisoners.

Equally, if it's the same owners/directors undertaking the same trade, straightforward business law would probably serve you better in your dispute with them - could be argued to be the same business, but as IANAL, I'm not 100% on that.

Best of luck...

[Iceman82]

princeperch said:

some matters as part of company law, are only civil offences, so companies frequently choose to break the law, as the risk and potential cost is worth it

some other breaches of legislation carry criminal sanctions, especially the provisions relating to financial assistance, or making declerations at meetings...

Edited by princeperch on Saturday 17th February 11:07

Bingo. The statute usually deals with the breaches and sets out what the offence is punished with, therefore, indicating a civil/criminal matter. However, the CA 2006 isn't in force yet (though clearly this part is strangely enough) and so I don't know what the exact offence/punishment would be. Nonetheless, in the CA 1985 there are two areas that may well shed a spot of light as they should still apply:

s.432(2)(b) CA 1985 states the Sec. of State (that is the DTI) may order an investigation into a company if their purpose of formation was fraudulant in nature, which it could be argued is the case here. Further to that, s.458 CA '85 deals with the punishment for fraudulant trading and states that the offenders may be liable to imprisonment and/or a fine. So looks like the DTI would be worth a call.

However, re. the breach of their obligations under the guarantee, this is a civil matter so best to get legal advice with this.

p.s. Princeperch, good luck with the exams mate!! I personally can't wait until it's all over on Friday!!

[BliarOut]

It's not about the guarantee now, I wouldn't want them doing work for me under duress. It's just about pissing them off. No point telling them you'll be a thorn in their side if you don't go through with it

[Iceman82]

I see where your heads at! Then the DTI is worth the call I think!! Good luck, hope the b*stards have a lot of explaining to do!!

[BliarOut]

I'll add the DTI to my list of prospects

[princeperch]

Iceman82 said:

princeperch said:

some matters as part of company law, are only civil offences, so companies frequently choose to break the law, as the risk and potential cost is worth it

some other breaches of legislation carry criminal sanctions, especially the provisions relating to financial assistance, or making declerations at meetings...

Edited by princeperch on Saturday 17th February 11:07

Bingo. The statute usually deals with the breaches and sets out what the offence is punished with, therefore, indicating a civil/criminal matter. However, the CA 2006 isn't in force yet (though clearly this part is strangely enough) and so I don't know what the exact offence/punishment would be. Nonetheless, in the CA 1985 there are two areas that may well shed a spot of light as they should still apply:

s.432(2)(b) CA 1985 states the Sec. of State (that is the DTI) may order an investigation into a company if their purpose of formation was fraudulant in nature, which it could be argued is the case here. Further to that, s.458 CA '85 deals with the punishment for fraudulant trading and states that the offenders may be liable to imprisonment and/or a fine. So looks like the DTI would be worth a call.

However, re. the breach of their obligations under the guarantee, this is a civil matter so best to get legal advice with this.

p.s. Princeperch, good luck with the exams mate!! I personally can't wait until it's all over on Friday!!

Cheers, and to you.

Had just about enough of writing sticky labels now. Plan to get very drunk on Friday in the keystone.

All the best.

[busa_rush]

The DTI are absolutely useless. I reported a person who was trading a wound up company, basically using its name and VAT number to trade, collecting income and VAT from customers (£20ish k a month) with no intention of paying tax of any kind or VAT and they did nothing. The local council said contact the DTI, the police said contact the DTI, all roads ended with the DTI.

Spoke to the DTI, supplied records, supplied an original invoice from the person showing the use of the compaany name, conpany number, VAT number etc and they did nothing. He only stopped 6 months later when somebody went to see him regarding a large order that had been paid for and not supplied - he didn't realise when he took the money that his custoner would take such drastic action when he found he'd been ripped off (he beat him up, broke both his legs) but if that had not happened, he would still be trading now, off the radar of the DTI and C&E as officially, the company ceased to trade and exist.