Companies House - Fined for not Printing Name

[welsh blackbird]

We submitted our abbreviated accounts to Companies House on the 15th January 2010; the filing deadline was the 31st January 2010. However, the accounts were rejected on the 2nd February on the grounds that the name of the director who had signed the accounts was not printed under his (perfectly legible) signature.

The letter stated that if we did not return the accounts by the 31st January, we would be fined. Obviously this was impossible; we sent them back by return of post; and duly received a fine of £150!

Have we grounds for an appeal? It seems a bit of a petty reason to reject the accounts.

[Eric Mc]

No.

For msany years Companies House operated a fairly slack regime whereby many accounts which did not comply with the strict formats set out under the Companies Act were NOT rejected even though they should have been. Maybe they are finally getting around to doing their job properly.

I would suggest that you try and get your accounts in quite a bit earlier so that, if such a problem arises again, you will have at least a reasonable amount of time to get the amended accounts back in before the deadline.

Alternatively, why don't you look at the possibility of filing the accounts electronically. This increased diligence at Companies House may be an attempt by them to start encouraging companies to go down the electronic route. With electronic filing, filing is pretty much instant and corrections can be submitted immediately.

Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 11th February 07:50

[wattsm666]

Companies House have suddenly got very pedantic about things. They will now reject forms, such as annual returns and other documents if they are signed in blue ink, rather than black.

[Eric Mc]

In a way it's about time they enforced their own rules properly. I was often amazed at some of the rubbish accounts they accepted for some companies.

However, I think this is more likely to be part of an overall ploy to get companies to shift to e-filing.

[TooLateForAName]

I assumed that they must have outsourced form processing and that the contract pays per submission.

I had a set rejected because half of one of the required statements was on a different page to the balance sheet. I resubmitted with a small font so that the whole thing fitted on one page and that seemed to be OK ?!

[ClassicMercs]

And Labour keeps saying they want to reduce red tape. Roll on 6th May.

I had heard about the blue / black ink issue. But the other rubbish. Better get mine in tomorrow rather than leaving it until the end of month deadline.

[Eric Mc]

Have you checked on the on-line filing process? It might be the easiest way to avoid any of this nonsense.