UKC

On the basis that there is normally someone mooching about UKC who will know the answer to any question - what is a compulsory strike-off? I presume that it's a business that is being deregistered by Companies House for not doing what it is legally obliged to?

The background is that my other half had booked parking at MAN for a few days next week. She decided to see if she could cancel the booking but got no email reply from "Trusted Travel" the airport parking website she had booked through. She had the phone number on the booking for the actual car park so called them, and was told very apologetically that she wasn't the first to call, but as far as they knew (they are separate company) Trusted Travel has gone out of business because it hadn't paid them, so they weren't honouring the bookings.

I found a few similar posts at them on Twitter from other people turning up at airports to find they had no booking. I found the company's listing on Companies House, https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09891505... and to my very inexpert eye it look like they might have been in trouble for some years having a number of "first gazette notice for compulsory strike-off", which is cancelled the same day as file "micro company accounts". But never having owned a company in the UK I don't know really how it works.

My missus paid on credit card so I suspect it won't be a problem to get the not too much sum back, so this is just more out of interest than anything else. And for anyone booking airport parking - don't use Trusted Travel UK as it is not going to end well!

The first notice for compulsory strike off is often issued when deadlines for submissions have been missed, so it's not uncommon to see that followed by the discontinued notice when it prompts action.

So it doesn't necessarily indicate the business is in trouble, for small businesses more often than not it just shows they (or their accountants) haven't paid attention to their statutory requirements.

Quick response as I'm on half-term duty today... but in essence a compulsory strike off means that Companies House have made the first step toward striking the company off the companies register for a failure to meet statutory filing duties (accounts, confirmation statement etc).

I've had a quick look at their latest filed accounts and there is a glaring error. They seem to have lumped creditors due within one year into current assets. I'd say those accounts are pretty meaningless and the error suggests they've been lumped together by someone who hasn't a clue what they're doing. I suppose it could be a simple disclosure error (i.e. they mean debtors, not creditors) but even this is an error that shouldn't happen. 

It’s the escalation process for not filing the annual accounts or confirmation statement.  They’ve since been made in this example.  The company has a history of being late with filings so I wouldn’t read too much in to it.   

Lists 0 employees so that’s probably why there’s nobody to talk too!

I did google the address listed next to the one director they had listed and street view suggests (I couldn't quite see numbers) they are 'operating' from or above either a nail bar or a charity shop, which doesn't suggest commercial success. There is the town "Bierhaus" next to the nail bar so perhaps they drank away the company's profits on fine weißbier! 

I've had a further look at those latest accounts and they make absolutely zero sense. Cobbled together by someone who has no understanding of accountancy. There are absolutely no conclusions which can be drawn from them (other than the company is a shambles). How they've arrived at a net assets figure of 656k is anyone's guess. 

It's funny that it was enough to get Companies House of their back though! You would have thought if you can see that in a few minutes that they don't have an AI system, or some under-payed under-valued junior civil servant, who couldn't see the same?

Their website is still up so presumably they are still taking people's money, even if they are not paying the carparks they claim to be selling space in! Dodgy cluckers.

Companies House has become the focus of criticism in recent years. It's incredibly easy to form a company and file meaningless accounts. Checks on directors are to my knowledge, virtually non existent. There has been recent press coverage about overseas criminals using Companies House to register fake companies, using UK addresses. I saw an article not long ago...a UK house address used as the registered office for several hundred companies formed in the space of a few days by individuals based overseas. If this kind of activity slips through the net, we can safely assume that even the most basic of checks are not in place. 

The fact that they have at least submitted some accounts tends to indicate incompetence rather than outright fraud.

As you're probably aware, plenty of companies are created with no intention to ever file accounts (or more relevantly pay any taxes) and they just disappear, the company address being meaningless. But miraculously, a similar company turns up soon afterwards. It's a criminal low tax business model.

Maybe this company is more of the "run it into the ground but with all the funds somehow making their way to the shareholders" style.

Certainly not trusted.

To register a company, you don't even need to prove your address, you can use someone else's.

And the victim has to prove somehow to Companies House and debt collectors that the address isn't connected to the dodgy company. They have to prove their innocence!

It's a great system for the dishonest, a poor one for the honest and even worse one for the victims

For sure it’s open to abuse by con artists; I wondered if the OP’s example is more of a shell?? They are bizarre micro-accounts.  

But for legitimate companies it’s an incredible resource - trying to gather financial intelligence on competitor businesses I quickly came to realise how much worse the public facing information on privately owned companies is in many other territories.

It’s also a major doxing risk; plenty of small business owners that don’t have business premises use their home addresses rather than a virtual office.   Given that CH gives the age and month of birth of directors, joining that up to ones home address should be a big no-no.

On the flip side, it was fascinating how many anti-covid restrictions and pro-Brexit campaigning companies had the same virtual office….

Soon to be even more of a resource for competitor intelligence.....

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/business/financial-reporting/filing-shake-u...

Is Trump listed as a director?

It's only a few years ago that micro/abbreviated accounts with just a balance sheet were allowed, before then companies had to disclose more information - I can't remember but I'm pretty sure this used to require a P&L so it's only back to where we were and being able to actually determine something useful about a company from its limited accounts.

The current micro/abbreviated tell you b*gger all. I appreciate that the extras will tell you more about your competitors (and visa versa of course), but it also means you can check whether you want to do business with companies or whether you need to find a barge-pole.

I've just had a look at their accounts - stunningly impressive - they almost look like a set of accounts, but the way they've put things in the wrong place ends up with the company "valued" at £656,020 when (assuming the creditors figure is creditors rather than debtors) the actual "value" is MINUS £346,870. There's only 1 million pounds difference between those 2 figures - I would say that this is a material error.

I've just noticed that as well as making "<1 year" creditors an asset, they've also made long-term creditors an asset - in fact they've made everything an asset - just take all the numbers and add them together - who knew?

"These accounts have been prepared in accordance with the micro-entity provisions of the Companies Act 2006 and FRS 105" - I don't think so - a wonderful example of creative accounting.

Edit: Just looked at their previous accounts - they've at least got all the figures adding/subtracting the right way round although I'd not seen that layout before (been some years since I've looked at accounts professionally) where the "value" of the company is semi-hidden as one row in the bottom half of the balance sheet rather than being the "result" of the balance sheet - the "value" is the "Capital and Reserves" figure.

So what do you think my missus's chances of getting her (well, our) 39 quid back are, then?

Well using the formulation style from those accounts they must be very good because adding all those negative things together gives a positive result 😁

Section 75 credit card claim, hassle but you'll get it back.

Is this for parking at one of MANs official car parks or some dodgy one around the airport?

I do not understand why there should be anything dodgy if you have used one of the MAN car parks  booked through the MAN website.

if it’s outside that you probably have been scammed.