Time for Registration Revolution?
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-667736...
Surely it is well past time to completely overhaul they way companies can be registered. This situation is ridiculous. How about always needing at least on UK director? This director to be held accountable for the activities of the company?
Over to you.
Surely it is well past time to completely overhaul they way companies can be registered. This situation is ridiculous. How about always needing at least on UK director? This director to be held accountable for the activities of the company?
Over to you.
the address issue wouldn't be difficult to resolve - two options:
- anyone offering a service address (accountants / lawyers / etc.) has to register as a service address
- option 1 - you use a service address - as they are registered you can pick from a list
- option 2 - you can use any other address, but as a part of the registration you have to upload proof of address
the negative is how do you do the verification for option 2 without it adding hugely to the cost.
you could simplify with logic such as if already used and sharing a director no verification is needed - e.g. you want to set up a second business at home it is easy, so only the first time is a pain - but that might allow criminal gangs to simply put you in as director as well - so perhaps if a 100% match to directors previously at that address - no check, or if all directors against the company are also at that address... there will be some form of logic that makes more sense
the issue is wider though because there is no validation on almost anything sent to companies house and yet it then becomes the record / fact
so there is nothing to stop a criminal gang setting up a company and choosing someone totally random to be a director and signing them up...
the balancing question is do we want extra bureaucracy / hassle when currently there are advantages in keeping it simple?
- anyone offering a service address (accountants / lawyers / etc.) has to register as a service address
- option 1 - you use a service address - as they are registered you can pick from a list
- option 2 - you can use any other address, but as a part of the registration you have to upload proof of address
the negative is how do you do the verification for option 2 without it adding hugely to the cost.
you could simplify with logic such as if already used and sharing a director no verification is needed - e.g. you want to set up a second business at home it is easy, so only the first time is a pain - but that might allow criminal gangs to simply put you in as director as well - so perhaps if a 100% match to directors previously at that address - no check, or if all directors against the company are also at that address... there will be some form of logic that makes more sense
the issue is wider though because there is no validation on almost anything sent to companies house and yet it then becomes the record / fact
so there is nothing to stop a criminal gang setting up a company and choosing someone totally random to be a director and signing them up...
the balancing question is do we want extra bureaucracy / hassle when currently there are advantages in keeping it simple?
MustangGT said:
This situation is ridiculous. How about always needing at least one UK director?
Not ridiculous. If the company misbehaves you need a director in the jurisdiction who can be chased down and brought to account.The world may appear to be "international" or "global" but in reality it's not.
wheelerc said:
"how do you do the verification for option 2 without it adding hugely to the cost."
They'd just need to send a letter with a unique code to the address which then needs to be entered online to complete the company registration. It would add about £1 to the cost.
Good thinking!They'd just need to send a letter with a unique code to the address which then needs to be entered online to complete the company registration. It would add about £1 to the cost.
Pistonheads for government?!
Panamax said:
MustangGT said:
This situation is ridiculous. How about always needing at least one UK director?
Not ridiculous. If the company misbehaves you need a director in the jurisdiction who can be chased down and brought to account.The world may appear to be "international" or "global" but in reality it's not.
MustangGT said:
Exactly my point. You should have at least one UK director.
Agreed, most other countries require one of their nationals as a director.The verification code by post to the registered office address would be a really simple way of stamping the current nonsense out, it would not stop traditional accomodation addresses being used but would at least make it harder for them.
MustangGT said:
Exactly my point. You should have at least one UK director.
Agreed, I had thought you were making the opposite point.Even with this requirement companies may be "fronted" by friends and relations of no substance. The definition of shadow director is intended to address this but you still have the problem of tracking down that shadow director in their overseas hideaway.
wheelerc said:
"how do you do the verification for option 2 without it adding hugely to the cost."
They'd just need to send a letter with a unique code to the address which then needs to be entered online to complete the company registration. It would add about £1 to the cost.
Excellent idea!They'd just need to send a letter with a unique code to the address which then needs to be entered online to complete the company registration. It would add about £1 to the cost.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff