Director signed off accounts despite resigning?

[Lucan Unlordly]

Mr A.N. Other -Director 'Termination of Appointment' notice on Companies House website on 17th September

Mr A.N.Other - Secretary 'Termination of Appointment' notice on Companies House website on 4th October

Micro Accounts filed on 26th October having been approved by the director and signed by
Mr A.N.Other, the day before on the 25th October.

Is this in order?

 

[Newchodge]

Well, it's certainly consecutive!

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

He is a numpty If something was to come back on the company for any number of reasons. He could be prosecuted for fraudulent trading .
He wont but it is possible

 

[billmccallum1957]

What was the period of the accounts?

It could be the A.N.Other was still a director for the accounting period.

 

[dotcomdude]

I'd say that Mr A.N.Other should have been a Director on the 25th October, or they have probably made a false declaration. Unless someone else did it but using their name...

 

[thevaliant]

What was the period of the accounts?

It could be the A.N.Other was still a director for the accounting period.

This is incorrect. You have to be a director on the date of sign off.

Yes, this does lead to situations where directors have resigned who were directors during the year; and new directors appointed, but to sign accounts you have to be a director on the date of signing the accounts. Anyone not a director on sign off day cannot (or rather as we note - should not) sign the accounts, even if they were a director during the period.

Companies House are pretty much a chocolate teapot however, and do no checks beyond:

1. Company name on accounts (and match what they record)
2. Company number on balance sheet
3. Balance sheet SIGNED (by someone - doesn't matter who)
4. Either Audit report included, or exemption from audit claimed
5. Accounts dated (though many years ago, I saw one set accepted without a date)

If it doesn't fall foul of one of those checks, accounts WILL be accepted, even if they are complete rubbish in every other way.

 

[dotcomdude]

If it doesn't fall foul of one of those checks, accounts WILL be accepted, even if they are complete rubbish in every other way.

I saw one recently where the figures from the previous year's accounts were copy/pasted into the following year. Every figure was identical.

Not too surprising then that the people behind this business then did a flit shortly after...

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

UPDATE: Apparently A.N.Other hasn't seen nor signed off any accounts! I smell a rat.

 

[thevaliant]

UPDATE: Apparently A.N.Other hasn't seen nor signed off any accounts! I smell a rat.

Well, clearly, but what do you think has happened therefore?

And who will be interested?

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Well, clearly, but what do you think has happened therefore?

And who will be interested?

It seems that the company was set up in an attempt avoid personal responsibility for likely litigation. The director A.N.Other being 'puppeteered ' by another despite them having little understanding of company law.
Regards who will be interested? That depends very much on whether illegal activity has taken place. The obvious desired outcome would be to rid the organisation of wrongdoers.