Interesting facts about filed accounts

Discussion in 'Accounts & Finance' started by Jaydee, Jun 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jaydee

    Jaydee UKBF Enthusiast Free Member

    1,073 278
    An accountancy body pulled 75 random sets of full accounts that had been filed at Companies House, and found that 22 had "serious errors".

    Of the 22, two were filed by companies represented by qualified accountants (hope this does not start that debate again!) and twenty were filed by unrepresented companies and/or those represented by unqualifieds.

    One of the two from qualified accountants, was where audit exemption had been claimed for a tiny company, but it was a sub of a listed company and so required audit.

    Two of the twenty others, were the accounts of the accountants themself :eek:
    Posted: Jun 25, 2009 By: Jaydee Member since: May 27, 2007
  2. elainec100@cheapaccounting

    [email protected] UKBF Newcomer Full Member

    13,267 2,882
    and what is going to be done about it - NOTHING I expect!

    Filing at companies house is a formality almost as IMO no one actually checks the accounts. They may be up on obvious things like not in the correct format but apart from things get through.
    Posted: Jun 25, 2009 By: [email protected] Member since: Nov 4, 2005
  3. Alpha

    Alpha UKBF Newcomer Full Member

    4,130 518
    Yes precisely that.......NOTHING.

    I have seen copies of accounts with no share capital for a company limited by shares (Would have thought that was an obvious one for checking):rolleyes:

    I seem to recollect that the ICAEW made a big fuss about it a couple of years ago but doesn't appear as though anything came of it (Unless the sampling of 22 sets of accounts was it!!!)
    Posted: Jun 25, 2009 By: Alpha Member since: Feb 16, 2004
  4. Alison Jones

    Alison Jones UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    902 150
    Cannot believe that an accountants file their own accounts at companies house incorrectly. I thought there was lots of penalties for errors in accounts, that was what I read somewhere and was worrying me because we won't be having an accountant to do our accounts for companies house as new company and cannot justify the expense but maybe should not worry now if 22 companies accounts were allowed to stay incorrect.

    Posted: Jun 25, 2009 By: Alison Jones Member since: Mar 14, 2008
  5. elainec100@cheapaccounting

    [email protected] UKBF Newcomer Full Member

    13,267 2,882
    companies house have penalties for late filing only
    Posted: Jun 25, 2009 By: [email protected] Member since: Nov 4, 2005
  6. Philip Hoyle

    Philip Hoyle UKBF Ace Free Member

    2,254 1,092
    Companies House have done the usual "dumbing down" where they only spot the obvious (and often unimportant) things but aren't well enough trained to spot the more complicated issues. It's things like this that make a mockery of regulation!

    For example, I can put my hand up and say that I've had a set of accounts rejected this year because I used the wrong Companies Act date/section reference - due to it being the first set I'd done under the newly introduced Companies Act because the software update hadn't come through (I did them within a week of the year end). No problem though, easily sorted - take out the old sheet, put in a new one with the right reference - simple. No harm done - the figures were right, the accounts were identical except for the reference.

    BUT, when I do a company search one behalf of a client for a major customer of theirs, I see the accounts are wildly full of errors. The cash flow statement doesn't balance - even to the extent that they'd left the "error notes" on the page they filed to highlight it doesn't balance - and these were "audited" accounts done by a registered auditor! But were these rejected? No. When I reported them to Companies House was any action taken? No. When I reported the firm of accountants to the ICAEW was any action taken? No. To this day, those clearly erroneous accounts still stand at Companies House.

    Companies House need to start employing qualified people to review the accounts - i.e. people who understand accounts and who'd know if the accounts contained errors, not just a room full of box-tickers.
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
    Posted: Jun 26, 2009 By: Philip Hoyle Member since: Apr 3, 2007
  7. Blackberry

    Blackberry UKBF Regular Free Member

    471 91
    Its not really suprising is it? They don't seem to know what they are doing alot of the time. Here are a few of the things that have happened to me recently

    I recently had some accounts with a 30th April 2009 year end rejected because they hadn't been prepared in accordance with FRSSE 2007. I had to write to companies house and politely point out that FRSSE 2008 came into effect for accounting periods starting on or after 6th April 2008!:)

    I took on a new client and got a copy of the previous years 'accounts' that had been accepted for filing by companies house. the accounts turned out to be a sage TB!!:rolleyes:
    Posted: Jun 26, 2009 By: Blackberry Member since: Mar 7, 2008
  8. askm

    askm UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    38 5
    I downloaded some accounts at Companies House that had been written half in English and half in Welsh... and they hadn't been rejected.

    But when I tried to file a form 225 to change a year end date from 28th February 2008 to 31st March 2008, that was rejected because the "change from" date should have been 29th February 2008...

    I think someone at Companies House should have used their common sense there, realised what was meant and changed it manually...

    Posted: Jun 26, 2009 By: askm Member since: Jan 12, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.