Corporate report

Annual report by the independent adjudicators to Companies House 2024 to 2025

Published 19 January 2026

1. Introduction

Companies (and limited liability partnerships) in the UK are required to submit accounts to Companies House on an annual basis. This means that the accounts can made available to the public for inspection.

If companies fail to submit their accounts by the deadline set by law, a penalty is automatically imposed on them.

Companies may appeal against the penalty. The law requires the penalty to be paid in all normal cases, but the Registrar of Companies does have the power to waive the penalty in exceptional circumstances.

The appeal process has 4 levels:

• Level 1 - review by a member of the late filing penalties team
• Level 2 - review by a senior caseworker
• Level 3 - independent review
• Level 4 - final review by the registrar

The independent review stage is conducted by one of the independent adjudicators. This is the annual report of the independent adjudicators. The report covers the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

There are currently 6 adjudicators:

• Dame Elizabeth Neville DBE
• Ms Deirdre Domingo
• Mr Brian Stanton
• Mr Tom Ketteley
• Mr Kieran Seale
• Mr Lee John-Charles CBE (who joined in July 2024)

The independent adjudicators are not part of Companies House and are impartial. We consider all the cases that are referred to us and we produce a written report for every case we look at. Each report sets out the evidence that we have considered and our reasoning. The reports are shared with those appealing.

Cases are allocated to us by rotation to ensure impartiality. We also review some complaints. The complaints are discussed later in this report.

We use the Companies House address for postal communications and we each have a Companies House email address to protect our privacy and security.

You can find a brief outline of our professional profiles on Companies House independent adjudicators.

2. The appeal process

2.1 Level 1: late filing penalties team

More than 5 million limited companies are registered in the UK. Over 500,000 new companies are incorporated each year. All companies must file accounts on an annual basis, usually within 9 months of the end of their financial year. In 2024 to 2025, Companies House issued a total of 317,985 penalties for the late filing of accounts.

Companies House has an online appeals portal designed to speed up logging and response times and to simplify the appeals process. During the year, 52% of appeals were made electronically using the portal.

First level appeals are dealt with by the late filing penalties team in Companies House. In the year 47,673 penalties were appealed to the first stage, which is around one in seven.

2.2 Level 2: senior casework unit

If the first level appeal is rejected, a second level appeal can be made. These are considered by a member of the senior casework unit in Companies House. In the year 5,319 cases were appealed to level 2.

2.3 Level 3: independent adjudicators

If an appellant is unhappy with the responses they have received at the first 2 stages, they can appeal to an independent adjudicator.

A total of 409 cases were referred to us during 2024 to 2025. We considered 466 cases.  The number of cases considered is higher than the number referred as there was a small backlog of cases from previous years, which has now been reduced.

2.4 Table 1: Number of appeals considered by independent adjudicators

This table shows the number of cases we have considered in recent years. The number for 2024 to 2025 is considerably higher than that in recent years. There are a number of reasons for this. One is because of an increase in the number of appeals. Another is due to an effort by Companies House to reduce backlogs and the time taken between when an appeal is made, and a decision is communicated.

Year	Cases
2020/21	115
2021/22	87
2022/23	128
2023/24	338
2024/25	466

Of the 466 cases we considered, we fully or partially allowed the appeal in 27 (6%). This compares with 8% of cases allowed in 2023 to 2024 and 6% in 2022 to 2023. Where an appeal was against penalties across a number of years, we sometimes allowed the appeal against one penalty but rejected others. In other cases, the accounts were already late when they submitted but further delay occurred for which we concluded Companies House were responsible. In those cases, we determined that a lesser penalty for a shorter period of time should be paid.

While we are free to reach whatever conclusions we think are appropriate and make recommendations as to changes of process, it is important to understand that we are bound by the law.

The government believes that the sharing of information about the activities of limited companies is important to the UK economy. Parliament has therefore created strict requirements as to when companies need to prepare accounts and how they should be shared. Companies House is responsible for implementing this system. The law gives it little discretion as to how the process is run. Penalties are automatically imposed on companies which do not submit their accounts on time, with time limits and penalty levels fixed by law. Those penalties are payable in all normal cases. The law only allows us to recommend that a penalty is waived where there are exceptional circumstances which prevented the accounts from being filed.

It is important to emphasise that, in order for exceptional circumstances to apply, the events raised must directly impact the filing of the accounts. Appellants must therefore not only demonstrate that something has happened, but also how what happened interfered with the accounts filing process.

2.5 Level 4: appeal to the registrar

Appeals rejected by an independent adjudicator may be appealed to the Registrar of Companies. The registrar is the final arbiter in the appeals process.

Of the 443 appeals we rejected, 74 were appealed to the registrar. This represents 17% of the total cases considered by the adjudicators, a fall from recent years. A comparison with previous years is shown in Table 2.

2.6 Table 2: Referrals to the registrar

Year	Cases appealed to the registrar	% of adjudicator cases appealed to the registrar
2020/21	44	38%
2021/22	32	37%
2022/23	34	27%
2023/24	100	32%
2024/25	74	17%

Of these appeals, the registrar allowed one. In that case, the appellant included in their appeal to the registrar extensive additional evidence about an injury that they had suffered, together with additional information about challenges that they faced immediately prior to the filing deadline. The appeal was allowed in the light of the additional evidence received.

2.7 All appeals

Looking across all the appeals, between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, penalties were not collected or were cancelled in 10,258 of the 317,985 cases where they were issued.

2.8 Summary of cases

Table 3 summarises the appeals processes in comparison with previous years. It shows that the proportion of appeals allowed is in line with percentage in recent years (numbers in 2022 to 2023 were distorted by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the registrar exercised a high degree of leniency).

2.9 Table 3: Appeal rate and successful appeal rate

Year	Penalties raised	Appeals received	Percentage appealed	Appeals allowed	Percentage of appeals allowed
2020/21	178,264	47,166	26%	15,687	33%
2021/22	380,153	83,347	22%	11,218	13%
2022/23	322,680	64,289	20%	42,789	67%
2023/24	295,251	51,403	17%	17,308	34%
2024 /25	317,985	47,673	15%	10,258	22%

3. Companies appealing

Some features of the companies that appeal to the independent adjudicators are worth noting.

3.1 Dormant companies

Nearly a third of the appeals that we saw are from companies that are dormant, which means they had no significant transactions in the financial year.

Dormant companies appear to be significantly overrepresented in the appeals that we see. This is disappointing. Filing dormant accounts is relatively straightforward and often takes only a few minutes. Failure to file dormant accounts is therefore usually the result of an oversight or misunderstanding.

The dormant companies who appeal to us have often registered as dormant with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and therefore may not need to file accounts with them.  Directors often mistakenly assume that, in these circumstances, they do not need to file accounts at Companies House either. That is not correct. All companies must file accounts with Companies House, including those that are dormant.

We have seen a number of cases where dormant companies file late when they are filing accounts for the first time, which indicates a lack of understanding about the process. In the past we have recommended that the letter sent by Companies House to new directors clearly signposts the need for all companies to file accounts. That has been done. We have also suggested that Companies House place a warning flag on the email reminders to companies who have filed dormant accounts in the previous year. Resource constraints at Companies House and the migration to software-only filing accounts over the next few years, however, have meant that it has not been possible to do this.

3.2 First accounts

Nearly 20% of appeals we saw were from companies filing their first accounts. New companies are therefore significantly overrepresented in the appeals that we see. This is disappointing as it suggests that a lack of familiarity with the system lies behind the imposition of the penalty. We have suggested adding a warning flag to email reminders for those filing a first set of accounts. 

It is also common for us to see appeals from companies with a sole director. They often lack knowledge about what the responsibilities of running a company are. We encourage all those new to being a director ensure they understand what the role involves before they take it on. Guidance on what is involved can be found in Being a company director.

3.3 Community interest companies (CICs)

Community interest companies (CICs) are limited companies which operate to provide a benefit to the community, rather than private shareholders.

We had 35 appeals from CICs, making up over 7% of the total cases we considered. In the UK as a whole there are fewer than 40,000 CICs, less than 1% of the total number of companies. CICs are therefore significantly overrepresented in the appeals we see.

Filing CIC accounts is more complex than other filings and directors who file accounts themselves can find the process difficult, leading to rejections and late filing. We have made recommendation on improving information for CICs.

Many appellants feel that it is unfair that companies which aim to create community benefit have to pay the same penalties as commercial organisations. The legislation under which Companies House operates makes no distinction between commercial organisations and those with public benefit aims, and the penalty levels are the same. It is important therefore that those running CICs understand the responsibilities that go with being the director of a company.

3.4 Email reminders

Companies can sign up to an ‘email reminder’ service which tells the company when its accounts and confirmation statement are due (Companies House no longer sends reminders by post). The service is free, and easy to sign up to - see Register for email reminders from Companies House.

Originally only one reminder was sent, about a month before the filing deadline. In 2022, a second reminder was introduced immediately before the filing deadline. A trial of sending out a further reminder a couple of months before the deadline has been carried out and is currently being evaluated.

Overall, nearly 90% of companies are signed up to receive email reminders. However, over a third of the companies that appeal to us are not signed up. In some cases, they have started to register but have not completed the activation process, possibly because the confirmation email goes into the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Often, the filing deadline is missed because directors are unaware of when it is. They only realise that the accounts need to be filed when the first compliance letter is sent after the filing deadline has passed. By this time a penalty is inevitable. We strongly recommend all companies to sign up for email reminders.

4. Grounds for appeal

As we have noted, the law places a tight limit on the grounds on which penalties can be waived. We therefore only uphold a small proportion of the appeals that we see.

The most common grounds for appeal are discussed in this section. Many appellants gave multiple reasons for their late filing and so fall into more than one category. We provide more detail about the appeals we allowed in Appendix 1.

4.1 Illness and death

The most common grounds for appeal was illness (or in a few cases, death, or some other catastrophic event). This was raised in 152 of the cases we considered, 32% of the total. It was also by far the most common reason for allowing an appeal, featuring in 14 of the 27 appeals that we allowed. Those successful cases included a wide range of people affected – the director themselves, a close family member, or an accountant who was in the process of preparing the accounts. They have also included a wide range of medical conditions.

The discretion not to collect a penalty is very limited, however. It is not enough for the person to have been ill during the year. To allow an appeal, we need to see evidence that the illness was a direct cause of the accounts being late. It is not the severity of the illness, but the impact it had on the filing that is key.

If there is more than one director it is unlikely that an appeal will be allowed, as the other director could have filed the accounts. All directors are equally responsible for ensuring accounts are produced and filed on time. It is not therefore a defence to say that the other director usually leaves the preparation of accounts to the director who was unwell.

Cases relating to ongoing ill health are particularly difficult. If the director has been ill for a long time, they will usually have had an opportunity to make alternative arrangements for the filing of accounts, such as appointing a second director. In addition, where illness has been going on for a period of time, directors have the option of applying for an extension to the filing deadline to give them more time or engaging third parties (such as accountants) to support them.

In addition to the 14 cases mentioned, we allowed a further 2 appeals relating to illness during the COVID-19 pandemic. The registrar exercised additional discretion for companies affected by the pandemic at the time, but that additional discretion has generally now ended.

In one case we allowed an appeal on the basis that Companies House had not made sufficient reasonable adjustments for an appellant’s disability.

4.2 Financial impact on company

Over a hundred of the appeals we saw referred to financial hardship that the directors were experiencing, or the financial impact the penalty would have on the company. This made up 23% of the total number of appeals. We did not uphold any appeals on these grounds. The law requires all companies to be treated the same. It does not make a distinction between companies on the basis of whether they can afford the penalty, and the registrar has no power to waive the collection a penalty on the basis of ability to pay.

4.3 Issues with accountants

In 95 cases (20% of the total) an appeal was made because of an issue with the accountant that the company was using. We only allowed a single appeal on this basis.

The legal responsibility for filing accounts rests with the directors of the company, not their accountant. Directors must therefore ensure that any accountants that they employ are doing their job properly. The directors must keep track of when the accounts are due and check that they are being prepared in sufficient time. Additionally, where a firm of accountants is used, it would normally be expected that if illness to one accountant interrupted the preparation of accounts, someone else in the firm would take on the role.  If there is a sole accountant, the accountant should have a contingency plan in place to ensure that their work can continue if they fall ill.

In the only case that we allowed, an unexpected death of a partner in a firm led to the collapse of the accountancy firm. The timing of these events left the director with no option for achieving the timely filing of accounts.

4.4 Alleged error or poor advice by Companies House

In 88 of cases (19%) the appeal related to some alleged failure by Companies House. We allowed the appeals in 8 such cases.

Where we believe there has been an error by Companies House that has caused some detriment to an appellant which affects the filing, we will uphold an appeal. In most of the cases where we received an appeal on this basis, however, we did not see a direct connection between the issue that arose and the penalty. For example, in a number of cases, appellants raised events that arose after the filing deadline and therefore made no difference to whether a penalty would be imposed.

We allowed appeals in 4 cases where there was some kind of administrative error by Companies House, such as failing to respond to a director. In another case we allowed an appeal because Companies House had given a director poor advice about the process for filing the accounts. In our experience, the advice and support given by the Companies House contact centre and other staff at Companies House is good. Failures to provide the correct information are rare.

The penalties for late filing increase the longer after the filing deadline the accounts are submitted. In 2 cases we allowed appeals against the size of the penalty because a delay by Companies House in responding to a director meant that the penalty passed into a higher payment band, and we thought that a penalty in a lower band was more appropriate.

4.5 Mistake by director

82 appeals (18% of the total) were made on the basis of an error or misunderstanding by a director.

We did not allow any appeals on this basis. We sympathise with directors who find the process of filing difficult, particularly those who are fresh to the role. However, legally speaking it is the responsibility of directors to ensure they understand the requirements that go with being a director of a company. New directors should look carefully at what their role entails when they sign up to being a director.

The differing requirements of Companies House and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is a common area of confusion. The 2 organisations work to different legislation and there are circumstances where accounts may not need to be filed with HMRC, but are still needed by Companies House. As discussed, one example relates to accounts for dormant companies. The fact that a company is dormant makes no difference to the requirement to file accounts with Companies House.

Issues also arise with the joint filing system which allows people to submit accounts to Companies House when they are filing with HMRC. While this service saves time for many who are filing accounts, there are occasions when those filing do not compete the process fully or attempt to file accounts which cannot be filed with Companies House using the system. The joint filing service will end on 31 March 2026.

When accounts are received by Companies House, 2 emails are sent – one to acknowledge receipt and the second to say that the accounts have been accepted. All those submitting accounts should ensure they have received these emails before assuming that their accounts have been successfully submitted.

4.6 Technical issues

79 appeals (17%) related to technical issues using the Companies House website. We allowed two appeals which included this as a reason. Some of these issues related to downtime on Companies House’s systems. If the maintenance is extended at short notice and a director was attempting to file at that time, this can be grounds for waiving a penalty. 

Occasionally software issues arise which delay the submission of accounts and it is not clear whether it is the Companies House system or that of the person submitting the accounts which is responsible. If there is a significant likelihood that the issue is at Companies House end, and it is clear that this delayed filing, a penalty may be waived.

4.7 Rejected accounts

Another common basis for appeals is where accounts are submitted before the deadline, but subsequently rejected by Companies House. That was the case in 19 appeals during the last year (4% of the appeals that we received).

An appeal would be allowed if accounts were incorrectly rejected, or because an unreasonable amount of time was taken to do so. We did not see any cases where we believe the penalty should have been waived on this basis in the last year.

4.8 Other issues

The only other case where we allowed an appeal related to a technical issue arising from the interaction between an extension to a filing deadline and a change to an accounting reference date. That case is described in more detail in Case 27.

5. Recommendations

As well as adjudicating on the cases referred to us, we make recommendations as to improvements that Companies House can make to improve its services. In 2024 to 2025 we made a total of 19 recommendations. Actions on 16 of these has now been completed, with the 3 remaining open. Some of the recommendations arose from complaints. Details of all the recommendations we have made are set out in Appendix 2.

Five of the recommendations we made related to issues about how Companies House communicates. Most of the recommendations sought greater clarity in the standard communications that Companies House sends out. For example, the wording of the standard communication sent to those who have filed accounts late, said that if accounts are subsequently submitted by a particular date, the company will ‘avoid further action’.  Several appellants took this to mean that all action by Companies House would cease when the accounts were submitted. However, Companies House intended to say that the process of criminal prosecution will cease, but not that the processing of imposing a late filing penalty. Another recommendation was to improve signposting for appellants so it is clear to them where they are in the process and what their options are.

We recognise Companies House has a long lead time for amending standards documents and therefore that it takes a long time to implement recommendations of this sort.

Four of our recommendations were about administrative issues within Companies House.  These suggested that Companies House review their process and see if improvements can be made in the light of the issues in the appeal. One recommendation suggested greater staff training around the process for filing accounts for CICs, due to the additional complexities that arise in those companies.

A further 8 recommendations related to individual cases rather than policy points. These included, for example, a number of cases where we recommended that Companies House apologise to appellants for delays in the process of considering their appeals or for the mistakes in the wording of communications.

There are also 2 recommendations outstanding from previous years. Both of these relate to the wording of the email reminders that Companies House sends out.

6. Complaints

Companies House’s internal complaints process used to have 3 stages:

• Stage 1 – response provided by the relevant Companies House team or by the contact centre
• Stage 2 – response provided by the customer service team
• Stage 3 – response provided by the head of service delivery

This process has recently been changed to 2 internal stages – a stage 1 investigation and a stage 2 response from the head of complaints.

If the internal process does not resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of a complainant, the complaint can be referred to an independent adjudicator at the complainant’s request. Independent adjudicators can investigate complaints about service levels, mistakes, and complaint handling. It is important to note that an independent adjudicator cannot determine issues of company law. Our role is not to make decisions on behalf of Companies House, rather it is to review the approach that Companies House has taken and comment on whether Companies House has acted reasonably and has discharged its responsibilities.

We considered a total of 14 complaints in 2024 to 2025. Five of those were stand-alone complaints about some interaction the complainant had with Companies House. The other 9 formed part of appeals against late filing penalties. We deal with the complaints that arise through the appeals process directly (rather than feeding them back through the internal complaints process) as many are closely linked with the appeal and are difficult to separate from it. In addition, dealing with the complaints in this way is quicker and more efficient than sending them back through the Companies House internal complaints process.

A complainant who remains dissatisfied with the findings of the independent adjudicator may approach a member of Parliament and ask for the matter to be referred to the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman.

The stand-alone complaints we considered related to process issues within Companies House. They covered areas such as whether Companies House had followed their processes in registering a charge against a company, whether they had recorded of a registered address incorrectly, the acceptance of an unaudited set of accounts and allowing an objection to a the process of striking off a company. Most of the complaints were not upheld. However, we did uphold some elements of complaints relating to how Companies House responded, including taking too long to respond and failing to signpost the process being followed adequately.

The complaints contained within appeals also related to Companies House processes and the way they communicated with appellants. There were several examples where the correspondence from Companies House did not adequately explain the process that was being followed and where the appeal had reached in that process. We have recommended to Companies House that they make more effort to signpost appellants and complainants through their processes. We have seen some improvements in that regard in subsequent responses.

Overall, we have only upheld a small number of elements of complaints within appeals.  Most related to communication errors or occasional errors by individuals. Other than the issues we have described here, we have not seen patterns in practice by Companies House that have given us cause for concern.

A summary of the complaints we considered is included in Appendix 3.

7. Conclusion

Our interactions with staff at Companies House are generally positive. They make serious efforts to answer our questions and provide us with the information we need as soon as they can. We would like to thank them for their efforts.

In any organisation as large as Companies House, and with such a large number of interactions with the public, mistakes will sometimes be made. Most of these errors are quickly corrected internally. From time to time, however, we are able to point out issues that need addressing that have not been resolved internally. We value our independence and we do not hesitate to support the cases of appellants and complainants where we believe it is right to do so. In the last year, Companies House have accepted all the findings and recommendations that we have made.

We understand that some people do not agree with aspects of the legal framework in which we work. For example, they do not believe that small poor companies (including charities) pay the same penalties as larger, more wealthy companies. We hope, however, that members of the public can distinguish between disagreeing with the actions of Companies House in following the law, and disagreeing with the framework within which it operates and over which it does not have a say.

Kieran Seale, on behalf of the independent adjudicators.
9 January 2025.

8. Appendix 1: Appeals allowed

The following is a brief summary of the appeals we allowed. It should be noted that in some cases it took some time for Companies House to establish what information and supporting evidence was needed for the appeal to be determined. As a result, when staff within Companies House made their initial decisions, they did not have the full information that we had access to. This is particularly the case in relation to medical information where not just the nature of the illness but its timing is important in making an adjudication.

8.1 Illness and death

Case 1 – appeals were made against 3 penalties. Two were allowed on the basis of the appellant’s illness, the illness of a spouse, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A third appeal was rejected.

Case 2 – the company had a sole director whose wife became ill with cancer. She subsequently died. The director also suffered ill-health. An appeal was made against penalties imposed over 4 years. Two of the appeals were allowed by Companies House before the appeal came to us. The adjudicator allowed the appeal for the third year due to the director’s bereavement, but not for the fourth year.

Case 3 – the company’s sole director was the carer for his wife. He was also involved in the care for his 2 very young children who had been born prematurely. The appeal was allowed on this basis.

Case 4 – an appeal was allowed in relation to a sole-trading accountant who had suffered a stroke.

Case 5 – in this case the director suffered a severe cardiac illness shortly before the filing deadline.

Case 6 – the sole director had been admitted to hospital with a number of mental health conditions including memory loss. They have subsequently been in and out of hospital due to deteriorating mental health.

Case 7 – following the death of a sole director in an earthquake, a new director was appointed, but only a relatively short time before the filing deadline. The new director subsequently had difficulty in obtaining the information needed to file the accounts.

Case 8 - the appellant was suffering from degenerative brain disorders which were deteriorating around the time of the filing deadline.

Case 9 – the appellant was diagnosed with cancer shortly before the filing deadline.

Case 10 – the appellant’s father died a couple of months before the filing deadline. In addition, the appellant’s mother underwent emergency eye surgery around the time the accounts were due to be submitted, necessitating him having to travel to care for her.

Case 11 – the accounts were finalised before the filing deadline and sent to one of the directors for signature. Unfortunately, the director was admitted to hospital on that day and by the time he came out of hospital the deadline had passed.

Case 12 – the appellant was the sole director of the company. His wife’s illness suddenly deteriorated shortly before the filing deadline.

Case 13 – the appellant was a sole director. The illness of her parents necessitated her travelling abroad at short notice before the filing deadline, meaning that she could not file the accounts.

Case 14 – one director was hospitalised with dengue fever at the time of the filing deadline, while the company’s second director was on maternity leave.

8.2 Error or poor advice by Companies House

Case 15 – in the previous year, Companies House had made an error in accepting accounts with an incomplete registered number. When the number was used the following year, the accounts were rejected, leading to a delay in their submission.

Case 16 – the appeal was partially allowed due to confusing advice provided by a member of staff at Companies House. Although that advice occurred after the deadline, it contributed to a delay in the filing of the accounts and an increased penalty.

Case 17 – the director experienced technical problems when trying to file the accounts. After the filing deadline they sought advice from Companies House as to how to overcome the technical difficulties, but were not provided with the information that they needed to file the accounts. This contributed to the delay in filing. The adjudicator therefore decided that the level of penalty should be reduced.

Case 18 – the company is a subsidiary of a larger company. There are particular requirements for the filing of group company accounts and a copy of the parent company accounts must be provided with each set of subsidiary accounts. The company’s accountant was incorrectly advised by Companies House that a single copy of the parent companies accounts and other documentation would be sufficient. This led to the company’s accounts being rejected.

Case 19 – the director applied to extend the company’s accounting reference date and therefore believed that the date for filing accounts had been extended. However, this was the first set of accounts for the company and the accounting reference date cannot be extended beyond 21 months from the date of the company’s incorporation. The director was under the impression that they had filed the accounts on time. It took some time for Companies House to clarify the position, by which time the delay in filing the accounts took the penalty into a higher band. The adjudicator decided the penalty should be reduced to the level that would have applied if the appellant had been given information more quickly.

Case 20 – a director made a request for an extension to the filing deadline. Companies House mistakenly logged the request as having been made after the filing deadline, thus invalidating it. The appeal was granted on the grounds that if Companies House had evaluated the extension request, they may have allowed it.

Case 21 – accounts were rejected because of the wording used on a community interest company (CIC) report. Companies House ultimately accepted that the wording that was used should have been accepted.

Case 22 - the appellant told Companies House that she had both dyslexia and autism and therefore found it difficult use Companies House’s systems online. This information was not recorded on the appellant’s file, however. This meant that Companies House did not fully consider what reasonable adjustments needed to be made for the appellant.

8.3 IT issues

Case 23 – maintenance work on the Companies House system was extended at short notice meaning that the appellant was unable to file the accounts by the deadline.

Case 16 – this appeal was also allowed as the director was impeded by IT issues, as well as confusing advice.

8.4 COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the registrar exercised a large degree of leniency for companies affected by it. In general, that special leniency has ended and such cases are treated in the same way as any other case. We did, however, see a few cases where COVID-19 issues still arose.

Case 24 – an appeal was made on behalf of 2 companies. One company was granted a waiver of the penalty on the grounds of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. That did not happen with the other company which had made an appeal on the same grounds. There was also confusion about whether the person appealing had been informed of the decisions. The adjudicator decided that the penalty for the second company should be waived as the penalty for the first company had been.

Case 25 – as with the previous case, 2 appeals had been made, but only one was allowed.  It was decided that both penalties should be waived.

8.5 Issues with accountants

Case 26 – the company’s accountants were struck by a number of problems in a short period of time. The accountants had problems with their IT system meaning that they were unable to access client information. Shortly after this, one of the company’s two accountants died suddenly. Other illness affected the company and it went into liquidation. The timing of these events left the director with little opportunity to file the accounts on time.

8.6 Other

Case 27 – the company extended its accounting reference date. This extension, however, meant that the accounts instantly became overdue. This made it impossible for the director to comply with the filing deadline which was now in the past. The adjudicators believe that companies should not be penalised in such circumstances.

9. Appendix 2: Recommendations

Recommendation 1 – the IT team at Companies House keeps logs of interactions with customers. These are only retained for a limited period of time, with a maximum of 6 months. As some appeals take longer than this to be made and reviewed, in some cases the logs have already been deleted before they can be accessed for the appeal. We made a recommendation that the late filing penalties team obtains any available information from the IT team early on in the process to reduce the likelihood of it being deleted. In response, Companies House have set up a working group set up between the late filing penalties and e-filing teams that can look into whether any known issues were affecting a specific company. That is in addition to checking the service availability tool (which keep a record any reported issues with services), which are kept for a few years.

Recommendation 2 – the filing of accounts for community interest companies (CICs) comes up fairly frequently in our appeals. The area is complicated because certain types of CIC accounts (such as dormant accounts) cannot be filed using WebFiling, while other types can. We therefore recommended that relevant staff be given training to improve their knowledge of the filing of CIC accounts so they can always give customers the most accurate advice. Companies House have now organised awareness raising sessions delivered by the CIC team. Companies House have also asked that the scripts used by the contact centre staff include questions relating to CIC online filing.

Recommendation 3 – an appeal was made against penalties imposed across a number of years. The appeal for one year was allowed, but it was not clear which of the penalties was being waived. We recommended that where an appeal is made against multiple penalties, Companies House should make it explicit which penalty is being waived. Feedback on this issue has been given to the team and the issue is being monitored through the quality checking process.

Recommendation 4 – in this case there were communication issues between an appellant and Companies House. The appellant experienced difficulties in corresponding with Companies House and in receiving accurate and timely information from staff at Companies House. We recommended that Companies House look into these issues and identify any improvements that they could be made to their processes. Companies House have reviewed the case and have made changes to how queries are communicated internally.

Recommendation 5 – Companies House had passed this case to a debt collection agency.  The agency said that the appellant’s account had been closed. The appellant took this to mean that the process was at an end, and that the penalty would no longer be collected. This was not the case, and Companies House subsequently contacted the appellant about recovering the penalty. We recommended that in these circumstances it be made clear that a debt collection agency closing a customer’s account does not mean that the penalty would be waived. Companies House plans to raise this issue with the debt collection agency.

Recommendation 6 – the wording of a reminder from Companies House said that the reminder contained all the information that a director needed to file their accounts. However, the reminder made no reference to the option of filing accounts by paper. While we understand that Companies House is moving towards a position where all filing will be done electronically, this is not the current position. The reminder was therefore inaccurate. We have recommended that Companies House ensure that the wording of such reminders is fully accurate. Steps have been taken to ensure that this is the case.

Recommendation 7 – the wording of a standard letter from Companies House to those who had filed accounts late said that they needed to deliver their accounts by a particular date ‘to avoid further action’. Having subsequently delivered their accounts, the appellant was surprised that Companies House still chased them to pay the penalty. We recommended that the wording be changed to make clear that while action to remove the company from the register or criminal prosecution might cease, action will still be taken to recover late filing penalties. The wording of the letter has now been updated.

Recommendation 8 – the appellant said that IT issues and poor customer service caused the late filing. It appeared that these issues had not been responded to. The adjudicator made a recommendation that Companies House should address the issues that had been raised. The company in this case has since been dissolved.

Recommendation 9 – Companies House made an error in correspondence which led the appellant to believe that Companies House had received a piece of correspondence, when in fact they had not. A recommendation was made that Companies House apologise to the appellant and explain to them what had happened. This has been done.

Recommendation 10 – there was a misunderstanding in the Companies House response to an appeal, and the response contained an inaccuracy. A recommendation was made to provide feedback to the Companies House team to ensure that lessons are learnt so that points raised in appeals are accurately reflected in correspondence. Feedback has been given to the team on this point.

Recommendation 11 – Companies House failed to recognise that the appellant had made a further appeal. A recommendation was made to apologise to the appellant and give them an opportunity to appeal. These actions have been completed.

Recommendation 12 – the appellant’s first appeal was sent in a covering letter with the set of accounts that they submitted. It was not dealt with as being an appeal. It is not uncommon for appeals enclosed with accounts not to be identified. A recommendation was made that staff handling incoming post be advised to take care to identify covering letters which contain appeals. Feedback on this issue has been given to the processing teams.

Recommendation 13 – in some cases Companies House respond to an appeal at the first stage of the process by asking for additional information from the appellant, rather than accepting or rejecting the appeal. This can lead to confusion as to whether the first level appeal has been resolved. A  recommendation was made that Companies House ensure that a decision is made at the first stage of the process and that the person dealing with a second stage appeal checks that a decision has been made and communicated to the appellant. A reminder of the need for this is being issued to staff.

Recommendation 14 – a recommendation was made to Companies House to review the handling of the complaint to identify what lessons could be learnt to improve performance in complaints handling. In particular it was recommended that attention be paid to signposting the process to complainants and keeping them updated with progress.  Signposting is now regularly included in responses.

Recommendation 15 – the scope of the appeal in this case was unclear. A recommendation was made that Companies House clarify with the appellant which penalties they were appealing against. This issue has now been clarified with the appellant.

Recommendation 16 – Companies House were slow to acknowledge the appeal and refer it to the adjudicator. A recommendation was made to find out why this happened and to apologise to the appellant for it. Companies House are currently looking into this issue.

Recommendation 17 – there were errors in the responses sent to the appellant in this case. A recommendation was made to give advice to the staff concerned to take more care with their replies. This feedback has been given to the staff involved.

Recommendation 18 - there was an unacceptably long delay in responding to one aspect of an appeal and a failure to respond to another. It was recommended that an apology be made for the delay and a response be given to the outstanding issue. This has been done.

Recommendation 19 – there was a long delay in responding and a failure to explain the full complaints process in the first response. It was recommended that an apology be given and be staff reminded of the importance of explaining the full process. An apology has now been issued, and staff reminded to include a link to information explaining the process in their replies.

9.1 Recommendations carried over from previous years

Recommendation 1 – to place a red warning flag on email reminders to companies filling their first accounts or which filed dormant accounts in previous years to emphasise that they need to file accounts. Companies House has said that it is unlikely to make this change in the short term because of the volume of other work and the migration to software-only filing of accounts.

Recommendation 2 – to change the wording on email reminders to reflect the fact that some limited liability partnerships (LLPs) cannot file their accounts electronically.  Companies House has said that it is unlikely to make this change in the short term because of the volume of other work and the migration to software-only filing of accounts.

10. Appendix 3: Complaints

The following is a brief summary of the stand-alone complaints that we reviewed.

Complaint 1 – alleged  error by Companies House in registering a charge against a company. The complainant said that this resulted in an error on the register which caused damage to the complainant’s company. We did not uphold this complaint.

Complaint 2 – two companies used the address of the complainant as their registered address without the complainant’s permission. The complainant was unhappy with the service that they received from Companies House in having the address removed from the register, including the length of time the process took. The complaint was not upheld.

Complaint 3 – the complainant said that Companies House had accepted an unaudited sets of accounts for 4 companies. They said that Companies House did not respond adequately, or in a sufficiently timely manner, to the issues that they had raised. The complaint that Companies House failed to respond adequately was upheld. Elements of the complaint relating to long delays in the length of time Companies House took to respond to the complainant were also upheld.

Complaint 4 – a company applied to have itself struck off from the register and dissolved. An objection to the company being struck off was made, which delayed the process. The complainant sought to know why the objection had been made and subsequently raised a complaint about how Companies House responded. The complaint about how the objection to the strike off was handled was not upheld. However, elements of the complaint relating to how well the process was signposted and the length of time some responses took were upheld.

Complaint 5 – the complainant said that Companies House had failed to notify them that a call they had made was not being recorded and there was therefore no record of it. They also said that inappropriate language had used in correspondence and that Companies House had failed to respond to an email from the complaint. These elements were upheld. An allegation that a member of Companies House staff had misrepresented what was said on a call was not upheld.

In addition to these stand-alone complaints, we also considered a number of complaints that arose as part of appeals against penalties. These are also briefly summarised below.

Complaint 6 – the complainant made an appeal against a late filing penalty and was unhappy with the way Companies House dealt with the appeal. The complaint that Companies House had not explained the full appeal process adequately was upheld. The complaints that there was a lengthy delaying in responding and that Companies House did not ask for the correct information in order to determine the appeal were not upheld.

Complaint 7 – the complainant said that Companies House proceeded with court action to recover a penalty even though an appeal was outstanding. This complaint was not upheld.

Complaint 8 – the complainant alleged that Companies House staff had been impolite to the complainant during a phone call. As no recording of the call was available, we were unable to reach a conclusion on this point. The complaint also covered a number of issues relating to how the appeal was handled. The complaint concerning poor communication from Companies House was upheld, particularly relating the need to communicate clearly what decisions had been made and what were the next steps in the process.

Complaint 9 – a complaint was raised about how various aspects of an appeal was responded to. The initial appeal was enclosed with the accounts when they were submitted, but missed by Companies House. This element of the complaint was upheld. The other areas of complaint – that there had been an attempt to overcharge the complainant, that Companies House had failed to apologise to them and that there had been a failure to forward the complaint to the relevant department within Companies House – were rejected.

Complaint 10 – an appeal was made against a late filing penalty. The complainant said that Companies House had sent correspondence to the wrong person. This was not upheld.  However, the complaint that Companies House had failed to explain clearly how the appeals and complaints process works was upheld.

Complaint 11 – an appellant complained that there was a lack of investigation by Companies House into their claim that the accounts had been filed electronically before the deadline and were therefore not late. As logs are only kept by the IT team at Companies House for a limited time, there was insufficient information to uphold the complaint. The complaint about the lack of investigation was upheld.

Complaint 12 – the appellant complained that they received notice of recovery proceedings relating to a penalty, late. This was not upheld. However, a complaint was upheld that a suggestion in correspondence that the appellant did not understand the process did not accurately reflect what the appellant had said.

Complaint 13 – two aspects of the complaint were upheld: that an incorrect payment link had been included in correspondence, and that Companies House took longer than 5 days to respond. However, other issues relating to the difficulty of contacting Companies House or getting information from them were not upheld.

Complaint 14 – a complaint was raised about confusing correspondence. As Companies House had already apologised no further action was needed.