Decision

Decision on Intrum Poplar Limited

Published 16 February 2026

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5589

For a change of company name of registration No. 15592895

Decision

The company name INTRUM POPLAR LIMITED has been registered since 25 March 2024 under number 15592895.

By an application filed on 6 August 2025, INTRUM GROUP OPERATIONS AB applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act).

A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 16 October 2025, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Tracked 48 With Signature” service. On 16 October 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the primary respondent’s director, Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou in relation to this request. On 22 October 2025, Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou contacted the tribunal by email advising a form CNA2 “notice of defence”, was attached to the communication, however, form CNA2 was not attached. On 31 October 2025 and 3 November 2025, Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou submitted further statements by email, which he requested were “added to the defence”. On 13 November 2025, the tribunal notified Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou that form CNA2 had not been attached to email dated 22 October 2025 and reiterated the deadline of 17 November 2025 for filing a defence. On 18 November 2025, Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou requested an extension to the deadline for filing a defence stating that he had lost his copy stating:

Please allow me more as I have lost my copy, as I use a desk top and a lap top, and only my desk top has word. Im not even sure if I paid, as I have not checked yet. I do, and have sent an email where I said I have attached the form cna2. I just started filling it in again…..…

On 20 November 2025, Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou emailed to request a copy of the allegations stating that the tribunal had sent him the form twice but without the allegations. On 1 December 2025, the Tribunal contacted Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou by email and stated:

….I refer to the company names application CNA1 complaint filed in connection with company number 15592895. All previous correspondence from the respondent has been noted. The Official Letter dated 16 October 2025 stated that the respondent had until 17 November 2025 to file a notice of defence accompanied by a CNA2 form which should be completed with the requisite fee of £150. The tribunal has not received a CNA2 defence, or a formal request for further time to file it, which would be made with a CNA5 form and a £100 fee, without both these forms these proceedings will be marked as not contested. However, if a CNA2 with the requisite fee was submitted prior to 17 November 2025 the tribunal requires the respondent to provide evidence of it within the next 7 days on or before 8 December 2025.

On 3 December 2025, the tribunal sent a further email to Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou attaching a copy of the form CNA1 and reiterating the contents of the tribunal communication of 1 December 2025. The tribunal also advised that it was unable to complete the request to add additional statements to the defence made in email dated 22 October 2025, because to date, the CNA2 notice of defence had not been received.

On 5 December 2025, the respondent filed a form CNA2 but with no form CNA5. On 9 December 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to acknowledge receipt of form CNA2 and to advise that the tribunal required a retrospective form CNA5 with the appropriate fee of £100 to cover the period from 17 November 2025 until 5 December 2025 which was the date the form CNA2 was received.

On 11 December 2025, the respondent filed a form CNA5 to request an extension of time in which to file a defence. On 17 December 2025, the tribunal responded as follows:

I refer to the Form CNA5 filed by the respondent on 12 December 2025, which requested an extension of time to file a defence in the above application.

The respondent, in the CNA5, stated that they needed to see a copy of the allegations before a CNA2 could be filed, and therefore more time was required.

The Adjudicator’s preliminary view is that the extension of time request should be refused. This is because all the allegations were in the Form CNA1 which was served to the primary respondent on 16 October 2025 and which the primary respondent clearly saw because it referred to the application in its email of 22 October 2025. However, on several occasions the respondent failed to comply with the tribunal’s directions concerning the deadlines to file forms CNA2 and CNA5. The CNA2 is therefore out of time.

As no CNA2 has been filed within the time period set, in accordance with Rule 3(4) the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed and may make an order under section 73(1) of the Companies Act 2006. However, in accordance with rule 5(3) either party has the right to be heard

The parties were granted a period of 21 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. No request for a hearing was made.

On 17 December 2025, Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou was joined as a co-respondent and the parties were advised that no defence had been received to the application and so the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed. The parties were granted a period of 14 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. No request for a hearing was made.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the one month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3). Rule 3(4) states:

The primary respondent, before the end of that period, shall file a counter-statement on the appropriate form, otherwise the adjudicator may treat it as not opposing the application and may make an order under section 73(1).

Under the provisions of this rule, the adjudicator may exercise discretion so as to treat the respondent as opposing the application. In this case I can see no reason to exercise such discretion and, therefore, decline to do so.

As the primary respondent has not responded to the allegations made, it is treated as not opposing the application. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act I make the following order:

(a) INTRUM POPLAR LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name

(b) INTRUM POPLAR LIMITED and Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou each shall:

(i) take such steps as are within their power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change;

(ii) not cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with a name that is an offending name.

An “offending name” means a name that, by reason of its similarity to the name associated with the applicant in which he claims goodwill, would be likely to be the subject of a direction under section 67 (power of Secretary of State to direct change of name), or to give rise to a further application under section 69.

In accordance with s.73(3) of the Act, this order may be enforced in the same way as an order of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, I will determine a new company name as per section 73(4) of the Act and will give notice of that change under section 73(5) of the Act.

All respondents, including individual co-respondents, have a legal duty under Section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 2006 not to cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with an offending name; this includes the current company. Non-compliance may result in an action being brought for contempt of court and may result in a custodial sentence.

INTRUM GROUP OPERATIONS AB, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order INTRUM POPLAR LIMITED and Kyriakoullis Andrea Konstantinou, being jointly and severally liable, to pay INTRUM GROUP OPERATIONS AB costs on the following basis:

Fee for application:  £400
Statement of case:   £400

Total: £800

This sum is to be paid within seven days of the expiry of the appeal period or within seven days of the final determination of this case if any appeal against this decision is unsuccessful.

Any notice of appeal against this decision to order a change of name must be given within one month of the date of this order. Appeal is to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland.

The company adjudicator must be advised if an appeal is lodged, so that implementation of the order is suspended.

Dated 12 February 2026

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator