Private Parking Appeals Ltd

Kirchenmaus

pappa_golf wrote: »

full compay info including owners can be found / and seen by the general public...

Interestingly, there is no requirement to use a director's "real name" when setting up a company in the UK. The former CEO of Telit Communications, for example, resigned after it was discovered that he had been under indictment in the US under another (but very similar) name. As far as I know, he did not commit any offence under UK law when he acted as a director for many years using a different name.

--Kirchenmaus

Castle

Kirchenmaus wrote: »

Interestingly, there is no requirement to use a director's "real name" when setting up a company in the UK. The former CEO of Telit Communications, for example, resigned after it was discovered that he had been under indictment in the US under another (but very similar) name. As far as I know, he did not commit any offence under UK law when he acted as a director for many years using a different name.

--Kirchenmaus

Section 163 (3) of the Companies Act requires all names, both current and former, to be registered:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/163

The fine on conviction, (under section 162), is a maximum of £5,000 plus a further potential daily fine of £500 for continual contravention.

bergkamp

Kirchenmaus wrote: »

Interestingly, there is no requirement to use a director's "real name" when setting up a company in the UK. The former CEO of Telit Communications, for example, resigned after it was discovered that he had been under indictment in the US under another (but very similar) name. As far as I know, he did not commit any offence under UK law when he acted as a director for many years using a different name.

--Kirchenmaus

And interestingly your point is..... ???

Coupon-mad

Castle wrote: »

Section 163 (3) of the Companies Act requires all names, both current and former, to be registered:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/163

The fine on conviction, (under section 162), is a maximum of £5,000 plus a further potential daily fine of £500 for continual contravention.

That's interesting.

Kirchenmaus

Castle wrote: »

Section 163 (3) of the Companies Act requires all names, both current and former, to be registered:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/163

The fine on conviction, (under section 162), is a maximum of £5,000 plus a further potential daily fine of £500 for continual contravention.

But, what is a name? It is how you are called. It is not necessarily what was stated on your birth certificate. However, "former name" is an interesting requirement. I wonder if anyone has ever been prosecuted for violating it?

Pappa golf had said that information on company ownership is available on Companies House. So it is. But I was surprised to learn that it is not verified information. I went through a mock company formation just for fun, and the only point I can see where any corroboration is required is at the payment stage, at which point someone has to provide valid credit card details, which is effectively a limitation on starting a company under a false name. But, only one of the directors has to be so identified (and none, I suppose, if the company is formed by an agent).

--Kirchenmaus

logician

Kirchenmaus wrote: »

none, I suppose, if the company is formed by an agent).

--Kirchenmaus

Not so
Rapid Formations for example now require proof of identity including "getting to know you " documents including picture proof of identity such as passport or picture driving licence and home address of director/s. Copies of Documents to be signed as authentic by either bank or Post Office official and if these were not requested on incorporation, I have been informed they ask for them when completing the PSC statement (was Annual Return)

beamerguy

Not sure why this thread has gone completely off topic ?

It's all back to post #1 of this thread

nosferatu1001

A desperate hope by some that the less than glowing info about PPA gets buried?

beamerguy

logician wrote: »

Yet you seemed to 'enjoy' the postings and going 'off topic' on the thread BG see post 105 of yours below.

What's the matter don't like the content now being posted?

Incidentally, the OP on post one was a one hit wonder to the forum. ..
One does wonder how true some of the posts regarding the services on MSE given also the obvious 'vendetta' feeling towards PPA on this forum exposed by Quentin referring to an old PPA blog and carried on by others.

It would appear that Coupon Mad was removed from office - according to the blog

All things relevant for others to read

What vendetta, we do not see a vendetta ?
Even if there was a vendetta, surely it would
not worry you ..... would it ?

logician

beamerguy wrote: »

All things relevant for others to read

What vendetta, we do not see a vendetta ?
Even if there was a vendetta, surely it would
not worry you ..... would it ?

So now going off topic is relevant for others to read?

Do make your mind up.

You seem unsure if there is a vendetta (?) or not, yet the disparaging comments from many on this thread against PPA or those who praise the company suggest otherwise.