What does "notice for compulsory strike off" mean?

faringdon

Hi,
On the companies house website, this company, called Control Developments, has a "notice for compulsory strike off" shown against the 07 Jan 2025 date on the "filing history" page.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06499541/filing-history

What does this mean?
Then, again on the "filing history" page, on the 01 Feb 2025" date, it says "compulsory strike off action has been discontinued".

What does this mean?

If this company offers someone a job, is it worth going to work there?

DullGreyGuy

faringdon said:

Hi,
On the companies house website, this company, called Control Developments, has a "notice for compulsory strike off" shown against the 07 Jan 2025 date on the "filing history" page.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06499541/filing-history

What does this mean?
Then, again on the "filing history" page, on the 01 Feb 2025" date, it says "compulsory strike off action has been discontinued".

What does this mean?

If this company offers someone a job, is it worth going to work there?

Companies have to make filings to Companies House like their accounts or who their directors and people with significant control on an annual basis. If they fail to make filing on time then Companies House start a process of winding the company up with everything passing to the government. 

By the looks of it its due to the late filing of their company accounts, their company year ends 31 January and you are supposed to file within 9 months but they didnt file until 31 January so 3 months late. 

The last two years they have been very late filing, before that they were ok. There is no way of knowing why they were late filing, as a small company its likely their accountants do the filing, it could be an error by them or by the directors that lead to the delay. 

faringdon

Thanks, surely the persistent late filing suggests a director that either "doesnt care any more", or they are doing very badly financially?
If a company is doing well, then surely you do all your filing on time.?

Maybe they are looking for someone to buy the company and so want to leave it for them to pay the accountants for the next filing?

mybestattempt

faringdon said:

Thanks, surely the persistent late filing suggests a director that either "doesnt care any more", or they are doing very badly financially?
If a company is doing well, then surely you do all your filing on time.?

Maybe they are looking for someone to buy the company and so want to leave it for them to pay the accountants for the next filing?

I wouldn't form a view nor decide whether to take a job on recent filing history alone.

Perhaps you should look at the accounts to review the financial position over the last few years (along with those of the parent company) in the light of the age of the shareholder directors.

If you've been offered a job, I take it you have already asked about  future plans for the company.

RAS

Looks a very small company, 7 employees including the two directors, and control appears to be with John Galt Holdings, with the same two directors? 

Nothing good or bad about that per se.

MattMattMattUK

faringdon said:

Thanks, surely the persistent late filing suggests a director that either "doesnt care any more", or they are doing very badly financially?
If a company is doing well, then surely you do all your filing on time.?

Maybe they are looking for someone to buy the company and so want to leave it for them to pay the accountants for the next filing?

To me it would only look like a company that was bad at filing with Companies House. I would say it is no indication or financial performance whatsoever. Selling the business would be the opposite, they will not be able to transfer shares if the company's filings are not up to date.

QrizB

faringdon said:

If a company is doing well, then surely you do all your filing on time.?

Here's a summary of PLCs (some listed) which are late filing accounts. Currently 225 of them.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/08/10/list_of_plcs_that_have_missed_accounting_deadline/

Evraz is the biggest, I think, with 70k employees; it's a bit of a special case since it's under international sanctions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evraz

faringdon

Thanks, Seems strange that "John Galt Holdings" owns "Control Developments" and has the same two directors?
Why would a company want to do this?

I worked for a previous company that did this...and the reason was likely tied up with the fact that one of the business's simply imported mass loads of product in from China (a "middle man" company). Is that the reason to do this "duplication"?

Also, May i ask how you know about John Galt Holdings?....its not mentioned in Companies house for "Control developments"...i dont doubt your correctness, the company Control Developments  is based in the "John Galt Building"

QrizB

faringdon said:

Also, May i ask how you know about John Galt Holdings?....its not mentioned in Companies house for "Control developments"

It is, though.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06499541/persons-with-significant-control

Marcon

faringdon said:

Thanks, Seems strange that "John Galt Holdings" owns "Control Developments" and has the same two directors?
Why would a company want to do this?

What's strange about it? Perfectly normal to have a holding company/subsidiary structure. A company is a 'persona at law'  (ie has its own legal identity) and there are any number of reasons why you'd have a group of companies rather than just one eg if a subsidiary ran into trouble, assets owned by other group companies aren't at risk. 

You seem to be over-thinking this, but if you're nervous, maybe look elsewhere for employment unless this is a real mega-opportunity - in which case find a diplomatic way to raise your concerns with the company.

lincroft1710

faringdon said:

If this company offers someone a job, is it worth going to work there?

Some of the biggest names in British industry have disappeared off the scene, been taken over etc creating massive redundancies, plus the loss to the High Streets in recent years of BHS, Beales, Debenhams, W H Smith, Wilko, Woolworths etc. Local councils merge to create unitary authorities, causing redundancy.


Nowhere can be guaranteed "safe". If the job appeals take it