james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Oct 21, 2014 19:57:15 GMT
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I think most people would assume that the free info sites don't have access to the companies house details on extensions to filing dates ... if it isn't available on companies house API, there isn't much the free sites can do about it. I don't think that most people would know what an API is, that a Companies House API exists, nor what it contains. I do think that most people would assume that a free information service and the presumably paid for one added in my edit would check their facts with Companies House before asserting that the officers of a company are committing a crime. But that rather misses the point: that a moderator here posted a claim that three firms* involved in providing company information had provided inaccurate information, presumably without approaching the firms for a comment before making the negative claim about their business. What guidance do the moderators have for us, that it is OK to post negative information about non-P2x firms but not about P2x firms? I know that the moderators' intentions were fine and useful and I greatly appreciate the post, it's the double standard that I'm commenting on and that the moderators might perhaps consider if they haven't done so already. If we can post negative information about non-P2x firms that would be useful to know. *the third is from the claim that the original post information is incorrect and contradicted by information at Companies House.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Oct 21, 2014 19:58:56 GMT
What this episode does illustrate, is that care is needed in interpreting the data presented on the free company information web sites, all of which I'm sure have disclaimers that their data is not to be relied upon as 100% accurate etc etc I agree with that, though I had the impression that Creditsafe is a paid for service.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 21, 2014 20:02:42 GMT
As an example here is the relevent T&C's from Duedil's site:
9. NO RELIANCE ON INFORMATION
9.1
The content accessed through use of the Services is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice (of any nature) on which you should rely. You must obtain professional or speciality advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of content accessed through use of the Services.
9.2
We do not take any responsibility for any content accessed through use of the Services. Any use or reliance on any content obtained by you through use of the Services is at your own risk.
9.3
We make reasonable commercial efforts to ensure content on the site is up to date and accurate. However, because we get the content from a number of different sources (including information provided by you) we do not endorse, support, represent, warrant or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content accessed using the Services. If you do become aware of any inaccurate or incorrect content accessed or accessible using the Services (in particular pertaining to yourself or other individuals) please let us know at help@duedil.com and we will use our reasonable endeavours to investigate your concern and, where appropriate and possible, correct inaccurate data. Content relating to credit scores, in particular, is provided and generated by a third party source, should you have any concerns as regards inaccurate or incorrect content in this regard please also contact us at help@duedil.com and we will use our reasonable endeavours to pass your concern onto the appropriate third party provider. You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to content that might be inaccurate or deceptive. Under no circumstances (save as required by law) will we be liable in any way for any content accessed, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the accessing by you of the Services.
9.4
You accept responsibility for the selection of and use of the Services to achieve your intended results.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Oct 21, 2014 20:11:50 GMT
james, I think the point mrclondon was trying to make is that the sites disagree about the due date, therefore we should be cautious about drawing specific "black and white" conclusions as there seems to be a data integrity issue. All the sites cannot be correct while they are providing different information. Hopefully someone from REBS will be along shortly to clear things up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 20:42:42 GMT
Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Oct 21, 2014 20:55:19 GMT
james, I think the point mrclondon was trying to make is that the sites disagree about the due date, therefore we should be cautious about drawing specific "black and white" conclusions as there seems to be a data integrity issue. All the sites cannot be correct while they are providing different information. I agree with that point but I was making another: the way some companies are being treated differently from others in moderation. Don't the data companies also deserve the opportunity to respond when people are claiming that they are getting things wrong? If they don't, can we rely on being able to write with claims of similar severity about non-P2x companies making false claims that officers are committing crimes in the future? That's a fairly high level of defamation IMO, so it's good to know if doing it is within the comfort zone of the moderators here. The claim is accurate, of course, so there's a clear defence there, but it is still good to have a better understanding of where the moderators are or aren't comfortable and why.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Oct 21, 2014 21:03:28 GMT
Hopefully someone from REBS will be along shortly to clear things up. I expect so. There's probably some non-worrying but unfortunate reason like a fire, unexpected illness, accident or computer failure, not something like say the accountants or auditors resigning instead of signing the accounts or directors having doubts about whether the business is an ongoing concern. Life tosses aggravations at us all and delays aren't inherently a negative thing, just life most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by mogzi on Oct 21, 2014 21:06:15 GMT
What this episode does illustrate, is that care is needed in interpreting the data presented on the free company information web sites, all of which I'm sure have disclaimers that their data is not to be relied upon as 100% accurate etc etc I agree with that, though I had the impression that Creditsafe is a paid for service. I pay for my Creditsafe subscription
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 21:06:35 GMT
In all fairness, the kind of scepticism displayed here falls a hell of a long way short of defamation. Defamation would be "X is definitely doing Y for nefarious reasons", whereas what we're seeing here is a very helpful early warning for the possibility of problems, accompanied by lots and lots of good practice "wait and see", "ask first", "possible weaknesses in the source" and so on, as well as lots of rhetoric of the "this might possibly be a problem OR it might be an anomaly but better safe than sorry" variety.
This is all good.
They're one of the best platforms, perhaps software-wise the best, and they just hired a full-time Compliance Officer, so it's most probably a temporary glitch, an illusion, or some other form of nothing to worry about, but it's always best for someone to flag something up as early as possible because at the end of the day forewarned is forearmed. It's up to individuals what they do with this information and nobody's given any advice.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 21, 2014 21:18:44 GMT
What strikes me as interesting in this is the fact that companies are given a full nine months to submit their accounts. If the period allowed was a lot shorter -- say a month or two -- then it would be a lot easier to explain why a company might have a problem that would cause them to be late. But given that they had nine months to do the job, the inability to accomplish that strikes me as a rather significant shortcoming.
I also find the failure of the subject company to put in an appearance here, despite having had three representatives invited to do so, rather telling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 21:37:39 GMT
It is ten at night  The problem with monopoly government regulators in general is the false sense of security they bring. You're absolutely right, with a nine month lag, this information is essentially useless. What's needed is the end of the monopoly: let the free market provide various ways to watch what companies are doing and make money out of it. The Credit Watch thing is a pretty good example of that but they're hard-limited by what Companies House lays down in terms of policy. In the absence of defamation laws, a wide range of private sector regulators would have every incentive to sell us massively up-to-date information without any of these arbitrary rules. The success and failure of the regulator would be down to its performance, so they'd have every reason to be accurate, avoid looking foolish by making untrue claims, and so on, and the corollary would be that the companies under scrutiny would have more incentive to be open and up front and communicate with their stakeholders. Under the present system, so long as the monopoly regulator is appeased, no-one else matters. As always, the illusion of safety provided by Big Brother amounts to little more than an opportunity for Big Brother to grow and flex his muscles. Sorry, in a bit of a philosophical mood. Ignore this if it's too off topic. tl;dr version: they've been slow with communication for ages. Maybe this will be the kick up't ass they need to sort that out. It's not out of character to be slow, so we don't need to rush to the conclusion that it portends ill. Saying nought until there's something worth saying is one possible winning strategy (as you can see I fail at it, sorry). |
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Oct 21, 2014 21:50:40 GMT
What strikes me as interesting in this is the fact that companies are given a full nine months to submit their accounts. If the period allowed was a lot shorter -- say a month or two -- then it would be a lot easier to explain why a company might have a problem that would cause them to be late. But given that they had nine months to do the job, the inability to accomplish that strikes me as a rather significant shortcoming. I also find the failure of the subject company to put in an appearance here, despite having had three representatives invited to do so, rather telling. I agree entirely with your sentiments. Irrespective as to whether a company is P2P/P2B or not, in this day and age of electronic communication it is vital that all companies ensure they are whiter than the driven snow. If the 9 months cannot be achieved then this fact is normally known well before filing date and extensions can easily be obtained. It's all to do with reputation and the last thing a company needs is for that be be tarnished by even the minutest amount. So com'on guys, please comment - the longer this goes on then the greater the explanation required will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by danraj on Oct 21, 2014 21:59:23 GMT
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to explain. The accounts willl be filed by the end of the month...
There were some shareholding changes to update and we have needed to work on some accounting policies for revenue recognition around our software / license sales (which has become a significant part of our revenues). We received contrasting professional advice & needed to agree a policy that complies with accounting standards for this and future years.
The accounts for 2014 are stronger and likely to be profitable. With the accounting policies drafted, we plan to file the 2014 accounts by the end of February.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 21, 2014 22:16:27 GMT
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Oct 21, 2014 22:26:03 GMT
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to explain. The accounts willl be filed by the end of the month... There were some shareholding changes to update and we have needed to work on some accounting policies for revenue recognition around our software / license sales (which has become a significant part of our revenues). We received contrasting professional advice & needed to agree a policy that complies with accounting standards for this and future years. The accounts for 2014 are stronger and likely to be profitable. With the accounting policies drafted, we plan to file the 2014 accounts by the end of February. Thank you for the update. With hindsight, that great thing to have, I suggest it would have been advantageous to yourselves to simply outline the event in advance. As an aside, I am amazed, not yourselves, at the number of P2P/P2B companies that do not take advantage of these forums. They are free to use and present your shop front plus of course communicate on a regular basis exactly what is going on, what your future plans are and generally how things are going. Simply setting up a P2P/P2B website and expecting the funds to flow isn't working with many companies. Hence I expect a few to 'vanish' over the coming few months. For clarity, these comments are not directed at yourselves. But look at the number of smaller P2P's listed on here and see what contribution they have made - very little in many cases. A wasted opportunity IMO.
|
|
