1. REVIEW OF THE UK REGISTER OF COMPANIES Helen Thewlis Head of Policy and Planning, Companies House, UK.

1

REVIEW OF THE UK REGISTER OF COMPANIES

Helen Thewlis

Head of Policy and Planning, Companies House, UK

This presentation

Purpose of the review

UK Register

Findings

Emerging ideas

Conclusions

Purpose of the Review

Considering the register :

– users’ point of view

– rationale and value it adds to the UK economy

– whether it could be operated differently

– potential to reduce burden on business

2,630,383 companies

590,114,598

online search page hits

340mImages of documents

6mdownloaded documents

2009-10 by numbers

8,700,887 docs filed last

year

35km shelves of paper

documents

Findings – what surprised us

Breadth of the register searched

Kinds of search

Personal interest aspect

Link to press and media

Types of company searched

Findings

185m hits on free information pages last year

450k free searches a day

86% of searches are for free information

13.5m paid searches

15% of companies accessed on a given day

22% accessed over a 2 day period

USA 3%

Germany 2%

UK 90%

Worldwide Website Visitors

IrelandFrance India NetherlandsSpainAustraliaChinaOther

Most useful free information

Type of information % rate

very useful

Basic Company Details 80%

History of Transactions 65%

Officer Names Index 51%

Insolvency Details 36%

Mortgage charge index 36%

Company Names Index 28%Disqualified Directors 28%

Types of entity searched for free

Type % searched Proportion searched in 2 day period

Private Limited 91.6 13%

Public Limited 1.7 67%

LLPs 1.4 13%

Age of information searched

Recent information most searched

– Less than 2 years• 83% of Accounts• 91% Annual Returns

– Over 2 years • less frequent, but still significant up to 15 years old• older information used for forensic & court cases

Why do people search?

Public:– Inform buying decision - property, cars, repairs, entertainment, – Deal with consumer problems, disputes– Check companies in the news

Business:– Make financial assessments– Check suppliers, directors– Checking dormant companies – Check their own information– Check disqualified directors

What information is paid for?

34%30%

13% 10% 7%

Feedback from Registers

Use aligns with ours

None had carried out similar work

Not all could indicate proportion of the register searched

Most searched - Officers, basic details, financial info

One had reduced administrative burden

Problems with the information Most relate to what CH does:

– Data entry error, wrong documents, duplicates

Some about the information itself– 3.5% of accounts don’t add up– Concern about Dates of Birth

Few complaints about fraud:– 83 average per month out of 700k filings (0.01%)

Emerging Ideas

More information wanted not less – Turnover– Number of employees– Qualified Accountants– Whether accounts are late filed – Contact details, Postcodes

Name reservations Linking group companies together Better ways of searching

Conclusions

100% found it useful

Rationale not really tested

Hard to estimate value to the economy

Wide & broad use – especially free info

Too early to think about asking for less info

We need to invest in deeper customer understanding

Fraudulent activity relatively low

ECRF

Have you completed similar work?

We’d welcome comments and information from more registries

Possibly include questions in benchmarking survey

Questions?

20