Talk:Companies House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Should Companies House be spelt with an apostrophe, "Companies' House"? If not, what gramatical rule applies?

While there may be a grammatical rule that is being broken, we report usage as provided by the organisation, and so no apostrophe is used. Noisy | Talk 11:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Free Access to Companies House Data[edit]

Companies House only provides a small subset of data for free to the public. Information about company directors (as highlighted in the research noted in the article) can only be accessed after opening a commercial account with CH, and paying an access fee for every record.

The cost of this research precludes the sort of non-commercial financial research which occurs in the United States; research that is enabled by the SEC's policy of sharing data wholesale to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


What happened in 1844? Presumably before then you needed a charter to form a company and that was when the current system whereby anyone can make one was bruoght in? Morwen - Talk 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll head out and get a photo of Companies House Cardiff when I can 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC) See Joint Stock Companies Act 1844. Twrw 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for a list of the oldest surviving companies - anyone know of a list online of companies from 1844 onwards that still exist? Oldest I've found so far is 1913, but I'm sure there are others. 09:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Is it really appropriate to link to various formation agents on this page? 09:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NO, it is not. I've removed those which have returned (yet again). 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppeting from[edit]

(cur | prev) 11:48, 29 January 2010‎ (talk)‎ . . (12,496 bytes) (+181)‎ . . (→‎Criticisms: Update in response to this criticism.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 13:48, 19 January 2010‎ (talk)‎ . . (12,315 bytes) (-1,086)‎ . . (Removal of section from 'Criticism' and updating intoductory information to indicate that Companies House does now have a 24/7 e-filing service in key areas, therfore invaldating the criticism..) (undo) 300 IN A 300 IN A

You must have been searching a long way back to find this, but whatever else it might be it isn't sock puppetry, just a conflict of interest. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Taylor & Sons liquidation[edit]

Need a section on this incident? Casey (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)