Companies House and the Law / Police Officer Ranks

[LaetitiaASD]

Does anyone know how seriously Companies House take the truth?

I presume that accurate name and date of birth of Company Directors are absolutely key and that it is very serious to lie about those things?

What about job titles? If you said you were a gardener when you'd been a mechanic all your life would / could Companies House have an issue?

What about if you put "Brain Surgeon" when you were a bin man?

What about Police Officer ranks in particular? Are things Like "Detective Chief Constable" protected titles, or is it absolutely fine for me to set up "ASD Ltd" at Companies House and list myself as a Director and say that my job title at my company is "Detective Chief Constable"?

companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/11/how-were-reforming-the-companies-house-register/

Protected job titles - www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-c-other-regulated-words-and-expressions--2

There's a criminal offence of impersonating a police officer www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90 but not sure about just using the job title on unverified documents - it may be investigated, but might not make it to court.

Since when did you put your occupation. when registering a company? Surely it's just director or secretary of the company being registered.

@Batshittery it's very common. Just look up the published documents for just about any company on the CH register.

You’d struggle as a detective chief constable doesn’t exist 🤣

I look at CH quite regularly and I haven't seen anything other than director or company secretary.

A police officer or anyone else could set up a company and just show themselves as director. There would be no need to mention any other occupation

I am on companies House as a school governor and it has my occupation as well.

By way of example, @Batshittery - from the first random company I picked:

@Batshittery

Since when did you put your occupation. when registering a company? Surely it's just director or secretary of the company being registered.

Directors have their occupation stated and listed.

Directors have their occupation stated and listed.
This is true, they do.

@RedCarsGoFaster

By way of example, *@Batshittery* - from the first random company I picked:

Yes, you are right. Apologies. I've never noticed it

@RedCarsGoFaster

companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/11/how-were-reforming-the-companies-house-register/

Protected job titles - www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-c-other-regulated-words-and-expressions--2

There's a criminal offence of impersonating a police officer www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90 but not sure about just using the job title on unverified documents - it may be investigated, but might not make it to court.

Thanks all and especially RedCars

So, it seems like Companies House trust the public. Sensible! Police job titles are not protected so anyone can use them... so long as they are not impersonating a police officer.

Cut a long story short I have found a company where according to Companies house there are four or five Directors with Police job titles. On the company website it seems to be clear that they are "detective chief constable" (might not be this exactly, but similar) (etc) at the company itself. In other words the company is happy to make itself look like a complete joke with stupid job titles.

But just to throw one last thing in the mix - it seems to work with young and vulnerable people... from where I'm sat I suspect that the way they present things is too stupid to be classified as impersonating a police officer... but that some vulnerable people they deal with might be mislead or confused.

Police job titles are not protected so anyone can use them... so long as they are not impersonating a police officer.
That's nuts.
What's the difference between "impersonating" a police officer and representing yourself as one?

@GreyhoundG1rl

Police job titles are not protected so anyone can use them... so long as they are not impersonating a police officer. That's nuts. What's the difference between "impersonating" a police officer and representing yourself as one?

I don't think it's nuts since the titles were often in use in different capacities before the police started using them.

Saying you're a detective so that people are more likely to listen to you pontificate at the pub is a very different thing from saying you're a member of the Met and ordering someone to pay a 'fine'/get into your car/not call the police on you/etc. The former shouldn't be criminal, the latter should.

And claiming you're a detective as part of a private investigation/security firm of some sort seems entirely reasonable. Though it's a certainly a concern if they allow misapprehension to linger when they engage with people.

Fair enough wrt "Detective", Number, because that doesn't just refer to a police rank, there have been private detectives around forever.
But op said Police job titles? Depends on what exactly that encompasses, I suppose.

@GreyhoundG1rl

Fair enough wrt "Detective", Number, because that doesn't just refer to a police rank, there have been private detectives around forever. But op said Police job titles? Depends on what exactly that encompasses, I suppose.

Well exactly. Police can set up new titles willy nilly if they want to. You couldn't reasonably say - any title the police use is verboten.

The example OP gave isn't a title I've seen used by any force in the UK. She isn't certain if it's exactly what they used, but that just bolsters the argument that it isn't a particular form of words that is important in protecting the public from being deceived.

The job titles of the directors -

Business Executive (meaningless, but I'll let this pass)
Chief Superintendent
Superintendent
Lieutenant
Sergeant

On the face of it there is nothing dodgy going on, just some very childish adults setting up a company and giving themselves very childish job titles.

On the other hand I can't believe that a company that does work in child protection and support can be so childish, and I can't help but fear the potential for some vulnerable people they deal with to end up confused or mislead about the status of the people who run the company.

So are their claimed job titles relevant to the work they do by day? Do they use them day to day in the work itself?

I'd probably report them to the police on a safeguarding basis at least. Feel free to PM me. I'm an ex copper.

@RedCarsGoFaster

So are their claimed job titles relevant to the work they do by day? Do they use them day to day in the work itself?

I'd probably report them to the police on a safeguarding basis at least. Feel free to PM me. I'm an ex copper.

Well, I've just sent you a little email - I am very curious to know what your thoughts are... in googling to get the info to send I found another little gem of an insight into one of the people (the main "guy")

Sorry - message not email!

@LaetitiaASD

The job titles of the directors -

Business Executive (meaningless, but I'll let this pass)
Chief Superintendent
Superintendent
Lieutenant
Sergeant

On the face of it there is nothing dodgy going on, just some very childish adults setting up a company and giving themselves very childish job titles.

On the other hand I can't believe that a company that does work in child protection and support can be so childish, and I can't help but fear the potential for some vulnerable people they deal with to end up confused or mislead about the status of the people who run the company.

If you know people who have engaged with them and thought they were police officers, I would expect the police to be very interested in that.

But I don’t think those titles are, by themselves, anything other than a bit unprofessional and egotistical. Which is crap, but not normally illegal.

If they work in child protection, is there a professional body they accreditation with or something? That might be a more effective avenue if there’s no direct evidence of them misrepresenting themselves.

The more I have tried to delve (including company youtube channel) the more that I can see that the company appears to be more "aspirational" than "fully operational". It would not entirely surprise me if they have never had a paying customer or a formal contract, and I don't think that they have any sort of accreditation or standing - but they are marketing counselling services to vulnerable members of the public. It would appear that some of the staff are likely to be highly vulnerable themselves. There is one avenue of reporting concerns that I can see, and I think I will write to them saying "I have no evidence of any ill intention or wrong-doing but I can't help feel that there is the potential for harm."