Responding to a Companies House query

A Companies House query should be treated as a specific request for information, not as a generic administrative email. Read what is being challenged, identify the response deadline and allocate responsibility. The right response depends on whether the issue concerns missing information, inconsistency, identity or a disputed filing.

Check authenticity and scope

Confirm the company number, reference and contact route using official information. Be cautious about unexpected requests for payment or identity documents. Verify unusual instructions independently before sending sensitive material or following a link.

Keep the complete message and attachments. A forwarded summary may omit the deadline, the legal basis or the documents requested. Give the person preparing the response the full correspondence.

Identify the record under review

Locate the relevant filing and compare it with the underlying company documents. Determine whether the registrar has identified a genuine error, an apparent inconsistency or a point requiring explanation. Companies House has powers to question information and require corrective action under the applicable procedures. ^[1]

For example, an inconsistency between a share filing and earlier capital information may need a transaction-by-transaction reconciliation. A short assertion that the latest figure is correct may not explain the missing step.

Prepare a focused evidence pack

• A response identifying the company and query reference.
• A clear answer to each question raised.
• Copies of the relevant decisions or supporting documents.
• A chronology where several events are involved.
• The proposed correction, if one is required.
• Contact details for a responsible follow-up person.

Distinguish facts from assumptions. If an old document cannot be located, say what has been checked and what remains uncertain. Do not create backdated evidence or claim that an unverified explanation is established fact.

Work to the notice's deadline

The registrar's guidance includes fourteen-day requirements for certain inconsistency notices. Read the actual notice and applicable process rather than assuming every message has the same deadline. If more time is needed, raise the issue promptly through the proper channel without assuming an extension has been granted. ^[1]

A response being drafted is not a response received. Keep evidence of transmission and check whether the method used is the one requested.

Confirm resolution and follow-up

Retain the registrar's decision and verify any amended record. Update the internal filing process to address the cause, such as incorrect source data or an unclear approval chain.

Turn the notice into an answer schedule

Break the query into its individual questions. Against each, record the document or factual explanation needed, the person obtaining it and the response deadline. This prevents a long narrative from overlooking the specific point the registrar asked the company to address. Keep the original wording available to the reviewer preparing the final response.

Where the notice refers to an earlier filing, retrieve that exact version. A current internal record may already contain a correction, but it does not show what was originally delivered. Explain any difference between the submitted information and the company's later records, with dates and evidence rather than assuming the registrar can infer the history.

Reconcile figures when the query concerns capital

An illustrative query asks why the latest statement of capital differs from a previous filing. Prepare a movement schedule showing the opening position, each relevant transaction and the closing position. Attach the supporting documents for the changes under review. A spreadsheet total alone does not demonstrate that each allotment or other event occurred validly.

If a transaction is missing from the evidence, identify the gap and explain the investigation undertaken. Obtain advice on the correction needed. Do not create a retrospective resolution and present it as though it existed at the original transaction date; that can turn a records problem into a misleading account of events.

Coordinate one accurate company response

Nominate a person to assemble information from directors, accountants and company administrators. Contributors may each know a different part of the history. The coordinator should resolve inconsistent accounts before submission and ensure the response has appropriate approval. Several uncoordinated replies can leave the registrar with incompatible explanations and no clear responsible contact.

Use the delivery method specified in the notice. Where the company asks for clarification or extra time, preserve the request and any response. Continue working to the existing deadline unless a different arrangement is actually confirmed. An unanswered extension request should not be treated as permission to stop preparing the substantive reply.

Repair the cause after answering the question

Once the immediate response is complete, identify why the discrepancy arose. Examples include using an old cap table, missing a completed transaction or failing to check a rejected filing. Assign the related process change and keep it separate from the regulator correspondence so it receives attention even after the case is closed.

For the correction routes themselves, read Correcting information on the company register. Companies House filing review is relevant where you need help assembling company records and coordinating filings; provide the query reference and deadline without posting confidential attachments in a public channel.

Where the query exposes an ownership dispute or possible unauthorised activity, obtain professional advice. The response should protect the accuracy of the record while avoiding unsupported admissions about events the company has not properly investigated.