Looking at Companies House, I notice that the annual accounts have yet been
filed and are due at the end of the month. This caused considerable issues
in the past so I wondered whether these were now complete? If not, is there
a risk that they will be late?
If so, I suggest you bring this to the a
For completeness, can I also mention that you don't appear to have filed
the form AP01 with Companies House regarding the appointment of Saad [1]
nor the revised Articles of Association which were approved at the AGM
regarding Scottish charity compliance and 2 year director terms.
[1]
http://blog.
Hi Andrew,
An unsigned version of the accounts are on the wiki:
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011-12_Annual_Accounts.pdf
and our auditors have the version signed by me and John for them to add their
signature to it.
I'm waiting for some information from Saad before I can file the form with
Thanks Michael for the prompt response. Good to hear the accounts are on
track.
Regarding Saad I would note that there is a legal requirement to send this
form within 14 days of appointment - although there is little consequence
if you are late. See Companies House section 167 for the reference [
The accounts are agreed & the audit partner, who was away most of last
week, should have received them signed by WMUK. I'm hoping he will sign
them on Monday. So long as no other Trustees resign before then! We
are well aware of the deadline and the need to file thank you; the late
filing in
Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current
discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective
responsibility[1].
This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the
heart of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins t
Katie - the trustees already have "collective responsibility" for the
organisation. See, for instance, the Charity Commission guidelines here:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx#e8
I am not exactly sure what Fae thinks is being proposed. Certainly, we've
received advice say
It would be good to see the actual proposal before jumping to conclusions.
Shaming somebody based on hearsay is rather unfair...
On Oct 6, 2012 5:37 PM, "Katie Chan" wrote:
> Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current
> discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concep
On 06/10/2012 18:32, Chris Keating wrote:
Katie - the trustees already have "collective responsibility" for the
organisation. See, for instance, the Charity Commission guidelines here:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx#e8
I am not exactly sure what Fae thinks is being p
On Oct 6, 2012 6:32 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote:
>
> I don't know where the idea " It may also be used to ensure all trustees
vote the same way in a public vote" comes from.
I guess it means that Trustees can be bound to vote one way at a general
meeting. This doesn't immediately raise a red flag a
10 matches
Mail list logo
