Hiding made easier for dodgy directors
One aspect of the Companies Act 2006 which has not inspired much comment is the new rules about disclosure of directors residential addresses.
These are contained in sections 240 -246 of the Companies Act 2006. These provisions came into force on 1 October 2009, together with most of the remaining provisions of the Companies Act 2006 that had not yet been brought into effect. For an article on all of the key changes coming in to force in October 2009 please click on this link.
The effect of ss 240 - 246 of the Companies Act 2006 will be to make life more difficult for those in the business of pursuing dodgy directors.
Before the sections came into force a director was required to publish their residential address at Companies House, unless they had grounds to obtain a confidentiality order. Such orders were often obtained by those in, for example, the life sciences industry who feared attacks from anti-vivisectionists. However, good grounds had to be shown to obtain such an order and they were very much the exception.
This meant that the Companies House database was a very good way of tracking down dodgy directors and cross-referencing against different addresses.
The position now is that directors are entitled to give a “service address” under S.163 of the Companies Act 2006. This can be, for example, simply be the company’s registered office. The company must still keep a register of directors’ residential addresses (S.165 Companies Act 2006) but under the new provisions this is described as “protected information”.
What this means is that neither the company nor the Registrar of Companies should ordinarily publish this information. All that an observer will ultimately be able to find out about a director is their service address. I say ultimately because Companies House is not going through old records expunging residential addresses and it will take a long time before the information on existing directors is lost. However, in relation to new directors the information available on the Companies House website is going to be considerably less valuable to class warriors, direct marketing companies and lawyers untangling the webs of dodgy directors.
Bad news for eco-terrorists and junk mailers, but also bad news for those with a more constructive interest in the personal information of directors.
Tags: companies act 2006, directors
Corporate Governance | Ed Weeks | 
October 9, 2009 4:13 pm
Subscribe