This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > March 2007 > UK Company Law - Details on Websites/Emails
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
UK Company Law - Details on Websites/Emails
|
|
|
| We've been sent a letter by our solicitors to inform us about the
implications of some new laws. Apparently, as of 1st January 2007 there is a
requirement to provide the Company Registration Number, Place of
Registration, and Registered Office Address on all websites and 'business
emails'.
In addition, websites should have the Company Trading Name if different, the
VAT Number, memberships details of any trade or professional associations,
the name & postal address of the websites service provider, a privacy
policy, and general site terms and conditions.
We're not particularly sensitive about any of this, but I am a little
surprised that such a requirement escaped my (and seemingly, everyone
else's) attention. They haven't stipulated which law(s) these are covered
by, but I'm making enquiries with them.
I was wondering if anyone had come across such a requirement. While much of
it seems like good advice, I'm surprised that all of it is an actual
requirement.
Can anybody shed some light on this?
CJM
| |
| Phil Payne 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| On Feb 21, 11:36 am, "CJM" <cjmnew...@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> We've been sent a letter by our solicitors to inform us about the
> implications of some new laws. Apparently, as of 1st January 2007 there is a
> requirement to provide the Company Registration Number, Place of
> Registration, and Registered Office Address on all websites and 'business
> emails'.
>
> In addition, websites should have the Company Trading Name if different, the
> VAT Number, memberships details of any trade or professional associations,
> the name & postal address of the websites service provider, a privacy
> policy, and general site terms and conditions.
>
> We're not particularly sensitive about any of this, but I am a little
> surprised that such a requirement escaped my (and seemingly, everyone
> else's) attention. They haven't stipulated which law(s) these are covered
> by, but I'm making enquiries with them.
>
> I was wondering if anyone had come across such a requirement. While much of
> it seems like good advice, I'm surprised that all of it is an actual
> requirement.
>
> Can anybody shed some light on this?
>
> CJM
Surely your solicitors can cite the legislation?
| |
| DoobieDo 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| "CJM" <cjmnews04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:542p6dF1unmu4U1@mid.individual.net...
> We've been sent a letter by our solicitors to inform us about the
> implications of some new laws. Apparently, as of 1st January 2007 there is
> a requirement to provide the Company Registration Number, Place of
> Registration, and Registered Office Address on all websites and 'business
> emails'.
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone had come across such a requirement. While much
> of it seems like good advice, I'm surprised that all of it is an actual
> requirement.
>
> Can anybody shed some light on this?
I posted here on this subject on/around 11th January.
It's called The Companies (Register, Languages and Trading Disclosures)
Regulations 2006
You'll find it at the top of google ;p
| |
| Dominic Sexton 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| In message <542p6dF1unmu4U1@mid.individual.net>, CJM
<cjmnews04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> writes
>Can anybody shed some light on this?
Companies House
http://www.companies-house.gov.uk/p...tationery.shtml
It was covered in u.n.w.a a few weeks back.
--
Dominic Sexton
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| On 21 Feb 2007, "CJM" <cjmnews04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>We've been sent a letter by our solicitors to inform us about the
>implications of some new laws. Apparently, as of 1st January 2007 there
>is a requirement to provide the Company Registration Number, Place of
>Registration, and Registered Office Address on all websites and
>'business emails'.
knew about those bits...
>In addition, websites should have the Company Trading Name if different,
>the VAT Number,
and those...
>memberships details of any trade or professional associations, the name &
>postal address of the websites service provider, a privacy policy, and
>general site terms and conditions.
but not known that information was required... Could the solicitors be
looking to drum up business for writing site T+C for a client to use ?
>We're not particularly sensitive about any of this, but I am a little
>surprised that such a requirement escaped my (and seemingly, everyone
>else's) attention. They haven't stipulated which law(s) these are covered
>by, but I'm making enquiries with them.
Companies Act - see posts from about 2 months ago in uk.net.providers.aaisp
>I was wondering if anyone had come across such a requirement. While much of
>it seems like good advice, I'm surprised that all of it is an actual
>requirement.
Lots of fun if your business communications include sending SMS (!)
| |
|
|
"Phil Payne" <phil@isham-research.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172058727.392799.195310@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Surely your solicitors can cite the legislation?
>
I've asked them already...
| |
|
|
"NoNeedToKnow" <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ifeot2lj78b7m3k490tt2kismcj7qmto38@complete-pc-services.info...
>
> but not known that information was required... Could the solicitors be
> looking to drum up business for writing site T+C for a client to use ?
>
They're on a retainer so probably not. They're pretty good generally.
>
> Lots of fun if your business communications include sending SMS (!)
Fortunately, it's not too bad for us.
Thanks to all for replying. Now I know what to look for, I can do my
homework.
Thanks
CJM
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| CJM wrote:
> We're not particularly sensitive about any of this, but I am a little
> surprised that such a requirement escaped my (and seemingly, everyone
> else's) attention. They haven't stipulated which law(s) these are covered
> by, but I'm making enquiries with them.
Yep -- this law came in a couple of months ago IIRC. There was some
coverage on the BBC News site at the time, though I can't find it at the
moment.
The piece of legislation you're after is the Companies Act 2006:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts200...20060046_en.pdf
This UK legislation implements EU Directive 2003/58/EC (First Company Law
Amendment Directive) which requires all EU member states to pass such
legislation.
See also:
http://www.out-law.com/page-7594
http://blog.btbroadbandoffice.com/a...-registrati.php
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
| |
|
| On Feb 21, 4:28 am, NoNeedToKnow <m...@privacy.net.invalid> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2007, "CJM" <cjmnew...@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Lots of fun if your business communications include sending SMS (!)
fuk
is sms covered as well, or just sites and email?
| |
|
| And to think.. the thought of removing the large, unwieldy and ultimately
useless disclaimer from the bottom of each of our emails was gaining
ground...
Back to the drawing board.
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| CJM wrote:
> And to think.. the thought of removing the large, unwieldy and ultimately
> useless disclaimer from the bottom of each of our emails was gaining
> ground...
Many of the clients I deal with have a disclaimer in English and
*another* one in Welsh at the bottom of their emails. They then have a
further disclaimer asking you to respect the environment and not print
the email unless you have to. Of course, this is also in English *and*
Welsh, so if you do need to print the email it now takes _two_ pieces of
paper instead of just one :|
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.
| |
| Geoff Berrow 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| Message-ID: <45dc4840$0$758$bed64819@news.gradwell.net> from Dylan Parry
contained the following:
>Many of the clients I deal with have a disclaimer in English and
>*another* one in Welsh at the bottom of their emails. They then have a
>further disclaimer asking you to respect the environment and not print
>the email unless you have to. Of course, this is also in English *and*
>Welsh, so if you do need to print the email it now takes _two_ pieces of
>paper instead of just one :|
How about respect for the internet environment? This stuff pollutes my
machine!
Wouldn't a link to a disclaimer be acceptable?
--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
| |
| Dave Hillam 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| Geoff Berrow wrote in uk.net.web.authoring on Wed, 21 Feb 2007
13:39:14 +0000 MID<vpiot2ttkd5muvki7tcksq1flmpu6p8mqh@4ax.com>:
>How about respect for the internet environment? This stuff pollutes my
>machine!
<aol>
>Wouldn't a link to a disclaimer be acceptable?
Yep. I'd recommend one to Jeff Goldberg's page:-
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Dave
| |
| Stuart Millington 2007-02-21, 6:17 pm |
| On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:36:45 -0000, "CJM"
<cjmnews04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I was wondering if anyone had come across such a requirement. While much of
>it seems like good advice, I'm surprised that all of it is an actual
>requirement.
Many companies have ignored the more basic requirements of the
E-Commerce Directive for years (physical address, geographic telephone
number, etc.) [1]. I doubt they will comply with the Companies Act
changes either unless there's some effective enforcement.
[1] Like www.qfonic.com who put up a pop-up telling
ex-potential-customers "Your Browser Sucks!\nIt's about time to
upgrade don't you think?"[2] on their e-commerce site! They then fail
to provide any contact method other than a form. Need the tuits to see
if the local trading standards can be bothered to enforce the
directive.
[2] in Opera 7.5
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington ALL HTML e-mail rejected -
- mailto:phupp@dsv1.co.uk http://www.z-add.co.uk/ -
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2007-02-22, 6:17 pm |
| On 21 Feb 2007, "Gwin" <gwin@mindless.com> wrote:
>On Feb 21, NoNeedToKnow wrote:
>
>
>is sms covered as well, or just sites and email?
AFAIK, it said "electronic communication" which would surely include SMS,
however, given the standard message limit of 160 characters, I doubt the
sender would get much room for 'information' if they did send 'the lot'.
For AAISP, I suspect they'd cover their backs with some weblink instead
(They send out alerts to customers about their ADSL link being up/down.
I don't know if they send out other messages by SMS, eg tech support)
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2007-02-22, 6:17 pm |
| On 21 Feb 2007, Dave Hillam <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Yep. I'd recommend one to Jeff Goldberg's page:-
>http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Thanks for the reminder. I vaguely recall seeing something (probably on
The Register, contents of which I usually take with a pinch of salt),
which suggested that some Govt department (DTI, I think) had put up
a 'sample disclaimer' for small firms to copy, but later withdrew
that sample, perhaps questioning the value to readers :-)
| |
| Mark Goodge 2007-02-23, 3:39 am |
| On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:03:05 -0000, CJM put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>And to think.. the thought of removing the large, unwieldy and ultimately
>useless disclaimer from the bottom of each of our emails was gaining
>ground...
>
>Back to the drawing board.
The new law doesn't give any reason to include a huge and unwieldy
disclaimer. In fact, by clarifying what the law really *does* require,
it actually provides a good reason to get rid of them. The legal
requirements are:
* Company name, and (if applicable) trading name
* Company registration number and registration jurisdiction
* Postal address
All of that will fit quite easily into a standard 4-line signature.
Out-law.com has a sample which meets all the legal requirements:
Green Organisation is a limited company registered in England and
Wales. Registered number: 5464771. Registered office: Green House,
21 Bloom Street, London, WC1 1AA.
http://www.out-law.com/page-5536
Nothing else has any legal validity, so there's no point in saying
anything else.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"Love is a precious thing, worth the pain and suffering"
| |
|
|
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:si6tt2hj0iu774rsesu9jbh1k475nu2i69@news.markshouse.net...
>
> The new law doesn't give any reason to include a huge and unwieldy
> disclaimer. In fact, by clarifying what the law really *does* require,
> it actually provides a good reason to get rid of them.
>
Since when would that stop one of our company mandarins who are neither IT
professionals or legal professionals for insisting on such.
>
> Nothing else has any legal validity, so there's no point in saying
> anything else.
>
Since when has a beaurocrat opted to say less when they can say more...
I've suggested to my boss that we review the whole issue of these
disclaimers, but I'm not holding my breath.
Incidently, so you have any good sources that explain the legal worth of
such disclaimers? It would be useful to have something to refer to...
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2007-02-23, 6:16 am |
| Mark Goodge wrote:
> The legal requirements are:
>
> * Company name, and (if applicable) trading name
> * Company registration number and registration jurisdiction
> * Postal address
Actually, not the postal address, but the company registered address.
(These are often different; indeed, the preferred postal address is often
a post office box.)
Also IIRC membership of certain organisations. (e.g. ABTA.)
Incidentally, the Companies Act 2006 is the single longest piece of
legislation ever passed by UK parliament.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
| |
| John Hosking 2007-02-23, 6:17 pm |
| CJM wrote:
>
> I've suggested to my boss that we review the whole issue of these
> disclaimers, but I'm not holding my breath.
Maybe you should hold your *boss's* breath. ;-)
--
John
| |
| Mark Goodge 2007-02-23, 6:17 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:32:08 -0000, CJM put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:si6tt2hj0iu774rsesu9jbh1k475nu2i69@news.markshouse.net...
>
>Since when would that stop one of our company mandarins who are neither IT
>professionals or legal professionals for insisting on such.
What you can do, though, is point them at a description of the legal
requirements and then offer a suggestion on how best to meet them.
>
>Since when has a beaurocrat opted to say less when they can say more...
>
>I've suggested to my boss that we review the whole issue of these
>disclaimers, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>Incidently, so you have any good sources that explain the legal worth of
>such disclaimers? It would be useful to have something to refer to...
The site I referred to previously (Out-law.com) has some good stuff in
that respect. Although I have to say that I disagree with one of their
statements, where they say that "Such notices cost nothing to include
– so it's worth having them". They may cost nothing to include
financially, but they can cost a lot of goodwill if they are perceived
negatively by those who read them - it's not good business practice to
irritate your clients and peers.
http://www.out-law.com/page-5536 is the page you might want to start
with, but the site as a whole has a lot of useful information.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"All this talk of getting old, it's getting me down my love"
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2007-02-23, 6:17 pm |
| Mark Goodge wrote:
> although I have to say that I disagree with one of their statements,
> where they say that "Such notices cost nothing to include – so it's
> worth having them". They may cost nothing to include financially, but
> they can cost a lot of goodwill
It's also a non-sequitur: because something costs nothing, doesn't make it
a good thing to do. Stabbing oneself in the eye costs nothing.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
| |
| joan_buchan@hotmail.co.uk 2007-02-26, 6:19 pm |
| i am having a big problem with a rights image company called getty.
When i telephoned companies house and suggested Getty were breaking
the law by failing to disclose any of this information they advised
they simply did not have the resources to enfoce this new law.
You can bet if it was a small business the response would have been
entirely different!
| |
| Matt Probert 2007-02-26, 6:19 pm |
| On 26 Feb 2007 05:49:34 -0800, joan_buchan@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>i am having a big problem with a rights image company called getty.
>When i telephoned companies house and suggested Getty were breaking
>the law by failing to disclose any of this information they advised
>they simply did not have the resources to enfoce this new law.
>You can bet if it was a small business the response would have been
>entirely different!
>
What you need to do, is write to your member of parliament, and copy
in national newspapers.
You could always bring a private prosecution (assuming you have the
thousands of pounds required?)
Matt
--
Documenting the banal to the bizarre
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Red E. Kilowatt 2007-02-26, 6:19 pm |
| Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message:
45e2fafe.20851578@news.freenetname.co.uk,
> On 26 Feb 2007 05:49:34 -0800, joan_buchan@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> What you need to do, is write to your member of parliament, and copy
> in national newspapers.
>
> You could always bring a private prosecution (assuming you have the
> thousands of pounds required?)
>
> Matt
A few thousand pounds to your member of parliament might work even
better. :-)
--
Red
| |
| Matt Probert 2007-02-26, 6:19 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:00:07 -0800, "Red E. Kilowatt"
<redkilowattREMOVE@aww-faq.org> wrote:
>A few thousand pounds to your member of parliament might work even
>better. :-)
Oh, has news of our parliamentary corruption hit international
headlines? Or was that a case of "never a truer word spoken than one
spoken in jest" ?
Matt
--
Documenting the banal to the bizarre
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Red E. Kilowatt 2007-02-26, 6:19 pm |
| Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message:
45e327d2.32327015@news.freenetname.co.uk,
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:00:07 -0800, "Red E. Kilowatt"
> <redkilowattREMOVE@aww-faq.org> wrote:
>
>
> Oh, has news of our parliamentary corruption hit international
> headlines? Or was that a case of "never a truer word spoken than one
> spoken in jest" ?
>
> Matt
Well, it was a joke but unfortunately when it comes to elected
representatives, corruption is the rule rather than the exception.
--
Red
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2007-02-26, 10:17 pm |
| Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> A few thousand pounds to your member of parliament might work even
> better.
You might even end up with a peerage!
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-02-27, 6:15 am |
| Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
> You might even end up with a peerage!
Now now, there's no /evidence/ to show that giving money to the
government will get you any sort of honours <g>
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| TrentSC 2007-03-13, 7:30 pm |
| >> We're not particularly sensitive about any of this, but I am a little
>
> Yep -- this law came in a couple of months ago IIRC. There was some
> coverage on the BBC News site at the time, though I can't find it at the
> moment.
>
> The piece of legislation you're after is the Companies Act 2006:
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts200...20060046_en.pdf
>
> This UK legislation implements EU Directive 2003/58/EC (First Company Law
> Amendment Directive) which requires all EU member states to pass such
> legislation.
>
> See also:
> http://www.out-law.com/page-7594
> http://blog.btbroadbandoffice.com/a...-registrati.php
Sorry to dredge up an old subject, but as yet I haven't been able to find
any information on the likely levels of fines which might be imposed on
companies which fail to comply with these regulations.
Can anyone help?
Ta muchly.
| |
| DoobieDo 2007-03-14, 4:16 am |
| Logically the amount wouldn't be in the Act itself because it'd need to go
through Parliament every time a change was justified. The Secretary of State
usually reviews the amounts from time to time in a similar way to jail
sentences handed down by the Courts.
The Ministerial Statement is quoted on
http://www.nortonrose.com/html_pubs/view.asp?id=11964
<extract>
The directors and secretary of any company authorising the appearance of a
website not complying with these requirements will be liable to a fine not
exceeding the statutory maximum of £1,000.
</>
"TrentSC" <TrentSC@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:45f6c9ca$0$8711$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> Sorry to dredge up an old subject, but as yet I haven't been able to find
> any information on the likely levels of fines which might be imposed on
> companies which fail to comply with these regulations.
>
> Can anyone help?
>
> Ta muchly.
>
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|