Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

Sensemaker building Evolution Me Institute, RINN and the Global Mirror Project around systems, ethics and sovereignty.

Cologne, Germany

Joined October 2014

1.1K Following

769 Followers

2.6K Posts

Pinned Tweet

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

about 1 month ago

REPLY TO — COMPANIES HOUSE Pre-Action Correspondence — For the Record To: [Gaynor's direct email from her reply below] CC: [email protected] CC: [email protected] — For the attention of Blair McDougall MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Services, Small Business and Exports, and Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Business and Trade CC: [email protected] — For the attention of the Business and Trade Select Committee, submitted as evidence of systemic pattern affecting small business directors Subject: Pre-Action Correspondence — Systemic Failure, Disproportionate Enforcement, and Documented Reasonable Steps — WorldTech Global Limited Gaynor, Thank you for your response dated [date]. I have read it carefully. It has not addressed the substance of my original letter. I am writing again, this time in a different register, and I am copying the Department for Business and Trade as your parent department, together with the Business and Trade Select Committee as a matter of public interest. This correspondence now constitutes pre-action notification. I am setting out below the basis on which I intend to escalate, and I am giving Companies House the opportunity to respond substantively before I do so. What your response did not do Your letter acknowledged the strength of feeling in my correspondence and restated that compliance is my legal responsibility. It did not engage with a single substantive argument I raised. It did not address the navigational incoherence of your own systems. It did not address the https://t.co/byVvwOAiVs One Login security breach — invoking security reasons to decline comment on evidence drawn entirely from public reporting. It did not answer the direct question I put: how does a self-funded director, operating in good faith from overseas, comply reliably with obligations your own architecture has made unreliable? Instead, you redirected me to the appeals process I had explicitly declined, on grounds I had clearly stated, at the outset of my original letter. That is not a response. It is a deferral dressed as one. Your own enforcement policy Companies House's published enforcement policy states that all enforcement action must be proportionate to the harm and seriousness of any breach of law. I am a director who has attempted compliance in good faith at every stage. The penalties I have incurred arose from navigational failure inside a system whose own incoherence is documented by independent auditors and by your own operational record. Applying escalating penalties to that situation is not proportionate enforcement. It is the transfer of institutional failure onto the individual least able to absorb it. Reasonable steps — on the record I want to be precise about what this correspondence establishes. I contacted Companies House last year regarding compliance difficulties. Those difficulties were not resolved. I subsequently wrote a formal letter of protest, evidenced from public sources, raising structural concerns. I received a templated response that did not address those concerns. I am now writing again, documenting each step. This sequence constitutes a documented record of reasonable steps taken in good faith. I am stating that explicitly because your own legal framework acknowledges that a director may seek to show they took all reasonable steps to file correctly. This correspondence is that record. Where this goes if you do not respond substantively I am copying the Department for Business and Trade — specifically Blair McDougall MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Services, Small Business and Exports, whose ministerial remit directly covers the conditions under which small business directors are expected to operate — on the grounds that Companies House is applying disproportionate enforcement to a director whose compliance failures are directly attributable to the incoherence of your own systems and the inadequacy of your own support infrastructure. I am copying the Business and Trade Select Committee as evidence of a systemic pattern. This is not an individual complaint submitted for their resolution. It is a documented case submitted as evidence of the structural failure this committee has previously scrutinised in the context of Companies House's expanding enforcement powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. I reserve the right to seek judicial review on grounds of procedural impropriety and irrationality — specifically, the application of escalating financial penalties by a public body whose own systems have been found to be structurally incoherent, and whose response to a formally documented complaint has been to decline substantive engagement. What I am asking for I am not asking for a templated acknowledgement. I am asking for three things, in writing, within fourteen days: One — a concrete explanation of how a self-funded director operating from overseas is expected to meet filing obligations inside a system that generated a back-button security breach, does not communicate between its own components, and routes telephone contact through a process gate designed to reduce contact volume rather than resolve queries. Two — a review of the penalties I have incurred, assessed against your own proportionality standard and the documented record of good-faith compliance attempts this correspondence establishes. Three — the name and contact details of the senior responsible officer at Companies House for digital service delivery and compliance infrastructure, so that the structural concerns I have raised can be directed to someone with the authority and remit to address them. Any response I receive will be published in full as part of an ongoing public interest record. If I do not receive a substantive response within fourteen days, I will publish the absence of one and proceed with the escalation steps described above. Peter Jones Director, WorldTech Global Limited @PeterPrj This letter is sent as pre-action correspondence and forms part of a documented public interest record. @LeeHarris @RupertLowe10 @ABridgen @Scotty_G9 In reply to: Dear Peter Jones, Thank you for your email. I note that you have raised broader concerns regarding the usability of Companies House and https://t.co/byVvwOAiVs services, as well as the general conditions under which you are expected to meet your statutory obligations as a company director. I also acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed in your message and the context you have provided about your experiences. Companies House recognises that directors must be able to understand and fulfil their legal responsibilities, and we aim to provide services that support this. We are a large organisation with several specialist teams responsible for different services, including filings, identity verification and customer support. While we work to make our systems as accessible and clear as possible, the requirement to file accurate and timely information is set out in legislation, and responsibility for ensuring compliance ultimately rests with the company and its officers. In relation to your comments about contacting https://t.co/byVvwOAiVs services, I appreciate that your recent experience was not as straightforward as you would have expected. Access to support is provided through a range of channels, and demand can at times impact waiting times. Feedback of this nature is taken seriously and is used to inform ongoing improvements to customer contact services and digital journeys. You have also raised concerns regarding system design, usability and the wider regulatory environment. While Companies House cannot comment on or engage in hypothetical or policy-based challenges about whether an individual should continue to operate a business, we can clarify that many companies — including those operated from overseas — successfully meet their obligations using the available services. Guidance is published on https://t.co/byVvwOAiVs to support directors, and many choose to seek assistance from accountants, company secretaries or authorised agents where additional support is required. Regarding the specific reference you have made to a reported issue involving https://t.co/byVvwOAiVs One Login, I can confirm that any potential vulnerabilities are treated with the utmost seriousness. Systems are continually reviewed, and where issues are identified, they are investigated and addressed in line with government security protocols. However, for security reasons, we are unable to comment in detail on specific system design or past incidents. I understand that you have stated this is not an appeal against penalties. If you do wish to challenge any penalties that have been issued, there are established statutory processes available to do so, which ensure that each case is considered on its individual merits. More broadly, while we cannot alter the legislative framework within which Companies House operates or suspend obligations on the basis you have described, we do remain committed to improving our services and ensuring that users are able to access the information and support needed to comply. I appreciate you taking the time to set out your views. Your feedback will be shared with the relevant teams as part of our wider service improvement processes. If you require assistance with a specific filing or compliance matter, please let me know and I will ensure you are directed to the appropriate team. Yours sincerely Gaynor Complaints Case Manager Customer Delivery Directorate Companies House Tŷ’r Cwmnïau, Crown Way, Maindy, Cardiff, CF14 3UZ We work flexibly at Companies House. I sent this email at a time that works well for me, but I understand that you will read and reply to it within the working hours that suit you best.

154

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

about 8 hours ago

@compliantvc That’s fascinating. Unauthorized in whose jurisdiction, according to which compliance rules and laws?

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

about 15 hours ago

@MattWallace888 Typical Matt Wallace content. Cryptic, no context and utterly boring. You obviously think everybody on X is a mind reader. Either that or you are just bloody lazy.

299

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

11 days ago

@elonmusk Peanuts compared to space mining. SpaceX exploration puts ROI on a whole new level.

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

11 days ago

@antisadh Nice, I’m curious about how you handle the heat extraction. Next week in Germany, it’s gonna be pushing 37° 39 in some cases. No Air-con, things are gonna get hot.

573

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

12 days ago

@antisadh Code

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

12 days ago

@antisadh Worth saying again. The hack isn’t the hacks. It’s the discipline of capturing them.

Peter Jones

@PeterPrj

12 days ago

The hack isn’t the hacks. It’s the discipline of capturing them.

Antid

@antisadh

12 days ago

ONE SOLO DEV LOGGED 32 CLAUDE CODE HACKS OVER 6 MONTHS AND SAVED 300 HOURS WHILE BILLING $48,000 IN CONTRACTS ANTHROPIC NEVER DOCUMENTED six months ago a solo dev started tracking every shortcut and workflow inside claude code that actually moved the needle, the document now sits at 32 hacks across 14 pages the basics cut his build time by 40 percent through /init that auto generates a CLAUDE.md from the stack, /context to diagnose token bloat and plan mode that writes zero code until the approach is locked the advanced layer is where the hours stacked, git worktrees ran 5 parallel sessions at once, sub agents on haiku read 100k tokens for the cost of 10k, ultrathink reasoned through architecture in 32k tokens per pass six months in he shipped 11 production projects without hiring anyone and billed $48,000 in contract work he would have lost otherwise every hack lives in his CLAUDE.md so the next project compounds on the last one and the playbook gets sharper every release anthropic ships the window is open, follow and bookmark before it closes