Missing enumeration variable

Data Issues
#1

Hi

This company has a withdrawn Statement, with statement description enum"psc-exists-but-not-identified"
This enum expects a variable “linked_psc_name”, but none is provided - the website just shows “{linked_psc_name} has failed to comply…”

Is this expected behaviour? If so, under what circumstances would the enum variable be OK to be omitted?

Thanks

#2

Thanks - I’d not found a multiple statements example so it’s useful to see. We’ll see what CH say but my own observations from this:

The CH statements data seems very confused. There seem to be several problems:

  • “psc_has_failed_to_confirm_changed_details” - why is this here at all? I can see no indication it’s needed from the filings (e.g. CS01, checked previous
    AR01 also).

  • “psc-exists-but-not-identified”. The filing is a little unclear as it has the “psc-exists-but-not-identified” phrase, then a “ceased to be true” date (corresponding with the identification of the current PSC) then immediately the “psc-exists-but-not-identified” statement again. Is this a duplication, or does it indicate that there are still one or more PSCs to identify? Either way, it would seem logical this should be recorded as a PSC statement starting before 6th April 2016 and ceasing on 6th April 2016, whether or not there should be another “psc-exists-but-not-identified” starting from 6th April 2016.

  • The dates seem to be inconsistently applied: notified_on is given as when CH received the filing (24 March 2017) but the ceased on records what the company has given on the form (6 April 2016). Also the current active statement “notified_on” is listed as 14th March 2017. This is actually the date given on the confirmation statement form. So we have one filing, 2 different dates for “notified_on” - one which appears to be before the form was received…

  • this shows a general issue: the date fields on these statements. Spec says:

notified_on date The date that the person with significant control statement was processed by Companies House.
ceased_on date The date that Companies House was notified about the cessation of this person with significant control.

This is fine but these don’t relate to dates given by company on the form for when these changes occurred. If the company is required to record it should it not have meaning / be in API? (I don’t know the legal position here). (Is this just caused by lag due to this being the first CS01 and thus the first requirement to declare this information - would the requirement normally be to submit a confirmation statement if details change?).

According to docs:

linked_psc_name should be a string giving “The name of the psc linked to this statement.” and appear only "when the statement is psc_has_failed_to_confirm_changed_details"

#3

Hi @MArkWilliams - could you confirm if this is a bug or a data issue?

Many thanks
Alex

#4

This is a data issue. I have arranged to have this corrected here and it should be available by the end of business today.
I will reply here when I know for sure.

#5

Just to let you know that the data correction has been applied.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

#6

Many thanks for your help!