Resolution Confusion!

1

I’m having trouble interperating the information returned by the API with regards to some resolutions. Specifically it’s for the two batches of three resolutions on 2008-06-05 for this company: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04217916/filing-history?page=3

I understand that the fact that two items are returned for the same batch of resolutions is an error and a known issue, but even thenI’m still struggling to understand how this information is supposed to be interperated.

The first batch is

  *"date": "2008-06-05",*
  *"resolutions": [*
    *{*
      *"description": "resolution-securities",*
      *"category": "capital",*
      *"subcategory": "resolution",*
      *"type": "RES10"*
    *},*
    *{*
      *"subcategory": "resolution",*
      *"category": "capital",*
      *"barcode": "RZPRK06W",*
      *"type": "RES04",*
      *"description": "resolution-increase-capital"*
    *},*
    *{*
      *"description": "resolution-memorandum",*
      *"category": "incorporation",*
      *"subcategory": "resolution",*
      *"type": "RES01",*
      *"barcode": "RZPRK06W"*
    *}*
  *],*
  *"category": "resolution",*
  *"links": {*
    *"document_metadata": "https://document-api.companieshouse.gov.uk/document/LxzdcPERJbBjAsrkV2BK54OekWPPfbEfb6nr8hZ1m8E"*
  *},*
  *"pages": 2,*
  *"barcode": null,*
  *"transaction_id": "MjAwNjY5NjUzMmFkaXF6a2N4"*
*}*

On the beta site this is displayed as having a link to the PDF for these resolutions.

{
“resolutions”: [
{
“category”: “capital”,
“delta_at”: “20150704020006170522”,
“description”: “resolution-securities”,
“subcategory”: “resolution”,
“type”: “RES10”
},
{
“category”: “capital”,
“delta_at”: “20150704020006164993”,
“description”: “resolution-increase-capital”,
“subcategory”: “resolution”,
“type”: “RES04”
},
{
“category”: “incorporation”,
“delta_at”: “20150704020006168076”,
“description”: “resolution-adopt-articles”,
“description_values”: {},
“subcategory”: “resolution”,
“type”: “RES01”
}
],
“description_values”: {
“description”: “Resolutions”
},
“type”: “RESOLUTIONS”,
“date”: “2008-06-05”,
“category”: “resolution”,
“paper_filed”: true,
“description”: “resolution”,
“links”: {
“self”: “/company/04217916/filing-history/UlpQUkswNldhZGlxemtjeA”
},
“barcode”: null,
“transaction_id”: “UlpQUkswNldhZGlxemtjeA”
}

On the beta site this is displayed as having no document.

I’m assuming the first has a document because it has document metadata. You can also cheat and get the document using just the transaction_id if you assume the document type (and I understand this isn’t “safe” and won’t be best practice going forward).

A couple of questions.

In the second batch the individual resolutions have a field delta_at. I can’t find any reference to this field in the documentation. What is this field for?

Am I correct to operate under the assumption that you’re working to resolve the duplicate resolution issue?

Assuming you are and given both batches contain different information and different missing information do you know if they’re going to be merged in some fashion? Or if one of them is going to be deleted? And if the latter which one?

I’m trying to figure out the best way to deal with these resolutions at present that won’t break if they do get merged or updated in the future. As such any information about what’s going on with resolutions like these at present and what the plans are going forward would be a big help and much appreciated.

2

Ash,

We are looking at a solution to resolve the duplication issues, with as previously stated in other posts, by stopping grouping resolutions together and making them individual transactions in their own right with each having a link to potentially the same image. The grouping is what we believe is causing the duplication issues.

The specific example is a particularly bad case. The delta_at field is used for internal processing and shouldn’t be displayed, so please ignore. Given the planned fix for the issue, the likely scenario is that we will delete both sets of grouped transactions and provide 3 individual transactions, one for the RES01, one for the RES04 and one for the RES10, each with their own metadata link to the image.

Thanks

Mark.

3

Thanks.

Can you say at this time if it’s likely that the metadata links would be the same for each of those 3 transactions? (or some other way of identifying they all point to the same document) If so that would be really useful for processing them as we could use that to choose to how we grouped them ourselves if we wanted to.

4

Ash,

We are looking at the detail on this and will get back to you when we have a definitive answer

Thanks

Mark