header-logo header-logo

24 May 2023
Issue: 8026 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

40% missing from overseas property register

Foreign companies which own UK property may owe fines of almost £1bn for failing to comply with a new law, a solicitor has warned.

Nearly 40% of registered overseas companies which own UK property failed to meet the 31 January deadline to join the Register of Overseas Entities and declare their ultimate owners.

As of 1 February 2023, 12,930 of the 32,440 registered overseas companies had failed to comply, leaving them open to fines of £2,500 per day, a ban on selling their land and possible criminal sanctions for their officers.

The register was set up last August at Companies House, under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022.

Helen Curtis, corporate partner at Devonshires, said: ‘The register was introduced to disclose who actually owns British property.

‘The intention was to lay bare who is dodging their UK tax obligations. However, the failure to comply rate is shocking.

‘If the 12,930 companies who failed to comply by 31 Jan continued to not comply for the 28 days in February and were fined £2,500 per day, we’re looking at a total amount of £905,100,000– and growing daily.

‘There are more than 50,000 properties across England and Wales held by around 18,000 offshore companies. Of those 18,000 companies, 5,070 were so obtuse with the information they filed that the public still remains in the dark over who ultimately owns and benefits from them.’

In February, business minister Lord Callanan announced increased investigatory powers for Companies House and the Insolvency Service, and up to £20m investment to tackle money laundering by companies that own UK property.

Curtis said: ‘Historically, the UK has been a property hotspot for offshore companies and trusts as it has allowed for a high degree of secrecy for property owners who wish to remain anonymous. However, it has been exploited.’

Issue: 8026 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll