Can you become an OSMF member using your secondary address

[eteb3]

@Russ

I suggest the paragraph here is changed to:

Normal Members are members as mentioned in the UK Companies Act. These members must provide their full name and a postal address where they can receive registered mail, to be added to the register of members.

This seems a sensible summary.

I have seen companies formed under the existing regime where the members’ addresses were given as the lawyer’s office. These were major law firms, so I think we can conclude that as the legislation requires only an “address”, it needn’t be a personal, residential address.

@Russ

Legally, as of this year, a member’s address has to be a “service address” which complies with these requirements .

This provision is not yet in force: expected Q1 2025, but that info is not strong.

However, given that any regulatory heat is generally tempered by pragmatism and the public interest, it’s hard to imagine Companies House obsessing over the details - so acting on the basis of the new law, even though it’s not yet in force, is highly unlikely to be a problem.

@Russ

Legally I believe that is only a problem for the member, not for the company.

Section 113(7) imposes criminal liability on the company and every officer (ie, the board and - if any - the secretary) if the register is not correctly maintained. At the moment this is a strict liability offence, but an amendment has been made, not yet in force, which provides for a “reasonable excuse” to be a defence. [EDIT: removed ref to burden of proof; not sure enough of that]

In support of this duty, companies will soon be allowed to demand members give information for the register. A member who does not respond will have committed an offence. I suggest this needn’t alarm OSMF members: the legislation is mostly to deal with London’s deserved reputation as the laundromat of Europe.

@Russ

In all other cases, the board will apply to the court to determine whether the request is for a “proper purpose” under s117.

A company has only five days to do this, and the presumption in the Act is for disclosure. It would be fabulously expensive, with liability for the requester’s costs if they win. The court must be satisfied that the info would not be used for a “proper purpose”. The most obvious evidence of purpose is the purpose stated by the requester. Given there is a presumption of good faith in law, it would be hard to demonstrate anything contrary.