> Company status: Dissolved
> Dissolved on 16 December 2025
His other company:
> Company status: Liquidation
People are now attacking the guy on Instagram because I guess the developer or someone, made a Tiktok video about it.
It's dissolved by "compulsory strike-off", which means the registrar did it as a penalty for late filing of accounts about 4 months after their due date, and failing to send an email saying "the company is still required" to the registrar, which is enough to prevent the dissolution.
It happened before in 2021 to this company. The company was restored a few months later, which is permitted when it's been dissolved by the registrar for filing accounts late.
Restoring a company also restores its liabilities (debts), so it's clear they were not doing it in 2021 to get out of debts.
My guess is it's an oversight by the owner, who is prone to filing things late and doesn't have an accountant. It's quite common in the UK for single-person companies to not have an accountant, and to not know all the rules.
Plenty of health conditions or life events can cause an oversight like this, especially for someone who is already prone to filing close to the deadlines.
After the company is dissolved this way, it's unlawful to continue trading, which includes paying suppliers from company funds. The owner immediately loses all company assets. Their bank accounts may be frozen or closed quickly, so they might suddenly find themselves without access to their funds. That can be a awkward if the owner wasn't expecting it, or if they don't even know it's dissolved. Business banks in the UK freeze account access for other inscrutable reasons sometimes, so it's not always obvious when the reason is dissolution.
This doesn't excuse not replying to the supplier to explain, unless they are really unlucky and lost access to their paid Google account or similar as a side effect as well. Or if they had the kind of sudden health condition or life event that causes a person to miss filing deadlines.
Was it clear that wasn't the reason they were not doing it, or was it clear that the reason they were not doing it was to get out of debts?
That's how I talk, and admittedly some people find how I talk confusing when I think it's clear. Thanks for the amusing heads up on language interpretation!
In pseudo-code: (clear (not (eq (reason for doing it) (to get out of debts))))).
Like a gambler they think the big win is coming any second and they drag it out too long, leaving a bunch of unpaid bills behind then.
And in this particular case since they're a UK company, yeah, you can just look at their reported accounts.
2023
CURRENT ASSETS: £571
Creditors: Amounts Falling Due Within One Year: £28,051
----
That's not a client I'd take.