Risk Analysis: HARLOW CONSULTING LIMITED

1. Risk Rating: HIGH

The company presents HIGH risk due to its status as "Active - Proposal to Strike Off," cessation of trading activity following the death of a director, and persistent technical insolvency with negative net assets of £19,339. While the company holds significant cash reserves, the business is no longer operational and is in the process of being dissolved.

2. Key Concerns

Concern 1: Strike-Off Proceedings

The company's status is "Active - Proposal to Strike Off," indicating that a formal application has been made to remove the company from the Companies House register. This is the most critical red flag — the company is in the process of being wound up and will cease to exist. Any counterparty exposure to this entity will become unenforceable upon dissolution.

Concern 2: Cessation of Trading Activity

The director's report explicitly states that the company's principal activity ceased on 30 April 2024, following the death of director C S Harlow on 28 April 2024. This is corroborated by turnover collapsing from £6,557 (FY2024) to £100 (FY2025). The business is effectively dormant/non-operational. The goodwill asset of £135,404 was fully written off, and all tangible fixed assets were disposed of, confirming the company has no operating assets remaining.

Concern 3: Technical Insolvency

The company has had negative net assets for two consecutive years: -£18,889 (FY2024) and -£19,339 (FY2025). This means total liabilities exceed total assets, placing the company in a technically insolvent position. The persistent long-term creditor of £98,150 (unchanged since at least FY2018) significantly outweighs the company's net current assets of £78,811.

3. Positive Indicators

Cash Reserves

The company holds £110,564 in cash, which exceeds current liabilities of £31,873 by a substantial margin. This provides immediate liquidity to satisfy short-term obligations if required.

Filing Compliance

Accounts and confirmation statements are filed and up to date, with no overdue filings. This suggests the directors are maintaining statutory obligations despite the wind-down.

Low Operational Complexity

With only one employee and minimal ongoing obligations, the risk of unexpected liabilities emerging is relatively contained. Trade creditors are modest at £1,491.

4. Due Diligence Notes

Nature of the £98,150 Long-Term Creditor

This liability has remained unchanged at £98,150 since at least FY2018 and appears to be an interest-free loan from a related party (likely from the Harlow family given the PSC structure). The accounts do not disclose the creditor's identity or terms. Investigation required: Confirm whether this is a related-party loan and whether it will be forgiven/subordinated upon dissolution, as this determines whether the insolvency is genuine or merely a balance sheet technicality.

PSC and Shareholding Transition

Christopher Stephen Harlow (deceased) is still recorded as owning more than 75% of shares, while Alan Roger Harlow holds significant influence through a trust. Investigation required: Clarify the status of share succession — whether shares have transferred to Alan Roger Harlow or to the deceased director's estate, and whether this affects the strike-off authority.

Strike-Off Process Status

Investigation required: Determine the current stage of the strike-off process. If a creditor (particularly the holder of the £98,150 liability) objects to the strike-off, the process will be halted. Any party with outstanding claims should consider whether to object to dissolution.

Contingent Liabilities

The shift in other creditors from £43,808 (FY2024) to £30,382 (FY2025) within current liabilities warrants investigation to understand what obligations are being settled and whether any remain undisclosed.

Historical Context

The company's balance sheet composition changed dramatically between FY2021 and FY2022 — total assets fell from £299,924 to £170,295 while cash increased from £1,510 to £125,538. This suggests a significant asset disposal or reclassification occurred. Investigation required: Understand what drove this structural change, as it may indicate prior related-party transactions that affect the current risk assessment.