Risk Assessment: SECURE BUILD LIMITED

1. Risk Rating: HIGH

The company presents significant financial distress indicators. Net assets have collapsed by 99.4% from £830,852 (2024) to £4,661 (2025), leaving the company with virtually no equity buffer against its £781,182 in total liabilities. The company is in a negative working capital position, meaning it cannot cover short-term obligations from current assets—a classic solvency warning sign.

2. Key Concerns

a) Severe Deterioration in Net Assets The most alarming feature is the £826,191 erosion of net assets in a single year, with the P&L reserve falling from £830,752 to £4,561. Without access to the profit and loss account (which the director has elected not to file), the root cause is unclear—this could represent trading losses, asset write-downs, or a combination. The magnitude of this decline relative to the company's size is deeply concerning.

b) Negative Working Capital Current liabilities (£781,182) exceed current assets (£751,260) by £29,922. The current ratio stands at approximately 0.96:1, indicating the company lacks sufficient liquid resources to meet near-term obligations. Cash has also halved from £185,895 to £92,414, suggesting cash generation pressures.

c) Minimal Capital Resilience With share capital of only £100 and net assets of £4,661, the company has virtually no margin for operational setbacks. The equity buffer represents just 0.6% of total liabilities, leaving creditors almost entirely exposed. The company is trading with extreme financial leverage.

3. Positive Indicators

a) Longevity and Continuity The company has been operational since 2012 (13 years), demonstrating some track record of survival through economic cycles. Employee numbers have remained stable at 5, suggesting no immediate workforce reduction.

b) Filing Compliance Accounts and confirmation statements are filed and current, with no overdue items. This indicates the director is maintaining statutory obligations, which is typically a positive governance signal.

c) Tangible Asset Base The company holds £45,689 in tangible assets (plant, machinery, fixtures, motor vehicles) and £3,613 in stock, providing some asset backing beyond debtor balances.

d) Debtors Remain Substantial While debtors have halved from £1,310,417 to £655,233, this could indicate either improved collection or reduced trading activity. If recoverable, this represents a significant asset.

4. Due Diligence Notes

a) Source of Net Asset Erosion The director has elected not to include the profit and loss account in the filed statements. It is essential to obtain this to determine whether the £826,191 decline stems from trading losses, impairment write-downs, or other factors. The nature of the loss will significantly affect the assessment of going concern viability.

b) Debtor Recoverability Debtors of £655,233 represent 87% of current assets. Given the construction industry context, the quality and age of these balances requires investigation. Any material bad debts would push the company into negative net assets.

c) Related Party and PSC Structure Tjbk Ltd holds more than 75% of shares, voting rights, and the right to appoint/remove directors. The relationship between this corporate PSC and Secure Build Ltd needs examination—particularly any inter-company balances, transactions, or guarantees that may not be visible in the filed accounts. Mr Harjeet Singh Kamra is also listed as holding more than 75% of shares individually, which requires clarification on the true ownership structure.

d) Registered Address Discrepancy The company overview shows the registered address as "C/O Harjeet Singh Kamra The Old Ferrari Garage Rugby Road, Brandon, Coventry, CV8 3GH," while the accounts reference "72 Crockhamwell Road, Woodley, UK, RG5 3LD." This discrepancy should be verified with Companies House records.

e) Creditor Profile and Terms The nature of the £781,182 in current liabilities requires investigation—specifically, what proportion relates to trade creditors, HMRC, or related parties. Any creditor demanding payment could create an existential liquidity crisis given the negative working capital position.

f) Going Concern Assessment The accounts contain no explicit going concern statement or director's assessment of the company's ability to continue trading. Given the financial position, this is a critical omission that should be addressed in any engagement.