theForum » Looking for employment » Specific occupations and professions » Starting a Limited Company vs. Sole Trader: The Mandatory Disclosure Loophole that Ruins Privacy

RE: Starting a Limited Company vs. Sole Trader: The Mandatory Disclosure Loophole that Ruins Privacy

Richie — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 22:28:47 GMT

[quote]

[b]Parky1989 - 16 Jun 26 11:35 AM[/b]

Hi everyone,I wanted to share some critical information I have just uncovered regarding starting an independent business while managing a sensitive criminal record. Like many here, I am setting up as a solo trader and had to decide whether to operate as a Sole Trader or register a Limited Company.My conviction happened under a previous surname (relating to historic conduct from when I was a child, though prosecuted as an adult). Because of this, my primary concern was privacy. If my old surname is linked to my new business on a public index, a quick Google search destroys my rehabilitation and puts my livelihood in jeopardy.I reached out to Unlock, ViSOR, and ultimately pushed a query directly to the New Companies Team at Companies House to get definitive legal clarity.What I discovered is a massive, incredibly unfair loophole where UK Corporate Law completely contradicts and overrides the protections of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA).The Concrete Facts from Companies House After pressing them for a direct answer on the legislation, an Operational Officer from Companies House confirmed the following:1. It is strictly mandatory to disclose past names: Under The Companies (Particulars of Directors) Regulations 1972, any director registering a Limited Company must disclose any former surnames held within the last 20 years. Knowingly omitting a former name is a criminal offence.2. The disclosure automatically goes public: Companies House confirmed that standard data captured on the IN01 incorporation format (the former name section) is inherently and automatically pushed straight to the public online register.3. They will not hide it for rehabilitation reasons: Their system is hardcoded to publish this data. They explicitly stated that they do not have a mechanism or a policy to withhold or protect a former surname from the public-facing register due to sensitive criminal records or rehabilitation circumstances.The Systemic ContradictionThis creates a devastating barrier for rehabilitated people trying to better themselves through business ownership:• The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is designed to give us a clean slate so a past record doesn't permanently ruin our future.• The Companies Act, however, prioritizes absolute corporate transparency.Because corporate law wins this battle, registering a Limited Company effectively forces you to publish your old identity to the public internet, completely stripping away your right to privacy and a fresh start.What this means for anyone starting a business:If you have a past record tied to a previous surname (e.g., a maiden name, a name changed by deed poll, etc.) and you want to maintain your privacy:• DO NOT register a Limited Company. Your old name will be indexed on Google via Companies House, and anyone searching your business or your name will find it.• DO register as a Sole Trader instead. When you operate as a sole trader, your business registration is entirely private between you and HMRC. HMRC is bound by strict statutory privacy laws and never publishes your information to a public registry. Your clients and the general public will only ever see your current name or trading name.While the Sole Trader route is a safe, completely legal workaround for now, it feels like a temporary band-aid. If any of our businesses grow to a point where we need to transition to a Limited Company for tax efficiency or growth, the current system forces us to choose between keeping our businesses small or sacrificing our privacy.I hope this breakdown prevents someone from accidentally exposing their past identity on a public register. Hopefully, Unlock's policy team can use structural barriers like this to keep lobbying the government for a genuine right to be forgotten in corporate law.Best of luck to everyone trying to build a future.

[/quote]

I do run a limited company with my partner and my name is visible on the public register and is searchable. I understand where you are coming from in that starting a limited company may link your old name to your new one. However I think this would be really hard to get changed as if this is corporate law it would require the government to take up the case which I don't believe they will do if the only reason is to protect someone with a legal conviction.

I personally worry more about such things as Google reviews being left by someone who finds out my conviction than I do about someone seeing my name linked to the company and then linking that to my offence. The same Google review worry exists regardless of whether I am a limited company or sole trader. I need my company on platforms such as Google to promote it.

The biggest issue that I have had is insurance cover, so many insurance companies refuse to cover those with unspent Sexual Offences and getting cover such as public liability is extremely difficult. I would like to see Unlock do more work on this as it is a real barrier to starting your own business whether as a limited company or sole trader.

Starting a Limited Company vs. Sole Trader: The Mandatory Disclosure Loophole that Ruins Privacy

Parky1989 — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 22:28:47 GMT

Hi everyone, I wanted to share some critical information I have just uncovered regarding starting an independent business while managing a sensitive criminal record. Like many here, I am setting up as a solo trader and had to decide whether to operate as a Sole Trader or register a Limited Company. My conviction happened under a previous surname (relating to historic conduct from when I was a child, though prosecuted as an adult). Because of this, my primary concern was privacy. If my old surname is linked to my new business on a public index, a quick Google search destroys my rehabilitation and puts my livelihood in jeopardy. I reached out to Unlock, ViSOR, and ultimately pushed a query directly to the New Companies Team at Companies House to get definitive legal clarity. What I discovered is a massive, incredibly unfair loophole where UK Corporate Law completely contradicts and overrides the protections of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA). The Concrete Facts from Companies House After pressing them for a direct answer on the legislation, an Operational Officer from Companies House confirmed the following: 1. It is strictly mandatory to disclose past names: Under The Companies (Particulars of Directors) Regulations 1972, any director registering a Limited Company must disclose any former surnames held within the last 20 years. Knowingly omitting a former name is a criminal offence. 2. The disclosure automatically goes public: Companies House confirmed that standard data captured on the IN01 incorporation format (the former name section) is inherently and automatically pushed straight to the public online register. 3. They will not hide it for rehabilitation reasons: Their system is hardcoded to publish this data. They explicitly stated that they do not have a mechanism or a policy to withhold or protect a former surname from the public-facing register due to sensitive criminal records or rehabilitation circumstances. The Systemic Contradiction This creates a devastating barrier for rehabilitated people trying to better themselves through business ownership: • The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is designed to give us a clean slate so a past record doesn't permanently ruin our future. • The Companies Act, however, prioritizes absolute corporate transparency. Because corporate law wins this battle, registering a Limited Company effectively forces you to publish your old identity to the public internet, completely stripping away your right to privacy and a fresh start. What this means for anyone starting a business: If you have a past record tied to a previous surname (e.g., a maiden name, a name changed by deed poll, etc.) and you want to maintain your privacy: • DO NOT register a Limited Company. Your old name will be indexed on Google via Companies House, and anyone searching your business or your name will find it. • DO register as a Sole Trader instead. When you operate as a sole trader, your business registration is entirely private between you and HMRC. HMRC is bound by strict statutory privacy laws and never publishes your information to a public registry. Your clients and the general public will only ever see your current name or trading name. While the Sole Trader route is a safe, completely legal workaround for now, it feels like a temporary band-aid. If any of our businesses grow to a point where we need to transition to a Limited Company for tax efficiency or growth, the current system forces us to choose between keeping our businesses small or sacrificing our privacy. I hope this breakdown prevents someone from accidentally exposing their past identity on a public register. Hopefully, Unlock's policy team can use structural barriers like this to keep lobbying the government for a genuine right to be forgotten in corporate law. Best of luck to everyone trying to build a future.

RE: Starting a Limited Company vs. Sole Trader: The Mandatory Disclosure Loophole that Ruins Privacy

marcovanba — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 17:04:48 GMT

[quote]

[b]Parky1989 - 16 Jun 26 11:35 AM[/b]

[/quote]

i operated as a sole trader for a few years before going down the limited route

however the main reason was that mine was a fraud conviction and I couldn't get a business bank account

i used to worry about people searching my past etc as there were online articles and my name is fairly different

i managed to get them removed from google (some still pop up) but not yahoo or bing despite appealing

however I don't let it bother me anymore

my conviction was 11.5 years ago and i refuse to let it be a burden any longer

RE: Starting a Limited Company vs. Sole Trader: The Mandatory Disclosure Loophole that Ruins Privacy

marcovanba — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:34:01 GMT

[quote]

[b]Parky1989 - 16 Jun 26 11:35 AM[/b]

[/quote]