The Constitution Society published a blog in 2024 about the relatively unique legal structure of the Reform UK party. The organisation's legal structures have evolved further since then. This is how it was described in October 2024:
Unlike all other major political parties, which are classified as unincorporated associations, Reform exists as an ‘entrepreneurial political start-up’ or, put more simply, a private company. Just like all other companies, Reform has shareholders, the most influential of which is the party’s leader, Farage, who currently owns 53% of the company. For a political party this is highly unusual. Not only do Reform members currently have no control over electing their leader, but it is the company’s major shareholder that has ‘elected’ himself to the role. Naturally, this has resulted in claims that Reform’s current constitution is ‘undemocratic’ and positions Farage as ‘the party’s ultimate kingmaker’.
As Rupert Lowe put it, Farage is running a cult.
Every political party has to submit a copy of their annual accounts to the Electoral Commission each year.
Every limited company has to submit a copy of their annual accounts to Companies House each year. This is an additional filing Reform is obliged to make that other political parties don't do.
The format of the accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission are not quite the same as the format expected in the report to Companies House.
The last UK general election was on 4 July 2024. There are concerns about donations made to Reform prior to the election. In particular, it is alleged that donations made by Fiona Cottrell at that time are under suspicion.
During the accounting year ending 31 December 2025, Reform's revenues were far bigger than before. There is concern that a significant part of this extra money, although donated lawfully, has come from overseas electors. News reports make allegations about foreign donations, donations washed through other companies in liquidation and Fiona Cottrell, the mother of a convicted felon donating to another company which wrote off a loan to Reform.
On 25 March 2026, the Government announced new laws, backdated to the date of the announcement, placing severe limits on the amounts overseas electors can donate.
In April 2026, shortly after the announcement that new limits would be applied retrospectively, one of the overseas billionaires made a £4 million donation, double his previous donation.
On 19 May 2026, Harvey Spencer Griffiths was appointed as a director.
The accounts are signed by Griffiths, implying they were only completed and signed by the auditor at around the same time. Oddly, the accounts do not state the dates on which they were signed by the treasurer and the auditor respectively.
The Electoral Commission shows us the dates when each party submitted their accounts. Reform UK has submitted accounts on 25 June 2026. They did not submit any accounts to Companies House at the same time.
Was the lack of a submission to Companies House simply an oversight, or did the auditor already have concerns about any of the matters raised in public at the time?
The accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission generally reflect the fact political parties are a unique type of organisation. They are intended to help the public understand the role of money in the political process. The accounts submitted to Companies House are intended to demonstrate the solvency of the company in a more general sense, to help investors and suppliers decide if this is a company they would trade with.
The auditor's report does not mention anything about the risk of the rule changes announced on 25 March 2026. Here are the comments the auditor, CK Partnership, has made in the accounts signed in May/June for the Electoral Commission:
Independent auditor's report
of REFORM UK...
Conclusions relating to going concern
In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that the Registered Treasurer's use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.
Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the company's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue.
Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Registered Treasurer with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this report.
If the auditor, CK Partnership, was asked to sign the same statement today for the accounts due to be submitted to Companies House, would they feel comfortable doing so?
When they signed that statement at the time, was it appropriate for them not to mention the new rules intended to take effect from 25 March 2026?
On 9 July 2026, The Times reported that police were investigating the payments made directly from Fiona Cottrell to the Reform UK party in 2024.
On 1 September 2026, I served a Statutory Demand (SD1) on the registered office of Reform asking them to honour Farage's promise to pay election expenses.
On 3 September 2026, Channel 4 published their report about undercover reporters discussing ways to make illegal donations with Reform staff.
On 9 September 2026, the police informed the media they would investigate the evidence from the Channel 4 undercover investigation.
On 11 and 12 September 2026, there was enormous publicity about two new donations from British billionaires who are not resident in the UK. Is it simply coincidence these donations were offered in the middle of all the investigations and shortly before the Companies House accounts are due?
This is why it is so important for us to know the exact date when each person, the treasurer and the auditor, signed each version of the accounts. We need to know if the auditor was supporting the "going concern" hypothesis before the news reports about the police or after those reports became public.
The deadline for them to submit to Companies House is 30 September 2026.
On 6 October 2026, a notice will be published in the official Gazette formally alerting the community that Reform UK is subject to an insolvency procedure. It seems absurd that Gazette notices are only published seven days after service to the debit when in reality, many people could see the winding up petition in online court records on the same day it was filed, even before it was served.
It would be absurd for Reform to submit accounts to Companies House claiming they are a going concern and then appear in the Gazette less than a week later. Therefore, to avoid any confusion about the matter, I wrote to the auditor directly:
Subject: CR-2026-007405 High Court insolvency list / Reform UK Party Limited Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2026 17:45:08 +0200 From: Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> To: info@ckpartnership.com I am contacting you as you are the auditor of Reform UK Party. Are you aware a creditor's winding up petition was served on Reform UK Party Limited on 24 September 2026? Please find a copy attached. I saw the accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission. Do you still consider Reform UK to be a going concern given the police investigation, the government plan to make them reimburse overseas donations and the insolvency procedure? Regards, Daniel
Given the scandals revealed between July and September, the auditors CK Partnership may feel Reform UK has not reliably told them everything they would need to know to decide if there are risks to the going concern status.
Will Reform be able to cut and paste the auditor's report submitted to the Electoral Commission and use it for the accounts submitted to Companies House?
If the accounts eventually submitted to Companies House are not accompanied by an auditor's report from the same auditor, members may want to ask if CK Partnership had resigned and if so, did they give a reason? Reading the resignations from the FSFE identity fraud scandal has been fascinating.