Daniel Pocock’s personal blog | Debian

Reform UK, Nigel Farage’s party/company, admits missing winding-up petition

2026-10-01T12:00:00+02:00

In my other blog today, I explored how the other Reform UK Party Limited party/company was previously subject to a judgment and insolvency proceedings to try and extract payment.

Very few companies are ever listed in the official Gazette.

After that painful lesson, as they progress towards being in a position to run the UK Government, wouldn't you expect them to improve their procedures and run their party headquarters competently?

When Sarah Cooper-Lesadd recently resigned and defected from Reform UK, she told the BBC that Reform UK is chaotic.

In the Scotsman's report about the VMS Enterprises vs Brexit Party dispute, the party was described as "beyond chaotic". They can't seem to learn how to tie their shoelaces but they want to run the United Kingdom. If Nigel Farage does ever become Prime Minister, I hope his party remembers to pass on the messages when Argentina makes their next attempt to take the Falkland Islands.

It looks like Sarah Cooper-Lesadd is right. They admit despite having one of the most serious legal documents, a winding-up position, served on their party headquarters, they have no idea where it went:

Fortunately, the process server provide video evidence so I can prove it was served correctly and the incompetence is not on my side.

In fact, the case only reached this point because of a litany of errors on the part of Reform UK themselves. Errors they should never have made if they learnt the lesson from the last time somebody brought their party into insolvency proceedings.

Look at the cost. Their lawyers, Aston Bond, have invoiced over £25,000 before the first hearing. Most of that is for investigating what went wrong inside their own organisation and how the dispute was leaked by the MouseInTheCourt before the petition ever arrived on the doorstep of party HQ.

Why is Nigel Farage so so afraid of a candidate who only got sixteen votes?

Creditors beware: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs Brexit Party (Reform UK Party Ltd)

2026-10-01T09:30:00+02:00

As Reform UK tries to get an injunction against the winding-up petition (CR-2026-007405), they have complained to the court that I shouldn't be allowed to show other failed candidates, Reform UK defectors, independent contractors and small business owners how to create an account in the Court Management System and file a copy of the form comp-4.

If they block more people using the Court Management System, you can send the comp-4 form to me by email and I will give copies of all the forms directly to the judge. Here is an excerpt from the witness statement of Tom Waterhouse from Reform UK where he appears to be complaining about other creditors receiving pre-filled copies of a court form:

It is not my intention to publish the forms unless the conduct and behaviour of these people forces me to do so.

Judgment: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs The Brexit Party Ltd ([2021] SC GLA 49)

The Brexit Party Ltd became Reform UK Party Ltd, company number 11694875. This subsequently got merged into Reform 2025 Ltd to become a different Reform UK Party Limited company no. 16260766. An inconvenient consequence of this name change and merger is that people searching for judgments against the new company number 16260766 don't see the history of the old company name and company number.

The full judgment is available here for download as an Acrobat document:

VMS Enterprises Ltd won the case but it took them over a year to get paid after the judgment. The records about VMS Enterprises Ltd (SC476412) at Companies House show us they are no longer active. It looks like beating Brexit Party / Reform UK in court was only a phyrric victory.

Not only was there a judgment ([2021] SC GLA 49), there were also some scholarly research articles published about the dispute:

On 10 September 2021, Scottish Legal News published a detailed summary "Glasgow sheriff orders Brexit Party to pay £22k in unpaid invoices to advertising firm".

On 15 November 2021, the case appeared again in a Law Society of Scotland article about case management review.

Despite the Sheriff making a judgment against the Reform people in July 2021, they still didn't pay the bill. On 19 July 2022, The Scotsman reported "Reform UK face winding up petition over £22,000 debt owed to Scottish firm".

Quoting the article:

The political party, formerly led by Nigel Farage as the Brexit Party during the 2019 general election, faces a hearing in the High Court in London as early as September. Victor Shields, director of VMS Enterprises, was forced to take the party – since rebranded and led by Richard Tice – to court over the bill from the 2019 general election. Despite Glasgow Sheriff Court agreeing the party should pay up, it has consistently refused to answer letters or pay the sum owed to the businessman, forcing him to take further legal action in England. It is understood a winding up petition was served on the political party last week, with a hearing set for September 7 or soon thereafter. Reform UK has consistently rejected the claim, now worth more than £26,000 after interest and before court expenses are taken into account. A winding up order, if granted by the court, would see the party face liquidation proceedings to pay the outstanding amount and could include an investigation into director conduct. The initial Scottish court case arose after a dispute between the party and VMS Enterprises around payment for election billboards in London during the general election campaign. The court stated the party was liable for the bill for advertising services after some invoices were paid by Brexit Party staff and others were not questioned. Several invoices had gone unpaid amid claims a volunteer did not have the authority to charge the party for the billboards. However, the court stated the failure to question the payment of invoices incurred by candidates meant the party was liable for the full costs. Speaking to The Scotsman last year, Mr Shields attacked Reform UK’s “hypocrisy” in failing to pay. He said: “I was quite happy to keep quiet after the judgment because I assumed they would respect the Scottish courts and duly pay us. "They don't care. They feel they are above the law. "Richard Tice is positioning himself to the right of Boris [Johnson] and trying to capture the Conservative voters, Scottish voters too and here we are being forced to go to English courts, for me being forced to spend further money, to try and recover a debt that is legally due to us." The court case heard witnesses describe the organisation of the Brexit Party, then led by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, as "shambolic" by a party official as it struggled to cope with its popularity and decision to pull hundreds of candidates from the ballot paper ahead of polling day. Witnesses told the court the party’s organisational structure "visibly started to fall apart", was "very unprofessional" and "beyond chaotic" ahead of the 2019 election. Reform UK’s latest accounts state that in 2020 it received nearly £3 million in donations, with a further £17m in 2019. Reform UK has been contacted for comment by The Scotsman.

Eighteen months after the judgment, almost two years after the judicial procedure began, in December 2022, VMS Enterprises Ltd used the High Court insolvency procedure to publish an insolvency notice for Reform UK Party Limited.

As a consequence, a listing was placed in the official Gazette with their old company number 11694875 and the High Court case number CR-2022-003973.

Diagram demonstrating evolution of the Reform UK companies

Searching for information about the names and company numbers is tedious and time consuming. I created a colour-coded diagram so people can see and understand the relationship between the companies in the history of Reform UK at a glance.

Here is what you see if you search for Reform UK at Companies House. Which Reform UK is which?

Looking through the filing history of each company, you can see many minor changes, including some name changes. I put the filing history for both companies side-by-side:

Drilling down on the name changes, it is fascinating to put the two forms side-by-side like this:

Here is the full diagram I created to help people understanding the judgment and insolvency court history of Reform UK and its leaders at a glance:

Direct links to search the Gazette for old company number 11694875 and for the new company number 16260766.

If they block more people using the Court Management System, you can send the comp-4 form to me by email and I will give copies of all the forms directly to the judge.

Reform UK last minute accounts filing

2026-10-01T00:15:00+02:00

On 25 June 2026, Reform UK, the political party, filed accounts for the 2025 calendar year with the Electoral Commission.

Reform UK is the only major political party in the UK that is also registered as a company at Companies House.

Consequently, each year, they must file a set of accounts, with an auditor's report, at Companies House. The deadline was today, 30 September 2026. Why did they file the accounts at the very last minute and not at the same time they filed with the Electoral Commission?

Click here to see the filing history and access the other accounts.

As explained in my previous blog on the subject, the reports given to Companies House are slightly different from the reports given to the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is trying to show the impact of money on democracy. The Companies House report aims to give members, investors, trading partners and employees an image of the organisation's strength or weakness.

The document uploaded to the Electoral Commission in June is a text-searchable PDF. The PDF uploaded to Companies House is not text-searchable. However, Companies House also has another copy in iXBRL, which is an XHTML file that is text-searchable in a web browser.

At a glance, we can see the numbers are not exactly the same. For example, the membership revenue in the report to the Electoral Commission appears to be a bit higher because they used to collect the money through a different company and then they subsequently merged the two companies during the 2025 reporting year.

Like the report submitted to the Electoral Commission, the report submitted to Companies House does not mention the potential impact of the new, backdated restrictions on donations from overseas electors. If those restrictions are implemented soon, they will have a very severe impact on Reform UK. It seems odd to me they can completely omit that from the statement about the company being a going concern for the next 12 months.

One of the very significant differences in the Companies House report submitted today is on the very last page. It is the declaration about how they merged the two former companies and who really has control over the company, which is acting as a political party but is really a business:

19. Related party transactions

On 19 February 2025, the company acquired the entire issued share capital of Reform 2025 Ltd for consideration of £15.

...

20. Controlling party

The company is limited by guarantee and has no share capital. The company has two members, who have equal voting rights. Neither member has individual control of the company and, accordingly, there is no ultimate controlling party.

...

Legal form of entity and country of incorporation

...

The company is limited by guarantee and has no share capital. The liability of each member is limited to £1, being the amount that each member undertakes to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its winding up. There were two members at the year end.

Looking at the full list of documents on the Companies House web site, we can find the first document filed when the company was created. They tell us the two real members of the company are Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf.

Companies limited by guarantee in the UK are a special type of company that is normally used for non-profits and charities. In some non-profits, like sporting clubs, every member is really a member of the company and invited to the annual general meeting.

The accounts that Reform UK has just filed show us they have a two-tier membership structure, similar to the scandal of the FSFE misfits.

People who "join" Reform UK and pay £25 per year are not really members like Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf are members in the accounts.

In UK law, the real members, Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf, can choose to change it into a normal shareholder company at any time they want and then they can sell the shares or pass them to their children, as long as the articles of association permit that.

In June 2025, Zia Yusuf resigned from Reform UK and came back two days later. The accounts show us that he resigned from his position on the board but they do not tell us if he transferred his position as one of the two controlling members to somebody else.

Reform UK claims to have more members than any other political party in the UK. These accounts tell us their company only has two members, making it one of the smallest political parties at the same time as being one of the biggest.

If the members accept this two-tier structure, does that mean it really is a cult, as we were told by Rupert Lowe?

When they changed the structure, they told people they were making it more democratic. What they really did is they reduced their risk. If it fails, they only lose their guarantee, which is £1 each. If it succeeds, these two people can choose to pivot back to a shareholder company form, issue shares and sell them on the stock market.

The other thing they did through this reoganisation is obfuscating the history of disputes and judgments against the former company. It looks like at least one law suit is still progressing against the old company and it is not clear if the new company structure will be obliged to pay for it if they lose.

The UK permits directors, company secretaries and shareholders to be nominees, in other words, proxies contracted to obey the person who really pays them to perform that role. While Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf are listed publicly as the members who founded the new entity in February 2025, there is no obligation for them to publicly identify any transfers of these memberships to other people. The only thing we can deduce from the report is that there are currently two members, the same number of members they had when they created the entity but not necessarily the same two people.

High Court victory: Nigel Farage is ‘the Company’s own candidate’

2026-09-30T21:45:00+02:00

In the sentencing of the late Cardinal George Pell, it was his defence lawyer Robert Richter KC who argued the Cardinal should receive a lighter punishment because it was a "plain vanilla" case of abuse. In fact, when somebody in such a senior position of trust commits an offence of that nature, it is a lifelong case of psychological torture for the victims. That is what makes institutional abuse, such as the abuse by jurists and the abuse by the Catholic Church so much worse than other types of abuse.

The Cardinal was later acquitted on appeal. The day I dared to walk into a Carabinieri post, in Italy and explained the similarities between the way the snobby set collaborated to protect paedophiles in both the Church & Debian, the Cardinal died four hours later.

In my case against Reform UK Party Limited, I meekly asked them to pay £5,000, barely 0.1 percent of the controversial £5 million donation, based on Farage's promise to pay for the election. Instead, I received this priceless gem from Farage's own lawyers. Adam Richardson from 4-5 Gray's Inn Square has admitted Nigel Farage is "the Company's own candidate". This is one of those gaffs that may well stand the test of time, like the "plain vanilla" defense. I've never seen a confession like that in democracy before. So much for the promise the Clacton-on-Sea by-election was an opportunity to vote against the Establishment.

Notorious Gem of Tanzania (Wrekin Ruby) & Nigel Farage’s mega-donations

2026-09-27T17:00:00+02:00

Many people have seen the recent news about Reform UK party receiving two donations of £36 million each. Therefore, it is quite a shock to see the party simultaneously being subject to a winding up petition under the Insolvency Act.

UK law doesn't require a contract to be in writing. Nigel Farage presents himself as somebody you can have a pint with. If somebody agrees to pay for a round of drinks you don't ask them to provide a written contract. Likewise, when Nigel Farage and other leaders in his party made promises to pay election expenses, I felt that was like offering to buy a round of drinks. It was a verbal contract.

The failure to make those payments provided a justification to begin insolvency proceedings. Does that mean Nigel Farage can simply pay me the money and exit the insolvency procedure? Maybe not. The judge may be tempted to have a closer look at Reform UK party and keep these people under judicial surveillance until the company files the report from the auditor.

We can find old reports from other Reform UK legal entities online. Here are the 2021 accounts. This is the relevant statement where the auditor contemplates whether money loaned to the party by Richard Tice could be a risk to solvency:

Material uncertainty related to going concern

We draw attention to the Balance Sheet which indicates that as at 31 December 2021, the Party had net liabilities of £849,456. As stated in the going concern accounting policy note, these liabilities consist mainly of directors loans from Richard Tice and we have received suitable reassurances from him about the intention for these to help grow the party in the medium term.

When the auditor writes their report for the next set of accounts, they will have to mention a whole range of scandals much bigger than that loan.

Remember that most volunteers and donors put in their time and money and they can not get their time and money back later. Yet Richard Tice put in his money as a loan, in other words, when other people contribute money, he gets his money back.

The existence of loans like this helps understand directors' willingness to accept donations that other parties might not touch with a ten foot pole.

Notice that Reform UK announced the mega donations just two weeks before the deadline for the accounts and auditor's report. Hence my curiosity about whether the publicity about these donations was meant to either sway the auditor or distract the public from concerns the auditor will express in the published report.

We saw the same thing with the notorious Gem of Tanzania. By coincidence, in November 2025, shortly before the end of Reform UK's first accounting year, the International Gem Society published a detailed history of the scandal. News reports claim the gem was worth little more than £100. Nonetheless, Wrekin Construction listed it on their balance sheet as an asset worth £11 million.

When I saw the news about these mega-donations, I felt déjà-vu. If it sounds too good to be true, maybe it is.

Sub-contractors and suppliers to Wrekin Construction felt they could give the company favorable credit terms because the balance sheet filed at Companies House looked extremely healthy. Some of the suppliers purchased trade credit insurance and when Wrekin Construction went bust, the insurance companies had to reimburse the suppliers who were not paid.

When people see these figures in the accounting documents and news stories about Reform UK, they may be fooled to be overoptimistic, in the short term, about Reform UK's future prospects.

The new legislation going through the UK parliament tells us these donations will be converted to loans. The party will be obliged to repay the money within 30 days.

The directors have known about this new reality since 25 March 2026 but their words and actions suggest they are being stubborn and behaving like petulant teenagers.

Read more research on cult behaviour

UK Government Enforcement Reform

2026-09-27T15:30:00+02:00

The UK government has a dedicated email address for a team contemplating Enforcement & Reform in the context of corporate insolvency.

After I filed an urgent application for Administrators to take over Reform UK, a High Court judge could call a hearing any day now.

It is a perplexing situation for the Government. On face value, it appears quite un-democratic for the Government to use its powers to help liquidate a rival political party. But Rupert Lowe has told us Reform UK is not a real political party anyway. He calls it a cult.

With time running out before a hearing takes place, don't hesitate to contact the government:

 
To: enforcement.Reform+UK@insolvency.gov.uk
Subject: CR-2026-007405 High Court proceedings

I do (not) want the UK Government to take a role in the insolvency
and enforcement proceedings against the Reform UK party.

Reform is .......

[ name ]
[ address ]

Please consider contacting your MP at the same time.

Reform UK auditor: Electoral Commission accounts, Companies House accounts, a going concern or not?

2026-09-26T22:30:00+02:00

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 25 July 2026, the BBC reported that police had expanded their search to investigate payments that Fiona Cottrell made to another company controlled by Reform deputy leader Richard Tice.

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 debtor 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.

Read more research on cult behaviour

Media silence deafening as Reform UK on brink of administration

2026-09-25T21:00:00+02:00

On Thursday, 24 September, a social media channel MouseInTheCourt and journalists from Bloomberg were in a race to be first to publish the news that a winding up petition had been served on Nigel Farage's Reform UK Party Limited through the High Court insolvency list.

Twenty four hours later and the mainstream British media dare not mention it. Are they in shock or did the lawyers from Reform obtain a super-injunction?

On the cover of the winding up petition the High Court officials have stamped the date for a hearing on 11 November 2026. In practice, disputes like this are often resolved long before the hearing date. On the one hand, some companies fail very quickly and on the other hand, if the company is solvent, they usually pay the bills and the petition is withdrawn.

With that much time, unscrupulous debtors can very easily move their assets out of the company before it is looked at by the Official Receiver.

To avoid that asset-stripping scenario, creditors and other interested parties can demand the appointment of an administrator.

From an ethical perspective, I feel there are serious grounds for appointing an administrator right away. Therefore, I asked the Artificial Intelligence to write a submission to the court demanding the immediate appointment of an administrator.

The BBC recently published a report Surge in AI-assisted complaints putting extra strain on councils and schools. Why not use the same technology against the far right?

A rising tide of complaints written with the help of AI is substantially increasing the workload of schools, local councils and other public bodies, the BBC has been told.

Chatbots can produce complex arguments, often quoting regulations or acts of Parliament, with documents running to dozens of pages long.

Here is the exact text of the question I asked the Artificial Intelligence. Notice there is serious mistake in the question: I actually served the statutory demand on 1 September and the document served on 24 September was a winding up petition. Yet Artificial Intelligence creates a response based on the actual situation, the service of the winding up petition that occurred on 24 September.

Here is a screenshot:

Click here to download a full copy of the request for an administration order, as created by Google's Artificial Intelligence

Will Nigel Farage accuse the Artificial Intelligence of being part of a conspiracy with the Establishment?

What about the fact that I am part of another legal case where Google is a defendant? Does the Artificial Intelligence suffer from a Conflict of Interest drafting my legal documents? We already demonstrated that Google AI is creating fake news to obfuscate scandals in Switzerland.

Here is a screenshot of the submission to the court:

Here are the Daleks liquidating Doctor Who:

I made a couple of small tweaks to the petition. They are placed in parentheses. Normally the creditor / petitioner will propose the name of an insolvency practitioner who is ready to take over the company. In this case, as it is extremely political, I've proposed that the name of an insolvency practitioner should be drawn out of a hat. Then die-hard Reform UK supporters will not be able to claim the administrator was part of an Establishment conspiracy all along.

Ultimately, the day will come when a director or auditor may be required to stand in front of the judge and answer a simple question: when the Government's Representation of the People Bill attains Royal Assent, will Reform UK still be a going concern, in other words, will it still be solvent?

Now the name of Reform UK is on the insolvency list, the judge will not want to let the company off the hook without asking that question at least once.

If the judge allows the party to continue trading and then the party is wound up anyway a few months later, the judge who let them off the hook will have egg on his face.

If Reform UK owes you money and if you wish to be formally notified about future developments in this case, please see the form comp-4 available for download.

With Reform UK now on the brink of administration, why are only foreign media willing to cover the story? Has Nigel Farage obtained a super-injunction or other order to prevent domestic news outlets reporting on the court listing? Nigel Farage claims to be against censorship and cover-ups.

Read more research on cult behaviour

Supporters of winding-up process staking claims against Reform UK Party (CR-2026-007405)

2026-09-24T22:30:00+02:00

Anybody who believes they have a claim against Reform UK Party Limited may want to consider seeking legal advice.

To make things easier for people to represent themselves, the UK Government publishes many of the forms and procedures online. In particular, people who want to be notified about the progress of the insolvency can read this page for information about the form to submit.

For convenience, I have downloaded the form already and written in the case number, the dates and the names of the parties. Download it here and add your own contact details if you believe you have an interest in the case for any reason.

After you complete the form, you need to send one copy to the lead petitioner (myself) and you can send a copy directly to the court using their online filing system or by email using the contact details here.

Here is an example email:

From: [you]

To: daniel@pocock.pro, Rcjcompanies.orders@justice.gov.uk

Subject: CR-2026-007405 Reform UK - Notice of Intention to appear

Dear Sir, please find form comp-4-eng.doc attached to this message

Faithfully, [you]

Instead of sending it by email, you can also register for an online court filing account here.

Here are the steps:

Create an account
Log in
Click "Create Filing"
In the "Court" pull-down menu, select "Insolvency & Company List (ChD)"
Filing Category: "Existing Case"
Case Number: CR-2026-007405
Filing Subtype: 4.9 Notice of intention to appear on petition
Click "Next"
Upload the form comp-4-eng.doc with your details and signature on it
Click "Next"
Click "Add To Basket"
The basket appears with a charge of £0.00 for filing the form.
Click "Submit Filings"

I am sharing this information from my perspective of a creditor, not as an advisor in legal or insolvency matters.

Please see the original petition and decide if you may have an interest in the process.

Winding-up petition leaked before service on Reform UK Party Limited / Nigel Farage

2026-09-24T20:00:00+02:00

At about 10:30 BST, I completed the online submission of the winding-up petition against Reform UK Party Limited.

At 10:44 BST, I received an email from the court telling me the filing had been approved with case number CR-2026-007405. The email asked for somebody to call the court and confirm a deposit for the Official Receiver, in the case the debtor has no assets at all to cover the cost of the process.

At 10:56 the payment was processed.

At 11:14 the court sent me a copy of the winding-up petition against Reform UK Party Limited with the court's seal on it.

A few minutes later, I forwarded the official version of the petition to a process server.

At 13:03, a post appeared in the social control media account for the MouseInTheCourt web site. Direct link to Twitter/X post.

The social media post includes a "Case View" screenshot from the court management web site.

Here is a screenshot of the social media post and a copy of the image shared in the post:

At 13:30 the documents were formally served at the registered office of Reform.

At 14:03 I received the first communication from a journalist about the winding up of Reform UK Party Limited.

At 17:38 BST, the story went live on Bloomberg.

According to guidance from The Gazette, the debtor normally has a grace period of seven days before the insolvency procedure becomes public knowledge. There is good reason for this: once people start talking about the winding-up, other creditors may join the procedure while donors or customers will stop giving money to the organisation. Like a run on a bank, the perception the organisation is about to fail can take on a mind of its own.

I had fully intended to respect the seven day grace period without mentioning the petition on my blog or anywhere else. My respect for the process has been usurped by the leak obtained by MouseInTheCourt.

In a normal insolvency procedure, creditors are typically looking to maximise their own return. In many situations, a creditor would be happy to receive their payment within the seven day grace period. Sometimes the creditor will continue trading with the same debtor after the affair is put behind them.

In the case of Reform UK, there are significant public interest questions to be addressed and those questions may be far more significant than the sum of money I am claiming personally.

Reform UK's failure to respond to my Statutory Demand gave me the opportunity to ask a High Court judge to focus on Reform UK's solvency at a time that may be extremely inconvenient for them. If Reform UK pays me now, the normal thing to do would be to write to the court and withdraw the petition. Yet there is nothing to stop other creditors, donors or members of the party from contacting the High Court insolvency list and asking to be included in the case.

Specifically, a judge may decide the enormous donations from non-resident billionaires need to be kept in a frozen bank account until the parliament votes on whether or not to backdate the regulations banning those donations.

Rank-and-file members of Reform UK, the mums and dads who contribute twenty pounds per month, may be surprised to find their money could be seized in the future to cover the reimbursement of illegal donations. The High Court judges presiding over insolvency cases have various remedies at their disposal to protect the public from such consequences.

BBC journalist Catrin Nye published a compelling account of the Lighthouse cult. In the report, she explains how once this organisation came before the courts, the judge decided that it had to be completely shut down to protect the public. What is the difference between a political party and a cult anyway?

On 28 March this year, there was a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London attended by around 20 Lighthouse associates and mentees, including Paul Waugh.

Government investigators told the court that it was "wholly unclear" what Lighthouse actually does. Despite the claims of pioneering research, they could "only identify significant amounts of money passing to Paul Waugh as its prime mover".

Judge Cheryl Jones decided it was in the public interest to close down Lighthouse International Group Holdings Trading LLP.

As he left the courtroom, Paul Waugh told us he had wanted to close Lighthouse down for a while - but that the group would not be stopping its work. It was now going global.

When asked why so many people think his group is a cult, he said: "They don't know what a cult is… they're slurring us, they're smearing us." He added that most of our allegations "were absolute nonsense".

Farage may be planning exactly the same thing: he may spend the foreign money as quickly as he can and then shut down the Reform UK party himself, telling everybody to blame the Establishment and join some new post-Reform party.

Read more research on cult behaviour

Daniel Pocock’s personal blog | Debian

Reform UK, Nigel Farage’s party/company, admits missing winding-up petition

Creditors beware: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs Brexit Party (Reform UK Party Ltd)

Judgment: VMS Enterprises Ltd vs The Brexit Party Ltd ([2021] SC GLA 49)

Diagram demonstrating evolution of the Reform UK companies

Reform UK last minute accounts filing

19. Related party transactions

20. Controlling party

Legal form of entity and country of incorporation

High Court victory: Nigel Farage is ‘the Company’s own candidate’

Notorious Gem of Tanzania (Wrekin Ruby) & Nigel Farage’s mega-donations

Material uncertainty related to going concern

UK Government Enforcement Reform

Reform UK auditor: Electoral Commission accounts, Companies House accounts, a going concern or not?

Independent auditor's report of REFORM UK

Conclusions relating to going concern

Media silence deafening as Reform UK on brink of administration

Supporters of winding-up process staking claims against Reform UK Party (CR-2026-007405)

Winding-up petition leaked before service on Reform UK Party Limited / Nigel Farage

Independent auditor's report
of REFORM UK