2 conflicting dates on Companies House payment data, suppliers risk reviewing the wrong year

On 14 August, a Companies House publication carried the title “Transparency data: Companies House prompt payment data April 2026 to March 2027”. But the same page summary says, “Companies House prompt payment data April 2025 to March 2026.” That gives suppliers two different reporting periods for one official release.

What the source says Prompt-payment data matters because it informs how suppliers judge settlement discipline and whether current terms still fit. Here, the title points to April 2026 to March 2027, while the summary points to April 2025 to March

2026. Those are different trading windows, with different customer behaviour, cash planning, and supplier decisions attached. The issue looks small on screen, but it changes the frame for anyone tracking payment performance over time. Until Companies House clarifies the coverage, readers cannot know which year the page means them to review.

What RecoupIQ’s data shows Our UK regulatory monitoring treats a title and summary date conflict as a manual review flag. Our capital-bleed signal does not rely on prompt-payment publications in isolation for that reason. We read payment disclosures beside filing cadence, overdue accounts, and other formal stress markers before changing risk priority.

Keep watch on your customers and suppliers. recoup-iq.tech/pricing (Pro £149/mo) A date mismatch can put a live behaviour record into the wrong sequence, which matters when exposure is rising. When periods are uncertain, we weight fresher statutory events more heavily than descriptive publication labels.

What this means for UK creditors If you supply to larger customers, do not reset terms or limits from this release alone. First, check whether your team has captured the title year or the summary year in its notes. Second, park any year-on-year comparison until Companies House confirms whether this is a metadata error or a period error. In exposure terms, this is about avoiding a false comfort signal or an unnecessary tightening. That is especially important where one customer already sits on longer payment cycles or has started asking for more headroom. A clean review now is better than carrying a wrong payment-year assumption into autumn credit decisions. Monitor your debtors against signals like these continuously with RecoupIQ Pro (recoup-iq.tech/pricing).

This report is generated by the RecoupIQ News Engine based on algorithmic