Effective 6 September 2026.
A compliance deadline is only useful if it's right. This document explains, in plain terms, how Kit & Ledger decides what to tell you, so you can judge how much weight to put on it, rather than simply asking you to trust a date on a screen.
Every rule behind a Kit & Ledger deadline is built from primary official sources: GOV.UK and HMRC guidance, the Companies House register and its published guidance, and The Pensions Regulator's guidance. When a primary source doesn't directly answer a question, we go to the underlying legislation itself, and occasionally to the general legal principles courts have used to interpret how a piece of legislation should be read. We do not build rules from secondary commentary, forum answers, or generic AI-generated summaries.
Where Companies House itself publishes an authoritative deadline for your company (for example, your confirmation-statement or accounts due date), we show you that value directly, refreshed from the live register. We never recalculate our own version of a deadline and quietly substitute it for the official one.
Where no such authoritative field exists (for example, Corporation Tax or VAT deadlines, which Companies House doesn't publish), we calculate the deadline from a rule we've verified against primary sources, applied to your company's facts and the answers you've given us.
Before any compliance rule is used to calculate a deadline shown to a customer, it's recorded against a standard structure covering: the underlying legal proposition and its source; who the rule applies to and what would make us unsure rather than guess; exactly how the deadline is calculated; the primary sources it's built on, with retrieval dates; and a set of test scenarios the calculation is checked against, including edge cases like leap years, month-end dates, and weekends or bank holidays.
If we don't have enough confirmed information about your business to calculate a deadline reliably (for example, if we don't yet know whether you're VAT-registered), we show "Check required" rather than presenting an assumption as fact. The same applies where our own verification of a rule hasn't yet reached a confident answer for your specific situation: we would rather be visibly uncertain than quietly wrong. Where we've done additional legal research to resolve a gap like this, we record what we found and cite it, rather than treating a newly-reasoned answer with the same certainty as one drawn directly from an official worked example.
Before it's approved for customers to see, rule content is independently reviewed: checked against the primary sources again, and checked for consistency with how the rule is actually implemented. Where a review finds a problem, we fix it and re-verify against the primary source, rather than patching around the symptom. A rule's content approval is separate from, and doesn't guarantee, technical readiness: a rule also has to pass automated regression tests and a review of its real-world impact before it's published to customers.
We keep the source material behind each rule (titles, links, retrieval dates, and the relevant extract) rather than relying on a link that could change or disappear later. If a rule's content changes, whether because the law changed or because we found an error, that's recorded as a new version with its own effective date, not an unannounced edit to the existing one.
Law changes, and so does our confidence in a given answer as we do more research. We re-verify rule content periodically and when we become aware of a relevant change, and we welcome you flagging anything that looks wrong. See our Disclaimer for how.
For any question about how we verify our compliance content, contact hello@kitandledger.com or use our contact form.