Why I really signed up to the Fair Payment Code

Earlier this year I became one of the first businesses in the UK (and the first sole trader) to be certificated by the new Fair Payment Code (and at the top tier level, too!). 

This new standard is part of the government's wider attempts and efforts to encourage business growth, investment, etc by helping to make sure money is flowing around our economy in ways that benefit all of us (and isn't getting 'stuck' in the pockets of a few bigger businesses, at the expenses of the lots and lots of small businesses who collectively employ most people).

Over the first few months since the Code (and its first cohort of pioneer awardees) was officially launched, I've seen lots of my fellow certificated businesses share the reasons why they chose to submit themselves to the rigour and scrutiny that the application process for it entails.  Most of these are probably what you'd expect:

- it helps them build more resilient supply chains;

- it makes them more trustworthy with commissioners, investors, etc

- and it helps them better attract talent when they're recruiting, by showing how they're a firm you wouldn't be embarrassed to work for.

However, as you might expect, my motivations were a little different: 

I've always been open in stating my intention to pay all invoices within 24 hours of my receiving them, which has led to my current recognition by the Organisation for Responsible Businesses; the Good Business Charter; PayOnTime; and the previous government Prompt Payment Code.

And that's because ultimately I don't want to be a d*ck - I hate it when I'm paid late by my clients, so why would I further their bad practices by making others similarly suffer when I could do something about it?

I also saw lots of the other big businesses alongside me on the initial list of awardees patting themselves on the back for getting the bronze and silver levels of certification (which means they pay up to 90 days after you give them your bill). But if I can hit gold (guaranteed paying within 30 days) without having dedicated finance managers, access to investment and bank loans, etc in the way they have, then how come my practices are somehow so much better than theirs?

What's stopping bigger businesses from hoarding cash, which not only causes more smaller firms like ours to increase the risk of going bust, but also contributes to likelihood of the wider economy going into a recession, which would hurt all of us?

* recessions aren't caused by an economy running out of money, but by people and businesses stopping spending money in it - like not paying their bills when they're supposed to...

all social impact is built on sh!t

Each year I openly publish an impact report on myself.

And as this is my 20th year in business, it's gotten me thinking not just about the legacies of the impacts we create, but also what the foundations for these changes we're making are.

As some will know, I decided to mark the official anniversary of my business not with fanfare, speeches, or grand gestures like sending everyone cake, but a simple flush of my office toilet - to mark it being twinned with a school latrine block in Uganda. In doing so, I'm trying to help recognise the dignity of that generation, and help them to remain in education. And through this, my hope is that they'll be subsequently able to create more impact for their families and communities that they would otherwise, if they weren't able to remain in school for reasons of hygiene and sanitation.

So essentially, I'm creating impact by starting with sh!t.

Which has made me wonder - just as there's Maslow's hierarchy of needs (i.e. you can't sustainably progress to building esteem until you feel safe, both physically and emotionally), is there a comparable hierarchy of impact that we can/should create?

Lots of initiatives to help transform lives and communities seem to be designed in the assumption that the people they're designed for will be able to relatively easily engage with them (the biggest barriers usually identified being child-care, and transport) - but what if we more explicitly mapped out how people can engage and move through the stages of creating impact?

In the UK there are actually very few legal rights and protections for people to have access to a toilet, unless it's in their own home or direct place work - so when we're trying to create impact for communities, how far how we considered their needs to 'take a dump', and how far that may be stopping them from being able to become part of something that will make things better in the future? 

p.s. - you can get the latest full impact report here: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dybBV3fIqIPz9k14hs3YxBOIFZ_EKspT/view?usp=sharing

Tubthumping

In this, my business' 20th anniversary year, most people would usually be pausing to reflect on the highlights, achievements, legacy, etc of their work, and be making commitments about what they'll change/do in the next chapter. 

And yes, I'm doing this in various places throughout 2025, but I also wanted to pause to reflect on just how f*cking awesome my reaching this milestone is (and not just because only 10% of all businesses make it this far).

You see, I've endured my share of challenges since I first registered with HMRC at the start of 2005. I've alluded to some them in brief in various podcasts and interviews I've featured in over the years (which is possibly why I'm repeatedly asked to guest on the topic of resilience - most recently as part of the Freelance Thrive and Freelance Sucks podcasts). But I thought it was maybe time to 'go in record' with all of the big hits - not to encourage you to break out the tiny violins for me, but as hopeful solidarity and encouragement for anyone else out there, who may be struggling with similar, that you can come out of the other side of it (eventually):

• When I started freelancing/became self-employed, as well as having no savings to speak of, no clients, and no leads, I was sole financial supporter of my family for 12 years. During this time, I had to earn enough to cover all the household bills and costs, family expenses (clothes, trips, entertainments, etc), as well as my own business' needs. And I also had to financially support and cover some of the costs in my now ex-wife's business that she started up, for 7 of those years.
• As a family, we were made homeless by flooding twice, and I had to make up some of costs of rebuilding our home both times, as the insurance wouldn't cover everything - managing the rebuilding of your home, trying to encourage and support your family (which included young children) as they bounce around various temporary accommodations, whilst also keeping your own business running, were 3 plates that I'm not sure I always managed to balance as well as I should have. 
• I went through a divorce with my ex-wife that took a lot longer than my solicitor's experience said it should have - amongst other things connected with this, the process saw me disowned by my parents; lose my savings; and cede full ownership of the house I'd paid the full mortgage of. So at the age of 50, I started my life again with no house (other than the one I rent with my new wife); no savings; and no pension (many people who are self-employed of my generation have tended to buy their home as their pension fund).
• I've become the unpaid carer for 2 of my now adult children (likely lifelong), and another immediate family member (likely to be temporary) - and owing to how systems are designed (or not) for people like me, there's no support I'm able to access, nor am eligible to apply for, to support me in this role, nor them.
• My father has suffered through multiple sudden illnesses that technically should have killed him at least twice on each occasion, and he lives with my mum at the other end of the country to me - trying to keep all of the above progressing, whilst also taking time out to be with him and my mum as best I was able, meant that some of those plates I mentioned before probably weren't as balanced as well as they should have been.
• I've had several clinical procedures on one of my eyes to help me retain my sight in it (which also involved the wearing of eye patches, and not being able to read laptop or phone screens for several days at a time. But it did lead to an accidental discovery that I've always been missing part of my brain...).
• Following an unexpected ride in the back of an ambulance, I needed several years of treatments to help me resolve, and live with, skeletal issues (that were diagnosed just before my 40th birthday, and coincided with my celebrating my 10th year of being in business). As a result of these prolonged works on me, I'm able to move freely and without the need for painkillers on most days.
• I had surprise visit from police officers at 11pm one night, owing to unfounded allegations other people had made about me; and have had to break off client calls while working from home owing to neighbours (literally) kicking off at my family, on my doorstep. 
• The CIC Regulator opened a file on me once, because I openly questioned them about why they were knowingly allowing the CIC form to force social enterprises adopting it to compromise some of their core defining values that otherwise identified them as such.  
• There was a spell of about 5 years, when there was at least 1 client a year who was making official complaints about me (all of which were fully investigated by external bodies, and all of which fully exonerated me).
• I've been investigated by HMRC 3 times for suspected tax fraud (and fully cleared each time).
• Several people have written blogs attacking my professional reputation, standing, and credibility; and I've also been un-invited from speaking at conferences, after my book that challenges what everyone thinks they know and understand about imposter syndrome was published.
• My website has had to be taken down twice, owing to it becoming targeted in deliberate attacks by others.
• And I once had to write off a nearly £10,000 overdue invoice to a client that had accumulated over the course of a year - I was working with them on the basis that they were drawing funds from a grant making body to pay me, but they'd hit a temporary cash-flow hiccup as some Councils they were delivering contracts for were dragging their feet in paying them on time. I'd agreed they could use the cash that they'd received to pay me to temporarily plug this gap while I continued with the project, and then 'catch me up' with payments after said Councils cleared their overdue debts. Except those Councils never did pay up, and the enterprise went into administration.

And there's all the other typical challenge that most freelancers / sole traders contend with: ghosted by clients; late payment of invoices; tech explosions; falling ill; etc...

I've endured, navigated, and come through the other side (of the ones I was able to - some will remain with me for life), without access or recourse to sick pay, holiday pay, or any other employee assistance programme that I would otherwise been supported by were I salaried on a payroll. Being self-employed has meant I've had to find ways to deal with all of the above by myself, without help from anyone else.

I've written in the past about how I also find myself working in some vary 'dark places' with certain types of clients, (which I won't recant here, as they're usually to do with taboo subjects that most people find difficult to talk about, let alone ever want to actively acknowledge or think about). And as part of that blog post, how I deliberately try and bring some 'humour' to go some way to balance this (for both the people I work with who are living in/with those circumstances, as well as myself). 

But in light of the above, is it any wonder that my humour seems to sometimes border on the hysterical?

As Spider-Man once said in one of the many comics he's appeared in: when asked why he's always telling jokes despite the multiple traumas he's endured in his personal life: "It's because if I didn't laugh, I'd probably cry".

And the moral of the above (if there is one?) - however much you think things can't get any worse, the universe can always find a way of making it so... but if can hold your nerve and find ways to keep investing in your resilience, there's always a choice somewhere that can help you come out of the other side of it (and if you're lucky, in a way that doesn't include you having to lose any limbs/organs, or have things start to come to light when you next get a DBS check on yourself).

AI gets drunk with me...

A little while ago, as part of my ongoing CPD framework, I asked a sample of people who've worked with me how they'd introduce me to someone else.

Recently, I asked ChatGPT the same question, only with a twist: 

"explain what Adrian Ashton does in the style of a drunk at a party"

And the results?

leans in too close, sloshing drink slightly

"Oi, listen, mate—ya ever heard of Adrian Ashton? No? Ah, well, lemme tell ya, this guy—this guy—he’s like... ya know when you got a mate who just knows things? Like, business-y things, but not in a boring suit-and-tie kinda way. Nah, he helps folks, like, charities, freelancers, businesses—big, small, whatever—sort their, uh... stuff out. Strategy! Funding! Making sure they don’t, like, screw themselves over with dumb decisions.
And get this—he don’t do it the normal way. Oh no, no, no. He’s got this, uh, renegade vibe, yeah? Breaks the rules, but, like, in a good way. Thinks different. Writes these, uh... blogs? Reports? Manifestos or summat? People actually listen to him. I tried writing a blog once—got three views, and one was me mum.
But Adrian? People pay attention. ‘Cause he knows his stuff, yeah? Knows what makes businesses tick, and he’s not afraid to call out nonsense when he sees it. Bit of a legend, really. Anyway—where’s the next round?!" 

wobbles off towards the bar 

Considering that last year, AI started to suggest that I'd died without realising it, I think I'd be OK with this introduction...   

Did I help kill the CIC Regulator?

I'm aware that in some quarters of the social enterprise sector, I have a reputation as being "the CIC killer" - and I've never hidden my confusion about the Community Interest Company form, on the basis of the weight of evidence and research showing that none of the claims made about it seem to actually stack up, and its the only legal form that was created as a direct result of a government policy agenda (in contrast to the wider social economy who, at the time, said that they didn't need any new legal structures).

And as part of this, I've also sought to constructively challenge the CIC Regulator (in the spirit of trying to help build a stronger wider sector through more critical debate) - both through attempts at direct contact and conversation, but more often through various published articles in sector media, public posts, and fact checking that I've shared through this blog (because they've usually not reciprocated my efforts).

So it's with a strange mix of feelings that I read the recent news that the government has decided to wind up the CIC Regulator (and transfer its functions to Companies House) - on that basis, I can't help but wonder how far the CIC form ever had anything that special in it after all, because they've not been able to identity any justifiable reason or benefit to keep them in place?

(Some may recall previous posts I made about the 'unique features' of CICs actually having always been available to any limited Company, and that for 20+ years, Companies House has been enforcing these already and has been continuing to do so; and that I've repeatedly highlighted how the CIC Regulator doesn't seem to be able to discharge its most basic functions...).

So - I once changed CIC legislation, and I now seemed to have helped remove their Regulator. What are the chances of me pulling of a hat-trick on CICs in the years to come..?

  

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-new-approach-to-ensure-regulators-and-regulation-support-growth/new-approach-to-ensure-regulators-and-regulation-support-growth-html

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/proposed-merger-of-cic-regulator-to-companies-house

AI thinks I'm dead

Last year, something strange started to happen.

A client reported back that the Christmas gift I'd left them had been confused for an urn that contained my ashes, and a few different AI bots started to reference that I'd also died.

So - both human and machine error (you don't often see that happening!).

I've subsequently found out why AI thinks I've passed over - there are several memorial page for people who shared a name with me*. As AI scrapes the internet for its knowledge, then I can understand how it came to that conclusion.

What I'm slightly more concerned by, is how so many people in my client's employment could all come to the same conclusion (especially when the gift in question was a branded wooden box containing a bottle of wine...).

However, given how I can sometimes court controversy (as seen by regulators opening files on me, getting uninvited from speaking at conferences, etc), maybe "but it can't have been me - I was dead at the time, and you can fact-check that with AI" is the ultimate dodge for being able to get out of trouble?

* https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/adrian-ashton-obituary?id=43461197 and https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/adrian-ashton-obituary?id=41324564

more awkward moments for CIC Regulator?

OK - so this post is in my bucket of 'more likely to cause upset and controversy', but sometimes you have to be unpopular for the sake of trying to further a debate or conversation, in trying to figure something out for yourself...

I've never hidden my confusion about CICs since they were first mooted by a drunken solicitor, as to what it is that they actually add to the social enterprise sector (there's nothing unique in them that you can't have in any other legal form, they're no more attractive or eligible to apply to grant making bodies than a 'regular' company, and don't enjoy any of the tax breaks that charities do).

But I was always encouraged by the CIC Regulator in its early days - for its being open to engage in critical debate, and willingness to hear and receive arguments that there may be parts of the CIC design which needed to be reviewed.

However, in more recent years, I can't help but start to think that the CIC Regulator is increasingly doing not just itself a disservice, but also the CICs that it oversees, and the wider social enterprise community:

In the past the CIC Regulator has:

• Publicly stated that in order to protect trust in the CIC brand, that it will never disclose or reveal any investigations it opens, or actions it takes, against any CIC (including to the persons who may have initially raised concerns about it with them). But such secrecy surely only builds mistrust, especially as its in complete opposition to the position of every other regulatory body.

• Stated untruths about the general public's relative trust in CICs over Charities.

• Created a governance code for CICs, to help guide and inform Directors of them as to best understanding the legal duties associated with being such, and how to effectively lead a CIC in this capacity - but never told any CIC about it (and it's not even hosted anywhere in their website pages).

• Admitted that there are parts of the CIC legislation that don't make sense, and shouldn't be as they are, but don't have any direct powers to act on this when it's brought to their attention.

And more recently: 

from late 2023 to the present - I've noticed that I'm increasingly meeting more 'new' CICs (registered in last few years) who are missing core details in their registration documents which should have meant that the CIC Regulator automatically rejected their application: 

• they don't have any stated social objects clauses in their Articles; 
• they don't have any statements about how their profits will be used; 
• there's contradictory details about the named recipient in their asset lock.

- These are part of the key features of being a CIC, which are apparently regulated and assured by the CIC Regulator (except they're obviously not).

in 2024 - the BBC exposes a the illegal, unethical, and questionable management practices of a CIC that have been taking place over several years. The feature drew national interest, response, and comment from the Fundraising Regulator, Police, safeguarding bodies, and even the Charity Commission. But there were no responses from the CIC Regulator to any requests made to it for comment (including not even an acknowledgement of the request).

in the spring of 2025 - I've just been approached by a CIC who's annual accounts were accepted by Companies House, but it's taken the CIC Regulator a further 6 weeks to spot and request that they amend the CIC34 part of their return in relation to an oversight on the CICs parts about a note in the accounts. 

But the CIC has fulfilled its filing obligations with Companies House, so is surely legally compliant - its hard to understand how the CIC Regulator would then take nearly another 2 months to check what was submitted: a Regulator is surely supposed to check everything is in order before accepting them as being filed? So if Companies House have already accepted the accounts (which the CIC34 forms part of), then it's hard to see what/how the CIC Regulator can do to enforce getting any such oversights subsequently resolved, as they relate to documents that have already been legally accepted? 

The only resolution I can currently think of to this contradiction is that CICs are subject to even more confusing regulation, which means that even though they've been told by one regulator that they're compliant, another could then overrule that decision - which in this instance would mean that the CIC in question is suddenly and unexpectedly facing backdated fines, prosecution, and being struck off the register by Companies House for not submitting compliant accounts when they were supposed to have (even though they were told they had at the time), because the 2 regulators that CICs are subject to, don't seem to be able to work that well together as we all think they do?

I know many people extoll CICs as a great legal form - and I've always been open to hearing their arguments, experiences, and evidences. On occasion, I've also agreed with them that this legal form really was the best choice for them. But when the regulator of a legal form that was so publicly marred in controversy as it was in the national media last year; and when so many 'advisers' seem to keep reiterating 'truth illusions' about CICs; and that their Regulator seems to be increasingly 'asleep at the wheel', surely only makes us more concerned about how far we can trust and have confidence in any enterprise adopting this status?

But as always, I'm open to people helping me spot what I've otherwise missed, and if the weight of evidence so compels me as it has in the past, to once again change my mind...