SECR penalties · enforcement
SECR penalties and enforcement: who enforces SECR
SECR carries no penalty of its own: SI 2018/1155 and the Schedule 7 text it inserted create no offence, fine or enforcement power.
Every consequence of a defective SECR disclosure comes from the Companies Act 2006, and the body authorised to compel a revision has never had to go to court to do it.
No SECR penalty
The regulations create no sanction
Read end to end, Schedule 7 Part 7A contains no penalty provision anywhere in paragraphs 20A to 20K, and Part 7 contains none for quoted companies.
SI 2018/1155, which inserted them, adds none either.
So everything that follows a defective SECR disclosure is drawn from the general provisions of the Companies Act 2006 that apply to any directors’ report.
DESNZ’s 2026 post-implementation review says so in its own words: there is “no dedicated civil sanction regime or proactive monitoring specific to SECR”, and interviewees described enforcement as light-touch.
s.463 — a safe harbour for directors, not a sanction.
s.453 — a late-filing penalty on the company, whatever the SECR content.
s.1132A — the ECCTA penalty for relevant offences, which does not reach s.453.
The Companies Act chain
Four provisions, not interchangeable
Once a directors’ report carries SECR content, these are the mechanisms that apply to it.
| Provision | What it is | Who is liable | What it takes |
|---|---|---|---|
| s.419(3)–(4) | The offence | Each director who approved the report | Knew it did not comply, or was reckless as to whether it did, and failed to take reasonable steps |
| s.456 | Court-ordered revision | The company; costs can fall on the approving directors | A court declares the report non-compliant and orders it revised |
| s.459 | Power to compel | The company and others | Documents and explanations in support of a s.456 inquiry |
| s.463 | Safe harbour | Nobody — it limits liability | A shield against claims by anyone other than the company |
The offence. Section 419(3)–(4) is committed by every director who knew the directors’ report did not comply, or was reckless as to whether it complied, and failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance.
It is triable on indictment or summarily and carries a fine, with no stated maximum for a SECR defect specifically.
Revision. The Secretary of State can give the directors notice of apparent non-compliance under section 455, allowing not less than one month to respond.
An authorised body can then apply to court under section 456 for a declaration that the report does not comply and an order that it be revised; the court can order notification of anyone who may have relied on the original and put the costs on the directors who approved it.
The safe harbour. Section 463 limits directors’ liability for the report to the company, and only on knowledge, recklessness or dishonest concealment.
Section 463(4) is explicit: “No person shall be subject to any liability to a person other than the company resulting from reliance, by that person or another, on information in a report or statement to which this section applies.”
It is the opposite of a sanction, and citing it as SECR’s penalty is a common and material error.
Who enforces it
The FRC — not the “Conduct Committee”
The body authorised to bring a section 456 application changed on 6 May 2021.
SI 2021/465, article 4, states: “The FRC is authorised for the purposes of section 456 of the 2006 Act.”
It also substitutes “Financial Reporting Council Limited” for “Conduct Committee” throughout the LLP regulations.
The authorisation is made under section 457, which lets the Secretary of State authorise another body for the purposes of section 456 — so “authorised under section 457” and “authorised for section 456” describe the same thing.
The FRC’s Conduct Committee still exists and still reviews corporate reports; what it no longer is, is the body authorised to apply to court.
Material that still names the Conduct Committee as SECR’s enforcer is out of date.
The authorisation
- 1 Apr 2019SECR in force
Financial years beginning on or after this date.
- 6 May 2021FRC authorised
SI 2021/465 art 4 — the FRC replaces the Conduct Committee as the s.456 body.
- 22 Sep 2021FRC thematic review of SECR
27 mainly larger entities; a review, not enforcement.
- 2 Apr 2026Current CRR procedures
A £2 million legal costs fund; no court order ever needed.
The actual record
No court order, ever
The FRC’s own Corporate Reporting Review operating procedures, effective 2 April 2026, say that failing voluntary correction the FRC Board can seek a court order, and that it keeps a legal costs fund of £2 million for that purpose.
They add: “The FRC and the predecessor bodies that held these powers have, to date, succeeded in resolving all cases on a voluntary basis and without having to apply for a court order.”
That is an owner-source statement that no section 456 application has ever been made for any directors’ report matter, SECR or otherwise.
No prosecution for a SECR defect under section 419, or under the LLP equivalents, was found in the FRC’s case summaries, annual reviews or elsewhere; that is a search result, not proof that none exists.
The one SECR-specific check on record is the FRC’s thematic review of 22 September 2021, covering 27 mainly larger entities, which found largely compliant minimum disclosure with weaknesses in methodology, ratio reconcilability and the explanation of assurance.
DESNZ’s independent evaluation put suspected non-compliance at 14–23% of the in-scope population, concentrated among private companies and LLPs.
A light record is not a low-stakes one: the FRC’s process resolves defects before litigation, and the thematic review found real weaknesses even among compliant filers.
Two different populations
The FRC’s remit and SECR’s scope no longer match
The FRC’s Corporate Reporting Review remit is defined by the Companies Act size tests in sections 382 and 466, which moved to £54 million turnover and £27 million balance sheet on 6 April 2025.
SECR’s own test, in Schedule 7 paragraph 20B, did not move and remains £36 million, £18 million and 250 employees.
So the population the FRC routinely reviews and the population SECR catches are now defined by different figures.
The SECR test in full is on SECR thresholds.
LLPs
LLPs get their own offences
LLPs prepare a separate energy and carbon report rather than a directors’ report, so SI 2008/1911 regulation 12B writes SECR-specific versions of the company offences.
- Failing to prepare the report: under modified section 415(6)–(7), an offence by every person who was a member immediately before the end of the filing period and failed to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance.
- Approving a non-compliant report: under modified section 419(2)–(3), an offence by every member who knew it did not comply, or was reckless as to whether it complied, and failed to take reasonable steps.
Sections 454 to 456 and 458 to 461 are applied to LLPs by regulations 23 and 24 of the same instrument, carrying the court-revision route across.
So “SECR creates no bespoke penalty” is exact for companies and slightly overstated for LLPs, because regulation 12B attaches offences to a report that exists only because of SECR.
The LLP size test behind that report, and a drafting error in GOV.UK’s guidance about it, are on SECR for LLPs.
Late filing
Late is a different penalty — on the company
The SECR disclosure is filed with the accounts, so filing late attracts the general Companies Act civil penalty. It applies whether or not the SECR content is compliant.
| How late | Private company | Public company |
|---|---|---|
| Not more than 1 month | £150 | £750 |
| More than 1 month, not more than 3 | £375 | £1,500 |
| More than 3 months, not more than 6 | £750 | £3,000 |
| More than 6 months | £1,500 | £7,500 |
That penalty attaches to the company for lateness; the section 419 offence attaches to directors for content.
Companies House does not move a deadline that falls on a Sunday or bank holiday, and the dates for each year end are on SECR filing deadlines.
It is not the newer ECCTA penalty either: section 1132A allows a financial penalty of up to £10,000 for relevant offences, and a late-filing penalty is a civil penalty, not an offence.
Persistent filing default can have a further consequence: under section 3 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 a court may disqualify a director for up to five years, and three defaults in five years is conclusive proof.
That is a court power attached to filing, not an automatic sanction for an incomplete SECR disclosure.
Assurance
The auditor’s opinion is not assurance
No paragraph in Part 7 or Part 7A mentions assurance, verification or audit, and the government’s guidance says there is no statutory requirement to have environmental information audited.
What the auditor does is narrower: section 496 requires an opinion on whether the directors’ report is consistent with the accounts and has been prepared in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
That is a consistency-and-legality check, not assurance over the energy and emissions figures.
DESNZ’s review concedes the consequence: limited verification undermines confidence in data quality.
In practice
What this means for a board
- The signing directors carry the risk. Section 419 is a personal offence on the individuals who approved a report knowing, or reckless about, its defects.
- The auditor’s sign-off does not cover the emissions data. Any verification of the figures themselves is voluntary and separate.
- Reliefs protect only when stated. Omitting figures without the statement a relief requires is a non-compliant report.
- An LLP’s exposure is its own. The LLP offences sit in modified provisions with their own drafting.
SECR’s enforcement footing is very different from ESOS, which has a scheme regulator and its own civil penalty scale, reaching £50,000 for failing to carry out an assessment, plus £500 a working day; the two are compared on ESOS vs SECR and in the ESOS vs SECR reference on uksrs.org.uk.
The compliance steps that keep a report out of this territory are on SECR compliance.
Frequently asked
SECR penalties — frequently asked
What are the penalties for non-compliance with SECR regulations?
SECR has no penalty of its own: neither SI 2018/1155 nor Schedule 7 creates an offence or a fine. A defective SECR disclosure is caught by the Companies Act 2006. Under section 419(3)–(4), a director who approves a directors' report knowing it does not comply, or reckless as to whether it complies, and fails to take reasonable steps commits an offence punishable by a fine. A court can also order the report revised under section 456. Filing late is a separate civil penalty under section 453.
Who enforces SECR?
The Financial Reporting Council. Since 6 May 2021, SI 2021/465 has authorised the FRC for the purposes of section 456 of the Companies Act 2006, which lets it apply to court for a declaration that a directors' report does not comply and an order that it be revised. The FRC's Conduct Committee still reviews corporate reports, but it is no longer the authorised body.
Is there a fine for not doing SECR?
Not a SECR fine. The section 419 offence carries a fine, with no stated maximum for a SECR defect specifically, and it attaches to the directors who approved the report, not to the company. For LLPs, SI 2008/1911 regulation 12B creates offences for failing to prepare the energy and carbon report and for approving a non-compliant one.
Has anyone ever been fined or taken to court for SECR?
No case has been found. The FRC's own operating procedures say that it and its predecessor bodies have resolved all cases on a voluntary basis without having to apply for a court order, for any reporting matter. No prosecution for a SECR defect was found in the FRC's case summaries or elsewhere, which is a search result rather than proof that none exists.
Is section 463 a penalty?
No. Section 463 of the Companies Act 2006 is a safe harbour: it limits directors' liability for the directors' report to the company, and only where they knew a statement was untrue or misleading, were reckless, or dishonestly concealed a material fact. It protects directors from claims by anyone else who relied on the report. Citing it as SECR's penalty is a common error.
What is the penalty for filing SECR late?
The SECR disclosure is filed with the accounts, so lateness attracts the general Companies Act late-filing penalty under section 453: £150 to £1,500 for a private company and £750 to £7,500 for a public one, depending on how late, doubled if the previous year's accounts were also late. It is a civil penalty on the company for lateness, not a SECR penalty.
Does the auditor check the SECR figures?
Not as an audit. Under section 496 of the Companies Act 2006 the auditor states whether the directors' report is consistent with the accounts and prepared in accordance with the law. There is no statutory requirement for the energy and emissions figures to be audited or assured.
Can a director be disqualified over SECR?
Not for the content of a SECR disclosure. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 section 3 lets a court disqualify a director for up to five years for persistent default in filing with the registrar, and three defaults in five years is conclusive proof. That is a court power attached to filing, not an automatic sanction for an incomplete disclosure.
Sources
Primary sources
Every figure, date and status on this page traces to the instrument’s owner. Secondary commentary is never the source for a number.
- legislation.gov.ukSI 2018/1155 — the SECR regulations, as made
Creates the disclosure duties and no penalty of its own; reg 10 creates the LLP report.
- legislation.gov.ukSI 2008/410, Schedule 7 Part 7A (¶¶20A–20K)
Read end to end: no offence, fine or sanction anywhere in it.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 419 — approval of the directors' report
s.419(3)–(4): the operative offence, on the directors.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 455 — Secretary of State's notice
Notice of apparent non-compliance, with not less than one month to respond.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 456 — application to court
Court declaration and order to revise; costs on the approving directors (s.456(5)).
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 457 — other persons authorised to apply
The power under which the FRC is authorised.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 459 — power to require documents
Supports a s.456 inquiry; not a penalty.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 463 — liability for false or misleading statements
A safe harbour, not a sanction: s.463(4).
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 496 — auditor's report on the directors' report
Consistency and legality, not assurance.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 453 — civil penalty for late filing
A penalty on the company for lateness.
- legislation.gov.ukSI 2008/497 — the late filing penalty regulations
Reg 4(2): the current bands.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 1132A — penalties for relevant offences
The ECCTA penalty power, which does not reach s.453.
- legislation.gov.ukSI 2021/465 — FRC authorisation for s.456
Art 4, in force 6 May 2021: "The FRC is authorised for the purposes of section 456."
- legislation.gov.ukSI 2008/1911, regulation 12B — the LLP energy and carbon report
Modified ss.415(6)–(7) and 419(2)–(3): the LLP offences.
- legislation.gov.ukCompanies Act 2006, section 466 — group medium-sized test
Defines the FRC's review remit; moved in 2025, unlike SECR.
- legislation.gov.ukCompany Directors Disqualification Act 1986, section 3
Persistent filing default; up to five years.
- Financial Reporting CouncilCorporate Reporting Review — operating procedures
Effective 2 April 2026: a £2 million legal costs fund; every case resolved without a court order.
- Department for Energy Security and Net ZeroIndependent evaluation of SECR (29 January 2026)
Suspected non-compliance of 14–23%.
- Department for Energy Security and Net Zero2026 Post-Implementation Review of the SECR Regulations 2018
"No dedicated civil sanction regime or proactive monitoring specific to SECR."
- Companies HouseLate filing penalties
A deadline on a Sunday or bank holiday still stands.
- legislation.gov.ukSI 2014/1643 (ESOS), Part 8 — civil penalties
The contrast: a scheme with its own penalty scale.