Tax Defaulting in Croydon: HMRC’s Crackdown on Non-Compliant Businesses

Tax defaulting in Croydon has moved back into focus following an update to HM Revenue & Customs’s (HMRC) “current list of deliberate tax defaulters” on GOV.UK. The list was updated on 26 March 2026 and publishes details where HMRC has charged penalties for deliberate defaults involving more than £25,000 of tax and where the taxpayer did not secure the maximum penalty reduction by fully disclosing the defaults. 

In the latest publication, several entries are linked to Croydon addresses, including a BOXPARK-linked food business: WTP Croydon Ltd (formerly trading as What the Pitta). HMRC’s published figures for that entry show £146,629.43 of tax on which penalties were based and a £64,150.37 penalty for a period of default from 1 July 2017 to 31 January 2023. 

HMRC’s deliberate defaulters list really means

HMRC’s deliberate defaulters publication is not a general “late payment” list. It is a specific legal regime that allows HMRC to publish identifying details after an investigation, after deliberate-default penalties are charged, and once those penalties are final (for example, once an appeal window has passed, an appeal is determined, or a contract settlement is agreed). 

Publication is permitted where the penalties involve tax of more than £25,000 and the person did not achieve the maximum reduction available through full disclosure. In other words, disclosure behaviour matters: people can keep their details off the list by cooperating and fully disclosing from the outset of a compliance check. 

A few points that are easy to miss but crucial for reading the list correctly:

• Addresses are time-specific. HMRC explicitly warns that the address shown is the one associated with the person or business at the time of the default—and that current occupants at that address may have no connection to the published person/business. 
• The figures are not “total debt”. HMRC notes the amounts shown relate to the tax/duty on which penalties are based, and the list “does not necessarily represent the full default of the taxpayer”. 
• Publication is time-limited. Details remain on GOV.UK for a maximum of 12 months, with HMRC typically reviewing and updating the list quarterly to keep within that legal limit. 

HMRC also makes clear that the list itself is time-bounded and not archived for the National Archives, reinforcing that it is designed as a deterrent mechanism rather than a permanent record. 

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

Tax defaulting in Croydon – The BOXPARK case study

The BOXPARK-linked entry matters because BOXPARK is not just another high street unit—it is a highly visible venue. BOXPARK Croydon was developed as a container-based food and drink destination beside East Croydon station, with the council publicly backing the regeneration narrative around a “gateway” location. 

Council-backed launch and funding context

Croydon Council published its intention to support bringing a Boxpark marketplace to Ruskin Square, explicitly describing the stripped and refitted shipping-container design and the aim of creating a year-round events courtyard. 

A council key-decision document (April 2015) records approval of a £3,000,000 loan to support delivery, alongside references to a programme of council-backed activity and operational support (including a five-year pop-up programme and a viability grant). 

Later local reporting also describes the council redirecting an “Ambition Festival” budget towards BOXPARK-related launch/event activity and refers to additional subsidies in the first years of operation. 

Vendor pressures in the early years

It is important to separate venue trading conditions from tax conclusions. HMRC’s listing is about deliberate defaults and closed penalty positions; it does not, by itself, explain why a business got into difficulty or how cash flow was managed.

That said, contemporary reporting from 2018–2019 describes pressure points commonly faced by street-food operators in container venues: significant fixed costs, footfall volatility, and churn among traders. For example, one report described monthly rents and service charges totalling £2,750 (£2,000 rent plus £750 service charge) for a trader at the time and noted a sharp reduction in listed outlets between late 2016 and early 2018. 

A later report quoted tenants discussing typical combined rent/service-charge costs of around £3,000 per month (plus electricity), alongside complaints about footfall and event-day disruption. 

Croydon entries on the HMRC list updated 26 March 2026

The table below summarises the Croydon-linked (address-associated) entries visible on HMRC’s current list updated 26 March 2026, including the BOXPARK-linked takeaway and other sectors (commercial vehicle sales, property development, care, and property income). 

Listed name (as published by HMRC)	Trade/occupation (HMRC description)	Address context (HMRC wording)	Period of default	Tax on which penalties are based	Penalty charged	Penalty as % of tax (calculated)
WTP Croydon Ltd (formerly trading as ‘What the Pitta’)	Takeaway	Formerly of Unit 9, Boxpark, 99 George Street, Croydon, CR0 1LD	1 Jul 2017 to 31 Jan 2023	£146,629.43	£64,150.37	~43.8%
J-Mech Waste Solutions Ltd	Commercial vehicle sales	Formerly of 93 Southbridge Road, Croydon, CR0 1AJ	1 Mar 2022 to 30 Sep 2022	£598,945.00	£568,997.75	95.0%
Lionwood Ltd	Building developer	Formerly of 29 Banstead Road, Purley, CR8 3EB	1 Aug 2023 to 31 Dec 2023	£50,258.21	£42,719.45	~85.0%
Leiston Old Abbey Ltd	Residential care home	Formerly of 4 Arkwright Road, Sanderstead, CR2 0LD	1 Apr 2019 to 31 Mar 2021	£44,410.75	£31,087.52	~70.0%
Maria Jose De Souza Campos	Property income	Formerly of 31 Hardcastle Close, Croydon, CR0 6XQ (and another address)	6 Apr 2017 to 5 Apr 2020	£34,940.40	£20,178.06	~57.8%

Two practical cautions are worth repeating when an address is high-profile (like BOXPARK):

HMRC states that the address is the one associated at the time of the default, and current businesses trading at the same site may be unrelated. 

Underpaid tax, penalties, and what the published figures do not tell you

The “nearly £150k” framing seen in local discussion is consistent with the published tax figure for WTP Croydon Ltd: £146,629.43 is close to £150,000, and that can be enough to trigger strong public reaction because publication is designed to deter deliberate non-compliance. 

But there are three important technical limits to what you can conclude from the published table:

HMRC Publishes Only the Tax and Penalty Figures

HMRC releases two key numbers in each entry:

• The amount of tax or duty on which the penalty is based
• The penalty charged by HMRC

However, the list does not explain the underlying issue. For example, it does not state whether the case involved the following:

• VAT underpayments
• Corporation Tax errors
• PAYE or payroll failures
• A combination of several tax issues

This means the published entry gives only a financial snapshot rather than a detailed narrative of the compliance failure.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

The Published Tax Figure May Not Reflect the Full Default

Another important clarification is that the amount labelled as “tax” in the list does not necessarily represent the total liability discovered during HMRC’s investigation.

HMRC explicitly notes that:

• The figures shown relate only to the tax on which the penalty calculation is based.
• The actual amount owed to HMRC may be higher.
• Additional liabilities may have been settled separately during the investigation process.

Because of this, readers should not assume that the tax figure shown equals the full underpayment identified in the case.

Penalty Percentages Can Vary Widely

The relationship between the tax amount and the penalty can differ significantly across cases.

For example, Croydon-linked entries on the March 2026 list show penalties ranging from around 44% to 95% of the tax involved.

This variation occurs because HMRC calculates penalties based on several factors, including:

• The behaviour of the taxpayer (careless vs deliberate actions)
• Whether the taxpayer disclosed the issue voluntarily
• The level of cooperation during the investigation
• The timing of disclosure and corrective action

Businesses that make an early disclosure and cooperate with HMRC often receive lower penalties and may avoid public naming altogether.

If you are checking the list for due diligence (suppliers, landlords, franchise partners), here is the approach we recommend in practice:

• Treat the list as a risk flag, not a complete case file. 
• Cross-check publication timing. HMRC only keeps details up for 12 months and updates regularly (often quarterly). A person may disappear because the legal time limit expired, not because the situation “improved”. 
• Remember there is no right of appeal against the decision to publish (separate from appeal rights on tax/penalty decisions), so the correct moment to manage exposure is early—before penalties become final and publication criteria are met. 

How We Help Businesses in Croydon Stay Tax Compliant

At Apex Accountants, we help Croydon businesses reduce the risk of painful compliance surprises and reputational damage.

We typically support clients with:

• Tax compliance health checks (VAT, PAYE, and CIS where relevant) to spot weaknesses before HMRC does.
• Bookkeeping clean-ups so returns are supported by reliable records and the right evidence trail.
• Disclosure support where errors are discovered, focusing on early, complete, and well-structured disclosure in line with HMRC expectations. 
• Penalty and appeal support by working with your legal/tax advisers on the evidence and timeline behind HMRC decisions (especially where deliberate behaviour is alleged). 
• Cashflow planning around tax liabilities, including support preparing information that can help with HMRC engagement when a business is under pressure.

Conclusion

The March 2026 HMRC publication puts a sharper lens on tax defaulting in Croydon, not because the borough is unique, but because the list makes deliberate compliance failures visible—often with headline figures that are easy to misunderstand without context. 

For local readers, the BOXPARK-linked entry is a reminder of two parallel truths: high-profile venues can amplify reputational fallout, and the published figures are still a narrow slice of a wider compliance story (time-bounded, address-specific, and not necessarily the full amount owed). 

FAQs about the HMRC deliberate tax defaulters list

1. What is the HMRC deliberate defaulters list?

It is a GOV.UK publication where HMRC can publish identifying details of people or businesses that have been charged penalties for deliberate defaults involving more than £25,000 of tax, once penalties are final. 

2. How often does HMRC publish or update the list?

HMRC reviews the list regularly and says changes are usually made on a quarterly basis, partly to ensure entries are not published longer than the 12‑month legal maximum. 

3. How long do names stay on the list? 

A defaulter’s details are held on GOV.UK for a maximum of 12 months from the date first published. 

4. Can you avoid being named and shamed?

HMRC advises taxpayers involved in a compliance check to disclose errors early, cooperate, and resolve the check promptly—because that affects penalty reductions and publication risk. 

5. Can you go to jail for tax evasion in the UK?

Being on the deliberate defaulters list relates to civil penalties and is not the same as a criminal conviction.  Separately, serious tax fraud offences can be prosecuted and can carry substantial custodial sentences, with the Sentencing Council noting maximums that include 14 years’ custody for certain fraudulent evasion offences, and life imprisonment for “cheat the public revenue.”