The terminology around administration/receivership/liquidation is not straight forward. It's most likely going into administration - there is a notice period ahead of a court date, court approves the appointment of the administrators (also known a receivers), liquidation happens when everything has been managed down to nothing and is the final step. I don't know when things appear on companies house but there must some part of the formal process to be under way for a media outlet to publicise it.
I'm just being pedantic, but administrators are not also known as receivers. The full name of receivership is administrative receivership, which might be what you have confused. However the office holder in an administrative receivership (receivership for short) is always the receiver and the office holder of a company in administration is the administrator.
Receiverships are actually very rare these days as it requires the charge being used to put the company into receivership to have been registered prior to 2003.
LPA receiverships are different but they effectively only apply to property and they too only have receivers (in this instance, an LPA receiver)
Also, the court plays a much smaller part in approving the administrators' appointment these days although notices are still registered there.
If the company was in liquidation, it can take a few days to appear on companies house however you would see notices prior in the gazette, which doesn't appear to have happened
The media's reference to the company being in liquidation appears to all stem back to one director's quote, which I suspect was incorrect. As someone who works in the industry (in case you hadn't guessed !), that's pretty common and rarely deliberate. Directors often get confused between administration & liquidation, or will say the company is in liquidation when the company has ceased trading with a view to entering into liquidation, without having yet got to that point. I have no idea what has happened in this particular instance, but my best guess would be it's not currently either in liquidation or administration.
I wouldn't be remotely surprised by a media outlet getting it wrong - even so called financial journalists often write articles with basic schoolboy errors, like referring to the administrator of a company in liquidation - I'm sure it's the same for most people that whenever articles are written about their profession, or something they have a keen interest in, they spot just how riddled with errors the articles are
