Search

How can we help?

Icon

Corporate Transparency and Register Reform

Following lengthy consultation that began in May 2019, the Government has now published its response to proposed changes to the role of Companies House, and increased corporate transparency amongst companies and legal entities. The consultation was vast, 1320 formal and unique responses were submitted.

The register of companies, i.e Companies House, plays “an important role in underpinning a strong, transparent and attractive business environment in the UK writes the Minister for Corporate Responsibility. However, the framework within which Companies House operates has remined largely unchanged for over 150 years. It would therefore appear that the reform of a system that is accessed over 9.4 billion times per year and estimated to be worth between £1-3 billion, is well overdue. The key reforms proposed, all subject to funding and being agreed in the forthcoming government spending review, are as follows:

  • Authentication Requirements. Only authorised people, each with their own user account, will be able to file on behalf of a company. The hope is that, where questions arise as to the accuracy of the data, Companies House will have the requisite data on who supplied the information and be in a better position to corroborate with an agent.
  • Identity Verification. All company directors and Persons with Significant Control (PSCs) will need to have a verified account with Companies House. Identity will need to be verified by a combination of document-based verification (driving licenses, passports etc.) or knowledge-based verification. Verification will have to take place prior to incorporating any company, although the government hope this will take a matter of minutes. Although recognising that a transition period will be necessary for these more stringent measures, the report does indicate that “unverified individuals will face compliance action and possible prosecution”. Fortunately, identity verification will not apply to shareholders.
  • Registrar Powers. Since its inception, Companies House has accepted that the information submitted to it has been done so in good faith. Currently, the government estimates that less than 5% of filings are rejected every year. With this in mind, a new statutory discretion to query and check information before it is placed on the official register will be introduced. This dispenses with the obligation to accept filings just because they were submitted correctly.
  • PSC Exemptions. Although unsure as to exactly which details to include, the government intends to require additional information from public companies when trying to evidence their or the owner’s exemption from holding a PSC register. Fears have grown that the use of such exemptions is being abused and that information such as Legal Entity Identifier or International Securities Number should be collected.
  • Name Check. The government hopes to accelerate proposals giving Companies House further discretion to query, and potentially reject, company names prior to their registration. This power could be extended to remove company names where they have been subsequently reviewed and found inadequate by the Company Names Adjudicator.

The consultation was vast, 1320 formal and unique responses were submitted.

The government’s written response highlights an increase in the volume of economic crime in the UK as a key reason for reform. It is estimated that the cost, both social and economic, of fraud against individuals is £4.7 billion and the cost against businesses/the public sector is close to £6 billion. Further statistics show that actions such as “phoenixing” (where companies are repeatedly incorporated and dissolved in order to avoid paying any associated debts) and the setting up of companies purely for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of crime, have been on the rise.

It is hoped that the new reforms will strike “the right balance between greater assurance, enhanced protection of personal information, and streamlining processes” comments Lord Callan. Significant positive change, albeit accompanied by business interruption, is therefore expected. Further commentary and details around proposals and implementation are due to follow in the coming months.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 09 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Arbitration Act 2025 – Factsheet

This factsheet outlines the major reforms and key developments introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025, including updates on summary disposal, jurisdictional challenges, emergency arbitrators, arbitrator disclosure duties, and governing law in arbitration proceedings.

art
  • 09 July 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks are changing from 1 October 2026: Is your business ready?

The Home Office’s new rules, effective 1 October 2026, will overhaul right to work checks and raise the risk of civil penalties for UK businesses.

art
  • 08 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

ICO prosecutes employee under the Data Protection Act for forwarding client data to his personal email address

The issue of employees taking confidential business information or personal data when moving to a new employer remains a significant concern for businesses.

Pub
  • 07 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Accelerating arbitration: Expedited procedures and key changes in the new ICC Rules – Episode 2

In episode 2, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) explore how the latest expedited and highly expedited procedures under the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 are transforming the landscape of dispute resolution.

art
  • 07 July 2026
  • Employment

6 month unfair dismissal rights: What employers need to know

Under the new Employment Rights Act 2025 the minimum period of service required to qualify to bring a statutory claim for unfair dismissal has been reduced from 2 full years to 6 months from 1 January 2027 onwards.  

art
  • 02 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Litigation and Artificial Intelligence: Where are we now?

In the recent case of Cork and another v Smith, the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors after they had produced and submitted two AI-generated letters to the court containing misleading and false information in relation to a block transfer application made under Rule 12.37 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.