Companies House has updated its outline transition plan for the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA), confirming a revised timetable for some of the most significant changes to the UK company registration system.
The latest update, published on 5 August 2026, comes as Companies House continues its transformation from a largely passive register into an organisation with a much stronger role in preventing economic crime, improving the accuracy of corporate information and supporting law enforcement.
The changes will have particular significance for accountants, solicitors and other professional firms that have registered as Authorised Corporate Service Providers (ACSPs), with new guidance published on 11 August now setting out the criteria Companies House will use when deciding whether an ACSP is a ‘fit and proper’ person.
ECCTA transition timetable revised
The ECCTA represents the biggest overhaul of Companies House since corporate registration began in 1844. It gives the registrar four statutory objectives, including ensuring information on the register is accurate, preventing false or misleading impressions and helping to prevent companies and others from carrying out or facilitating unlawful activities.
Implementation is taking place in stages, with Companies House acknowledging that the scale and technical complexity of the reforms mean it cannot provide a fixed timetable for every measure. Around 50 statutory instruments are expected to be commenced over an 18-month period, with implementation and transitional arrangements continuing into 2027.
One of the most important developments is identity verification. Since 18 November 2025, identity verification has been compulsory for new directors and people with significant control (PSCs), while more than seven million existing directors and PSCs are going through a 12-month transition period to verify their identities.
The latest transition plan now says Companies House should, no earlier than November 2027, make identity verification of presenters compulsory when filing documents and require third-party agents filing on behalf of companies to be registered as ACSPs. Companies House has also committed to giving at least six months’ notice before these requirements come into effect.
That represents a significant change from the previous January 2026 timetable, which anticipated these measures no earlier than November 2026. The delay gives professional firms more time to prepare, but it does not remove the direction of travel: third-party filing will ultimately become subject to the ACSP regime.
What does the ACSP regime mean?
ACSPs are professional service providers, including accountants and solicitors, that have registered with Companies House and are supervised under the UK’s anti-money laundering regime. They can already verify clients’ identities and submit verification information to Companies House.
The regime is therefore becoming an increasingly important part of the UK’s corporate compliance infrastructure.
The scale of its use is already substantial. Companies House’s third progress report on the ECCTA found that, by 31 March 2026, ACSPs had verified 783,000 individuals. However, the same report revealed that Companies House had suspended 74 ACSPs and ceased the registration of a further 56.
This demonstrates that becoming an ACSP is not simply a registration exercise. Companies House has powers to monitor compliance and suspend or remove providers that fail to meet the required standards.
New ‘fit and proper’ test raises the bar
The significance of the new guidance published on 11 August 2026 should therefore not be underestimated.
Under section 1098B of the Companies Act 2006, the registrar must refuse an application where the applicant is not considered fit and proper to perform ACSP functions. Crucially, the assessment does not end once registration has been granted: Companies House will continue monitoring existing ACSPs.
The guidance makes clear that the assessment will consider the circumstances of each case, including the seriousness of any issue, when it occurred and whether it has been resolved. Companies House says the criteria are not exhaustive and that it can consider any other relevant information.
Among the matters that can influence the assessment are an ACSP’s AML supervision and competence, whether connected entities have been dissolved or are subject to insolvency proceedings, and whether the provider has previously been suspended or ceased as an ACSP.
Companies House can also consider criminal, regulatory and financial history, including bankruptcy, director disqualification, criminal convictions, regulatory or disciplinary findings and serious or repeated failures to meet statutory obligations.
Honesty, integrity and conduct are also explicitly covered. False or misleading filings, failure to respond to Companies House queries and conduct raising concerns about reliability, transparency or compliance can all be relevant.
The registrar will also examine how an ACSP conducts identity verification, reverification and filing activities, alongside compliance with statutory filing requirements by both the ACSP and associated entities.
Importantly, Companies House identifies aggravating factors such as repeated concerns, failure to resolve problems, failure to respond to authorities and evidence that an issue could threaten the integrity of the register. Mitigating factors include good conduct, prompt resolution, co-operation and steps taken to prevent recurrence.
What does this mean for accountants and other professional firms?
For firms already registered as ACSPs, the message is clear: registration should not be regarded as a one-off approval.
Companies House can revisit an ACSP’s suitability if concerns arise. It can request information and, where appropriate, suspend an ACSP or cease its registration. Before registration is ceased, the provider will normally have an opportunity to make representations.
There is also an important distinction between AML supervision and Companies House’s own fit and proper assessment. Having an active AML supervisor does not automatically mean that Companies House will regard an ACSP as fit and proper. The registrar has a separate responsibility to make that judgement.
For accountancy practices and other professional firms, this makes robust internal compliance increasingly important. Identity verification procedures, filing controls, AML arrangements, record keeping and the handling of Companies House queries all need to withstand greater scrutiny.
The development also underlines why professional firms should monitor the status of their connected companies and key individuals. Problems involving insolvency, director disqualification, regulatory action or repeated filing failures may become relevant to the firm’s continued ACSP status.
A more active Companies House
The tightening of the ACSP regime is part of a much broader transformation.
Companies House has already gained powers to query and reject information it suspects is incorrect or fraudulent, remove inaccurate information, challenge misleading company names, share information more extensively with law enforcement and impose financial penalties.
Andy King, Chief Executive of Companies House, described the organisation’s transformation as a move from a passive register to a “trusted guardian” of critical data, saying the reforms are already making a tangible contribution to protecting businesses and tackling criminal misuse.
For professional firms, the practical conclusion is that Companies House compliance is becoming much more than an administrative filing obligation. As the ECCTA programme progresses, the organisations and individuals responsible for supplying information to the register will increasingly be expected to demonstrate that they are competent, transparent and trustworthy.
The November 2027 target provides additional preparation time for firms that have yet to become ACSPs, while those already registered should treat the new fit and proper guidance as a prompt to review their controls now. The direction of travel is unmistakable: Companies House is acquiring significantly greater powers, and the standards expected of those acting on behalf of companies are rising with them.