Is it worth becoming an ACSP authorised agent?

Accountants discuss the pros and cons of registering as an Authorised Corporate Services Provider.

The Economic Crime and Transparency Act (ECCTA) came into effect at the end of 2023 – and with that came a new verification process for businesses registered on Companies House.

This means that people who are company directors or have significant control of a limited company need to have their identities verified, as well as complying with additional document scrutiny and transparency requirements.

While ECCTA has its benefits, the process of obtaining ACSP authorisation and the added workload have added a few bumps in the road for many accountants and agents. We asked some about their experiences with the process.

ACSP ID verification services are different from AML checks and have different penalties

AAT

Identity verification became a legal requirement on 18 November 2025. This marked the start of a 12-month transition period for existing directors and people with significant control (PSCs) to verify their identify and provide their personal code as part of their company’s next confirmation statement.

Those who became a director or PSC after 18 November 2025 are now required to provide their personal code when they’re first added to the Companies House register or within 14 days of being added. More information is available on GOV UK.

Registering as an Authorised Corporate Services Provider (ACSP) gives agents the ability to provide identification verification services for their clients for the purposes of registering with Companies House only. It will become mandatory for agents to register as an ACSP by November if they are filing statutory documents to Companies House.

We urge our members to make a well-informed decision about whether becoming an ACSP is the right fit for their firm, particularly in light of compliance risks.

This is a separate identity verification standard set by Companies House which is different from the risk-based approach taken in AML compliance. If the evidence is being checked by a person, they must be trained in detecting false documents and be familiar with the guidance on examining identity documents to detect basic forgeries.

Companies House cannot recommend any specific training providers but they must follow the Home Office best practice guide. There are also different record-keeping requirements according to which identity verification documentation for ACSP purposes must be kept for seven years. There will be offenses in relation to breach of record keeping or late submission of information requested by the registrar.

We know there are unregulated firms out there that are not complying with their AML obligations, and so introducing this stricter requirement for Companies House helps enhance corporate transparency and combats economic crime.

Here’s some of our recent guidance on ACSPs:

• ACSPs, are you meeting the Companies House ID verification standard?
• What can you do to be accepted as an ACSP by Companies House?
• Role of ACSPs: Mandatory identity verification for all company directors and people with significant control

Due diligence is vital, especially in this era of remote communications

Rowan Morrow-McDade, Tax Director, Alexander & Co

ACSP authorisation is not just a straightforward commercial opportunity – doing this work comes with additional regulatory obligations separate to AML checks. It places particular emphasis on knowing clients, maintaining robust due diligence processes and exercising sound professional judgement.

Accountancy firms must have strong measures in place to ensure thorough due diligence, with knowing the client remaining central to every engagement. As remote communications become more prevalent, extra care is required to maintain the same level of oversight and understanding.

Firms should approach the new regime cautiously, with a clear understanding of the compliance burden and the risks associated with assuming these responsibilities.

Becoming an ACSP shows clients that you keep on top of legal changes

Martin Hobson, Partner, Audit & Accounts, Clive Owen

The process was fairly straightforward, although not without challenges. There is still debate about the benefits of the changes, but I think the requirement to verify identity is definitely a positive. There are some well-known examples of companies that have been set up on the public register with fake names, including one in the name of a science fiction film character.

We were one of the early adopters – I registered our firm as an ACSP at the end of March 2025. I was keen to see how the process worked. One stage involves applying to register your firm as an ACSP, verifying your own identity with Companies House. There were a few glitches with the software system, but it didn’t take me too long to complete the process – although it involved a wait of several days to check it had all gone through.

There should have been more rigorous testing of the software before it was launched, with clearer guidance on the process, as it caused a great deal of confusion. But I don’t think it came as a surprise to agents, as we have seen the issues that can come with such large scale changes many times before. Since those early days, Companies House updated the ACSP registration guidance, which does make it clearer.

I still think the easiest route for individuals to verify their identity is to use the free Companies House system, but some people are still experiencing technical problems. In that case, an ACSP can help by discussing the available options with their client to verify identity in another way. Registering as an ACSP shows that a firm is keeping on top of the changes in this area.

One of the main risks is if the ACSP manually verifies an individual’s identity themselves. That involves, for example, checking a passport, driving licence, birth certificate or other documents, but the person carrying out that check must be trained to detect when a document is false.

Once an ACSP is registered, it has the option of whether it is added to the publicly available list of ACSPs. There is still much debate in the industry as to the benefits of that. Many are now on the list, which certainly increases the likelihood of being contacted by companies or individuals looking to verify their identity. Whether that is something they want – the fear of being inundated with enquiries may not necessarily lead to significant fee opportunities – is up to them.

What we can say for certain is that the ACSP system is here to stay. We like to be on the front foot, keeping our clients informed of incoming changes. As agents, we should be aware of the changes that resulted from ECCTA, as there are many more changes still to come.

Clients expect accountants to be ACSP authorised, but it’s an admin-heavy service

Kieran Burge, Director, DS Burge & Co

Overall, the process is logical in principle, but administratively heavier than we had expected. The intent is clear and probably overdue. It was easier to open a company in the UK than broadly anywhere else in the world before this. The alignment with existing anti-money laundering (AML) supervision makes conceptual sense. The framework reinforces professional standards that most regulated firms already follow.

Clients expect us to be ACSP authorised. Without ACSP status, clients may go directly to Companies House or alternative providers. Certification keeps agents central to governance and filing processes.

On the negative side, there is a time burden for smaller practices that is challenging to bill to our clients. There is also a lack of clarity around liability exposure and operational implications. For firms already well-structured around AML compliance, the process is manageable.

Many firms are already supervised by a recognised professional body, so in my opinion, a more streamlined passporting process using existing AML supervision data would reduce duplication.

Proportionate regulation would reduce unnecessary burden on smaller firms. A sole practitioner filing confirmation statements occasionally does not pose the same risk profile as a large formation agent.

Regulation is clearly moving toward tighter identity verification and corporate governance oversight. Becoming authorised early reduces disruption later.

Georgia Lewis is a journalist who has worked in Australia, the Middle East and the UK. Over 30 years, Georgia has covered a diverse range of subjects and industries, including business, insurance, technology and logistics..