February 24, 2026 Identity verification and the growing burden on legal advisers: what the new Law Society guidance signals
The Law Society’s new guidance on confirming identity verification to Companies House (Guidance) has landed quietly, but its implications for solicitors and governance professionals are significant. On the surface, it is a technical note about personal codes and filing processes. In practice, it reflects a broader shift brought in by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which places a far sharper focus on the accuracy of filings and the accountability of those who submit them.
For the firms we advise at Elemental, the real story is the operational change that sits behind these apparently modest changes.
The rise of the personal code
Mandatory identity verification for directors, LLP members and PSCs has been on the horizon for some time, and from November 2025 it became a routine part of corporate life. Each individual will need to complete identity verification either directly with Companies House or through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP), and they will then be issued with a personal code.
This personal code must be included in filings that contain an identity verification confirmation. In practical terms, this means that appointing a director or notifying a new registrable person is now dependent on the individual providing the code and understanding what it is for.
The Guidance highlights a few practical points professionals will need to consider:
- if the individual verified directly with Companies House, they may have a screenshot or printout of the confirmation page
- if they verified through an ACSP, Companies House emails the code to them
- individuals may need help understanding why they should store this code safely and be able to retrieve it
- names used for verification and names used in practice may differ, and differences should be understood and, where sensible, explored
None of this is particularly complex, but it adds friction. In our experience, friction becomes significant whenever a filing is time‑sensitive or involves individuals based overseas or unfamiliar with UK processes.
Section 1112 and the renewed focus on “reasonable excuse”
The Law Society’s most important message is a quiet one: professionals submitting filings need to think about section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006, the so‑called basic offence of delivering a materially false or misleading document without reasonable excuse.
The Guidance is careful not to offer legal advice, but it underlines two realities:
- professionals may be delivering documents that include identity verification confirmations, and
- if a confirmation later proves inaccurate, it is necessary to show that the professional had a reasonable excuse
The government has indicated that honest mistakes should not lead to penalties. Even so, the only test that ultimately matters is the one applied by a court, and the evidential burden sits with the person making the filing.
This is why the Guidance offers a menu of steps that may help demonstrate that a solicitor or adviser acted reasonably. They are not mandatory, but they reflect what many firms may decide is now prudent.
What comfort‑gathering may look like
The required step is simple: you must obtain the personal code. Beyond that, the Guidance suggests several steps that may be appropriate depending on the context.
Professionals may wish to:
- ask for explicit confirmation that the individual has completed identity verification
- ask for the name under which verification was completed
- understand any mismatch between that name and the name being filed
- check the Companies House register for an annotation showing the individual’s identity has been verified, where the individual already has registered roles
Where an individual does not yet appear on the register, the Guidance points to the value of extrinsic evidence, such as a screenshot of the code confirmation page or a copy of the Companies House email containing the code. If neither is available, the Guidance suggests asking questions to understand why.
These steps are not a checklist. They are examples of proportional enquiries that may help build comfort. The Guidance is clear that professionals should use judgement, and that in some cases they may decide fewer or no additional steps are appropriate.
For the clients we support, the most common challenge is the variety of name formats individuals use. Different professional names, translations, transliterations and common diminutives all create inconsistencies. The Guidance sensibly notes that advisers are not expected to identify every possible variant themselves. But if variants are known, it may be worth searching them.
The broader operational shift
For organisations that file regularly, the introduction of personal codes changes the rhythm of governance work. Processes that were once internal and administrative now depend on individuals supplying information that only they hold.
The practical implications include:
- updating onboarding workflows so that identity verification requirements and the personal code are captured early
- educating clients or internal stakeholders about how to store and retrieve their personal code
- documenting the steps taken to obtain comfort for each filing
- setting internal rules about when the firm will and will not provide an identity verification confirmation
At Elemental, we are seeing firms make deliberate choices about who within the practice should be authorised to submit filings that include an IDV confirmation and what evidence they should record before doing so. It is about operational clarity in an environment where individual advisers carry personal accountability for what they file.
A moment to reassess processes
The new identity verification regime is not just another compliance update. It is a structural shift that makes the accuracy of filings more visible, the responsibilities of advisers more explicit and the need for consistent internal processes more pressing.
For many of the law firms and other professional services practices we work with, this has prompted a broader review of how governance submissions are handled, how information flows from individuals to the adviser preparing the filing, and where the firm chooses to place responsibility. If you are considering similar questions and would like to discuss them in more detail, please do get in touch.
