Los administradores actuales deben verificar su identidad y aportar su código personal en la próxima declaración de confirmación.
There is no single national deadline day for existing directors. There is a deadline attached to every company you serve — and the earliest one wins.
What is the actual deadline for existing directors?
Identity verification for Companies House became a legal requirement on 18 November 2025 under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act reforms. That date was not a deadline: it opened a 12-month transition period that ends on 18 November 2026. Inside that window, the trigger for an existing director is the company’s next confirmation statement. The director must have verified their identity and the company must provide the director’s Companies House personal code as part of that filing. A director of several companies therefore has several candidate deadlines, and the earliest confirmation statement date across those appointments is the one that governs the work.
New appointments and PSCs run on different clocks
New directors must verify before they can be appointed, so incorporation and appointment workflows need verification upstream of the filing itself. People with significant control (PSCs) follow their own timetable for providing a personal code and verification statement, separate from the confirmation statement cycle. A single “verification deadline” field on a company record cannot represent all three patterns; the record needs a status and a due logic per person and per role.
Why can one unverified director block the whole filing?
Companies House will not accept a confirmation statement until every director of the company has verified. That makes verification a weakest-link dependency: a board of five with four verified directors is, for filing purposes, not ready. The failure also arrives late and in public — at the moment of submission, close to the filing deadline — which is exactly where filing processes are least able to absorb chasing, document problems, or a director who is travelling, uncontactable, or unable to complete a digital route. Failing to file a confirmation statement on time is itself an offence, so a blocked statement can compound quickly.
The personal code is the filing artefact
Verification produces a Companies House personal code that connects the verified identity to the person’s roles. The code, not the memory of having verified, is what the filing needs. That distinction matters for record-keeping: teams need to know that a code exists, who holds it, and how it will be provided at filing time, without circulating it casually in email threads or shared trackers.
Which verification routes should a firm plan around?
Individuals can verify directly with Companies House through GOV.UK One Login, including an in-person Post Office route after entering photo ID details online, or through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP) — an AML-supervised professional such as an accountant or solicitor registered with Companies House for this purpose. The route chosen affects the evidence a firm holds and the help it can offer when something stalls.
- Direct GOV.UK One Login route: the individual verifies themselves; the firm’s evidence is the resulting status and personal code.
- Post Office route: photo ID details are entered online first, then identity is confirmed in person — plan for the extra step and lead time.
- ACSP route: a supervised professional verifies the identity; firms acting as ACSPs take on their own record-keeping duties for the checks they perform.
- Overseas and non-standard ID cases: expect longer paths and earlier starts; do not leave these directors until the filing month.
How should CSPs and company secretaries track this?
Treat verification as filing-readiness data attached to people, then rolled up to entities. The useful unit of work is not “the company has started verification” but “this director, for this company, is verified and a code can be provided before this statement date.”
- Build the person-by-entity matrix: List every director and PSC across the UK portfolio, with the earliest confirmation statement date that depends on each of them.
- Record status, route, and owner: For each person, capture verified or not, the route used or planned, the staff owner chasing it, and the next action.
- Work backwards from statement dates: Sequence chasing by the earliest affected filing, leaving time for failed checks, expired documents, and ACSP scheduling.
- Gate the filing checklist: Make “all directors verified, codes available” an explicit upstream check in the confirmation statement process, not a surprise at submission.
What goes wrong when this lives in a spreadsheet?
The predictable failures are staleness and partial visibility: a director verifies but nobody updates the tracker; a new appointment is added to the entity record but not to the verification list; a PSC’s separate timetable is confused with the directors’ confirmation statement trigger. Each is a small data problem that becomes visible only when a filing is blocked. The control is the same one that applies to other identity work — one authoritative record per person, a state that distinguishes not-started from in-progress from verified, and an evidence trail a reviewer can rely on without re-asking the client.
What should the board or compliance pack show?
One number is not enough. A useful monthly view shows the portfolio as the filing calendar will meet it: how many directors are verified, how many are in progress by route, and — most importantly — how many confirmation statements falling due in the next 90 days depend on a person who has not yet verified. That last figure converts a background compliance task into a dated operational risk with named owners. It also changes the client conversation. “Please verify when convenient” becomes “your confirmation statement cannot be filed in March unless both remaining directors complete verification, and here is the route that suits each of them.” Exceptions deserve the same visibility: directors who failed a digital check, overseas directors waiting on documents, and people whose personal code has been issued but not yet recorded as available to the filing team. Reviewed on that cycle, the transition deadline stops being a cliff edge in November 2026 and becomes what it should have been from the start — a backstop that well-run portfolios never have to test.
Practical takeaways
- For existing directors, the next confirmation statement is the operative deadline, inside the transition ending 18 November 2026.
- One unverified director can block the whole company filing, so verification status is a per-person, per-entity tracking problem.
- Record who verified, by which route, and where the personal code is held — before the filing window opens.
Conclusion
Identity verification looks like a one-off task for an individual. Operationally it is a dependency inside a statutory filing: the confirmation statement cannot move until every director in the chain has verified and a personal code can be provided. Teams that track verification as filing-readiness data — person by person, entity by entity, earliest date first — will treat 18 November 2026 as a backstop. Teams that treat it as the deadline will discover the real one at the point of filing.
Explore related KYCONSOLE capabilities
Sources
- GOV.UK — Verify your identity for Companies House
- GOV.UK — Using an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP) to verify your identity
See how KYCONSOLE connects entity records, identity evidence, and filing deadlines in one operating record. Explore capabilities