Signal
Companies House ACSP route — filing authority as a control surface
If a counterparty files via an authorised corporate service provider (ACSP), treat filing authority and presenter identity as part of due diligence: it affects what can be filed, by whom, and with what accountability.
Reader guide
How to read this Signal
Evidence → Uncertainty → Trigger → Decision implication
Each Signal separates the sourced change from what remains uncertain, identifies the trigger to watch and states why it matters to a decision.
See the full Approach →Decision-relevant statements
Key points
What the evidence indicates for the decision.
- →ACSPs become an explicit gate for certain filings; this shifts operational risk from ‘paperwork’ to ‘authorised actions’.
- →Third-party presenters create adjacency risk: weak controls at the presenter can undermine confidence in filings and identity claims.
- →Treat ACSP use as a question to document: who is the ACSP, what is their oversight posture, and what is the audit trail for filings.
Control
Actions
Practical next steps if this Signal touches your mandate.
- 01Add an onboarding question: ‘Do you file via an ACSP or other third-party presenter?’ Capture the ACSP legal entity and oversight evidence.
- 02For higher-risk counterparties, request the filing chain: authorised presenter, engagement scope, and change-log governance.
Source record
Sources and evidence
Publication and access dates are shown with the source record.
- 01GOV.UK — Collection: Services for authorised corporate service providers (ACSPs) — Published: n/a • Accessed: 26 January 2026
- 02Companies House — Blog: Third-party providers get ready to comply with identity verification — Published: 16 October 2025 • Accessed: 26 January 2026
Decision brief
Discuss how this affects your decision
We can pressure-test assumptions and map the next verification steps.