Platforms · Software · Providers · Markets
By 19 September, Shareflo's analysis had narrowed an initial group of overdue UK companies to 33,675 active businesses with no public verification record for at least one director. Those firms had not been comparably late a year earlier, according to the research.
Shareflo, a UK cap-table and company compliance platform, examined more than three million active, non-dormant private companies. Its first cut identified 52,397 firms that were materially late with a filing on 1 September, had at least one individual director and had not shown the same delay a year before.
Some of that group later left the count. By 19 September, 13,401 had submitted the outstanding filing, while 5,321 had directors whose identities appeared verified through appointments at other companies. The remaining firms made up the 33,675 highlighted in the study.
The steepest year-on-year movement was among companies whose filings were one to 12 months overdue: that group grew by 138.5%. The number with shorter delays rose only slightly, and the total with long-running filing issues changed little.
Mandatory identity checks started on 18 November 2025. A new director has to complete verification before taking up an appointment.
Existing directors must supply personal codes with their companies' next annual confirmation statements, within a 12-month transition. The timing overlaps with the filing pattern, but Shareflo's findings do not establish that the checks caused the delays or that firms are deliberately avoiding them.
For banks, brokers and payment firms, which must identify corporate customers and establish who owns or controls them, filing behaviour can provide another point to compare with onboarding records and later reviews. Companies House cautions that its public records are incomplete and not every filing receives close scrutiny. The findings were first reported by Finance Magnates.
What this changes for operators
KYB teams can check whether their existing review process captures overdue confirmation statements and missing public verification records, and how those signals are compared with information supplied by a customer. A missing record should prompt a review, not be treated as proof that a director has failed verification.
The research does not set out a monitoring frequency or a required response to a filing delay. Operators should establish who reviews a mismatch, how it is resolved through their own customer due diligence, and whether the relevant corporate records are checked again during subsequent reviews.
