Identify whether a PSC problem concerns identity verification, a Personal Code, incorrect control information or an earlier filing before selecting the appropriate corrective or Companies House route.

Identify the Appropriate PSC Discrepancy and Corrective Route.

Whether the problem concerns a failed identity check, an unmatched Personal Code, an incorrect PSC entry, a disputed control position, an inaccurate historic filing, possible identity misuse or a dissolved entity, our professional team helps compare the relevant information and evidence, establish what happened and identify the appropriate next route before verification, correction, filing, registrar, restoration or professional work is progressed.

Identify the person, entity, role, document and information that appear to be incorrect or inconsistent before assuming that another identity-verification attempt is required.

Compare Companies House information, verification details and the company's or LLP's supporting evidence to establish what is displayed, what was filed and what the available records show.

Distinguish an identity-verification problem, code or role-connection problem, genuine later change, inaccurate historic filing, disputed control or possible identity misuse before selecting a corrective mechanism.

Review ownership, voting, appointment, trust, partnership, nominee or management evidence where the discrepancy concerns the existence, nature, date or extent of PSC control.

Separate identity verification from PSC status and filing accuracy, recognising that successful identity verification does not itself establish that a person is legally a PSC or that an earlier filing was accurate.

Establish whether the information was wrong when originally filed or whether a genuine change occurred later, because a current change and an earlier filing error may require different routes.

Consider whether a current notification, replacement filing, second filing, registrar action, protection or suppression, restoration, identity-misuse report or legal route may be relevant to the evidence and original document.

Distinguish an inaccurate PSC record from a Personal Code or role-connection problem so that repeating identity verification is not incorrectly treated as a correction to the underlying register information.

Identify when a disputed ownership or control position, authority question, possible identity misuse or other legally sensitive matter requires Companies House, a court or appropriate professional or legal involvement rather than an automatic filing.

Reduce avoidable administrative errors and back-and-forth by establishing the discrepancy, comparing the relevant records, classifying the problem and selecting the appropriate authorised route before corrective work is progressed.

Identify the Appropriate Corrective Route

Coddan CPM is a UK-based legal and corporate services firm and ACSP providing professional support to compare identity-verification information, Companies House records and supporting evidence, distinguish the type of PSC discrepancy and identify the appropriate corrective or professional route.
Call us on: 033 0808 0089 to discuss the PSC identity, record or control discrepancy affecting your circumstances.

UK PSC Register Discrepancies, Incorrect Control Data & Corrective Routes

PSC identity and record problems

PSC Identity Problems, Incorrect Control Information and Corrective Routes

A failed identity check, an unmatched Personal Code, an incorrect PSC entry and a disputed control position are different problems. The correct route depends on what happened, when it happened and what the available evidence shows.

Coddan can compare the individual’s verification information, the Companies House record and the company’s or LLP’s supporting evidence, then identify whether the next step may be verification, a current notification, correction, registrar action, protection, restoration or professional advice.

Identify the type of problem

What appears to be wrong?

Similar symptoms can have different causes. Coddan must identify the real problem before selecting a filing or official route.

Identity-verification problem

The individual cannot complete the available route, evidence is unsupported or inconsistent, or submitted verification information may be inaccurate.

Code or role-connection problem

The person has verified but cannot access or correctly use the Personal Code, or the verified identity does not connect with the relevant PSC record.

Genuine new change

The earlier information was accurate, but the person’s details or underlying ownership or control position later changed.

Inaccurate historic filing

Information was inaccurate, incomplete, duplicated or delivered against the wrong person, entity, condition or document when originally filed.

Disputed control

The existence, date, nature or extent of ownership or control is disputed, or the available documents do not establish the legal position.

Entity-record difference

Companies House information differs from ownership records, agreements, notices, confirmations, decisions or other supporting evidence.

Possible identity misuse

A person believes their name, address, Personal Code or identity may have been used without permission or linked to an unfamiliar PSC role.

Dissolved-entity problem

The company or LLP is dissolved and it must be established whether corrective work can occur before, during or only after restoration.

Is this an identity problem or a record problem?

Identity verification establishes that an individual is who they claim to be within the Companies House framework. It does not establish that the person is legally a PSC or that an earlier filing was accurate or authorised.

Verification information

Concerns the person’s identity evidence, name, date of birth, residential address, verification route and information submitted by an ACSP.

The response may involve correcting information before submission, using another available route, asking the ACSP to review its submission or contacting Companies House.

PSC information

Concerns whether the individual satisfies a PSC condition, the nature of control, relevant dates and information shown on the register.

The response may involve a current PSC notification, correction of an earlier filing, registrar action or legal analysis.

Authority and evidence

Concerns who supplied the information, whether they were authorised and what ownership, voting, appointment, trust, partnership or management records show.

A disputed legal position cannot safely be resolved merely by repeating verification or selecting a convenient form.

When identity verification cannot be completed

The difficulty may concern the evidence, the personal information entered, the selected route or information submitted by an ACSP.

An identity document may be unsupported, expired, damaged or unclear.

Address evidence may be unavailable, unsupported or inconsistent.

Names, dates of birth or addresses may differ between records and evidence.

Another language, script or transliteration may require careful comparison.

The selfie or liveness step may be incomplete or unsuccessful.

The individual or ACSP may have entered inaccurate information.

Another document, translation, certification, notarisation, apostille, selfie or repeated attempt does not automatically make the evidence acceptable. Coddan’s client onboarding and anti-money-laundering checks are also separate from Companies House identity verification.

What if the Personal Code does not connect?

A mismatch may arise because the code was entered incorrectly, another person’s code was used, the registered date of birth differs, the wrong entity or role process was selected, the PSC record is missing or inaccurate, or an ACSP supplied incorrect information.

Locating a code, replacing a compromised code, correcting an entry, correcting ACSP-submitted information and correcting an underlying PSC filing are separate tasks. Repeating identity verification is not automatically the correct solution.

A new change is not the same as an earlier error

Genuine new change

The information was accurate when filed, but circumstances later changed. Examples include a new name or address, a genuine change in control, a person becoming a PSC or a person ceasing to satisfy every applicable PSC condition.

The applicable current-change process should be used. Identity verification and Personal Code use do not report that change, and a confirmation statement is not a universal substitute for an earlier required PSC notification.

Earlier inaccuracy

The information was inaccurate, incomplete, duplicated or wrongly delivered when originally filed. Examples include the wrong person, date, nature of control, entity, address or PSC statement.

The route depends on the original document, the defect, whether it was properly delivered, whether the parties agree and whether registrar or legal action is required.

Companies House information and the entity’s evidence

The public register records information delivered to Companies House. It is not the complete documentary history of the ownership or control position.

Companies House record

Shows filed PSC particulars, statements and filing history. Acceptance of a filing does not necessarily adjudicate the validity of every underlying fact or arrangement.

Supporting records

May include registers, notices, confirmations, share or membership information, voting arrangements, agreements, trust or partnership documents and contemporaneous correspondence.

The required comparison

Coddan must distinguish what is displayed, what was filed, what the evidence shows, what the individual says and what legal conclusion can safely be reached.

Updating the entity’s records does not automatically update Companies House. Correcting Companies House information does not automatically reconstruct missing evidence or determine a disputed control position.

Possible corrective routes

The route must follow the evidence and original document. These mechanisms are not interchangeable.

Current notification

Used where a genuine later PSC or personal-detail change needs to be reported through the applicable current process.

Replacement filing

May be relevant to an eligible document that was not properly delivered or contained unnecessary material. Eligibility must be established.

Second filing

May be relevant to an eligible, otherwise properly delivered document containing a minor or trivial inaccuracy or omission.

Registrar action

May be relevant where statutory registrar powers permit annotation, removal or another administrative response.

Protection or suppression

Uses a separate official route where personal information requires protection from public disclosure.

Restoration

May affect what can be delivered or corrected where the company or LLP has been dissolved.

Court or legal route

May be required where ownership, control, authority, rectification or another material legal question is disputed.

Identity-misuse report

The official reporting route may be relevant where a person’s details appear to have been used without permission.

RP01 and RP04 are different routes

RP01: replacement

RP01 concerns replacement of an eligible document that was not properly delivered or contained unnecessary material. It is not selected merely because later circumstances changed.

RP04: second filing

RP04 is intended for an eligible document containing a minor or trivial inaccuracy or omission where the original otherwise remains properly delivered. It is not a general replacement procedure.

Controlled position: depending on the original document and nature of the error, a replacement or second-filing procedure may be relevant. Eligibility and the current submission route must be confirmed before the filing is prepared. No exhaustive RP04 document list, submission channel, fee, authentication rule, PROOF or PR03 requirement, register outcome, restoration interaction or RP06 procedure is stated here.

What if PSC status or control is disputed?

Identity verification does not answer whether a person satisfies a PSC condition, whether indirect rights are attributable, whether an RLE is registrable, or whether a nature-of-control statement is accurate.

Coddan may identify the issues and documentary position, but disputed ownership, control, trust, partnership, authority or validity questions may require legal advice, registrar action or court determination.

Possible misuse of identity

If a person believes their identity or address may have been used without permission, they should preserve the evidence and use the appropriate official route. This does not mean misuse or fraud has already been established.

Preserve

Companies House notices, emails, verification communications, filing-history entries, dates, entity details and evidence showing the role or filing was not authorised.

Consider

Companies House, the entity, an involved ACSP, the official personal-details misuse route, registrar action, Report Fraud, Police Scotland where applicable, legal advice or another competent authority.

Protect

Do not send a Personal Code, password, authentication code, unredacted residential-address evidence or sensitive identity documents through a general website enquiry.

Companies House may request further evidence and decides whether information can be removed. Coddan cannot promise removal or determine that a criminal offence occurred.

What if the company or LLP has been dissolved?

Dissolution can materially change the available route. It must be established whether the historic position can be examined or addressed while the entity remains dissolved, whether restoration is required and who has authority to act.

Entity status: confirm the dissolution date and present register position.

Restoration route: distinguish administrative restoration from restoration by court order.

Authority: do not assume a former officer automatically has authority for a dissolved entity.

Sequencing: establish whether correction can occur before, during or only after restoration.

Not every correction requires restoration, and not every filing can be made before restoration. No unconfirmed RP04/restoration procedure is presented here.

How Coddan identifies the appropriate route

1. Identify the difference

Establish the person, entity, role, document and information in question.

2. Compare the records

Review Companies House information, verification details and the entity’s supporting evidence.

3. Establish what happened

Distinguish a genuine later event from an earlier error, dispute or possible identity misuse.

4. Classify the problem

Determine whether it concerns verification, code use, PSC status, filing accuracy, evidence, authority or dissolution.

5. Select the route

Identify the verified current notification, replacement, second filing, registrar, protection, restoration, professional or legal route.

6. Complete authorised work

Undertake only the agreed work, preserve evidence and identify continuing individual and entity obligations.

Current, transitional and future position

Current-position wording checked on 20 September 2026.

Current

Living individual PSC identity verification, Personal Codes, PSC-specific code use, the current mismatch and compromised-code procedures, PSC notifications, registrar powers and published personal-details misuse routes are operational within their applicable boundaries.

Transitional

Mandatory identity verification began on 18 November 2025. The relevant PSC role, registration date, confirmation-statement position and applicable 14-day period must be established. No universal deadline applies to everyone.

Future or uncommenced

Later requirements for officers of corporate PSCs, people filing for entities, corporate directors and corporate LLP members must not be treated as present corrective routes.

Where the problem concerns Coddan’s ACSP verification route

Coddan can identify the individual, entity and PSC role; compare the supplied personal information with the verification file; review the result and exceptional evidence; and identify an apparent mismatch or information error.

Where supported evidence is satisfactory and Coddan is authorised, Coddan manually submits verification information through its Companies House ACSP account. Companies House issues the Personal Code. A successful provider result or ACSP submission does not correct a PSC filing, connect every role or decide disputed control.

What Coddan must establish

the entity and its current status;
the affected individual and every relevant capacity;
what Companies House currently displays;
the original filing and alleged error;
when the information became inaccurate;
whether a genuine later change occurred;
whether identity verification and PSC code use were completed;
what ownership and control evidence shows;
whether the parties agree;
whether a prior correction or official process is under way.

What information should you provide?

This section does not transmit an enquiry. Use Coddan’s normal website contact details. “Not known” is acceptable, and sensitive credentials or identity evidence should not be placed in a general enquiry.

Entity

Registered name, number, legal form, jurisdiction and whether active or dissolved.

Individual

Full name, date of birth and every relevant PSC, director or LLP-member capacity.

Register entry

The filing-history entry or PSC information believed to be wrong and what the customer believes should be correct.

Timing

When the problem was discovered and when the underlying ownership or control event is said to have occurred.

Verification

Route and outcome, whether the code was received, any mismatch and relevant Companies House message. Do not provide the code.

Control evidence

Ownership, voting, appointment, LLP, trust, partnership, nominee or management records relevant to the PSC condition.

Authority and disagreement

Who supplied or authorised the filing and any disagreement concerning control, consent or accuracy.

Existing process

Earlier corrective attempts and any registrar, protection, restoration, court, police or legal process already started.

What Coddan may provide

compare Companies House information with supplied evidence;
review identity-verification and Personal Code issues;
distinguish a genuine new change from an earlier inaccuracy;
identify an apparent mismatch, missing record or disputed point;
review supplied evidence of ownership or control;
identify whether an available filing or corrective route may apply;
coordinate supported identity verification;
prepare or coordinate a confirmed filing where authorised and operationally able;
identify whether dissolution or restoration affects the route;
direct legally sensitive matters to Companies House, a court or an appropriate professional.

Who is responsible for each stage?

The entity

Accurate PSC determination, notifications, instructions, authority and supporting records.

The individual

Their identity-verification step, accurate personal information and protection of the Personal Code.

Coddan

Only the review, verification, preparation, filing, coordination or advisory work authorised and agreed.

Companies House

Verification services, codes, filing acceptance, the register, registrar procedures and official decisions.

Courts and authorities

Rectification, restoration, criminal, regulatory and other matters within their jurisdiction.

Professional advisers

Disputed ownership, control, trust, authority, fraud, rectification and other legal questions.

What affects the work, cost and timing?

The scope may depend on the number of people, entities, roles and filings; whether verification and code use are complete; the quality of the evidence; the original document; whether this is a later change or historic error; whether the parties agree; whether registrar action is available; and whether the entity is dissolved.

Coddan’s professional charge, VAT, applicable official or court charges and separately required verification, filing, PSC-analysis, governance, correction, restoration or legal work may also be relevant. The free Companies House verification route remains available where suitable, and not every mismatch requires another paid identity-verification service.

What this service does not do

Identity verification does not create or end PSC status.

A Personal Code does not determine ownership or control.

Verification does not prove that a filing was authorised.

Code use does not correct inaccurate information automatically.

A correction does not necessarily remove the original document.

Coddan’s review does not reconstruct missing evidence.

Administrative correction does not decide a disputed legal question.

This service does not restore a dissolved entity or guarantee acceptance.

Identity Verification for People with Significant Control Who Must Verify as a PSC? Ownership, Voting Rights and Significant Influence or Control When an Individual Becomes, Changes or Ceases to Be a PSC PSC Identity Verification for Several Companies, LLPs and Overseas Individuals Identifying the Individual PSC Through Corporate, Trust and Indirect-Control Arrangements Companies House Personal Codes, PSC Timing and Separate Role Connection Identity Verification Solutions Centre CLG identity-verification hub LLP identity-verification hub RP01 Replacement Filing RP04 Second Filing Company and LLP Restoration

Frequently asked questions

Will repeating identity verification correct the register?

No. Verification concerns identity. An inaccurate PSC filing or register entry requires the route appropriate to that document and defect.

Why will my Personal Code not connect?

Possible causes include an incorrect code, a different date of birth, the wrong entity or role, inaccurate ACSP information or a missing or inaccurate PSC record.

What if my registered date of birth is wrong?

A date of birth does not normally change. The existing record may require the applicable correction process before the verified identity can connect.

What if I am shown as a PSC without my knowledge?

Preserve the filing, notices and communications. The matter may require the official personal-details misuse route, registrar action, evidence from the entity or legal advice.

What if a former PSC is still shown?

First establish whether the person genuinely ceased to satisfy every PSC condition, the effective date and whether a cessation notification was delivered.

What if the nature of control is wrong?

Establish whether the control genuinely changed later or whether the original statement was inaccurate. The applicable route depends on that distinction.

Is a genuine new change the same as a correction?

No. A new change means earlier information was correct but later circumstances changed. Correction concerns information that was wrong when filed.

Can a confirmation statement correct every PSC problem?

No. A confirmation statement is not a universal substitute for a separate PSC notification or corrective route.

Does successful verification prove that I am a PSC?

No. PSC status arises from the applicable ownership or control conditions, not identity verification.

Can a Personal Code correct a PSC filing?

No. It connects a verified individual with an applicable role record. It does not amend or validate the underlying filing.

What should I do if my identity may have been used without permission?

Preserve the evidence and consider the Companies House personal-details misuse route. Immediate criminal or security concerns may also require an appropriate official authority or legal advice.

Will Companies House remove the information?

Companies House decides after considering the applicable power and evidence. Removal cannot be promised merely because a person or entity disagrees with an entry.

Is RP01 or RP04 the correct route?

That depends on the original document and defect. RP01 is a replacement route for eligible documents; RP04 is a second-filing route and not a general replacement procedure.

Can RP04 be used for every PSC document?

No such general rule should be assumed. Eligibility and the current submission procedure must be confirmed for the original document.

Can Coddan correct the register?

Coddan may review, prepare or coordinate confirmed work where authorised, but Companies House or a court controls changes to the register.

What if the entity has been dissolved?

The dissolution date, restoration route, original filing and authority to act must be established before deciding whether correction can occur before, during or after restoration.

When is legal or court action required?

It may be required where ownership, control, authority, trust arrangements, rectification or another material legal question is disputed and cannot be resolved administratively.

What information should I provide?

Provide the entity, person, PSC entry, relevant filing, proposed correct position, dates and supporting records. “Not known” is acceptable. Do not send the actual Personal Code.

What affects the work, cost and timing?

The number of parties, entities and filings, available evidence, disagreement, registrar availability, dissolution, restoration and any legal work can all affect the scope.

Identify the problem before choosing the route

Coddan can compare the PSC record, verification information and available evidence, then identify which work can safely be completed or coordinated within the agreed scope.

Contact Coddan

PSC Trust, Ownership & Control Support

Establish the actual control structure — then identify the appropriate PSC and next route.

Trusts, indirect ownership, corporate chains and other control arrangements can involve several people and entities with different legal or registrable positions. Coddan helps map the supplied structure, identify the relevant rights and distinguish the apparent registrable subject from the separate identity-verification process.

Stage 1

Start with the actual structure

The person appearing at the top of an ownership structure is not automatically the registrable PSC. Coddan starts with the relevant company or LLP and identifies the entities, arrangements and participants within the supplied control chain.

Identify the relevant company or LLP.
Identify each entity or arrangement in the chain.
Avoid assuming that the immediate or ultimate holder is automatically the PSC.

Convenience result: the starting point becomes clearer because the structure is considered before an individual verification route is selected.

Stage 2

Map the relevant control rights

Coddan helps bring the relevant ownership and control rights into the same assessment rather than treating each element as an isolated question.

Consider direct and indirect ownership.
Review voting, appointment and removal rights.
Consider significant influence or control where relevant.

Convenience result: the customer has a more defined picture of which rights may actually affect the PSC position.

Stage 3

Separate people from entities

A trust, corporate member, relevant legal entity, firm or nominee arrangement can involve several participants without making every participant an individual PSC. Coddan helps distinguish the people and entities before the relevant route is chosen.

Distinguish individuals from legal entities.
Consider trustees, partners, settlors, beneficiaries, protectors and nominees according to the actual structure.
Distinguish an individual PSC from a registrable legal entity or unresolved position.

Convenience result: the route becomes easier to navigate because the relevant person or entity is not assumed before the structure has been considered.

Once the structure is clear, separate the remaining stages

PSC identification, identity verification, Personal Code use and the underlying company filing are related but separate matters. Keeping those stages distinct helps prevent the completion of one task from being treated as completion of another.

PSC identification
Establish who or what may be registrable from the ownership and control structure.

Identity verification
Verify the identity of an individual where the applicable Companies House requirement applies.

Personal Code
Use the individual Personal Code through the relevant Companies House process where required.

Corporate filing
Appointment, PSC notification, correction or another company filing remains a separate corporate task.

Professional or legal analysis
Disputed control, unusual structures or unresolved legal questions may require separate specialist analysis.

Defined next route
Once the relevant position is established, the appropriate next administrative or professional route can be identified.

Where the position is unclear

Not every trust, ownership chain or control arrangement can be resolved by an identity-verification service alone.

Where the ownership chain is disputed, the control position is uncertain or the governing documents require legal interpretation, the appropriate specialist or legal route should be established before an individual verification step is purchased.

The result is a more straightforward administrative route without suggesting that an underlying legal question is itself simple.

The convenience comes from clarifying the route before taking the next step

Coddan helps bring the relevant entity, ownership chain, control rights, participants and apparent registrable subject into a defined assessment before the appropriate Companies House or identity-verification route is selected. This can make the customer's administrative route more straightforward, while disputed control positions and legal interpretation remain subject to the appropriate professional or legal process.

PSC Identity Discrepancies and Control Correction.

Identify whether a PSC problem concerns identity verification, a Personal Code, incorrect control information or an earlier filing before selecting the appropriate corrective or Companies House route.

Follow the PSC correction journey from identifying the discrepancy through establishing what happened, selecting the appropriate route and completing the authorised corrective step.

UK PSC Register Discrepancies, Incorrect Control Data & Corrective Routes

Streamline your Companies House compliance with fast, secure ID verification for PSCs. Complete the process online with an authorized ACSP today!

£40.00

£65.00

£125.00

£220.00

PSC Identity Problems, Incorrect Control Information and Corrective Routes

What appears to be wrong?

Identity-verification problem

Code or role-connection problem

Genuine new change

Inaccurate historic filing

Disputed control

Entity-record difference

Possible identity misuse

Dissolved-entity problem

Is this an identity problem or a record problem?

Verification information

PSC information

Authority and evidence

When identity verification cannot be completed

What if the Personal Code does not connect?

A new change is not the same as an earlier error

Genuine new change

Earlier inaccuracy

Companies House information and the entity’s evidence

Companies House record

Supporting records

The required comparison

Possible corrective routes

Current notification

Replacement filing

Second filing

Registrar action

Protection or suppression

Restoration

Court or legal route

Identity-misuse report

RP01 and RP04 are different routes

RP01: replacement

RP04: second filing

What if PSC status or control is disputed?

Possible misuse of identity

Preserve

Consider

Protect

What if the company or LLP has been dissolved?

How Coddan identifies the appropriate route

1. Identify the difference

2. Compare the records

3. Establish what happened

4. Classify the problem

5. Select the route

6. Complete authorised work

Current, transitional and future position

Current

Transitional

Future or uncommenced

Where the problem concerns Coddan’s ACSP verification route

What Coddan must establish

What information should you provide?

Entity

Individual

Register entry

Timing

Verification

Control evidence

Authority and disagreement

Existing process

What Coddan may provide

Who is responsible for each stage?

The entity

The individual

Coddan

Companies House

Courts and authorities

Professional advisers