Companies House Identity Verification

Companies House Identity Verification

 

Since 18 November, all UK company directors, Persons with Significant Control (PSCs), and all members of Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), are legally required to complete the Companies House identity verification process. This forms a central part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) – a legislation designed to strengthen corporate governance, enhance transparency, and prevent companies from being used for illegal purposes. 

Failure to comply may lead to fines, delays, and reputational damage, making it vital for organisations – particularly those with complex ownership structures – to act now. Existing directors will have until the company’s next confirmation statement is due to fulfil these obligations, and those with multiple founders, directors, investors, or PSCs will face a more intricate process. 

Why Identity Verification is Being Introduced 

The reforms aim to modernise and secure the UK’s corporate registry system. Mandatory verification will: 

1.  Enhance transparency and improve data integrity: ensuring that individuals setting up, running, or controlling companies are accurately identified, strengthening the reliability of the Companies House register.

2. Prevent fraud and illegal activity: helping identify those attempting to use companies for fraud, money laundering, or other criminal purposes.

3. Support Anti-Money Laundering compliance: giving businesses greater confidence that the companies and individuals they interact with are genuine.

4. Facilitate digital transformation: providing a streamlined, secure identity verification system makes compliance more efficient and accessible.

5. Enable a linked-individuals account: directors, PSCs, and LLP members can link all their companies to a single account, so identity verification only needs to be completed once, regardless of how many entities they are involved in.

Who Must Comply?

Company Directors
Persons of Significant
Control (PSCs)
All members of Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs)
Third-party agents acting on behalf of companies
Both new and existing companies.

How to Complete Identity Verification

Companies House will offer two verification routes:

Digital Verification

This involves:

Creating a Government One Login and Companies House account
Uploading approved identification (e.g., passport or driving licence)
Taking a live facial photo
Automatic verification via secure authentication technology

The Post Office will also support aspects of this process under a government contract.

Verification Through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP)

An ACSP can perform verification on your behalf. These are regulated firms approved by Companies House to conduct identity checks.

Glaisyers ETL will act as ACSPs, enabling directors, PSCs, and LLP members to complete verification easily, which can be especially beneficial when:

You lack access to a smartphone
The digital service cannot verify you
Your organisation has multiple directors or PSCs requiring coordinated identity checks

Existing clients can be verified quickly, as identity documents may already be held on file.

The Administrative Impact on Companies

While essential, the new requirements may bring complexity, particularly for organisations with layered or international ownership structures. Companies must:

Maintain accurate corporate records
Ensure that reporting obligations are fully up to date
Confirm that each director and PSC understands their responsibilities and completes verification on time

Glaisyers offers end-to-end management of the verification process. They ensure all corporate records are correct, provide governance advice, and streamline reporting obligations, making compliance straightforward and stress-free. Mandatory identity verification marks a major step toward greater corporate transparency, reduced fraud risk, and improved data accuracy. To avoid penalties, companies should act now.

Stay ahead of the curve and book a discovery call with Glaisyers today to ensure your agency is fully compliant.

Solicitor

Ryan Baratzi

AI in Creative, Digital and Business Contracts

AI in Creative, Digital and Business Contracts

 

AI now sits at the heart of how modern businesses operate. It drafts documents, designs visuals, analyses data, forecasts sales, and writes marketing copy before you’ve finished your coffee. But for all its productivity gains, it also brings a new breed of contractual risk. 

 

When an AI tool produces something infringing, biased, or just plain wrong, the familiar questions arrive: who owns it, who’s liable, and who pays the bill when it goes public? 

 

Traditional contracts – written long before the era of prompts and models – often can’t keep up. 

 

Know Who The “Author” is Before the AI Does 

Under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the “author” of a computer-generated work is the person who arranges its creation. Logical enough, though drafted at a time when the cleverest thing a computer did was play solitaire. 

 

In today’s landscape, “arrangements” can mean anything from prompting and training to integrating AI into workflows. That could involve internal teams, third-party developers, SaaS providers, or external partners. To stay ahead:

Spell out who owns the AI outputs and who can adapt, license, or monetise them. 

Deal with moral rights early. Will they be waived, shared, or retained? 

Address joint ownership when several contributors shape the input or model. 

Read the fine print. Many AI platforms limit commercial use, require attribution, or change their licence terms faster than a patch update. Ignoring that can turn into a copyright claim overnight. 

Consider adding a clause to address model drift when an AI vendor retrains its model and your previously safe outputs start resembling someone else’s IP. 

 

For businesses co-developing AI systems or datasets with partners, Joint Development Agreements (JDAs) should clarify ownership, licensing, and commercialisation rights before any code or content is created. 

 

Managing Brand and Reputational Risks 

AI can supercharge performance or damage reputations. Whether it’s a chatbot with attitude, an AI that fabricates customer data, or an automated design tool that borrows too much “inspiration”, brand damage can be swift. 

 

Regulators have made it clear that automation does not dilute accountability. If an AI system misleads consumers, publishes false information, or mishandles data, the business deploying it remains responsible. 

 

Contracts should therefore:

Require human review of AI outputs before publication or implementation. 

Include brand-protection clauses and indemnities for reputational harm. 

Set out crisis-management obligations: who acts, who apologises, who fixes it. 

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and CAP Code continue to apply across industries. Misleading AI-generated materials, from social posts to automated product recommendations, can breach advertising and consumer protection law regardless of intent. 

 

Transparency: The New Differentiator

AI-driven operations rely on vast datasets. With the UK GDPR and the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (DUAA), which governs AI-driven data sharing and model transparency, tightening controls, businesses can’t hide behind “the algorithm did it.” 

 

Articles 13–15 and 22 of the GDPR still apply, demanding transparency whenever personal data drives automated decision-making. The ICO’s 2025 AI Guidance underscores key principles: document your logic, minimise your data, and keep a human in the loop.

 

Contracts should require that:

Vendors comply with current ICO AI Guidance. 

Data minimisation, pseudonymisation, and deletion protocols are implemented. 

Special category data is excluded from AI profiling unless strictly necessary. 

Humans review all automated outputs with material impact.  

Beyond compliance, transparency is now a selling point. Customers, investors, and regulators increasingly prefer companies that can explain how their AI works and why it’s fair. 

 

Future-Proofing AI Contracts 

The biggest contracting mistake is treating the agreement as static. AI evolves monthly, not annually, and your paperwork should keep pace.

 

Build in: 

Annual AI risk and compliance reviews. 

Automatic reassessment when vendors retrain or replace models. 

Internal governance connecting legal, technical, and data teams. 

You wouldn’t let a financial forecast go unreviewed for a year, so don’t let your AI contracts gather dust. 

 

The CMA’s 2024 Foundation Models Report also urges companies to monitor supplier transparency and competition risks in AI procurement. It’s another reason to keep clauses flexible and forward-looking. 

 

The Bottom Line 

AI has redrawn the commercial landscape. To keep innovation lawful, ethical, and profitable, contracts must evolve in step. The savviest businesses aren’t just using AI; they’re contracting for it – allocating ownership, defining liability, protecting data, and planning exits before the system misbehaves. 

 

At Glaisyers ETL, our Creative, Digital & Marketing team works with businesses across sectors, from tech start-ups to global brands, to future-proof their contracts and manage AI-driven risk. We help ensure your innovation stays bold, compliant, and commercially sound. 

 

Because in the age of AI, the most innovative strategy is still a well-drafted clause.

Trainee Solicitor

Kieran Barrow

Thinking About a Settlement Agreement?

 

When managing redundancies, a settlement agreement can appeal to all parties. For employers, it’s a clean, claim-free legal resolution. For employees, it offers a discreet exit and agreed benefits rather than a P45 and an awkward scene. Handled correctly, it provides peace of mind for both, but missing key details can expose employers to legal or financial risk. 

 

Before offering or finalising any agreement, it’s vital to ensure the terms are watertight and fair, and settlement agreements are no exception. In instances of redundancies, workplace disputes, or performance-related exits, it’s suffice to say there could be some disgruntled parties involved looking for loopholes to expose. To keep things clean and compliant, here are five key checks every employer should make when considering a settlement agreement in 2025.

 

Clarity of Terms

Whether you’re dismissing an employee or deciding who gets the last doughnut in a pack of three, the key to any fair agreement is clear and precise terms. Employers should ensure every term is precisely defined – from payments and bonuses to notice periods, benefits, and reference wording – or risk disputes later on. A good practice is to double-check that the final document mirrors what was agreed during negotiations. For example, if the employee is being paid in lieu of notice, the agreement should specify this clearly and then confirm how the amount has been calculated. Transparency and clarity protect the employer and the employee alike, shifting the process from a heated argument to a mutually beneficial arrangement.

 

Scope of Claims Waived

A settlement agreement’s main appeal is, of course, the elimination of any future legal claims; however, there are certain rights for which claims cannot be legally waived, such as those for future personal injury or accrued pension rights. The agreement, therefore, should clearly list which statutory and contractual claims are being waived (such as unfair dismissal or discrimination). Overly broad waivers leave room for exploitation and could even invalidate the agreement altogether. By striking a balance between comprehensive coverage and lawful drafting, employers can ensure genuine finality and overall peace of mind.

 

Confidentiality and Restrictive Covenants

Most settlement agreements include confidentiality clauses to keep people from gossiping and protect business interests. It’s essential, however, to keep this element realistic and not so broad that it becomes unenforceable. In some cases, employers may also wish to specify restrictive covenants, in which case, the employee should receive further consideration (such as a payment or benefit) for agreeing to it. Examples might include a non-compete clause that prevents the employee from working for a competitor for a given period after leaving, or a non-solicitation clause that prevents the employee from poaching the company’s clients, customers, or staff. 

 

These restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate, meaning they must… 

 

cover only a fair geographic area 

last for a limited time 

relate specifically to the employee’s role and what needs protecting 

If handled properly (in other words, if you don’t go overboard with the restrictions), these clauses can help the company to stay protected after the employee leaves and ensures a fair exit procedure for all involved.

 

Sticking to the Process 

Even the most carefully worded agreement won’t be legally binding unless the process is followed correctly. Employers must allow the employee to seek independent legal advice from a qualified adviser and give them sufficient time to do so. Pressuring an employee to sign quickly or failing to document discussions properly could render the agreement invalid and burn the bridges you were trying to secure. Employers should also ensure these conversations remain discreet and confidential – if they’re keeping quiet, you should too. Liaisons must remain protected, meaning they cannot be used in ordinary unfair dismissal proceedings if discussions break down. A transparent, well-managed process not only safeguards the employer but also demonstrates fairness and respect toward the employee.

 

Tax and Other Implications

Before you breathe a sigh of relief, we need to talk tax. Ex-gratia payments are generally tax-free up to £30,000, but things such as contractual notice pay and bonuses are taxable through PAYE and will therefore have tax and National Insurance contributions deducted. Clearly outlining the tax status of each payment in the agreement ensures both parties understand what the employee will actually receive. Finally, while logistics like the return of company property, garden leave, and handover responsibilities might seem like the kind of topics that can be discussed over an eye-contact-less coffee in the break room, when specified in the agreement, they help prevent complications later on. 

 

You can expect every situation like this to be as unique as the individuals involved, so expert advice can be crucial when navigating settlement agreements. Taking these steps reduces the risk of disputes, protects the business and creates a clean break for everyone involved – hold the awkwardness.

 

To discuss your organisation’s settlement agreements or have one reviewed, speak to one of our Manchester-based employment solicitors today. 

Managing Multicultural Teams: What to Consider

 

The increasing cultural diversity of the UK workforce offers organisations significant advantages, including heightened creativity and innovation, and unapparelled engagement with diverse clients. Culturally diverse teams can enhance decision-making, attract top talent, and improve organisational reputation.

Managing multicultural teams, however, does also present its challenges. Communication barriers, differing cultural norms, and unconscious bias can create misunderstandings, conflict, and reduced team cohesion. Variations in attitudes toward hierarchy, punctuality, and teamwork can further complicate management and in extreme cases, can even result in legal claims, for example for constructive dismissal or discrimination, if not carefully managed.

At Glaisyers, we’ve noticed a steady rise in legal claims impacting our clients which involve the aforementioned issues, demonstrating the importance of getting things right in the first place.

To avoid becoming embroiled in these complications, we recommend that companies adopt inclusive and culturally sensitive strategies in all that they do. Key approaches include:

Cultural awareness training to build empathy and reduce bias.Inclusive leadership that values diverse contributions.Clear communication practices to avoid misunderstandings.Flexible HR policies that respect cultural and religious differences.Mentorship and support networks to offer help and guidance to employees.Celebrating cultural differences to foster unity and appreciation.

Effective management of a multicultural workforce transforms diversity into a source of strength, driving innovation and organisational success in an increasingly globalised economy.

If you have any concerns about managing multicultural teams or wish to ensure your policies and handbooks are up to date and suitably address these points, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Employment Team.

Top HR and Employment Law questions that we’ve been asked by HR professionals and business owners

 

Below, we answer some of the top HR and Employment Law questions that we’ve been asked by HR professionals and business owners this month:

1. Can we dismiss an employee during their probationary period?

Yes, but the dismissal must still be lawful and not discriminatory.
The probation period does not remove an employee’s employment rights and employers should still:

1. follow a fair (even if shortened) process;
2. give the correct amount of notice (whether this be contractual or statutory minimum notice); and
3. ensure that the reason for dismissal isn’t automatically unfair or discriminatory.

Top tip: Ensure that probation reviews are structured and clearly document the employer’s concerns.

2. When do we need to consult with employees about a redundancy situation?

Where an employer proposes to make 20 or more redundancies within a 90 day period at one establishment it will need to follow a collective consultation process. Generally, this will include a requirement to elect and consult with employee representatives. Even if an employer does not intend to make 20 or more redundancies in a 90 day period, it must still consult individually with affected employees.

Top tip: Start the consultation early and avoid rushing through the process to ensure that the process is meaningful and carried out at a formative stage.

3. Can we deal with sickness absence under our disciplinary policy?

A sickness absence process shouldn’t be dealt with under a disciplinary policy (although it could be appropriate where the absence has triggered a disciplinary procedure due to surpassing a certain level of absences). Calling any procedure followed for sickness absence a “disciplinary” matter would give the wrong impression and could elevate the risks of an employee bringing a claim of disability discrimination for example.

Top tip: Make sure that you have a complete employee handbook containing all relevant policies including policies on managing both short and long term sickness absence and that all employees are aware of and have access to the same.

4. Do we have to pay employees for overtime?

Generally, no, unless there is a contractual entitlement to paid overtime. However, employers must ensure that employees are paid at least the National Minimum Wage for average hours worked. They should also be mindful of working time limits and rest breaks.

Top tip: Make sure that arrangements for overtime are set out clearly in your contracts of employment.

AB v Grafters Group — Harassment Liability Extends Beyond the Workplace

AB v Grafters Group — Harassment Liability Extends Beyond the Workplace

 

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of AB v Grafters Group Ltd serves as a timely reminder that employers can be liable for harassment claims even when it occurs outside the physical workplace and outside an employee’s normal working hours.

Case Overview

The Claimant was an agency worker in the hospitality sector. She believed she had been booked to work a shift at Hereford Racecourse and, after missing her transport, accepted a lift from a male colleague. During the journey, the colleague diverted to a remote location and sexually harassed her. The Employment Tribunal (ET) accepted the harassment had occurred, but held that the employer wasn’t liable under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 because it hadn’t occurred “in the course of employment”. The main reasons were that there was no requirement or expectation that the male colleague drive the Claimant and because the employer did not know about, or approve, the lift. The EAT overturned the ET’s decision, finding it had had applied the wrong test and that it hadn’t properly considered whether the incident occurred in an “extension of employment”. The key question is whether the conduct had a sufficient connection to work, not whether the employer approved or organised the setting. The case has been sent back to the ET be reconsidered.

What does this mean for employers

This case serves as a reminder that the test to determine whether harassment took place “in the course of employment” is broad and conduct can fall within it even if it occurs off-site, informally, and outside working hours, where there is a work-related connection. It also highlights the increasing risk of liability for off-site harassment, particularly in sectors where informal travel and flexible working arrangements are common (e.g. hospitality, events, agency work).

Practical Steps

Employers must ensure they have robust and preventative steps are in place when it comes to defending harassment claims. To mitigate risk and strengthen chances of successfully relying on the “all reasonable steps” defence employers should:

Provide regular harassment training, particularly on sexual harassment;Enforce reporting channels and act promptly on complaints;Keep evidence of training and policy reviews;Regularly assess and review risks relating to travel, events and informal work-related interactions; andEnsure that anti-harassment policies cover off-site and travel-related conduct.

If you have any questions on harassment or if you would like to arrange training on the duty to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Glaisyers Employment Team

Managing Partner, Head of Employment

Russell Brown