Every UK bank and FCA-authorised electronic money institution consults the Companies House public register before deciding on a business account application. What they read there — company status, filing history, officer and PSC information, registered office, SIC codes, share capital and any registered charges — sets the tone for the entire underwriting review. The point of this article is not to teach founders how to game a public record. It is to explain, in plain language, why a coherent record matters and what considerations sit behind it, so that founders can make informed decisions about how their company is presented before they apply.
Why the public register is read first
A business account application is not a conversation. It is a compliance file assembled under strict anti-money-laundering, know-your-customer and know-your-business obligations set out in the UK Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and the FCA Handbook. Before an underwriter reads a word of what the applicant has typed into the online form, they read the entity as the state sees it — and the state's version lives at Companies House. It is authoritative, free to access, updated by the company itself, and, crucially, cannot be edited in response to a specific application. That combination is why it is treated as the baseline of truth against which everything the applicant later says is measured.
The practical consequence is that a great deal of what determines the outcome of a banking application is decided before the application is opened. When the record and the application agree, the file moves forward. When they disagree — even in small ways — the file slows down, and slowing down is rarely a friendly signal in modern underwriting queues.
What banks actually look at
The Companies House record is a structured document. Underwriters — and, increasingly, the automated tools that pre-score applications on their behalf — pull the same handful of fields in the same order every time. Understanding what those fields are is enough to understand why some records read well and others do not.
A live company with a clean, timely filing history reads very differently to one already carrying overdue confirmation statements or accounts. The pattern of on-time filings tells an underwriter whether the entity is being run to standard.
Directors, secretaries and Persons with Significant Control are all publicly disclosed. Underwriters check that these individuals are identifiable, that residency and appointment dates are consistent, and that the PSC declaration reconciles with the shareholding.
The registered office, director's service address and correspondence trail form a picture of where the company can actually be reached. Where each address sits — and whether they duplicate — shapes the underwriter's initial impression.
The industry code recorded at incorporation is one of the first fields an underwriting model reads. Vague or catch-all codes force the reviewer to guess what the company does; precise codes let the file introduce itself.
Issued share capital, share classes and ownership layers appear on the record. Straightforward structures reassure quickly; multi-layered overseas ownership is not disqualifying but invites additional questions.
Registered charges, mortgages, previous company names and any insolvency history are all visible on the register. None automatically disqualify an application, but each is read as context for the request being made.
The signals underwriters weigh
Each of the fields above is a signal, but no single field is decisive. What underwriting looks for is the pattern the fields form together. A newly incorporated company with a clean set of filings, a precise SIC code, a professional London registered office, a straightforward PSC declaration and completed identity verification presents a very different pattern from an older company with overdue filings, a catch-all SIC code, a virtual mailbox in a higher-risk jurisdiction and an unverified officer list. Both may be perfectly legitimate; only one reads that way at first glance.
This is why the practical objective before a banking application is never to hide information or dress up a record. It is to ensure that the record accurately reflects the business the founder is actually running, using the fields Companies House provides, so that the picture the underwriter forms from the register matches the picture the founder is about to describe on the application form.
Coherence is the whole game
If there is a single insight worth taking from this article, it is that underwriting is a coherence test more than a content test. Underwriters are not evaluating whether the company will succeed commercially. They are evaluating whether every piece of information they can see about the company agrees with every other piece. When the shareholding on the confirmation statement agrees with the PSC declaration, when the registered office and the director's service address are separately identifiable and clearly professional, when the SIC code matches the plain-English description of the business, when the tax residence of the officers matches the addresses on the file — the review runs smoothly.
Where founders often underestimate the review is in assuming that inconsistencies are read as harmless clerical noise. They are not. An inconsistency is read as an unresolved question, and unresolved questions are what compliance frameworks are designed to escalate. The escalation is rarely dramatic; the file simply moves from an automated queue to a manual one, and the manual queue makes decisions differently.
Why the 2024–2026 reforms changed the read
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, brought progressively into force through 2024, 2025 and 2026, has given Companies House meaningful new powers. Directors, PSCs and — through Authorised Corporate Service Providers — the individuals filing on their behalf must now complete identity verification. Registered offices must be an "appropriate address" at which correspondence can be reliably delivered. Companies House has been given wider powers to query, reject and, in some cases, remove filings that are inconsistent or unverifiable.
From an underwriting perspective, these reforms have raised the floor of what a Companies House record now represents. A file that has completed identity verification and sits at an appropriate address is one that has already been reviewed by the state before the bank sees it. A file that has not is one where the bank must ask questions the registrar has not yet asked. It is a subtle shift but a consequential one, and it is why the way a company is set up in 2026 has more banking implications than the way the same company would have been set up in 2022.
What to think about before you apply
This is the section where many articles would provide a step-by-step checklist. We will not, and the reason is deliberate. The value a founder derives from an experienced advisor is not the ability to read a list; it is the judgement that decides which SIC code, which address configuration, which share structure, which PSC framing and which timing of identity verification will read well for the specific business being described. Those decisions are not universal, and publishing a generic checklist as if they were would be misleading.
What we can offer is the shape of the thinking. Before applying for banking, a founder is well served by considering: whether the SIC code accurately describes what the company will actually be invoicing for, and whether it uses one of the specific codes rather than a catch-all; whether the registered office reflects a real, professional UK correspondence address rather than a residential flat abroad; whether the director's service address is separately identifiable; whether the PSC declaration reconciles cleanly with the shareholder register; whether identity verification has been completed for every director and every PSC; and whether the confirmation statement, if one is due, has been filed on time. Each of these is legitimately within the founder's control, and each is read by the underwriter as evidence of how the company is being run.
What sits above the shape is craft: the specific choices that turn a technically compliant record into one that reads confidently to a professional reviewer. That craft is where an advisor earns their fee, and it is why we do not attempt to reduce it to a template here.
Honest limitations of a public record
A coherent Companies House record is a necessary condition for a smooth banking application. It is not a sufficient one. Sanctions screening, adverse-media screening, activity-based exclusion lists, source-of-funds evidence and the specific risk appetite of the provider on the day all sit outside the register and will still be applied. A founder should approach the Companies House record as the part of the file they can most cleanly control — not as a guarantee that the rest of the review will follow.
It is also worth remembering that the register is public. Any decision made about how a company is structured, named, addressed or classified is a decision made in public. That is a feature of the UK system rather than a bug, and it is one of the reasons UK companies remain attractive to international counterparties: the counterparty can verify the entity for themselves without asking the founder for anything. It is also, however, why the record deserves more careful thought at incorporation than it is often given.
Our advisory work covers the specific choices behind a well-presented UK company record — from SIC selection and address configuration to PSC framing, identity verification sequencing and banking-readiness review. We do not guarantee banking outcomes; we help you present the company clearly, coherently and in language a UK underwriter recognises.
Frequently asked questions
Do UK banks really check Companies House before I apply?+
Yes. The Companies House public register is the first source of truth an underwriter consults, often before the applicant has even completed the online form. It is free, authoritative and updated by the company itself, so it is treated as the baseline against which everything else on the application is compared.
What are they specifically looking for?+
They are looking for coherence. Company status, filing history, officer details, PSC declarations, registered office, SIC codes, share capital and any registered charges are all cross-checked against the information provided in the application. The absolute values matter less than whether the record is internally consistent and matches what the founder has said elsewhere.
Is a newly incorporated company at a disadvantage?+
Not on its own. Every UK company was new at some point. What matters is whether the record — even on day one — is presented cleanly: correct addresses, precise SIC codes, a coherent PSC declaration and identity verification completed. New companies with clean records are routinely approved; older companies with untidy records often are not.
Does the SIC code really carry that much weight?+
It carries disproportionate weight relative to how casually it is often chosen. The SIC code is a structured field that automated underwriting models read directly, so a vague code sets a tone the free-text summary then has to overcome. Choosing a precise code that matches the actual activity is one of the simplest ways to present the company well.
Can I fix the record after a decline?+
Many elements can be updated at Companies House quickly and legitimately — the registered office, service addresses, SIC codes, share capital details and identity verification status. Some elements, such as filing history and prior company names, cannot be undone. That is why the recommendation is always to think about the record before applying rather than after.
Does using an EMI instead of a bank change what is read?+
The list of items is largely the same. EMIs run their own risk models and tolerate different geographies and activities, but they still open with the Companies House record. A tidy record helps in either channel; an untidy record hurts in both.
How much of this can I really do myself?+
A founder can absolutely file everything at Companies House themselves. What tends to be harder without experience is judging how the same record will read to an underwriter — which SIC code will be interpreted as vague, when an address configuration invites questions, and how to write a business summary that matches the filing. That is where advisors add most of their value.
Do you guarantee approval if my record is tidy?+
No. Every UK bank and EMI reserves absolute discretion over account opening. A well-presented Companies House record removes a category of avoidable friction, but it does not override sanctions screening, activity exclusions or a provider's internal risk appetite. Anyone promising a guaranteed outcome should be treated with caution.
- Why UK banks reject non-resident applications — and how to fix it →
- Opening a UK business bank account as a non-resident founder →
- SIC codes: choosing the right industry code at Companies House →
- PSC declarations explained: who counts as a Person with Significant Control →
- Registered office vs Director's service address: what's the difference →
- Companies House identity verification: a step-by-step walkthrough →