A Director’s Monthly Companies House Review: Five Details Worth Checking

Companies House records are often treated as a filing obligation rather than a working record. That approach works until a confirmation statement is due, a registered office change has not been picked up, or a director’s identity verification status is unclear. A short monthly review keeps the public register aligned with the company’s own records and reduces the chance of avoidable scrambles later in the year.

Why a monthly review earns its place

The statutory register is public, but its accuracy depends on the company telling Companies House about changes. Small discrepancies can create disproportionate disruption: correspondence goes to the wrong address, a filing is delayed, or a bank or professional adviser queries information that should be straightforward. A monthly check is not a legal audit. It is a routine administrative control, much like reconciling a bank account or reviewing aged debt.

The aim is simple: confirm that the information held by Companies House still reflects the company’s position, note anything that needs action, and record that the check took place. For most small companies this need not take more than ten to fifteen minutes.

The five details to check

1. The confirmation statement date

Check the next confirmation statement due date and the review period it covers. The confirmation statement is not the annual accounts; it confirms that the company information held by Companies House is correct as at the confirmation date. Diarise the due date and a preparatory date at least two weeks earlier. If there have been changes during the period, deal with them before the statement is filed rather than using the statement as a substitute for an update.

2. Registered office and registered email address

The registered office must be an address where correspondence can reach the company and be acknowledged. Check that it is still correct and that post is being opened and actioned. Also review the registered email address held by Companies House. It should be monitored by someone who recognises the significance of Companies House correspondence and can escalate it promptly.

3. People with significant control

Review the PSC register and compare it with the company’s understanding of ownership and control. Consider whether any person has gained or lost significant control, or whether the nature of control has changed. If there has been a change, the company’s own PSC register and the Companies House record should be updated in line with the applicable requirements. A monthly glance is usually enough to spot drift before it becomes a backlog.

4. Director and secretary details

Check appointments, resignations, service addresses and any other director details held on the public record. Changes can arise from routine events such as a director moving house or a new appointment. The monthly review should confirm that the company’s internal records and the Companies House record agree, and that any filing has been completed and acknowledged.

5. Identity verification status

Where identity verification applies, record which directors and PSCs have completed it, the date, and the route used. For anyone not yet verified, note the intended route and the date by which it should be completed. Keep only the summary needed for administration; do not store unnecessary identity documents. If the position is unclear, treat it as an action rather than an assumption.

A simple agenda for the review

A workable monthly routine follows the same order each time:

• Open the Companies House record and the company’s statutory registers side by side.
• Check the confirmation statement due date and review period.
• Confirm the registered office and registered email address.
• Review PSC entries and director details for changes since the last check.
• Note identity verification status for relevant individuals.
• Record any action, owner and target date in a simple log.
• If nothing has changed, record that fact. A nil return is still evidence of a check.

Who can prepare it

The director remains responsible for the company’s filings and for the accuracy of the information provided. A virtual assistant can prepare the review by gathering the relevant records, checking diary dates, drafting the summary and maintaining the audit log. The director then reviews the findings and authorises any filing or external communication.

This division of work is useful because the task is repetitive and easy to postpone. A VA can hold the calendar, prompt the director, chase missing confirmations and keep the log tidy. What a VA should not do is give legal advice or decide whether a particular change is notifiable. Those questions should be escalated to the director or to an appropriate professional adviser.

The audit trail that keeps it simple

A spreadsheet or shared document is usually sufficient. Record the date of the check, the item reviewed, the source consulted, the finding, the action required, the owner and the evidence location. Keep the language factual and brief. For example: registered office checked against Companies House on 9 November 2026; no change; evidence saved in compliance folder.

The log should be stored in a shared folder with appropriate permissions and a consistent naming convention. It does not need to be elaborate. Its value lies in being current, readable and easy to hand over if the director is unavailable.

Keeping it proportionate

A monthly review is a preventive habit, not a legal deep dive. If an item is complex, record the question and refer it to the right adviser rather than attempting to resolve it through guesswork. The routine should be short enough to survive a busy month and structured enough to produce a reliable record.

Put the review in the diary, attach the checklist, and keep the output to one page. Over time, that small administrative rhythm reduces the likelihood of late filings, mismatched records and last-minute requests for information. It also gives the director a clear, dated record of attention without adding another layer of bureaucracy.