Companies House refreshes both ACSP registers, exposing starkly different update schedules

On 4 September 2026 Companies House republished its active and ceased/suspended Authorised Corporate Service Provider registers together, highlighting that the ceased/suspended list is refreshed every two weeks while the active list follows no fixed timetable.

On 4 September 2026 Companies House republished both of its public registers for Authorised Corporate Service Providers (ACSPs) – the active list and the ceased/suspended list – drawing attention to the fact that the two registers operate on very different update regimes.

Two registers, two update regimes

The ceased or suspended ACSP register is refreshed on a strict bi‑weekly cycle, meaning any change to an ACSP’s status is reflected on the public list within 14 days of the change being recorded. This schedule is confirmed on the GOV.UK page titled “Ceased or suspended Authorised Corporate Service Providers (ACSPs)”, which states that the register is updated every two weeks and that a newly ceased or suspended provider could take up to two weeks to appear on the list.^{Ceased or suspended ACSP register – GOV.UK}

In contrast, the active ACSP register – the list of providers currently authorised to operate – does not follow a set publication timetable. The GOV.UK page “List of Authorised Corporate Service Providers (ACSPs)” makes clear that the active register is not updated on a fixed schedule, leaving the timing of any additions, removals or amendments unpredictable.^{Active ACSP register – GOV.UK}

Why the bi‑weekly refresh matters

For businesses that rely on corporate service agents – for example, firms that outsource company formation, registered office services or director appointments – the ceased/suspended register provides a reliable, time‑bound signal of risk. If a provider is listed as ceased or suspended, the two‑week lag is the maximum period during which a client could be unaware of the change. This predictability allows compliance teams to set monitoring cycles that align with the refresh schedule, reducing the chance of inadvertently continuing to work with a provider that has lost its authorisation.

The bi‑weekly cadence also supports downstream data users, such as credit‑rating agencies and anti‑money‑laundering (AML) platforms, which ingest the register to flag high‑risk relationships. Knowing that the source updates every 14 days enables these services to calibrate their risk‑scoring models with a clear expectation of data freshness.

The irregular active list and its risks

The lack of a fixed timetable for the active ACSP register introduces uncertainty. Companies House does not publish a schedule for when the active list will be refreshed, meaning that a provider’s removal or addition could remain invisible for an indeterminate period. For firms that depend on the active list to verify that a service provider is currently authorised, this opacity can create compliance gaps.

Consider a scenario where an ACSP loses its authorisation due to a regulatory breach. If the active register is not updated promptly, a client may continue to rely on the provider under the false assumption that the authorisation remains valid. The risk is compounded because the ceased/suspended register, while bi‑weekly, only captures providers that have already been formally ceased or suspended – it does not capture providers that have been removed from the active list without a formal cessation notice.

Companies House’s own guidance does not specify a maximum lag for the active register, leaving businesses to operate on a best‑effort basis. The uncertainty is especially acute for sectors that require continuous verification, such as financial services, where AML checks must be performed on a rolling basis.

What businesses should watch

Given the divergent update patterns, firms should adopt a two‑pronged monitoring approach:

Bi‑weekly checks of the ceased/suspended register. Align internal review cycles with the 14‑day refresh to capture any newly ceased or suspended providers before they can affect ongoing engagements.
Ad‑hoc verification of the active register. Because the active list lacks a set schedule, companies should treat it as a snapshot rather than a live feed. Any critical decision – such as onboarding a new service provider – should be accompanied by a direct confirmation from Companies House or the provider itself.

In practice, this means maintaining a log of the last date each register was consulted and flagging any discrepancy between the two. If a provider appears on the active list but is absent from the ceased/suspended list, the firm should still seek a secondary confirmation, for example by contacting the provider or checking the Companies House “search” service for the latest filing status.

Another practical step is to embed the bi‑weekly refresh date (4 September 2026) into compliance calendars, ensuring that the next expected update – 18 September 2026 – is automatically scheduled for review. For the active list, firms may consider a monthly or quarterly manual pull, acknowledging that the data may be stale but still useful for trend analysis.

What remains unknown

The research packet does not disclose why Companies House has chosen an irregular schedule for the active register, nor does it provide any indication of when the next update will occur. It also does not specify whether the bi‑weekly cadence for the ceased/suspended register is mandated by legislation or is an internal policy decision. These gaps mean that businesses cannot predict the exact timing of future changes to the active list, and they must continue to rely on direct verification for high‑risk decisions.

Finally, the packet does not include any quantitative data – such as the number of providers on each register or the frequency of changes over the past year – that would allow a deeper statistical analysis of how often the active list actually changes. Without that, the assessment must remain qualitative, focusing on the procedural differences rather than the volume of movement between the registers.

Looking ahead

The simultaneous refresh on 4 September 2026 serves as a reminder that Companies House’s two ACSP registers are not interchangeable. The bi‑weekly update of the ceased/suspended list offers a clear, predictable window for risk monitoring, while the active list’s irregular cadence demands a more cautious, verification‑heavy approach.

For UK businesses that depend on corporate service providers, the practical implication is simple: treat the ceased/suspended register as a reliable early‑warning system, but do not assume the active register provides real‑time assurance of authorisation. Until Companies House publishes a fixed schedule for the active list, the safest route is to combine regular bi‑weekly checks with ad‑hoc confirmations for any new or critical engagements.

By aligning internal compliance processes with the known refresh cycles, firms can minimise the chance of unwittingly working with a provider that has lost its authorisation, thereby protecting both regulatory standing and operational continuity.