Officer appointment verified but identify is not verified

Data Issues
1

We have found that the majority of verified appointments have no identity verified date. We have counted 38647 so far (for 47161 verified appointments in total). We collect the data via the streaming api (the officers and psc endpoints specifically).

To find them, we look for identity_verification_details.identity_verified_on is null (or non-existent)
identity_verification_details.appointment_verification_start_on is not null. We can provide a list of these occurrences if needs be.

An example of such occurence:

In the companies house website, it says “verification requirements complete” but has not details about the verified identity:

Screenshot 2025-11-24 at 15.40.57
Screenshot 2025-11-24 at 15.40.571157×707 39.7 KB

The same happens for PSCs. We have counted 8005 so far.

These don’t make sense to us. If the appointment is verified, the identity should be verified too by definition and the appointment_verification_start_on should be present with the rest of the data.

2

data for the event above:

{
    "data": {
        "address": {
            "address_line_1": "Lindsay Drive",
            "country": "United Kingdom",
            "locality": "Abingdon",
            "postal_code": "OX14 2RT",
            "premises": "Peachcroft Christian Centre"
        },
        "appointed_on": "2025-11-16",
        "country_of_residence": "England",
        "date_of_birth": {
            "month": 5,
            "year": 1988
        },
        "etag": "55b105f9701778683583bd0b36ee54a1b43b1b9c",
        "identity_verification_details": {
            "appointment_verification_end_on": "9999-12-31",
            "appointment_verification_start_on": "2025-11-18"
        },
        "links": {
            "officer": {
                "appointments": "/officers/xIOIV-GwwE5I93Ub_3Pkw6Ug8ck/appointments"
            },
            "self": "/company/01497393/appointments/z-xj8Cv6Q-SPfw_3djAgjlW2KeI"
        },
        "name": "BREWER, Peter James",
        "nationality": "British",
        "officer_role": "director",
        "person_number": "264194940001"
    },
    "event": {
        "published_at": "2025-11-18T14:35:13",
        "timepoint": 37284184,
        "type": "changed"
    },
    "resource_id": "z-xj8Cv6Q-SPfw_3djAgjlW2KeI",
    "resource_kind": "company-officers",
    "resource_uri": "/company/01497393/appointments/z-xj8Cv6Q-SPfw_3djAgjlW2KeI"
}
3

Not CH staff or a developer, but in this case the director’s appointment was registered at CH on 18 Nov (even though the appointment date was 16 Nov). See the filing history at CH.

So presumably the relevant AP01 included the identity verification details. This is a different situation from a director who was already registered at Companies House before 18 November who is given a deadline to verify their ID by.

Might this explain your results? And can the API differentiate between director appointments which were registered at Companies House before or after 18 Nov - regardless of the appointment date?

4

thanks for taking the to respond @NiceDay!

Either way, if his appointment is verified, it should have associated identity verification details i.e. who verified it and when, shouldn’t it? You can’t have an appointment verified, without having your identity verified, or am I misunderstanding this?

5

Good morning.

‘identity_verified_on’ IS ONLY applicable to identity verification statements where the appointee’s identity was verified by an ‘authorised corporate service provider’ (ACSP) - it is the date on which the latter verified the identity of the appointee.

‘appointment_verification_start_on’ is the date on which an identity verification statement was supplied for an appointment, therefore it will be present in the data set of ALL appointments for which an identify verification statement has been submitted.

As per the public API specifications relevant to this legislation e.g.

please note:

“identity_verification_details”: {
“anti_money_laundering_supervisory_bodies”,
“authorised_corporate_service_provider_name”,
“identity_verified_on”,
“preferred_name”,
},
are ACSP specific.

1 Like
6

thanks for the clarification @cbaldwin. Understood, identity_verified_on and the three other fields are only for ACSP verification and we don’t get an equivalent date for officers who have verified themselves online with gov.uk.

7

Echoing the thanks to clarification on that one. I can clearly see this in effect for companies we have incorporated only having the ACSP block where we did the verification, where the officer just supplied us with the code it does not show. Am assuming the same will happen with historic details once the CS01 is submitted.