By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 08/02/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
Most Tide “application delays” come from a small set of checks that need either:
- Clearer information
- Better-quality evidence
- Manual review time
The most common slow points are:
- Identity capture
- Address confirmation
- Clarifying “nature of business”
- Screening steps that look for mismatches or higher-risk signals
A delay is usually a verification bottleneck, not a separate “extra process” – it often means the review cannot complete from what has been provided so far.
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What a “delay” usually means in practice
A delay typically means the application is waiting on one of two things:
More reliable input (for example, an ID image that can be read, or a clearer explanation of what the business does).
A human review slot (because automated checks could not reach a confident outcome).
Tide’s own help content frames additional information requests in this way. For example, Tide explains it may ask for more detail about nature of business for regulatory reasons and to build a projected profile, and that more detail can help it verify an application faster within its process (I’ve been asked for more information about my Nature of Business | Tide Business).
The common checks that slow Tide sign-up
1) ID capture and identity verification quality
Identity checks can slow down when the ID evidence cannot be validated cleanly (unclear image, glare, cropping, older document formats, or missing details).
Tide explicitly highlights practical scan-quality issues that prevent verification from completing, such as focus and glare (I’m having trouble scanning my ID. | Tide Business).
Separately from scanning, delays can also happen when application details do not match the ID evidence closely enough for the provider’s validation rules (names, date of birth formatting, or document validity constraints).
2) Address evidence and “freshness” rules
Address checks commonly slow down when address evidence is outside the accepted timeframe, does not display the required details, or does not match the address entered in the application.
Tide’s “supporting documents” guidance describes the categories of evidence it may request and the underlying principle of providing acceptable documents to support verification (How to provide your supporting documents | Tide Business).
This is also where practical mismatches can appear: home address vs trading address vs registered office. A delay can reflect the time taken to reconcile which address is being evidenced for which purpose.
3) “Nature of business” detail (what the business does and how it will use the account)
“Nature of business” questions are used to understand what the business actually does, how it makes money, and what the account is expected to be used for.
Tide’s own list of “useful to us” items includes what the business will do, business age, and turnover – plus (as helpful detail) channel mix (online vs cash) and where the business operates (I’ve been asked for more information about my Nature of Business | Tide Business).
This aligns with a broader UK concept: providers often gather information about the purpose and intended nature of the relationship as part of customer due diligence.
The regulatory expectation is captured in Regulation 28 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, and operationally described in HMRC guidance on collecting “purpose and intended nature” information (ECSH33327 – The purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or transaction).
4) Eligibility classification (whether the business fits acceptance rules)
Some delays are not “document problems” – they are classification and policy decisions, especially where the activity description is broad or has edge cases. Where acceptance criteria are the gating question, the review may slow because the provider is deciding whether the activity fits its policy.
Within our Tide cluster, we separate this from document mechanics in Tide eligibility: business types that can and can’t apply.
5) Ownership and control reconciliation (especially for limited companies)
For limited companies, providers often need a clear understanding of who owns or controls the business and who is applying.
Delays can occur when there are discrepancies between the application information and what is expected for the company structure (for example, missing details, unclear roles, or ownership/control complexity).
This becomes more likely when there are recent changes to ownership/control, or when the structure is not straightforward. The “why” of re-checking control changes is explained more generally in Beneficial ownership and PSC changes: why banks re-verify.
Most providers run screening steps that look for name matches and other risk signals. These steps can create delays when there are “close matches” that need manual resolution or when additional information is required to distinguish one person or entity from another.
For the UK’s current reference point on designations, the government maintains the UK sanctions designations dataset and publication page at The UK Sanctions List (the presence of this public list is one reason screening workflows exist, even though providers’ internal processes vary).
7) Manual review queues and “could not auto-verify” outcomes
Even when nothing is “wrong”, some applications are simply not auto-verifiable and move into a manual queue (for example, brand-new businesses with limited external footprint, complex structures, or mixed activity descriptions).
This is also why two businesses with similar documents can experience different timings: the delay can be driven by a combination of verification confidence and operational queueing.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| ID scan is unclear or cropped | ID verification cannot complete | Follow-up request and additional review time |
| Address evidence does not match the entered address | Address check pauses for clarification | “Waiting” state until evidence aligns |
| “Nature of business” description is broad or internally inconsistent | More questions or evidence requested | Back-and-forth slows onboarding |
| Business activity sits near an eligibility edge case | Additional internal classification | Longer review before a decision |
| Company ownership/control is complex or recently changed | Additional checks on roles and control | Review can take longer to reconcile facts |
| Screening produces a close match | Manual resolution required | Delay while the match is cleared |
| Automated checks cannot reach confidence | Manual review queue | Timing depends on queue and complexity |
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level | Process-level | Outcome-level |
|---|---|---|
| Straightforward application | Automated checks complete from submitted data | Decision reached with minimal follow-up |
| Evidence quality issue | Resubmission requested and re-reviewed | Decision delayed until usable evidence is provided |
| Business description uncertainty | Clarifying questions reduce uncertainty | Decision delayed until business profile is coherent |
| Eligibility uncertainty | Internal policy classification applied | Decision delayed; outcome depends on fit |
| Ownership/control complexity | Additional information reconciled and recorded | Review time increases; follow-ups become more likely |
| Screening close match | Manual comparison to resolve identity | Delay until match is cleared |
How delays turn into “under review” workflows
When a delay persists, it often becomes visible as an “under review” stage – meaning the application has moved beyond quick automated checks and into a review workflow with defined outcomes.
We cover how that stage typically behaves (and what outcomes it can lead to) in Tide account under review: stages, timelines and typical outcomes.
Even after onboarding, evidence refresh and review cycles can occur as part of ongoing monitoring. For the general mechanism and what “refresh” looks like in practice, see Periodic KYC refreshes: established SMEs and why accounts get rechecked and the evidence-pack pattern in Bank review evidence packs: what UK banks request ongoing.
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide’s onboarding is app-led and evidence-driven, which means delays tend to cluster around evidence quality, classification of business activity, and manual review when automation cannot complete checks. For a Tide-specific entry point to our wider coverage, use our Tide business accounts hub.
Frequently Asked Questions
There is no single timing that applies to all delayed applications because the “delay” can mean different bottlenecks: resubmitting evidence, responding to clarification questions, or waiting for a manual review slot.
In practical terms, the most useful way to think about timing is which check is waiting to complete. An ID scan issue behaves like a re-capture loop, while a business-activity clarification behaves like a narrative/evidence loop, and a manual queue behaves like an operational backlog.
- A delay usually indicates the application has not reached a decision point because a check could not complete from the information provided so far. That can happen even where the underlying business is eligible.
- A rejection (or decline) is a decision outcome. A delay is a processing state that can precede multiple outcomes depending on what the check is trying to establish.
Across app-led onboarding journeys, the most common “fixable” delay driver is evidence quality – especially ID capture quality. If the system cannot read the document reliably, it cannot complete verification.
Tide’s own support content highlights practical scan constraints (focus, glare, framing and older documents) as typical reasons scans fail and verification cannot complete within the process (I’m having trouble scanning my ID. | Tide Business).
Nature-of-business questions help a provider understand what the business does, how it earns revenue, and what account activity is expected. Tide explains it may request more detail for regulatory reasons and to build a projected profile, and it lists the specific detail it finds most useful (I’ve been asked for more information about my Nature of Business | Tide Business).
These questions also map to the wider UK concept of understanding the purpose and intended nature of the relationship in customer due diligence. That expectation is reflected in Regulation 28 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and operationally described in HMRC guidance on “purpose and intended nature” information (ECSH33327 – The purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or transaction).
The documents involved usually match the verification buckets: identity, address, and (where needed) evidence about the business activity. Tide summarises how it uses supporting documents and what it may request in its guidance (How to provide your supporting documents | Tide Business).
From a UK-wide perspective, the typical categories are also covered in our general explainer on Documents to open a business bank account. In a delay scenario, the question is often not “which document type exists” but whether the submitted evidence is usable and consistent with the application details.
They can. Limited companies often bring additional “who controls the business?” reconciliation steps because providers may need a clear view of ownership/control and key roles in addition to verifying the applicant.
Where ownership/control complexity or changes are involved, delays become more likely because there are more facts to reconcile. The general mechanism of re-checking ownership/control is covered in Beneficial ownership and PSC changes: why banks re-verify.
Screening steps can create delays when there are close matches that require manual resolution (for example, similar names or partial matches). This is a “confidence” issue: the check may need extra data to rule out a match.
The UK’s official designations reference point is published at The UK Sanctions List, which is one reason screening is embedded into onboarding and ongoing monitoring workflows across the market.
Manual review usually means that automated checks did not reach a confident result from the available information, so a reviewer needs to reconcile details, interpret evidence, and apply policy classifications.
Manual review can also be triggered when information is coherent but incomplete (for example, a new business without much external footprint) or when the activity description is broad and needs narrowing into a verifiable business profile.
In prolonged cases, the application can move into a defined review workflow with outcomes that include approval, further evidence requests, or decline depending on what remains unresolved. We outline typical stages and outcomes in Tide account under review: stages, timelines and typical outcomes.
After an account is active, similar review dynamics can occur as part of ongoing monitoring and evidence refresh cycles, which is why “delays” and “reviews” can reappear later in the relationship.
A delay is an onboarding processing state: checks are incomplete, so the application is waiting. “Restricted” and “closed” typically describe states of an existing account relationship rather than an in-progress application.
Those terms also differ in practical impact. Restrictions can limit functionality while questions are resolved, while closure ends the relationship and services stop (subject to process and terms). For Tide-specific definitions and practical implications, see Tide business account restricted vs closed: what it means.
Most onboarding delays are not caused by “extra checks” being added; they are caused by verification confidence not being achievable from the current inputs.
App-led onboarding is designed to complete quickly when evidence is readable, consistent, and classifiable. When evidence is ambiguous, the process naturally shifts from automation to manual judgement.
The second structural driver is that onboarding is doing two jobs at once: confirming identity and building a coherent “expected use” profile for monitoring.
That is why “nature of business” questions can be as delay-causing as documents – they determine how the relationship is understood and what activity looks consistent over time.
Related Content
