By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 27/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
Director and PSC changes often trigger re-verification because they change the answer to a core compliance question:
- Who controls the business today
- Does the account activity still match that updated control profile
When the “control” picture shifts (new director, new shareholder, new PSC, or a change in rights), providers commonly re-check identity, ownership mapping, and sometimes connected areas like source of funds and expected transaction behaviour.
Tide states it conducts routine reviews and asks members to tell it about changes to shareholders’ or directors’ information, and notes it may request information/documents and may pause accounts during review (as described in Our routine security reviews (Tide)).
This article is educational and not financial advice.
Directors vs PSCs: what changes, legally and operationally
A director is an officer responsible for running the company. A PSC (person with significant control) is a person who owns or controls the company (often a beneficial owner), typically by shareholding/voting rights, rights to appoint/remove directors, or other significant influence (as summarised in People with significant control (PSCs) (GOV.UK)).
From a provider’s perspective, director and PSC updates matter because they can change:
who can instruct the business,
who benefits from the business,
which individuals need screening and due diligence,
whether prior “expected activity” assumptions still fit.
This is why “ownership change” events often cause the provider to treat the account as a “changed customer”, not just an unchanged account with different paperwork.
Why ownership changes trigger Tide re-verification
Tide’s routine review wording is unusually explicit on the “change” concept: it says reviews check whether details of the account holder or business have changed and that members should tell Tide about changes to shareholders’ or directors’ information, among other items (see Our routine security reviews (Tide)).
In a risk-based framework, control changes commonly trigger re-verification because they may require the provider to refresh:
customer records and ownership mapping,
identity verification for newly relevant individuals,
screening outcomes (for example, sanctions/PEP screening),
the “business model” story (especially where the new control coincides with new activity patterns).
This sits within wider UK expectations for financial crime controls and due diligence, including the risk-based approach described in the FCA’s financial crime guidance (Financial Crime Guide (FCA) (PDF)) and the UK anti-money laundering regime (Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (PDF)).
The ownership change events that most commonly trigger re-checks
Appointment or resignation of directors
A new director changes the “control surface area” of the company. Even where the shareholding is unchanged, a new director may:
gain access permissions,
influence payment decisions,
change counterparties and financial flows.
UK companies also have legal duties to report certain company changes to Companies House, including director changes (see Company information you must report (GOV.UK)). Providers frequently reconcile their internal records with what has been filed.
New PSC, PSC removed, or PSC details updated
PSC changes are often the most “sensitive” trigger because they can alter who ultimately controls or benefits from the business. GOV.UK sets out common PSC scenarios and control tests (see People with significant control (PSCs) (GOV.UK)).
In practice, the re-verification is usually less about the filing itself and more about whether the provider can still map “who controls what” to a clear, verifiable structure.
Share transfers can be operationally significant even if the business looks unchanged externally. The re-check trigger tends to be strongest when a transaction:
moves someone over or under a control threshold,
introduces a new corporate shareholder,
creates indirect control through a group chain.
For the broader “banking” angle on why these changes prompt re-verification, see Beneficial ownership (PSC) changes: bank re-verification.
Confirmation statement and record alignment moments
In the UK, confirmation statements are a formal “records are up to date” moment, but changes must typically be updated using the relevant filings before the confirmation statement is sent (see Confirmation statement guidance (GOV.UK)). Providers often treat these “record alignment” points as natural times to refresh their own files too.
This is one reason businesses sometimes experience re-verification shortly after corporate housekeeping changes: both the public record and the provider record have just moved.
What providers are usually checking when directors/PSCs change
1) Identity and role: who is newly relevant
A control change can mean the provider needs to verify identity for a newly added director/PSC, and confirm that the individual’s details match the account’s stored profile.
This overlaps heavily with the evidence-pack pattern described in Tide compliance review documents: what’s typically requested (and why it repeats).
2) Ownership mapping: “show us the structure”
Where ownership is not straightforward (multiple shareholders, corporate parents, trusts, voting agreements), the provider often needs a structure that can be understood and evidenced.
This is also where repeat requests can happen: a single “shareholder update” can create multiple knock-on questions about indirect control.
Director/PSC changes can require re-screening newly relevant individuals. When those checks flag, the practical experience can include more questions or longer reviews, depending on the context (see PEP and sanctions screening for directors and PSCs: when flagged).
Even where nothing adverse is found, re-screening is a normal by-product of “newly in scope” individuals.
4) Activity alignment: does behaviour match the new profile?
Ownership and control changes can coincide with operational change: new suppliers, new geographies, new sales channels, new settlement flows. A provider may treat those combined changes as “profile drift”.
Where the review expands beyond control to transaction rationale, it often becomes a source-of-funds and evidence problem too (see Tide source of funds checks: what businesses are usually asked to explain).
What re-verification can look like day-to-day in Tide
Tide describes a routine review flow that includes asking for information/documents and notes it may pause an account during review, with an outcome to continue the account or, in some cases, close it (see Our routine security reviews (Tide)).
Where an account becomes restricted while checks run, the practical experience often matches a “permissions reduced” pattern.
For a functionality map of what commonly still works versus what stops during restrictions, see Tide account locked or frozen: what usually still works (and what stops). For how the review process commonly progresses, see Tide account under review: stages, timelines, typical outcomes.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| New director appointed | Identity/control checks expand to new officer | Permissions and review scope can widen quickly |
| PSC added or removed | Ownership mapping refreshed | More evidence requested to explain control structure |
| Share transfer crosses control thresholds | Re-screening and control reassessment | Account profile may be treated as “changed customer” |
| Corporate shareholder introduced | Structure and beneficial ownership review | Longer back-and-forth where chains are complex |
| Control change coincides with new trading patterns | Source-of-funds and activity alignment questions | Requests can broaden beyond ownership into transactions |
| Confirmation statement period / filings updated | Records reconciliation | “Reverification” can follow soon after public record updates |
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level (what changed) | Process-level (what gets checked) | Outcome-level (what you observe) |
|---|---|---|
| Director/PSC roster changes | Identity verification and record refresh | Requests for ID, role, and updated company details |
| Control rights change (shares/votes/appointments) | Ownership mapping and “who controls what” analysis | Requests for structure explanation and supporting evidence |
| Newly relevant individuals in scope | Screening refresh and risk reassessment | More questions, sometimes longer review timelines |
| Trading behaviour shifts alongside ownership change | Activity/profile alignment testing | Source-of-funds and invoice/contract requests |
| Sensitive context applies | Communication constraints | Limited detail about “why” the account is under review (see Why banks can’t explain restrictions (tipping off)) |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide positions routine reviews as checks of activity, how accounts make money, the industries involved, and whether key details (including shareholders’ or directors’ information) have changed, with document requests and potential pauses during review described in its help centre materials.
For a separate, neutral overview of Tide’s account proposition, pricing and features (not focused on reviews), see our Tide review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ownership change usually means any update that alters who controls or benefits from the company:
- New shareholders
- Share transfers
- New PSCs
- Changes to control rights
In practice, providers treat “control” as broader than share percentages alone, because rights to appoint/remove directors or other significant influence can matter too.
Even when the business’s trading looks unchanged, a control change can require the provider to refresh customer records and screening outcomes, especially where newly relevant individuals are now within scope of checks.
A new director can change who has authority to manage the business and influence payment activity. Providers often treat that as a meaningful risk and governance change, even without a beneficial ownership change.
Separately, company law requires certain officer changes to be reported to Companies House (see Company information you must report (GOV.UK)). Providers frequently aim to keep their internal records consistent with filed information.
A PSC is someone who owns or controls the company and must be identified and recorded under UK rules; GOV.UK sets out the common PSC control tests (see People with significant control (PSCs) (GOV.UK)).
For providers, PSCs matter because they indicate ultimate control/benefit. A PSC change can therefore trigger re-verification, because it can change which individuals must be verified and screened, and whether the account’s existing “expected activity” profile still fits.
Companies House filings are part of the picture, but providers typically maintain their own customer records and risk assessments. The filing is evidence of change, not necessarily the complete explanation of the control structure or business context.
Confirmation statement guidance also highlights that updates must be made before confirming records are up to date (see Confirmation statement guidance (GOV.UK)). Providers may treat these periods as natural “refresh points”, especially where filings reveal new people or new control rights.
Requests usually fall into a few repeatable categories: identity/address verification for newly relevant individuals, evidence that explains the control structure, and updated business profile information where activity changes alongside ownership.
In Tide’s ecosystem, these document requests often resemble a broader “evidence pack” process, which is why the same categories appear repeatedly across reviews (see Tide compliance review documents: what’s typically requested (and why it repeats)).
A control change can coincide with new money coming into the business: investment, director loans, refinancing, or new revenue channels. Even when legitimate, these inflows can look “out of pattern” compared with historic activity, which can trigger transaction-level questions.
Where this happens, the provider’s focus is often on linking specific credits to a clear underlying event (funding, trading, settlement), rather than asking for a general biography of the owners. For Tide-specific framing, see Tide source of funds checks: what businesses are usually asked to explain.
A flag does not automatically imply wrongdoing, but it can change the level of diligence the provider applies. The practical effect is often additional questions, longer review cycles, or more detailed evidence requests, depending on context.
This is one reason director/PSC changes can feel “high friction” compared with other admin changes: newly relevant individuals can trigger screening refresh, and screening outcomes can drive the scope of what is requested next (see PEP and sanctions screening for directors and PSCs: when flagged).
Tide states it may pause an account during its review process and that it may request information/documents as part of routine reviews (see Our routine security reviews (Tide)). Whether a pause occurs depends on the review’s context and how the provider applies controls.
When restrictions do occur, the experience is often “permissions reduced”: you may still see information but be unable to move money normally. For a practical breakdown, see Tide account locked or frozen: what usually still works (and what stops).
Tide’s routine review materials state it may be legally forbidden from providing updates while reviewing information. In the wider regulated environment, providers can be constrained in communications where disclosure could prejudice an investigation.
That communication constraint is one reason businesses can experience “limited detail” even when the provider’s internal trigger is specific. For the legal-mechanism explanation, see Why banks can’t explain restrictions (tipping off).
Checks can repeat because providers run periodic refresh cycles and ongoing monitoring, and because records age: addresses change, IDs expire, and business models evolve.
Even without new ownership changes, the provider may need to re-confirm “who controls what” when enough time has passed or when activity patterns shift.
Where repeat checks are driven by refresh cycles rather than a specific event, the experience can look similar (the same categories of documents) but the trigger is different. For a deeper explanation of periodic re-checks, see Periodic KYC refreshes for established SMEs: why accounts get rechecked.
Director and PSC re-verification is best understood as a control-map refresh. When control changes, the provider’s internal “customer model” can become outdated in one step:
- Who is in scope
- Who needs to be screened
- Which activity patterns should be expected
The re-verification process is the mechanism that rebuilds that model around the new reality.
The friction businesses experience usually comes from the difference between legal structure change and operational reality: a shareholder update may be quick to file, but it can have many downstream effects (access permissions, funding sources, counterparties, and settlement flows). Providers tend to test those downstream effects because they are where mismatch risk appears.
Related Content
