Frequently asked questions relating to licence verification, public register checks, status interpretation, and common counterparty review issues.
This FAQ is intended to help counterparties, service providers, vendors, applicants, and other users understand how verification checks should be approached.
A verification result should be treated as one part of due diligence, not the entire exercise.
The strongest starting point is the exact licence reference number. Entity name checks may also be useful, but reference-based verification is generally cleaner and less prone to confusion.
Users should confirm that the correct legal entity name has been used and that the spelling matches the published record exactly. Where available, the licence reference number should be used for a more reliable check.
If no result is found after confirming the exact details, the matter should not simply be ignored. A fresh verification review or clarification request may be appropriate.
A similar name is not enough. Counterparties should check whether the name difference relates to punctuation, legal suffixes, or a genuinely different entity.
Where there is uncertainty, reference number, category, and status should be checked together before relying on the claimed record.
Pending Publication generally indicates that a record may not yet be fully published or fully visible in final form on the public-facing interface.
It should not be treated as identical to a fully published active record unless the relevant workflow expressly confirms that interpretation.
An Active status generally indicates that the published record is shown as current in the register interface. Even then, counterparties should still perform any additional onboarding, legal, technical, or compliance checks they require.
A Suspended status generally means the record is not currently in good standing for normal reliance. Where a suspended status is identified, counterparties should escalate internally before proceeding further.
The mismatch should be treated seriously. A screenshot, certificate, or PDF should not automatically override a current register result.
Where the category, status, entity name, or reference number differs, the matter should be escalated and clarified before any reliance is placed on the claim.
No. A public register result is useful, but it is not a substitute for broader due diligence. Depending on the relationship, users may still need to perform legal review, sanctions screening, beneficial ownership checks, technical assessment, contractual review, and commercial onboarding checks.
Because an entity may claim to hold one type of licence while the published record may show a different category. Category mismatch is a real red flag and should be resolved before any reliance is placed on the claim.
No. Where publication is said to be pending, users should avoid treating verbal assurances as equivalent to a completed published verification outcome unless supported through an appropriate formal workflow.
Best practice is to save a dated internal note, screenshot, register extract, or verification record as part of the onboarding or vendor due diligence file.
Users should first confirm the spelling, entity name, category claim, and reference number. If no published match can be established after those checks, the claim should not be treated as verified.
Public register checks and verification results should not be treated as a complete substitute for independent due diligence. If a party wants you to rely only on a certificate screenshot, that is already a little suspicious.
