Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales

Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales Jide Ogundimu is a Solicitor of England and Wales providing non reserved legal services to the public

19/02/2026

Practice points

Identity verification at Companies House
By Lucy Reeve 19 February 2026

Companies House’s move to introduce mandatory identity verification (IDV) on 18 November 2025 marks a major shift in the UK’s approach to corporate oversight.

For many years, the register prioritised speed and accessibility, relying heavily on self-reported information that could be vulnerable to misuse. The increasing use of fictitious or stolen identities exposed structural weaknesses in the system and underscored the need for a more robust, verified register.

For solicitors and their clients, the new IDV regime represents a fundamental change. Companies House is no longer simply collecting information but acting as an active gatekeeper, raising the assurance level required during incorporations, director appointments and wider governance processes. The aim is clear: to strengthen the integrity of the register by ensuring only genuine individuals can form or control companies. It reduces opportunities for fraud, money laundering and other forms of economic crime.

Law Society guidance
To support the profession through this shift, members of the Law Society’s Company Law Committee have produced comprehensive guidance. This resource helps practitioners understand IDV requirements and comply with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The committee has worked closely with the Department for Business and Trade and Companies House throughout the development of the Act to ensure the views of company lawyers and their clients are reflected.

The guidance is particularly relevant for those who routinely file documents at Companies House such as incorporations, people with significant control (PCS) updates, LLP registrations, changes in directors and IDV confirmations.

The guidance explains what solicitors must consider when confirming that an individual’s identity has been verified:

Potential liability under section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006 if a confirmation is later found to be misleading or false.

A structured, practical approach to checking personal codes, confirming names and reviewing evidence or Companies House annotations.

Recognising the limitations of the current system, such as the inability to independently cross-check personal codes when documentation is missing, names do not match, or reverification is required, encourages proportionate judgement to scrutinise further. By offering clarity on expectations, examples of reasonable steps and guidance on navigating uncertainties, the guide helps reduce common pain points for solicitors. It supports more consistent and compliant filings, helps avoid unnecessary requisitions and gives practitioners greater confidence when dealing with IDV obligations on behalf of clients.

What’s next
Identity Verification is being phased in gradually. While mandatory verification now applies to new and existing directors and PSCs, there is a transitional period available to current office holders. In 2026, the regime is expected to expand to additional roles, including those linked to limited partnerships, corporate officers of PSCs and individuals who file on behalf of companies. Once the transitional period expires, Companies House will move to active enforcement, with non-compliant filings potentially being rejected and penalties applied.

As the regime continues to evolve, operational developments and clarifications will follow. The Law Society will keep this guidance under review and update it to ensure members remain supported as new requirements come into force.

18/02/2026

Practice points

Digital access to court files

By Natalie Todd and Polly Fletcher 13 February 2026

Open justice is one of the key pillars upon which English law stands. In line with this, on 1 January 2026 the Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot – a two-year scheme – was introduced. It requires parties in the Commercial Court to file specified documents through the HMCTS Portal – the tool we all know as CE-File. Documents caught by PD 51ZH include skeleton arguments, written submissions, witness statements and affidavits and expert evidence.

Lady Justice Cockerill announced the initiative in July 2025, describing it as ‘simple, cheap, quick and risk-free’. For all intents and purposes, it has been well received by the profession. For many, this opening of digital access to court files is an obvious course: an attempt to catch up with how most practitioners work. We already access legislation, case law and legal commentary digitally as a matter of course. In a true open justice system, court documents should arguably be no different.

The need for judgments to be more widely available was discussed by the Supreme Court in Cape Intermediate Holdings v Dring [2019] UKSC 38. In Dring, Lady Hale referenced the criminal case of R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Article 19 intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 420; [2013] QB 618 at [79]. This sets out that the purpose of open justice ‘is not simply to deter impropriety or sloppiness by the judge hearing the case. It is wider. It is to enable the public to understand and scrutinise the justice system of which the courts are the administrators’.

Previously, non-parties seeking documents had to justify their need to access material. Now, it will be for any party seeking a restriction to instead justify withholding such material. Lady Justice Cockerill has indicated that judges ‘are going to take some persuading that a document read out in court should be subjected to a modification order’. PD 51ZH therefore enables precisely what Lady Hale had in mind in Dring. Open justice is not served by documents being theoretically accessible to the public but must instead be made practically and readily available to those seeking them.

The impact is likely to be felt differently for parties, depending on which side of the dispute they fall on. For claimants pursuing legitimate claims, it is likely that the pilot will be welcomed as an opportunity to readily access material that may otherwise have been tricky and time-consuming.

While transparency is, of course, the core purpose of the pilot, it is important to consider whether this core value could be exploited by claimants and defendants seeking information that could benefit their business interests. PD 51ZH does make some attempt to protect against this by allowing for Filing Modification Orders. These would allow parties to seek to restrict or redact certain information where that information is genuinely confidential. The Guidance Note provides at paragraph 25 that this is likely to be an informal process as part of the trial hearing, though it is easy to see how this process may become contentious.

No doubt AI companies may seek to bolster their offering to law firms by accessing all filed submissions and feeding them to their large language models, allowing parties to prepare draft submissions ‘in the style of’ a particular case or a particular counsel (or specific counsel). These models may also be able to predict what submissions are most likely to be successful, what issues judges are most and least likely to grapple with, and determine which formulations of expert evidence are most likely to be carry the most weight, as well as what cross-examination techniques are most successful.

It is also possible that the pilot may have a net benefit for litigation funders. Take, for example, a funder conducting due diligence on potential claims. These funders will now have access to a treasure trove of information about parties with a history of litigation, both on the claimant and on the defendant side, looking at historical behaviour, and propensity to settle and when. Funders may be able to determine whether to fund based on patterns of behaviour (assisted with AI) and transform funding decisions from reliance on what the claimant says its case is, to third-party data-driven risk profiling.

Defendants who would prefer to keep a low profile and those with concerns as to confidentiality and reputation are unlikely to welcome this scheme. While non-confidential and non-private information is technically already available, administrative hoops have likely provided some protection for businesses. These prevent claimants and third parties from sifting through previous decisions to fish for useful information, particularly in witness evidence.

Repeat defendants also have a more serious problem, as patterns in their litigation past will become readily accessible. Successful claimants with similar claims will be leaving behind a playbook with which to beat defendants.

The use of experts also adds a layer of complexity. Expert reports (including the evidence attached to them) will become public domain documents when relied upon at trial. Expert witnesses, particularly in specialist areas, may have their testimony across multiple cases readily accessible, making any contradictions embarrassing. Claimants may be able to easily identify whether a methodology used by an expert in one case contradicts the approach taken in another, and to track whether opinions have been modified to suit a particular narrative.

It may be easier to launch credibility attacks in cross-examination, which may cause many to become wary of taking part in litigation, or to reconsider their rates.

Administrative barriers made the use of previous case documents unusual. Court attendance requirements, formal access applications, and physical file inspection have created cost, delay and uncertainty. PD 51ZH removes those barriers. Parties, litigation funders and their advisers should expect to see prior materials such as skeleton arguments, expert reports and witness statements deployed systematically as standard litigation intelligence. The pilot may advance open justice, but it may also alter strategic behaviour in commercial disputes.

23/01/2026

News

Strike-off for failing to verify known client's ID in person
By John Hyde 22 January 2026

A senior solicitor who failed to check in person the identity documents of a client whom he had known for years has been struck off the roll.

Nicholas Andrew Jackson, admitted in August 2002, certified copies of the client’s passport and driving licence without seeing the originals.

Jackson, representing himself before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal last October, had argued he was justified to certify as originals the high-quality images of the documents he had been sent. He submitted that the originality of the document lay in the information it contains and not in its status as a physical object, and he relied on a ‘chain of trust’ with the client, whom he had represented for six years.

But the tribunal said the requirement to meet a client in person and inspect original documents before certification was ‘fundamental’ to the integrity of the process.

Its ruling, published this week, states: ‘When the respondent certified the documents as true copies of the originals, he had been fully aware that he had not inspected the originals and had not met [the client] for that purpose. He was an experienced commercial property lawyer and must have been aware of the requirements of legal certification.’

Jackson had been head of commercial property at Chester firm Cullimore Dutton Solicitors when he was sent the documents by the client who required a mortgage. The documents, sent to the lender’s solicitors, were certified by Jackson as a true and complete copy of the originals.

During a monthly file review by the firm, it was found that documents may have been certified without the originals being viewed in person. Jackson told the internal investigation he had not seen the original documents but that he had known the client for many years and would have undertaken all the checks while employed at his previous firm. Jackson was dismissed by the firm in January 2023 and he was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

During the SRA’s initial investigation, Jackson made admissions and claimed he was dealing with personal issues and had become ‘complacent’ in his conduct. He later told the tribunal he was ‘pressurised’ into making statements that did not reflect his genuine belief.

The tribunal rejected the idea that Jackson’s initial admissions were in any way tainted by coercion and found he had acted dishonestly.

Its ruling added: ‘His motivation was unclear though it may have been to smooth the process along without following the correct procedure in order to minimise any possible delay. His failure to certify the documents in the correct way could have been nothing but a planned course of action.’

Jackson was struck off and ordered to pay £30,480 costs.

21/01/2026

News
Solicitor banned for certifying documents online
By John Hyde 20 January 2026

A solicitor who ran a document checking website has been struck off after he failed to look at the original documents.

Joe Morgan, a director of Document Certifier Ltd, had insisted that documents uploaded to the site counted as originals and so he was not in breach of any guidelines. But the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found ‘as a matter of common sense and logic’ that Morgan had seen only a version of the original document and so he had wrongly certified that these were true copies.

Morgan, admitted in 2019, had already been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2022 for certifying documents as being a true copy of the originals when they had simply been uploaded to his website.

The tribunal ruled that Morgan was in breach of the agreement made with the SRA which resulted in that rebuke by continuing to offer certification services in the same way.

He was found to have failed to maintain public confidence in solicitors and failed to act with integrity. The tribunal said Morgan caused harm to his clients as they were provided with purportedly certified documents, but which in reality could not be relied upon.

Its ruling added: ‘The tribunal determined that Mr Morgan showed no remorse or understanding of the extent of the harm he had caused through the service he provided on the website. He steadfastly relied throughout his case on his own understanding of certification, which was incorrect…. if he was allowed to continue to practise as a solicitor, Mr Morgan would present a risk to his clients and the reputation of the profession.’

The tribunal heard that the first complaint about Morgan was made in 2021 by a member of the public who used Morgan's website to obtain a certified copy of a document and an apostille. She later discovered the documents which had been issued were invalid. Morgan made a regulatory settlement agreement with the SRA after admitting to providing notarial service and issuing apostille certificates without authority. He also admitted certifying documents as true copies of the originals without having seen the original document.

After 2022, the SRA saw further evidence that Morgan was continuing to operate the website and provide certification services.

He said he was permitted to do so and set out an eight-step process that he used to certify documents. This included the client uploading the original document, such as a bank statement, then Morgan checking its veracity with AI software. He then manually reviewed all the details and the document, then certified it as a true copy once he was satisfied everything was in order.

The SRA submitted that an AI check of the veracity of a document would not provide any confidence that Morgan was not handling a forged document. It was further said that the process risked that fake documents would be certified as the uploaded scan was not the original document.

The tribunal said the government guidance on certification was clear that Morgan could not certify documents without seeing original documents. Its ruling added: ‘Mr Morgan’s motivation for setting up the website and offering certification services was self-interest. His actions in doing so were calculated and deliberate. He was in a position of trust as a solicitor certifying documents for members of the public and he breached that trust with every certification.’

Morgan was struck off and ordered to pay £35,640 costs.

10/12/2025

Commentary and opinion
The other professional standards
By Daniela Conte10 December 2025

Solicitors are regulated by the rules and professional standards set by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, including a duty to uphold the rule of law, and to act with independence, honesty, and integrity. While working with commercial lawyers over a number of years, I have observed that there are numerous other standards associated with their personal brand, beyond their statutory obligations.

These informal standards are not compulsory but upheld by peer pressure. They are unwritten and can be difficult to navigate, especially for young lawyers without a background in law or of working in a corporate environment. They have at times been invoked to exclude people who do not ‘fit in’, but they are more often used positively to help maintain the reputation of the profession.

Dress and deportment
The dress and deportment of corporate lawyers may seem like a trivial issue, but their physical presentation and general conduct undoubtedly form part of their brand. Lawyers have traditionally dressed more conservatively than other professions or industries – and they also tend to articulate themselves in moderate language, without resorting to swearing for emphasis or relying on emotion to persuade. It is an approach that helps to establish credibility and authority, and which conveys respect to clients, judges and colleagues.

The normalisation of remote working and virtual meetings has resulted in a more relaxed approach to the workplace. Inevitably, dress code confusion (and more) has followed. In recent years, I have interviewed candidates by teleconference who were unkempt, and seated in front of an unmade bed, an overflowing rubbish bin, and half empty bottles of wine. It is hard to believe that only a decade ago, some people were arguing that allowing ‘business casual’ in the office on Fridays was the beginning of the end of respectability. Perhaps they were right.

Dress and deportment standards are not simply a way to maintain conformity, nor should they be viewed as immaterial to clients. I had a senior M&A partner once speak to me, frustrated, about a talented associate in his team whose clients had commented upon her dishevelled state. And even in the more relaxed sectors such as technology, where lawyers dabbled with dressing to mirror their clients’ style, there has been a return to more traditional attire: clients have reported that in fact they want their lawyers to look like lawyers.

Politics in the workplace
Another way that commercial lawyers have traditionally maintained high standards of professionalism is by remaining politically neutral.

The skills needed to succeed as a solicitor or barrister lend themselves to a political career, and the pipeline between the legal profession and politics is long established. Despite this natural crossover, there has been a reluctance by corporate law firms and lawyers to engage in political issues. Reflecting on the many law firm partners with whom I have worked, I never knew their political leanings – and on the occasions when I discovered how they voted, I was genuinely surprised.

Naturally, commercial lawyers are highly engaged on political issues, such as on news about government decisions that may affect clients’ interests. This is distinct from party politics and geopolitical events, where there has been a reluctance to discuss politics openly in the office.

Adopting neutrality as a professional trait helps to ensure that all clients, no matter their own political views, feel comfortable. It avoids unnecessary discussions with clients on issues that for many, are highly personal and charged. It supports colleagues in the same way.

As with dress and deportment, there is a move away from this long-established standard, which is eroding the professional neutrality of lawyers.

Since the MeToo and Black Lives Matters movements, law firms have taken a public stance on a range of political and geopolitical events. The politicisation of law firms has coincided with the widespread use of social media, where lawyers’ private opinions have become amplified. Even on professional networking platforms such as LinkedIn, junior and senior commercial lawyers are regularly running commentary on political matters.

Of course, there will be times where a lawyer’s professional obligations collide with politics, such as with recent attacks on the rule of law in the United States. In these instances, there is an argument that lawyers are duty-bound to be vocal: but these issues should be addressed as they arise, preferably by the relevant bars and representative bodies. In any event, these one-off events only endorse the view that politics and the legal profession are best served by keeping them separate.

Unofficial standards have long been upheld by lawyers working for corporate law firms to maintain the neutrality and dignity of the profession, and to centre clients in their work.

In recent years, there has been a general shift in law firms to encourage lawyers to ‘bring your whole self to work’. As the legal profession finally embraces much-needed inclusion, my hope is that we do not abandon standards or professionalism that have served us so well.

03/12/2025

Property Commentary

Renters’ Rights Act 2025: what’s changing and when?
By Nick Martyn 26 November 2025

The Renters’ Rights Act marks the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in decades. Nick Martyn discusses what the changes will mean for renters and landlords, and looks at the recently announced implementation dates

On 27 October 2025, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent. It will come into force in three phases, starting on 1 May 2026 (see the Timescales for implementation, below).

It delivers on the government’s manifesto commitment “to transform the experience of private renting” and represents for both landlords and renters one of the most significant reforms to the private rented sector for a generation.

Its stated purpose is to rebalance landlord-tenant relations by giving renters greater security; at its heart is the abolishment of the so-called ‘no-fault’ evictions under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (which applies to assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) in the private rented sector). But the changes and their implications are much broader.

Will they have the desired effect of simplifying the renting process and bringing greater clarity to the rented sector? And will the timescales for bringing in these changes afford landlords, in particular, sufficient time to adapt?

Key changes introduced by the act

Tenancy and eviction reform

The act fundamentally changes the relationship between landlords and tenants and the ability of landlords to secure possession of their rented premises by phasing out ASTs and abolishing no-fault evictions.

Once the act comes into force, subject to a number of exceptions, all new tenancies will become ‘assured periodic tenancies’, giving tenants greater flexibility. Landlords will no longer be able to grant fixed term tenancies.

If tenants wish to bring their tenancy to an end, they will need to give no less than two months’ notice (in writing), expiring at the end of a rental period. By contrast, landlords will only be able to recover possession by relying on one or more of the ‘grounds for possession’ detailed in the act.

The act brings sweeping changes to the section 8 process by more than doubling the number of grounds for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 and making numerous changes to the existing grounds. The grounds continue to be grouped into:

‘mandatory’ grounds, where a court must order possession if a ground is established

‘discretionary’ grounds, where a court may grant possession if it is reasonable.

One of the new grounds facilitates termination in cases where a landlord wishes to sell. This ground could potentially be quite restrictive where a landlord serves notice because they have found a buyer but then is faced with a situation where the sale falls through. In those circumstances, the landlord cannot re-market or re-let the property for 12 months from the later of the expiry of the landlord’s notice or the commencement of possession proceedings.

The act also amends the ground allowing landlords to seek possession if they or a close family member wish to occupy. Both this ground and the new sale ground cannot be used unless the tenancy has existed for at least one year when the relevant notice expires.

Landlords will need to factor in these restrictions when making decisions about their properties and any possession steps will need to be planned well in advance.

Rent and affordability controls

The act introduces restrictions on how and when rent can be increased.

Landlords will generally be limited to one rent increase each year and are required to follow a revised procedure in section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. Two months’ notice must be given, and a tenant can challenge the increase by application to the tribunal. Any new rent ordered will no longer be backdated to the date under a landlord’s notice. Instead, the new rent will take effect after the tribunal has determined the rent. The secretary of state has the power to make regulations allowing increases to be backdated.

However, the uncertainty over delays in securing rent determinations in an increasingly struggling tribunal system and the costs associated with the tribunal process will inevitably impact investment into the rental market.

The act prohibits ‘rental bidding’ practices; landlords or agents will need to advertise an asking rent for a particular property, and it will be unlawful to accept offers above that rate.

The act also limits the amount of rent in advance a landlord can require a tenant to pay – effectively, to a maximum of one month’s rent in advance for most tenancies – reducing upfront burdens on tenants.

When a tenancy ends, tenants will have the right to a refund of rent paid for the days after the end date.

Property standards, safety and enforcement

The act extends the Decent Homes Standard (which has applied to social housing) into the private rented sector, meaning private landlords will be required to meet minimum standards of condition.

It also brings into the private rented sector the protections of Awaab’s Law (originally introduced for social housing), requiring landlords to address hazards such as mould, damp and structural issues within legally-specified timescales.

Local authorities are given stronger enforcement powers with increased civil fines and new criminal offences for breaches. They will also be required to investigate and report on enforcement activity.

It remains to be seen how this will work in practice. Local authorities already have severely limited resources due to budgets cuts and are already under pressure to balance service priorities.

Transparency, regulation and redress

A new national private rented sector database will be created. Landlords will be required to register themselves and their properties. The database should increase transparency and support enforcement.

There is also a mandatory requirement for landlords to join an ombudsman scheme so that tenants and landlords have a route to dispute resolution outside of the court environment. The scheme aims to speed up dispute resolution with tenants, although it remains to be seen whether this will be the case in practice.

The act also introduces protections against discrimination in letting. For example, it will be unlawful to discriminate against prospective tenants solely because they are on benefits or have children.

Pets and tenancy obligations

Tenants will have a statutory right to request permission to keep a pet. Landlords must consider requests reasonably and cannot unreasonably refuse. They may however require pet insurance to cover damage. Any request from a tenant must be in writing and the landlord needs to give or refuse consent within 28 days.

Timescales for implementation

Following the government’s announcement on 14 November, the act will come into force in three phases from 1 May 2026.

Ahead of that, the government intends to publish guidance for landlords and tenants on the phase 1 reforms, and new investigatory powers for councils will go live on 27 December 2025.

Phase 1: 1 May 2026 – tenancy reform

Abolish section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions for private rented sector (PRS).

Introduce assured periodic tenancies (ending fixed-term contracts).

Reform possession grounds to balance landlord and tenant rights.

Limit rent increases to once per year.

Ban rental bidding and rent in advance.

Protections against discrimination (families with children, benefit recipients).

Right to request pets – landlords must consider reasonably.

Strength local council enforcement and rent repayment orders.

Phase 2: late 2026 onwards – database and ombudsman, and county court reform

Launch PRS Database (mandatory landlord registration, property and safety info) with public access to follow.

Establish PRS Landlord Ombudsman once database is in place.

Ombudsman to go live 12 to 18 months after an ombudsman scheme administrator is selected to provide dispute resolution and landlord guidance.

Improve resource and capacity for the county courts together with a digitised ‘end-to-end’ possession service.

Phase 3: post-consultation (2035 or 2037) – standards and safety

Introduce Decent Homes Standard for PRS.

Extend Awaab’s Law to PRS (including enforceable hazard repair timeframes).

Implement minimum energy efficiency standards (EPC C by 2030).

Review Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

Secondary legislation will set out the details of the implementation phases. The government anticipates that at least 12 different sets of regulations will be required.

Uncertainties about the act and its implementation

Whilst the act represents a significant shift in the regulation of the lettings market, there remains a reasonable degree of uncertainty about its implementation and the practical effect of some of the provisions.

Although we now have an indication of the first phase of changes to be implemented, there is currently no clarity on the details of the regulations that will be required to implement the provisions.

The extent to which the tribunal will offer an expeditious means of resolving disputes over rent remains to be seen. Successive governments have sought to increase the tribunal’s jurisdiction on property-related matters.

It is telling that while the government has been specific in its allocation of additional funding to local councils (£18.2 million in 2025 / 26), there is no mention of how much additional funding will be given to the tribunal service or the county courts.

In the longer term, the government has indicated that it intends to establish an alternative body or mechanism to the tribunal to make initial rent determinations, but will this end up simplifying things for landlords and tenants?

On any analysis, the changes are significant and material. They will require landlords to spend time (and cost) to understand and implement the changes. The changes undoubtedly impose significant additional compliance burdens on landlords. With tougher standards, stronger enforcement and potentially large fines, landlords face more administrative and regulatory work.

There is genuine concern that an unintended consequence of these changes will be a reduction in rented housing stock. That outcome would clearly be negative for the renters the legislation was meant to support and protect.

Address

London

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 6pm
Tuesday 9am - 6pm
Wednesday 9am - 6pm
Thursday 9am - 6pm
Friday 9am - 6pm

Telephone

+447956503531

Website

,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales:

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category