Corporate report

Annual Review of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation 2020

Updated 30 August 2023

© Crown copyright 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/insolvency-practitioner-regulation-process-review-2020/annual-review-of-insolvency-practitioner-regulation-2020

1. Overview

The Insolvency Service is an executive agency of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) that helps to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors.

The Secretary of State, by order, recognises independent professional bodies, known as the Recognised Professional Bodies (RPBs) for the purpose of authorising their members to act as insolvency practitioners. Under the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, any individual who acts as a liquidator, trustee in bankruptcy, administrator, administrative receiver, or as nominee or supervisor of a voluntary arrangement must be authorised to act as an insolvency practitioner by an RPB.

Acting as oversight regulator of insolvency practitioners on behalf of the Secretary of State for BEIS, the Insolvency Service works with the insolvency profession ensuring that professional and regulatory standards are maintained or improved where necessary, and that professional misconduct is addressed. The Insolvency Service actively monitors the RPBs, through a combination of desktop monitoring, inspection visits and themed reviews, details of which are published on the Agency’s website. The regulatory objectives of the insolvency practitioner regime found in the Insolvency Act 1986 to which both the Insolvency Service and the RPBs work to achieve are:

  • Having a system of regulation that secures fair treatment for persons affected by their acts or omissions, reflects the regulatory principles and delivers consistent outcomes.

  • Encouraging an independent and competitive profession whose members deliver quality services at a fair and reasonable cost, acts transparently and with integrity and consider the interests of all creditors in any particular case.

  • Promoting the maximisation of the value and promptness of returns to creditors.

  • Protecting and promoting the public interest.

The Complaints Gateway acts as a single point of contact for making a complaint about the conduct of an insolvency practitioner and enables the Insolvency Service to monitor the progress and outcome of those complaints.

During 2020, insolvency practitioners were regulated by four RPBs:

  • Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI)

  • Institute of Charted Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)

  • Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)

  • Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA)

In February 2019 the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) submitted a formal request to the Secretary of State to cease acting as an RPB. The Secretary of State considered this request and, being satisfied that it is appropriate to revoke the ACCA’s recognition, made the Insolvency Practitioners (Recognised Professional Bodies) (Revocation of Recognition) Order 2021, which took effect from 1 March 2021.

In 2019, the Insolvency Service issued a Call for Evidence to seek views on the regulation of insolvency practitioners, the impact of the introduction in 2015 of statutory regulatory objectives for the RPBs and the levels of confidence in the current regulatory framework. The Call for Evidence ran from July until October 2019 and responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders. During 2020 the Insolvency Service has been carefully considering the responses, and a Government response will be published in due course.

The Government has reviewed the effectiveness of voluntary measures introduced in 2015 to improve creditor confidence in pre-pack sales. The review was to inform the decision on whether the Government should use a power to regulate or ban sales in administration to connected persons (including via a pre-pack sale). In October 2020 the Government announced the outcome of its review and published draft regulations for stakeholder comment. The Administration (restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 were laid in Parliament on 24 February 2021 and came into force on 30 April 2021. The regulations provide that an administrator cannot proceed with a substantial disposal to a connected person within the first 8 weeks of appointment without either creditor approval, or an independent report from an evaluator qualified to do so within the meaning of the regulations.

This report sets out various data relating to regulatory activity during 2020. The data are derived from information obtained annually from the RPBs and the Complaints Gateway.

2: Regulatory and Disciplinary Statistics

2.1 Authorisations

Table 1: Number of authorised insolvency practitioners (2020-2021)

Year Category ICAEW IPA ICAS CAI Total

| — | — | — | — | — | — | — |

2020 IPs at 1 January 805 618 88 42 1,553
2020 Of which Appointment takers 610 514 72 40 1,236
2021 IPs at 1 January 820 617 87 46 1,570
2021 Of which Appointment takers 648 523 74 43 1,288

2.2 Monitoring

Table 2: Number of RPB monitoring visits to insolvency practitioners in 2020

Visit Type ICAEW IPA ICAS CAI

| — | — | — | — | — |

Routine 181 172[footnote 1] 19 10
Targeted[footnote 2] 2 8 0 0
Total 183 157 19 10

Table 3: Outcomes following routine monitoring visits to insolvency practitioners concluded in 2020

Note: Visit outcomes can fall into more than one category

Category ICAEW IPA ICAS CAI

| — | — | — | — | — |

Satisfactory 120 114 2 7
Further visit to be carried out 4 3 - -
Further visit carried out 1 1 - -
Licence restricted 4 1 - -
Licence withdrawn - - - -
Confirmations[footnote 3] 29 - - -
Undertakings 4 - 6 -
Plans for improvement[footnote 4] (advisory notice/12 month follow up) - 108 6 -
Compliance review requested 15 - - -
Decision not finalised 3 32 11 3
Warnings/conditions/progress reports - 2 - -
Disciplinary referrals - - - -
Consent Orders/regulatory penalties 5 7 - -
Refer for investigation 5 - - -
Additional monitoring (VPL scheme) - 1 - -

Table 4: Outcomes following targeted monitoring visits to insolvency practitioners concluded in 2020

Note: Visit outcomes can fall into more than one category

Category ICAEW IPA

| — | — | — |

Satisfactory report - no further action - 4
Further visit carried out - -
Licence restricted 1 -
Confirmations 1 -
Compliance review requested 1 -
Regulatory penalty 1 1
Decision not finalised as at year end - 3

2.3 Regulatory Outcomes

Table 5: Alphabetical summary of regulatory and disciplinary sanctions issued in 2020

RPB IP Sanction Reason

| — | — | — | — |

IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and fine of £15,000 Failure to pay statutory interest to creditors in Members’ Voluntary Liquidations, failures to progress realisations of pension policies in 5 Bankruptcy estates and failing to declare and pay a distribution to creditors when funds allowed in 5 Bankruptcy estates.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,200 and costs of £4,948 Failure to progress a liquidation.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £2.000 and costs of £2,450 Failure to terminate an IVA in a timely manner where requested to do so and failure to respond to communications.
IPA <IP’s name removed> and <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £1,760 Debtor given incorrect information regarding outstanding income contributions in an IVA, and an unacceptable delay in concluding the case.
IPA <IP’s name removed> and <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £2,640 Failure to address a breach to the terms of an IVA in respect of an equity requirement and failure to properly advise the debtor regarding his obligations in respect of equity in his property.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Regulatory penalty of £5,000 Breach of the Code of Ethics.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Regulatory penalty of £1,500 Failure to pay dividends.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £2,000 Drawing remuneration from a Liquidation in excess of fee authority and failure to increase the level of bond required in a Liquidation estate.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £5,000 and costs of £650 Failure to verify a director’s employment claims.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £10,000 Breaches of SIP3.1 in failing to advise a debtor of proposed modifications and other repeated failures to properly advise debtors. Breaches of SIP9 by failing to disclose associations with companies providing services to his firm.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,000 and costs of £1,000 Failure to deal with a company not being placed into Liquidation in a professional manner.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £2,500 and costs of £3,752.50 As liquidator of five insolvent estates failed to implement and monitor adequate controls over employee claims and breached the Insolvency Licencing Regulations by failing to comply with article 27 of Dear IP issue number 37 and article 21 of Dear IP issue number 25.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Regulatory penalty of £5,000 Breach of the Code of Ethics.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £25,000 Breach of fundamental principle of objectivity and/or professional competence and due care.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £5,000 and costs of £850 Failure to verify a debtor’s income when advising on the suitability of entering into a Protected Trust Deed.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £5,000 and costs of £1,450 Failure to obtain the debtor’s express consent to modifications made by creditors in an IVA, failure to supervise an IVA and identify and take necessary action in relation to the departures from the proposed modifications and annual review process, failure to address the debtor’s concern in relation to an early exit loan in a timely manner and paid in excess of the agreed amount to a claims management company.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £3,500 and costs of £4,860 Failure to take steps to ensure appropriate realisations in respect of tenanted property, failed to fulfil his obligations as liquidator acting as landlord of a tenanted property and unprofessional communications.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Regulatory penalty of £7,000 Breach of SIP3.1.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £3,000 Failure, as liquidator of 26 companies, to fulfil statutory requirements to deliver 54 progress reports to Companies House and to members and creditors.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Regulatory penalty of £1,000 Failure to comply with previous undertakings given to the Committee.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £7,000 and costs of £5,092 As joint administrator of a company he failed to identify that assignment of a secured debt created a potential conflict of interest and threat to the Fundamental Principle of Objectivity, and that entry into an option agreement created a self-interest threat and/or a familiarity threat to the Fundamental Principle of Objectivity.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £1,000 and costs of £525 Drawing remuneration without proper authority on two cases.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £950 Failure to verify information received from a debtor in relation to his debts, consider whether the key creditor would be likely to approve an IVA, and notify the key creditor of the proposed IVA.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and fine of £7,500 Drawing of Supervisor’s fees in priority to paying a dividend in breach of accepted modifications in two cases.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £1,500 Failure to respond to a debtor’s emails and telephone calls in a reasonable time, failed to progress a variation meeting and failed to apply his firm’s vulnerability policy.
ICAEW <firm’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £925,000 and costs of £890,000 Failure to comply with the Code of Ethics and to ensure its employees complied with the Code to ensure that accepting an appointment does not create any threat to compliance with the fundamental principles and failure to ensure that its engagement acceptance policy was adhered to in the appointment of the independent review partners to consider the acceptance of the appointment.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and fine of £50,000 Breach of fundamental principle of objectivity and/or professional competence and due care.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and fine of £5,000 Failure to secure books and records in an administration and a liquidation. In the administration he failed to pay HMRC the PAYE liability arising from the trading period, and failed to submit the administration-period VAT returns, by the due dates. In the liquidation he sold assets to a connected party without obtaining a valuation, failed to maintain a record of the rationale for the sale and to provide justification or information regarding the sale to creditors. As a trustee in bankruptcy he failed to follow up enquiries regarding the debtor’s income and expenditure to assess whether an Income Payments Order was appropriate.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £850 Drawing unauthorised remuneration of £10,000.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £2,000 Authorisation of payment of pre-liquidation expenses without prior creditor approval.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £2,000 and costs of £750 Failure to place a notice of appointment as liquidator of a company in the London Gazette or notify the Registrar of Companies within the required timeframe, and failure to ensure the resolution for winding up and the director’s Statement of Affairs was filed with the Registrar of Companies within the required timeframe. Failure to provide information to a creditor despite assurances she would do so.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £6,000 and costs of £2,790 Failures to conclude IVAs in a timely manner, issue a completion certificate in a timely manner and respond to a complaint from a debtor regarding his completion certificate.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £11,000 and costs of £1,000 Failing to address the issue a complainant raised regarding the method of payment into her IVA.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £2,000 and costs of £1,390 Failure to communicate appropriately with a debtor regarding income and expenditure reviews, incorrectly advising creditors in an annual report that the debtor had failed to comply with her request for income and expenditure information and delayed advising the debtor of additional funds required.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £3,150 and costs of £2,725 As nominee of an IVA failed to comply with Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 when her notification to creditors did not provide the required 14 days’ statutory notice period of the meeting of creditors, did not provide correct contact details in the notification to creditors, provided incorrect dividend information to creditors on the comparison between a bankruptcy and an IVA, providing two different dates for a creditors’ meeting and failed to ensure that the Individual Insolvency Register was updated with the correct date for implementation of the IVA.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,250 and costs of£1,025 Failed to properly report to creditors in an IVA that a 5-month payment break had been sanctioned, that of the 9 months of contributions not paid this included the 5-month break, and that the IVA term was automatically extended to allow payments to be made without the need for variation.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £650 Drawing of £11,385 for mileage claims on 110 estates without obtaining proper creditor approval.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £22,000 and costs of £4,950 Failure to conclude debtors’ IVAs in a timely manner and failure to deal with complaints from debtors in 11 cases.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Regulatory penalty of £2,100 Breach of Fundamental Principle of Competence and Due Care in the Code of Ethics in relation to employee claim issues and payment of trading liabilities.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £800 Failure to respond to requests for information from solicitors acting for Accountant in Bankruptcy, and failure to attend a hearing which had to be adjourned.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £7,500 and costs of £800 Various failures as Trustee in Bankruptcy to disclose and deal with issues regarding payment of £20,000 by the debtor’s wife to purchase the Trustee’s interest in the family home, which had not subsequently been paid into the estate.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £7,500 and costs of £2,250 Breach of SIP3.1 – failure to assess whether an IVA was appropriate and viable in the circumstances.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £950 Failure to correctly advise a debtor about outstanding contributions which resulted in an unnecessary delay in concluding an IVA.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and reprimand and fine of £9,000 Breach of IPA Client Money Regulations and SIP 11 by using his firm’s client account to hold estate funds on 61 Members Voluntary Liquidations.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,000 and costs of £2,150 Delay of 12 months in issuing of certificate of completions following full and final settlement of an IVA.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £3.000 and costs of £1,650 Failure to respond to emails from a debtor.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and fine of £6,000 Failure to give proper information about the availability and advantages of a Debt Relief Order to debtors whose circumstances suggested that this would be viable and a preferable option to consider than an IVA, and failure to make sufficient enquiries to satisfy himself that the debtor had a proper understanding of the option and good reason to decline the option.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £5,500 Failure to monitor the progress of an IVA and identify the need to extend the IVA and take action promptly, failure to consider debtor’s expenditure to be satisfied that the contribution level was fair and balanced in the interests of creditors and debtor and failure to take appropriate and prompt action when the potential need for departure from an IVA’s terms was identified.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,250 and costs of £2,105 Failure to terminate an IVA in a timely manner at the request of the debtor.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,250 and costs of £4,455 Failed to issue a termination certificate in a reasonable timeframe following the termination of an IVA by creditors.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £2,700 Failure to act in accordance with resolutions passed at a creditors’ meeting to terminate an IVA and failure to issue a Certificate of Termination in a timely manner.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £2,000 and costs of £4,275 Misled an IVA debtor in communications when she was incorrectly advised that her IVA could not been concluded while PPI claims were ongoing and failed to issue a Certificate of Completion in a timely manner.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and costs of £700 Drawing of unauthorised remuneration from two IVA estates.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £2,000 and costs of £1,050 Failed to conclude a couple’s interlocking IVAs in a timely manner.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £5,000 and costs of £2,850 Failure to properly advise two debtors in relation to their financial problems.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fined £21,000 and costs of £5,115 As liquidator of at least nine insolvent estates, failed to implement and monitor adequate controls over the processing of employee claims in the insolvent estates, in five estates failed to take reasonable steps to identify and evaluate threats to his objectivity as a result of the relationship between “A” Limited and “B” Limited, in at least nineteen insolvent estates failed to comply with SIP2.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £500 and costs of £500 Failed to terminate an IVA in a timely manner.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and costs of £500 Failed to issue a Certificate of Termination of an IVA in a timely manner.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and fine of £6,500 Failure to comply with the principles of SIP3.1 when, in the course of advising and obtaining instructions from various debtors, he failed to maintain documentation or evidence.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £14,000 and costs of £2,350 Breaches of SIP3.1 in failing to explain to debtors all the options available and to take into account the impact of each solution on the debtor.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £2,500 and costs of £10,500 Failure to submit a D1 report on the conduct of directors of a company in respect of a failure to produce books and records and a preference payment, and failure to document the reasons why a D1 was not deemed appropriate.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand and fine of £29,366 Failure to identify a self-interest threat as set out in the Insolvency Code of Ethics, failure to introduce sufficient safeguards to reduce that threat to an acceptable level, allowing payments totalling £24,366 to a company of which he was a 50% shareholder in respect of referral fees for his referral of directors and employees of companies of which he was liquidator in order to submit RPS claims, and failure to disclose his interest in the company to the directors and creditors of the relevant liquidated companies.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £500 and costs of £1,000 On three occasions, as supervisor of a joint IVA, provided incorrect information regarding the issue of a certificate of completion.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £2,000 and costs of £2,250 Failure to deal with communications from a creditor, failing to treat the creditor’s vote to reject two IVAs properly.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,000 and costs of £2,800 Failure to comply with SIP3.1 by failing to obtain sufficient information of debtor’s income to assess suitability of an IVA.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £10,000 and costs of £2,350 Incorrectly advised a debtor that a creditor required an additional 12 monthly contributions as a condition of an IVA being agreed when in fact the creditor’s requirement was that the supervisor’s fees be limited to 20% of realisations.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Severe reprimand, fine of £6,000 and costs of £1,650 Failure to comply with SIP3.1 by failing to notify the majority creditor of a proposed IVA and to seek their view on whether they would be willing to accept the IVA.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,500 and costs of £650 Failure to comply with requirements of SIP16 by failing to issue a SIP16 report within 7 calendar days of the transaction and failing to provide details of the valuers and valuations.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £8,000 and costs of £2,740 Failure to conclude debtors’ IVAs in a timely manner.
ICAEW <IP’s name removed> Reprimand, fine of £1,050 and costs of £3,132 Failed to issue a Certificate of Completion of an IVA in a timely manner.
IPA <IP’s name removed> Reprimand and fine of £1,500 Drawing of unauthorised remuneration of £10,000 in a liquidation.

2.4 Pre-pack Administrations

Monitoring of Statements of Insolvency Practice 16 (SIP 16) disclosure statements in pre-pack administration (All SIPs can be found at www.r3.org.uk/technical-library/england-wales/sips/)

SIP 16 sets out what should be included in the insolvency practitioner’s disclosure statement issued to all creditors of the pre-pack administration. The statement is a summary of the transaction, why it was in the best interest of creditors and best option available.

In order to be compliant with a statement, the insolvency practitioner acting as administrator must send a copy to all creditors within seven days of the pre-pack administration, providing as much detail as possible. The practitioner must also send a copy to their RPB and include the statement of proposals filed at Companies House.

The RPBs have responsibility for the monitoring of SIP 16 disclosure statements.

Table 6: The monitoring of SIP 16 statements by the RPBs during 2020

RPB SIP 16 Statements received SIP 16 statements monitored Compliant statements Non-compliant statements % compliant Regulatory action

| — | — | — | — | — | — | — |

IPA 157 97 82 15 85 0
ICAEW 313 89 85 4 96 0
ICAS 11 11 11 0 100 0
CAI 0 0 0 0 N/A 0
Total 481 197 178 19 90 0

Table 7: Analysis of pre-pack administrations in 2020

The table below summarises key information obtained from all of the SIP 16 statements received by the RPBs.

Information Collected Number of pre-packs

| — | — |

Sales to connected parties 272
Marketing activities carried out by the administrator 268
Sales involving deferred consideration 160
Viability reviews included in statements 40
Referrals to the pre-pack pool 43

3: Complaints Gateway Statistics

The Complaints Gateway (‘the Gateway’) continues to be the channel for most complaints against insolvency practitioners. Regular meetings are held between the Insolvency Service and the RPBs to monitor the Gateway’s performance and address any issues.

During 2020, the Gateway received 782 complaints, a decrease of 9% in comparison to 2019. Of these, 371 (47%) were referred to RPBs, 63 were rejected (see table 16 below), 345 were closed(Complaints are closed if the Gateway is unable to contact the complainant or the further information required to assess the complaint has not been provided by the complainant within a reasonable timeframe) and 3 were awaiting further information to reach a decision.

The Gateway only refers cases which require consideration by the RPB. For each complaint, the Gateway considers whether it falls within the scope for referral to the RPB, based on the information provided on the complaint form along with any supporting evidence. All complainants have the right of appeal for rejected complaints (Complaints can be rejected for varying reasons – see Table 14 below). In 2020, there were 20 appeals, 4 of those complaints were upheld and 16 rejected.

Table 8: Complaints received by the Gateway

Complaints 2020

| — | — |

Total complaints 782
Referred to the RPBs 371
Rejected/closed 408
On hold 3

Table 9: Complaints outcomes

Month Complaints received Referred to RPB Rejected Closed

| — | — | — | — | — |

January 74 40 2 32
February 94 41 6 46
March 125 70 6 50
April 46 26 2 18
May 43 16 3 24
June 59 27 8 24
July 60 25 11 24
August 57 18 9 30
September 50 25 1 24
October 62 29 7 26
November 69 32 3 33
December 43 22 5 14
Total 782[footnote 5] 371 63 345

Table 10: Referred complaints by subject matter

Complaint type Total complaints %

| — | — | — |

Communication breakdown/failure 92 25
Sale/dealing with assets 14 4
Remuneration/fees 3 <1
Delay in dividend payment 52 14
Conflict of interest 14 4
Professional competence and due care 70 19
Professional behaviour 46 12
Transparency 7 2
Referred by IP Regulation Section 1 <1
Misleading advertising 7 2
SIP1 10 3
SIP2 2 <1
SIP3 53 14
Total 371 100

Table 11: Referred complaints by insolvency procedure

Insolvency Type Total complaints %

| — | — | — |

Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA)[footnote 6] 92 25
Bankruptcy 39 11
Liquidation 105 27
Administration 111 30
Company Voluntary Arrangement 8 2
Trust Deed 7 2
Other 9 3
Total 371 100

Table 12: Referrals by type of complainant

Complainant type Total complaints %

| — | — | — |

Debtor 97 26
Debtor’s family/friend 3 <1
Debt advisor 1 <1
Creditor 153 41
Company director 29 8
Insolvency practitioner 10 3
Employee 18 5
Shareholder 6 2
Accountant in Bankruptcy 3 <1
Solicitor 1 <1
Customer 10 3
Other 40 11
Total 371 100

Table 13: Referred complaints to authorising bodies

RPB Complaints referred %

| — | — | — |

ACCA 3 <1
IPA 222 60
ICAEW 133 36
ICAS 12 3
CAI 1 <1
Total 371 100

Table 14: Reasons for complaints rejection

Complaint Type Number rejected %

| — | — | — |

Conduct over 3 years old 7 11
Complaint about effect of the insolvency procedure 49 78
Complaint about a commercial matter 2 3
Directors’ conduct report confidentiality 1 2
Actions of a third party 2 3
Other 2 3
Total 63 100

Table 15: Reasons for complaints closure

Closure reason Number

| — | — |

Asked to initially complain to IP 58
No response to request for information/evidence 219
No contact details to follow-up 8
Not a complaint about an IP 29
Already been through the complaints process 4
Complaint withdrawn 11
Insolvency outside the UK/not a UK IP 1
Not a complaint about an insolvency 4
Other 11
Total 345

4. Disciplinary outcomes following Complaints

Table 16: Sanctions following complaints in 2020

Category ICAEW IPA ICAS CAI

| — | — | — | — | — |

Warning or caution (not published) 1 2 - -
Undertaking, consent, agreement, reprimand, fine 11 37 - -
Exclusion and fine - - - -
Ongoing into 2021 30 41 4 -

Table 17: Complaints remaining open over 12 months

This table shows how many complaints were open with each RPB at 1 January 2020 ordered by year of when they were opened. Each RPB provides this information to the Insolvency Service quarterly for progression to be tracked and, when appropriate, challenged.

RPB Pre-2015 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

| — | — | — | — | — | — | — |

ICAEW 3 10 10 11 22 45
IPA 1 1 0 5 11 23
ICAS 0 0 0 0 0 1
CAI 0 0 0 0 0 1

5. Complaints against RPBs

As oversight regulator, the Insolvency Service investigates complaints about the RPBs and the way in which they carry out their regulatory functions. A conclusion is drawn on whether (or not) the RPB has complied with its relevant procedures and regulatory objectives.

Table 18: Complaints Received about RPBs

Authorising Body Complaints received Upheld Partially upheld Rejected Ongoing

| — | — | — | — | — | — |

IPA 6 0 0 2 4
ICAEW 4 0 0 3 1
ICAS 0 0 0 0 0
CAI 0 0 0 0 0
Total 10 0 0 5 5

  1. The IPA have advised that 68 of these visits were to volume providers of Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) ↩

  2. Targeted visits can happen for several reasons, for example following information received by the RPB which needs to be investigated/verified, from an order by a committee following a routine visit or following several complaints about an area of practice. ↩

  3. The IP will provide confirmation to the RPB that specific matters would be addressed ↩

  4. More than one ‘advisory notice’ may be issued during a monitoring visit ↩

  5. 3 complaints still being dealt with at time of data collection ↩

  6. The IPA licenses and regulates most of the IPs at IVA volume providers ↩

Back to top