Corporate report

Annual Review of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation 2022

Published 28 April 2023

1. Overview

The Insolvency Service is an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), formerly 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.

Acting as oversight regulator of Insolvency Practitioners on behalf of the Secretary of State for DBT, 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 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, a nominee or supervisor of a voluntary arrangement, or a trustee under a trust deed in Scotland must be authorised to act as an Insolvency Practitioner by an RPB.

This report sets out various data relating to regulatory activity during 2022 in relation to activity and obligations covered by the Insolvency Act 1986 The data presented here are derived from information obtained annually from the RPBs and the Complaints Gateway.

During 2022, 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)

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, which both the Insolvency Service and the RPBs work to achieve are:

• Having a system of regulating persons acting as Insolvency Practitioners 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 Insolvency Practitioner profession, whose members provide high quality services at a fair and reasonable cost, act transparently and with integrity, and consider the interests of all creditors in any particular case.
• Promoting the maximisation of the value of returns to creditors and the promptness making those returns.
• Protecting and promoting the public interest.

In relation to complaints made against IPs, the Complaints Gateway acts as a single point of contact for making a complaint about the conduct of an Insolvency Practitioner, it and enables the Insolvency Service to monitor the progress and outcome of those complaints.

2. Regulatory Development and Research

The regulatory and legislative landscape saw a number of developments during 2022, as follows.

The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, which came into force on 25 December 2021, allowed government to tackle directors that dissolve companies and avoid paying liabilities. All temporary pandemic-related insolvency measures ceased on 31 March 2022 and the insolvency regime returned to its pre-pandemic operation.

Over the course of 2022, the Insolvency Service introduced changes to its reporting requirements to focus on and target misuse of various COVID-19 financial support schemes.

New guidance to support the Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) protocol was issued on 26 June 2022, in light of cost-of-living challenges, with the aim of assisting as many consumers as appropriate to continue with their arrangements.

The Insolvency Service commissioned independent research to consider if landlords were treated unfairly in Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) proposed by large companies in the retail, accommodation and retail and beverage industries. The research report, carried out by RSM UK, was published 28 June 2022.

The Insolvency Service published a call for evidence: Review of Personal Insolvency Framework in July 2022 in order to seek evidence to help inform the government on whether the current personal insolvency framework remains fit for purpose and, if not, what reforms are needed. The Insolvency Service is currently assessing the responses, a summary of which will be published later in 2023.

A second consultation was published in May 2022 proposing the implementation into UK law of two “model laws” adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), further developing the international framework for the management of cross-border insolvencies. A Government response setting out the next steps is expected in spring 2023.

Further independent research was commissioned by the Insolvency Service in 2022 into the impact of the permanent measures contained within the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. December 2022 saw the publication of the final report, the interim report having been published earlier in June. The research, which was carried out by Professor Peter Walton and Dr Lézelle Jacobs of the University of Wolverhampton, will support the Secretary of State’s post-implementation review of these measures, due in June 2023.

The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2022 was laid in Parliament on 5 September 2022 and came into force on 1 November 2022. The legislation raised the level of deposits required to be paid to initiate creditor bankruptcies and compulsory liquidations to enable the Insolvency Service to continue in order to administer and investigate insolvencies effectively, maximising outcomes for creditors whilst mitigating the risk of cost recovery being passed on to the taxpayer.

2.1 Changes in RPB Regulations, Procedures and Bye-laws

CAI

The CAI’s Professional Standards Board concluded, as part of its continued focus on risk management, that licence applications would only be accepted from individuals who are either its members or who are otherwise principals or employees of firms that are regulated by the CAI.

ICAEW

The ICAEW proposed a number of changes to its disciplinary framework and some regulatory processes, including a reduction of the number of disciplinary bye-laws, and introduction of new regulations, such as Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations, and Regulatory Review and Appeal Regulations. Although the proposed changes were approved via the ICAEW’s own governance procedures during 2022, this was pending Privy Council approval. This has now been received and the changes will come into effect from 1 June 2023.

Further, the ICAEW’s Education and Training Board approved a revised set of CPD Regulations at its meeting on 19 December 2022 which will come into effect later in 2023.

ICAS

There have been no material changes in regulations, procedures or bye-laws for ICAS since the previous report relating to 2021.

IPA

The IPA Regulatory Rules were amended to allow the RPB to seek to recover costs it incurs on behalf of its members (or former members) in relation to licence withdrawals, restrictions or conditions, as well as making applications for Block Transfer Orders (or equivalent orders) or arranging for the transfer of insolvency appointments or trusteeships.

An amendment was also made to the IPA’s existing Rule 70: Service of Notices to allow for any notice or document required to be served by the IPA Regulatory Rules, to be served electronically or in such other manner as may be agreed with the recipient. 

In other respects, there have been no substantial changes in the IPA’s regulations, complaints procedures and bye laws since the previous report.

3: Regulatory and Disciplinary Statistics

3.1 Authorisations

Table 1: Number of authorised Insolvency Practitioners (2022-2023)

Year	Category	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI	Total
2022	IPs at 1 January	812	592	90	47	1541
2022	Appointment takers	628	506	76	44	1254
2023	IPs at 1 January	798	607	89	48	1542
2023	Appointment takers	641	514	72	46	1273

The number of authorised IPs has remained relatively unchanged over the past few years with only minor variations.

3.2 Monitoring

RPBs continue to undertake a strong programme of monitoring in relation to the Insolvency Practitioners they authorise, the results of which demonstrate the importance of that activity in support of the regulatory objectives.

Table 2: Number of RPB monitoring visits to Insolvency Practitioners carried out in 2022

Visit Type	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Routine	190	201	22	9
Targeted	2	1	3	1

Data in Table 2 relates to visits whose outcomes were concluded in 2022. It does not include visits that were scheduled in 2022 but were not complete by the end of the year, nor those that were carried out in 2021 but not finalised by the end of 2022.

Targeted visits can happen for several reasons, for example following specific information received by an RPB which needs to be investigated or verified, by virtue of an order made by a Committee after a routine visit, or due to several complaints about an area of practice. Rules around targeted visits may vary between individual RPBs.

Notes:

ICAEW advises that 2 of the routine visits and 1 of the targeted visits completed in 2022 related to Insolvency Practitioners working in firms classed as Volume Providers.

ICAS advises that 7 of the routine visits completed in 2022 related to Insolvency Practitioners conducting Volume Provider work.

The IPA advises that of the 201 routine visits completed in 2022, 80 related to Insolvency Practitioners conducting Volume Provider work.

Table 3: Outcomes following routine monitoring visits to Insolvency Practitioners in 2022

	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
No further action:
Satisfactory report	136	164	6	9
Follow-up action:
Further visit	5	3	6	0
Ongoing monitoring	35	0	15	0
Regulatory penalties	9	10	0	0
Licence impact
Restricted	0	3	1	0
Withdrawn	1	2	0	0
Disciplinary referrals	14	0	1	0
Other	0	92	0	0

Please note that one visit can have more than one outcome (regulatory or disciplinary), each requiring a different follow-up action, and individual outcomes can fall into more than one category.

As in Table 2, the above figures relate to outcomes finalised by the end of 2022. Some matters, therefore, are ongoing or have not yet been put to the RPBs’ relevant committees.

Notes :

In relation to the data shown above (‘Other’): the IPA issued 1 warning and 91 advisory notices in 2022. Advisory notices are issued in respect of isolated minor technical breaches, which alone would not meet the standard for regulatory or disciplinary action.

In relation to the data shown above (‘Regulatory penalties’): the IPA had 10 Consent Orders agreed in 2022 as a result of routine monitoring visits.

Table 4: Outcomes relating to IPA’s Volume Provider Regulation (VPR) Scheme in 2022

	VPR Scheme
No further action:
Satisfactory report	51
Follow-up action:
Further visit	0
Ongoing monitoring	0
Regulatory penalties	2
Licence impact
Restricted	0
Withdrawn	0
Disciplinary referrals	0
Advisory notices	37

The Volume Provider Regulation (VPR) Scheme is run by the IPA for volume providers of Individual Voluntary Arrangements and Protected Trust Deeds.

Please note that one visit can have more than one outcome (regulatory or disciplinary), each requiring a different follow-up action, and individual outcomes can fall into more than one category. Therefore, individual visits can result in more than one Advisory Notice.

In relation to the data shown above under Regulatory penalties, the IPA had 2 consent orders agreed in 2022 as a result of monitoring visits.

As in Tables 2-3, the above figures relate to outcomes finalised by the end of 2022.

Table 5: Outcomes following targeted monitoring visits to Insolvency Practitioners in 2022

	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
No further action:
Satisfactory report	0	1	0	0
Follow-up action:
Further visit	1	0	3	0
Ongoing monitoring	0	0	3	1
Regulatory penalties	1	0	1	1
Licence impact
Restricted	0	0	1	0
Withdrawn	0	0	0	0
Disciplinary referrals	1	0	1	0
Other	0	1	0	0

Please note that one visit can have more than one outcome (regulatory or disciplinary), each requiring a different follow-up action, and individual outcomes can fall into more than one category.

As in Tables 2-4, the above figures relate to outcomes finalised by the end of 2022.

Notes:

In relation to CAI:

• A targeted visit to an IVA provider in 2022 resulted in ongoing monitoring and a regulatory penalty.

In relation to IPA:

• In relation to the data shown under Other, the IPA issued 1 advisory notice in 2022 as a result of a targeted visit.

3.3 Regulatory and Disciplinary Outcomes

Regulatory and disciplinary action taken by RPBs continues to form a critical part of their work in support of the regulatory objectives. Whilst representing a small percentage of the profession, the data relating to sanctioning for 2022 demonstrates the important steps taken by the RPBs and their relevant committees.

Table 6: Sanctions during 2022

Category	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Published sanctions	18	16	3	1
Non-published sanctions	0	0	0	0
Licence impact
Suspension/restriction	0	3	0	0
Exclusion/withdrawal	3	2	0	0
Ongoing matters Currently being considered by relevant Investigation or Disciplinary Committees	28	5	6	2

Please note that visits and complaints can have more than one outcome (regulatory or disciplinary), each requiring a different follow-up action, and individual outcomes can fall into more than one category.

As in Tables 2-5, the above figures relate to outcomes finalised by the end of 2022, apart from the Ongoing matters category which relates to matters that are being considered and may or may not result in a sanction.

In respect of non-published sanctions, in exceptional circumstances a decision may be made not to publish on a case-by-case basis.

Notes:

In relation to ICAEW:

• Of the 3 licence withdrawals listed, 2 were withdrawn by the Insolvency Licencing Committee and 1 Insolvency Practitioner was excluded as an ICAEW member as well as having their licence withdrawn.
• Of the 18 published sanctions, 8 relate to Consent Orders, 1 to an Order made by the Disciplinary Committee, and 9 to Regulatory Penalties.
• 8 cases were referred to the independent Reviewer of Complaints in 2022, and at 31 December 2022 there was 1 case with the Reviewer of Complaints where the review had been requested in 2021. Out of these, 4 have been completed, with none referred back to the Investigation Committee. The Reviewer of Complaints will have completed the remaining 5 reviews by the end of the first quarter of 2023.
• Out of the 28 ongoing matters, 15 cases are to be considered by the Investigation Committee, 14 are to be considered within the first quarter of 2023 and 1 case is to be considered by the Disciplinary Committee.

In relation to IPA:

• Of the 5 ongoing matters, 3 are to be considered within the first quarter of 2023 and 2 others are at the pre-Disciplinary Committee review stage.
• Of the 16 published sanctions, 5 relate to formal warnings that were issued (the IPA anonymises formal warnings when publicised).

Table 7: Alphabetical summary of regulatory and disciplinary sanctions issued in 2022

A detailed explanation of the Fundamental Principles referred to in the table below are provided in the Insolvency Practitioner’s Code of Ethics.

Further details of individual sanctions can be found on the RPB’s websites: ICAEW Disciplinary Database IPA Enforcement Notices ICAS Disciplinary Notices CAI Recent Decisions

The list below is arranged by the type of sanction, then alphabetically by the RPB, and then alphabetically by the name of the IP.

Exclusions and withdrawals/revocations of licence

RPB	IP	Sanction	Reason
ICAEW	Jason Baker	Withdrawal of Licence	Failure to pay the charge due in breach of the Insolvency Licensing Regulations and Guidance Notes.
ICAEW	Alisdair Findlay	Withdrawal of LicenceExclusion£15,000 fine£10,000 costs	Numerous breaches of the Code of Ethics and SIP 9 in relation to: drawing excessive remuneration, allowing a conflict of interest to override his professional judgement and failing to apply safeguards to ensure best value and service. Furthermore, failure to disclose a conflict of interest to creditors or obtain their approval for payments to related company and failure to progress and finalise the liquidation in a diligent manner.
ICAEW	Philip Lee	Withdrawal of Licence	Failure to respond and provide the requested information in addition to recurring serious case progression issues and breaches of statutory reporting requirements.
IPA	Mark Goldstein	Withdrawal of Licence	Failure to address numerous operational and compliance related deficiencies in a timely manner due to insufficient resources and inadequate IT systems.
IPA	Rob Sadler	Withdrawal of Licence	Breach of the conditions imposed on the IP’s licence, giving rise to public protection concerns.

Severe reprimands

RPB	IP	Sanction	Reason
ICAEW	Andrew Dix	Severe reprimand£6,000 fine£22,285 costs	Failure to comply with the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care in relation to a sale of assets in a bankruptcy estate without obtaining an independent valuation or conducting a marketing exercise; breach of Insolvency Rules and SIP 9 when seeking to obtain approval of remuneration.
ICAEW	James Gibson	Severe reprimand£5,000 fine£4,075 costs	Breach of SIP 3.1 and the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care as Nominee in a proposed Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) by failing to consider the IVA’s affordability following a change in the debtor’s circumstances.
ICAEW	Stephen Richard Penn	Severe reprimand£15,000 fine£5,500 costs	Breach of SIP 3.2 by failing to assess the likely attitude of any key creditors and the general body of creditors; failure to obtain sufficient information about, conduct proportionate investigations into, or verify, the debtor’s income and expenditure and assets and liabilities; failure to report accurately whether the Company’s financial position was materially different from that contained within the proposal; and failure to ensure procedures were in place to assess whether or not a CVA would have a reasonable prospect of being approved and implemented.
ICAEW	John William Rimmer	Severe reprimand£3,000 fine£3,055 costs	Breach of Insolvency Licencing Regulations by failing to submit notice of an insolvency event to the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator within 14 days.
ICAEW	David Smithson	Severe reprimand£7,500 fine£4,607 costs	Failure to create any sufficient written records setting out steps taken, and conclusions reached in relation to instructing three companies in 2 bankruptcy and 2 CVA appointments.
ICAS	Derek A Jackson	Severe reprimand£7,500 fine£13,870 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care and Professional Behaviour by failing to identify appropriate jurisdiction in 7 cases; a failure to conduct adequate investigations; failure to report a suspected offence to Accountant in Bankruptcy, and failure to comply with sec. 5.1. of CCAB Anti-Money Laundering Guidance for the Accountancy Sector.
ICAS	Kenneth G LeMay	Severe reprimand£5,000 fine£32,549 costs	Failure to respond to correspondence from Liquidators of a limited company; failure to produce clear and accurate reports to creditors; failure to document decision-making processes, investigations and conclusions.
ICAS	Ian S McGregor	Severe reprimand£12,500 fine£23,740 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care and Professional Behaviour by failing to identify appropriate jurisdiction in 7 cases; failure to conduct adequate investigations; failure to report a suspected offence to Accountant in Bankruptcy; and failure to comply with sec. 5.1. of CCAB Anti-Money Laundering Guidance for the Accountancy Sector.
IPA	Paul Atkinson	Severe reprimand £8,000 fine£2,450 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care as Trustee in Bankruptcy by failing to take steps to oversee or verify actions of those acting on his behalf; failing to adequately investigate the debtor’s financial affairs; failing to take adequate steps to realise potential assets; failing to check the content and veracity of a witness statement prepared on his behalf as a Statement of Truth before signing it. Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Behaviour by failing to consider clear intentions of the majority creditor at a meeting on Trustee’s remuneration.
IPA	John Kelmanson	Severe reprimand£6,500 fine£2,595 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care by failing to comply with the obligations contained in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR17); and failure to comply with the obligations contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA); and failure to retain records in connection with an appointment as Liquidator.
IPA	Ian Millington	Severe reprimand£2,750 fine£2,020 costs	Breach of SIP 3.1 as joint supervisor of an IVA by failing to provide the debtor with appropriate advice; failure to ensure that the debtor had sufficient understanding of the IVA process; failure to obtain sufficient information to assess an IVA as a solution; and failure to undertake proportionate investigations into, and verification of, the debtor’s liabilities.
IPA	Dylan Quail	Severe reprimand£3,250 fine£2,020 costs	Breach of SIP 3.1 as joint supervisor by failing to provide the debtor with appropriate advice; failure to ensure that the debtor had sufficient understanding of the IVA process; failure to obtain sufficient information to make an assessment of an IVA as a solution, and a failure to undertake proportionate investigations into, and verification of, the Debtor’s liabilities.
IPA	Michael Reeves	Severe reprimand£5,000 fine£900 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care in relation to a failure to file at Companies House post appointment documents in approximately 35 cases; and a failure to Gazette his appointment in approximately 49 cases; and a failure to issue annual/progress reports in a timely manner across many cases; and a failure to submit appropriate Returns in approximately 35 cases, as required by the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
IPA	Rob Sadler	Severe reprimand x3£18,500 fine	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Competence and Due Care as Administrator of a company by failing to comply with his statutory obligations as Administrator.Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Objectivity by failing to identify threats to his independence when accepting an appointment and appointing legal advisors that had acted as solicitors to the company in administration. Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Competence and Due Care as Supervisor of a company in CVA by failing to demonstrate that proper steps had been taken at all stages of the CVA in breach of SIP 3.2, and by holding a physical meeting of creditors to approve CVA proposals without the requisite majority, and failing to issue an annual report within two months after the end of the 12-month period.
IPA	Gordon Simmonds	Severe reprimand £5,000 fine£3,838 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care in relation to: a. failure to pursue properly a claim against a firm of solicitors for the recovery of fees of circa £100,000; and b. wrongly admitting for voting purposes a proof of debt for £60,000 submitted by an individual; and c. wrongly admitting for voting purposes a proof of debt for £120,000 submitted by an individual; and d. wrongly delaying the adjudication on a proof of debt for £36,752 submitted by an individual, wrongly allowed to be a member of the creditors’ committee, and subsequently admitting it for voting purposes.
IPA	Phillipa Smith	Severe reprimand£6,000 fine	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care by failing to take sufficient steps to verify employee claims before submitting RP14A forms to the redundancy payments service; failure to carry out independent verification of the information provided by company directors before submitting the RP14As.
IPA	Daniel Taylor	Severe reprimand £5,000 fine	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care by drawing remuneration without supporting documentary evidence and which was considered excessive in the circumstances.

Reprimands

RPB	IP	Sanction	Reason
CAI	Nicholas McKeague	Reprimand €2,500 fine€700 costs	Continuing to operate a trading bank account after the expiration of permission from the Insolvency Service; failure to follow the correct procedure for paying renumeration and expenses.
ICAEW	Andrew Dix	Reprimand£2,000 fine£3,355 costs	Failure to ensure firm was supervised in breach of Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. Incorrect submission of four annual returns to ICAEW.
ICAEW	Francis Wessely	Reprimand£1,000 fine£3,423 costs	Failure to adjudicate on an unsecured claim whilst Liquidator of one company in breach of statutory obligations pursuant to Rule 14.32 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.
ICAEW	Andrew Wilkinson	Reprimand£10,000 fine	Breach of SIP 3.3 as the proposed Trustee of five Trust Deed cases by failing to conduct initial advice calls properly resulting in the debtors being unable to make an informed decision on whether a Trust Deed was an appropriate solution.Breach of SIP 9 as Trustee of 127 insolvent estates in relation to charging unreasonable costs to the estates for services provided by claims management companies.Breach of SIP 9 as Trustee of a number of insolvent estates in relation to recovering overhead IT migration fee costs from insolvent estates.
ICAEW	Benny Woolrych	Reprimand£2,290 costs	Conviction for contravening Section 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003.
IPA	Adam Boys	Reprimand£3,000 fine	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care as advisor and/or nominee of two IVAs by failing to ensure that the information and explanations provided to two debtors were sufficient to enable them to make an informed decision on whether an IVA was an appropriate solution; failure to ensure that the IVA was achievable; and failure to provide creditors with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision in relation to the proposal and the IVA.
IPA	Elaine Masters	Reprimand£1,500 fine contribution towards costs	Breach of SIP 3.1 by failing to communicate with the debtor in a timely manner regarding an additional income contribution, and a failure to use a correct time period for the final wage review.
IPA	Gordon Simmonds	Reprimand£2,000 fine(see notes)	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Objectivity by failing to properly consider and apply safeguards to reduce the threat of a conflict of interest between the IP and a firm of solicitors to an acceptable level.
IPA	Daniel Taylor	Reprimand £1,000 fine	Breach of SIP 3.2 and SIP 9 by failing to advise creditors in the CVA proposal that the Nominee fee, of £4,000 plus VAT, had been agreed and paid by the directors of the company.

Regulatory penalties

RPB	IP	Sanction	Reason
CAI	Edward Walsh	Regulatory penalty of £31,000	Failure to comply with SIPs 3A and 9A and Insolvency Licensing Regulations in numerous cases.
ICAEW	Shane Biddlecombe	Regulatory penalty of £2,000	Failure to issue form HR1 before making employees redundant.
ICAEW	Jean Ellis	Regulatory penalty of £3,500	Failure to comply with the principles of a SIP, the Insolvency Act and rules and regulations by failing to file progress reports and/or late filings at Companies House in respect of 29 cases.
ICAEW	Robert Knight	Regulatory penalty of £750	Breach of Insolvency Licensing Regulations and Guidance Notes by failing to undertake a compliance review in 2020 and 2021.
ICAEW	Gerald Krasner	Regulatory penalty of £1,500	Regulatory penalty in relation to a high number of basic disclosure omissions in a Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 report.
ICAEW	Christopher Moore	Regulatory penalty of £5,000	Breach of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 by holding physical creditors’ meetings on 10 Individual Voluntary Arrangements.
ICAEW	Patrick O’Brien	Regulatory penalty of £1,500	Failure to carry out CPD on trading administrations following a previous confirmation, in breach of the Insolvency Licensing Regulations and Guidance Notes.
ICAEW	Jamie Playford	Regulatory penalty of £6,800	Failure to account properly for insolvency estate funds in breach of Statement of Insolvency Practice 11.
ICAEW	Tracey Pye	Regulatory penalty of £500	Regulatory penalty of £500 for drawing unauthorised remuneration of £373,000.
ICAEW	Richard Rones	Regulatory penalty of £2,500	Failure to submit returns and delay in submitting returns where the delay was likely to impact on the conduct of the insolvency appointment, in respect of systemic late or missing statutory reporting and/or filing.

Notes:

Mr Gordon Simmonds received two reprimands, one of them severe, as part of one Disciplinary Consent Order. The IPA’s Regulation and Conduct Committee applied total costs of £3,839 across the two allegations. As the table above lists sanctions by their severity, the two reprimands are placed under different headings and the total costs are included under the severe reprimand.

3.4 Pre-pack Administrations

Monitoring of Statements of Insolvency Practice 16 (SIP 16) disclosure statements in pre-pack administration

SIP 16 sets out what should be included in the Insolvency Practitioner’s disclosure statement issued to all creditors of a pre-pack administration. The statement is a summary of the transaction, and why it was in the best interest of creditors and best option available. SIPs for England and Wales can be found at www.r3.org.uk/technical-library/england-wales/sips/ and SIPs for Scotland can be found here.

In order to be compliant with a SIP 16 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 it in the statement of proposals filed at Companies House.

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

Table 8: Monitoring of SIP 16 statements by RPBs during 2022

	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Statements received	185	166	6	1
Statements reviewed	32	65	6	1
Number deemed compliant	24	60	6	1
Number deemed non-compliant	8	5	0	0
Of which resulting in regulatory action	0	0	0	0

The volume of SIP 16 statements has increased significantly compared to the data provided for 2021. The RPBs have reported the receipt of 358 SIP 16 statements in 2022, in comparison to 201 statements received in 2021. Similarly, the number of statements that were reviewed rose to 104 as compared to 70 in 2021.

Notes:

In relation to ICAEW:

• The compliant statements included statements that were deemed wholly or substantially compliant.
• In relation to statements deemed to be non-compliant, ICAEW’s Professional Conduct Department is currently pursuing disciplinary action in relation to one case. The others were not deemed to be sufficiently serious to warrant regulatory action.

In relation to IPA:

• With regards to statements designated to be non-compliant, the identified issues were deemed minor and therefore did not meet the threshold for regulatory action.
• The reasons for non-compliance included: no valuation of goodwill, no justification of the marketing timeframe or strategy, value of consideration not broken down by asset category, no details of charges against the company.

In relation to ICAS:

• A small number of matters identified in relation to one Insolvency Practitioner, with two SIP 16 notifications, will be followed up during their 2023 monitoring visit. These matters were not deemed sufficiently serious to warrant regulatory action.

Table 9: Analysis of pre-pack administrations in respect of connected person sales in 2022

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

	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Number of connected person sales	112	86	3	0
Number of connected person sales where evaluation has been obtained	112	86	3	0
Number of connected person sales where creditor approval has been sought	0	0	0	0
Evaluator’s opinion regarding reasonableness of grounds and consideration of transaction
Satisfied	112	86	3	0
Not satisfied	0	0	0	0

Similarly to the volume of pre-pack administrations, which has increased since 2021, the data reported by the RPBs shows a similar rise in the number of sales to connected persons (201 in 2022 as compared to 106 in 2021).

4: Complaint Statistics

4.1 IP 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 2022, the Gateway received 688 complaints, a decrease of 15% in comparison to 2021. Of these, 212 (31%) were referred to RPBs, 78 were rejected (see table 16 below), 365 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 within a reasonable timeframe) and 24 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 (rejections can happen for varying reasons – see Table 17 below). In 2022, there were 19 appeals, 5 of those were upheld and 14 rejected.

Table 10: Complaints received by the Gateway (2020-2022)

Complaints	2020	2021	2022
Total complaints	782	810	688
Referred to the RPBs	371	423	212
Rejected/closed	408	346	364
Ongoing	3	41	24

Table 11: Gateway complaint referrals: Most commonly occurring subject matters

Subject matter	Referrals	%
Communication breakdown	71	32
SIP3	49	23
Other	42	19
Competence and due care	30	13
Behaviour	21	10
SIP1	7	3
Total	220	100

Communication breakdown was the subject matter of the highest frequency with 71 complaints (this was slightly lower than in 2021, which saw 77 complaints on this subject). This was followed by SIP3 with 49 cases (compared to 47 in 2021); and by competence and due care with 30 cases (compared to 65 cases in 2021).

Table 12: Gateway complaint referrals by insolvency procedure

Insolvency Type	Referrals	%
Individual voluntary arrangement (IVA)	82	37
Liquidation	46	21
Administration	46	21
Bankruptcy	20	10
Other	14	6
Trust Deed	7	3
Sequestration	3	1
Company voluntary arrangement (CVA)	2	1
Total	220	100

In 2022, 82 complaints were referred in relation to IVAs (compared to 93 in 2021); 46 referrals were made in relation to Liquidations (compared to 83 in 2021); and 46 in relation to Administrations (compared to 172 in 2021 – with the caveat that 94 of these related to a single case).

Table 13: Gateway complaint referrals: Most common type of complainant

Complainant type	Total complaints	%
Creditor	80	36
Debtor	71	33
Other	49	22
Company Director	11	5
Debtor’s family/friend	9	4
Total	220	100

Creditors, debtors and company directors continue to feature among the most frequent complainants whose complaints have been referred to the relevant RPBs. However, there has been a marked change in numbers as compared with last year due to a high number of complaints relating to one particular administration case. 2021 saw 197 creditor complaints, 92 from debtors and 41 from company directors.

Table 14: Number of complaints referrals made to RPBs

	2020	2021	2022	% in 2022
IPA	222	169	124	56
ICAEW	133	234	89	40
ICAS	12	15	6	3
CAI	1	3	1	1
Total	368	423	220	100

There has been an overall decrease in complaint referrals over the past three years (data relating to 234 complaints referred to the ICAEW in 2021 included 94 individual complaints made in relation to one administration case).

Table 15: Reasons for complaint rejection

Complaint Type	Rejected	%
Relates to effect of insolvency	52	67
Other	16	21
Relates to a commercial matter	5	6
Director’s conduct report confidentiality	4	5
Director’s conduct	1	1
Total	78	100

Complaints relating to the effect of insolvency remain at the top of the reasons for rejection (compared to 45 in 2021).

Table 16: Reasons for complaint closure

Closure reason	2021	2022
No response to a request for evidence/information	190	247
Asked to initially complain to IP	27	58
Complaint not about an IP	25	32
Complaint withdrawn	13	11
Other	0	5
Already been through complaints process	10	6
Insolvency or IP outside UK	0	2
Anonymous	0	3
Total	272	364

4.2 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 17: Complaints Received about RPBs

Complaints	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Received	3	7	3	0
Upheld	0	0	0	0
Partially upheld	0	0	0	0
Rejected	2	5	3	0
Closed/withdrawn	1	2	0	0
Ongoing	0	0	0	0

4.3 Complaints - RPB statistics

Table 18: Complaints received by RPBs from sources other than Gateway

RPBs can open complaints following referrals from other committees, press coverage, receipt of direct complaints or intelligence from the Insolvency Service or other sources_._

Complaints	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Carried over from 2021	75	16	1	1
Total complaints opened	54	24	2	4
Rejected/closed	64	16	1	1
Ongoing	65	24	2	4

Notes:

ICAS advises that of the two cases in Table 18, one was an internal referral within ICAS, the other was a case from another regulator.

Table 19: Complaints made to RPBs remaining open over 12 months

This table shows how many complaints over 12 months old were open with each RPB at 31 December 2022 ordered by year of when they were opened. Complaints of this nature are often highly complex. Each RPB provides this information to the Insolvency Service quarterly for progression to be tracked and, when appropriate, challenged.

RPB	Pre-2016	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	Total
ICAEW	1	2	3	1	11	19	32	69
IPA	2	0	0	2	2	1	5	12
ICAS	0	0	0	0	0	1	4	2
CAI	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1

There has been a decrease in total number of complaints remaining open for over 12 months since opening the case. For comparison, the relevant totals in the 2021 Annual Review were as follows: 103 for ICAEW, 20 for IPA, 4 for ICAS and 3 for CAI.

Notes:

In relation to ICAEW:

• The 69 complaints remaining open for more than 12 months include 28 that are being considered by Committees as shown in Table 6, and 5 complaints being considered by the Reviewer of Complaints.
• In addition, ICAEW advises that there are 17 complaints opened between 2013 and 2018 that relate to one Insolvency Practitioner that ICAEW cannot progress following a ruling of the Fitness Committee. These complaints are not included in Tables 18 and 19.

In relation to ICAS:

• Three cases in Table 19 have been under active investigation for less than 12 months since opening the case, due to the investigation requiring to be put on hold pending the conclusion of related investigations by third parties.