Corporate report

Annual Review of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation 2023

Published 15 May 2024

1. Overview

The Insolvency Service is an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) that helps 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 individuals to act as Insolvency Practitioners (IPs). 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.

During 2023, 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 Insolvency Practitioners, 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.

This report sets out various data relating to regulatory activity during 2023 in relation to functions 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.

2. Regulatory Development and Research

The regulatory and legislative landscape saw a number of developments during 2023, as follows.

In terms of changes directly affecting the regulation of IPs, the FCA announced a ban on debt-packagers’ remuneration for referrals to IVA firms on 2 June 2023. This came into force immediately for firms starting or re-starting business on that date, and on 2 October 2023 for all existing debt-packager firms.

A revised version of Statement of Insolvency Practice 3.1, Individual Voluntary Arrangements (SIP 3.1) came into force on 1 March 2023. The revised SIP 3.1 places a greater emphasis on the Insolvency Practitioner’s responsibility for the provision of suitable advice tailored to the debtor’s circumstances before and during the arrangement. There is also a greater focus on maintaining comprehensive documentation of the process and providing creditors with information that is more extensive and useful than before.

An updated guidance on Monitoring Volume Individual Voluntary Arrangement and Protected Trust Deed Providers was published on 21 August 2023. The guidance, revised in close cooperation with the RPBs, introduced a new definition of a volume provider and strengthened the RPBs’ tools for monitoring entities falling into the new definition.

Regarding oversight regulation, on 30 June 2023 the Insolvency Service issued a reprimand against the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) for regulatory failings in relation to an Insolvency Practitioner.

On 28 April 2023, the Insolvency Service published its thematic review of monitoring carried out by the ICAEW, IPA and ICAS in respect of Insolvency Practitioners’ redundancy payment work. This review covered how the ICAEW, IPA and ICAS approached monitoring redundancy payments claims related work by their licensed Insolvency Practitioners. The review included three RPBs out of four as CAI did not have the relevant claims related work at that time.

More widely, 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.  A Government response to the call for evidence, containing a summary of the stakeholder responses and setting out the direction of travel for future work in this area, was published on 4 August 2023.

On 12 September 2023, the Government published its response to the consultation titled ‘The future of insolvency regulation’. This summarises the views of the stakeholders who responded to the consultation and outlines how the Government will legislate, when Parliamentary time allows, to reform the regulatory framework for Insolvency Practitioners. In the meantime, the Insolvency Service is working with the current four Recognised Professional Bodies to drive substantial and measurable improvements through a number of non-legislative actions.

Turning to the broader insolvency framework, the Insolvency Service published a second report into confidence in the insolvency and enforcement regimes. The report covers the views creditors, legal professionals, directors and academics in 2022/23. The topics covered in the research included perceptions of awareness, fairness, efficiency and effectiveness of our work. Creditors, legal professionals and academics typically believed the regimes are transparent, promote economic stability and are fair. They acknowledged the difficult trade-offs that are needed and were largely complimentary of the regimes balance. Those, who were able to compare the regimes internationally, consider them to be amongst the best in the world.

The Government’s response to the consultation on changes to Insolvency Service Official Statistics was published on 16 May 2023.

The Post Implementation Review for the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 was published on 26 June 2023. The review set out that in general, the new permanent measures introduced by the Act (a company moratorium, a prohibition on the enforcement of termination clauses in insolvency, and a flexible restructuring plan) had been welcomed by stakeholders and were generally meeting their policy objectives. The evidence of this was strongest for the restructuring plan measure, where it was estimated that there was an annual benefit to UK creditors of almost £500 million, and while there was also good evidence for the termination clauses measure, there were some areas around the operation of the moratorium where stakeholders thought that there could be improvement. Overall, the measures were seen as a positive addition to the UK’s company rescue and restructuring framework.

A response to the Government’s consultation on the implementation of two UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) model laws into GB law was published on 10 July 2023. The response confirmed the Government’s policy to adopt the model law on Enterprise Groups (MLEG) in its entirety, and the model law on recognition of insolvency judgments (MLIJ) partially through the addition of “Article X” to the existing regulations on recognition of foreign proceedings. While MLEG would be implemented as soon as Parliamentary time allowed, further stakeholder consultation would be undertaken before implementation of MLIJ in order to ensure that there were no unintended consequences, particularly with regard to legal certainty for contracts in this jurisdiction.

Finally, in relation to connected matters, on 7 July 2023, the Director Information Hub launched. This is designed to be a gateway to government and industry resources to help current and future directors. Director information hub - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023 and gives Companies House the power to play a more significant role in tackling economic crime and supporting economic growth.  During 2024 and 2025, a number of statutory orders will be laid in Parliament that will commence various new powers for Companies House, leading to improved transparency and more accurate and trusted information on the company registers. 

2.1 Changes in RPB Regulations, Procedures and Bye-laws

CAI

CAI revised its Public Practice Regulations, focusing mainly on AML supervision of practising firms and on ensuring that the Institute’s practising certificate regime continues to be fit for purpose. The revised Public Practice Regulations became effective on 1 January 2024.

In addition, CAI enhanced its Annual Return and Insolvency Practitioner renewal forms by widening the scope of information sought annually from individual Insolvency Practitioners to comply with regulation and guidance.

Furthermore, CAI’s risk assessment system was further developed during 2023, introducing a new scoring analysis. In general, there has been an ongoing focus on ensuring that CAI’s member Insolvency Practitioners continue to provide a high standard of service to clients, in compliance with legislation, regulations and guidance.

All current CAI Regulations are available on CAI’s website here.

ICAEW

On 1 June 2023, revisions to ICAEW’s disciplinary framework and consequential changes to ICAEW’s Insolvency Licensing Regulations came into effect. These include a reduction of the number of disciplinary bye-laws, and introduction of new regulations, such as the Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations, and the Regulatory Review and Appeal Regulations.

On 1 November 2023, ICAEW’s revised Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Regulations brought in new CPD requirements regarding the amount of CPD that ICAEW members and those regulated by ICAEW for certain activities (including Insolvency Practitioners) need to undertake each year.

All current ICAEW Regulations are available on ICAEW’s website here.

ICAS

On 1 January 2023, ICAS introduced new regulations aimed at streamlining its regulatory and disciplinary processes, as follows:

The ICAS Council amended regulations to remove the Review Panel stage from the previously three-stage process, with the Authorisation Committee now responsible for reviewing decisions at the first stage of challenge, with appeals then heard by the independent Appeal Tribunal.

Amendments were also made to ICAS’s Independent Reviewer Regulations (effective 1 January 2023), with the only material change being to the name of the role (and therefore the Regulations), which was previously the Independent Examiner. The new title avoids confusion with the independent examinations of charities which some of ICAS’s members undertake.

Finally, changes were also made to ICAS’s Discipline & Appeal Tribunals Regulations. The two separate Disciplinary and Appeal Panels were merged and reduced in size, and members allowed a third three-year term of appointment. The new structure will give Panel members more exposure to cases and increase their effectiveness in the role.

All current ICAS Regulations are available on ICAS’s website here.

No significant changes were made to ICAS’s investigations process in 2023.

IPA

The IPA’s regulations, complaint procedures and bye laws have not changed substantially since the previous Annual Review.

All current IPA Regulations are available on IPA’s website here.

3: Regulatory and Disciplinary Statistics

3.1 Authorisations

Table 1: Number of authorised Insolvency Practitioners (2023-2024)

Year	Category	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI	Total
2023	IPs at 1 January	798	607	89	48	1542
2023	Appointment takers	641	514	72	46	1273
2024	IPs at 1 January	740	643	78	47	1508
2024	Appointment takers	606	549	61	41	1257

The number of authorised Insolvency Practitioners has fluctuated over recent years, but overall there is a downward trend in the population of Insolvency Practitioners.

3.2 Monitoring

RPBs continue to undertake a solid 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 2023

Visit Type	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Routine	164	181	19	4
Targeted	2	4	11	0

Data in Table 2 relates to visits where outcomes were concluded in 2023. It does not include visits that commenced in 2023 but were not complete by the end of the year, nor those that were carried out in 2022 but not finalised by the end of 2023.

Targeted visits can happen for several reasons, for example following specific information received by an RPB that 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:

The IPA advises that of the 181 routine visits completed in 2023, 66 are related to Insolvency Practitioners conducting work as Volume Providers. For more information regarding the IPA’s Volume Provider Regulation Scheme, please see Table 4.

Table 3: Outcomes following routine monitoring visits to Insolvency Practitioners in 2023

	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
No further action:
Satisfactory report	115	164	12	4
Follow-up action:
Further visit	6	6	1	0
Ongoing monitoring	44	5	5	0
Regulatory penalties	5	6	0	1
Licence impact
Restricted	0	2	0	0
Withdrawn	1	0	0	0
Disciplinary referrals	27	0	2	0
Other (see below)	0	97	2	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 2023. Some matters, therefore, are ongoing or have not yet been put to the RPBs’ relevant committees.

Notes:

In relation to ICAEW’s disciplinary referrals, the figure above relates to 16 individual Insolvency Practitioners, 5 of which were referred more than once.

IPA advises that out of the 164 satisfactory reports, 66 relate to its Volume Provider Regulation scheme as detailed in table 4 below.

In respect of the data shown above under ‘Other’:

• IPA issued 1 warning and 96 advisory notices in 2023. Advisory notices are issued in respect of isolated minor technical breaches, which alone would not meet the standard for regulatory or disciplinary action.
• As regards ICAS, one Insolvency Practitioner was selected for a separate AML visit as a result of the monitoring visit. In relation to one Insolvency Practitioner, ICAS’s regulatory action focused on monitoring the progress of case transfers after the Practitioner decided to transfer their cases to another Insolvency Practitioner.

Table 4: Outcomes relating to IPA’s Volume Provider Regulation (VPR) Scheme in 2023

	VPR Scheme
No further action:
Satisfactory report	66
Follow-up action:
Further visit	0
Ongoing monitoring	2
Regulatory penalties
	0
Licence impact
Restricted	0
Withdrawn	0
Disciplinary referrals
Advisory notices	16

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.

As in Tables 2-3, the above figures relate to outcomes finalised by the end of 2023.

Table 5: Outcomes following targeted monitoring visits to Insolvency Practitioners in 2023

	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
No further action:
Satisfactory report	0	1	2	0
Follow-up action:
Further visit	0	1	5	0
Ongoing monitoring	2	0	9	0
Regulatory penalties	0	3	0	0
Licence impact
Restricted	0	0	2	0
Withdrawn	0	0	0	0
Disciplinary referrals	0	0	0	0
Other	0	2	2	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 2023.

Notes:

Regarding the data shown above under ‘Other’, IPA advises that it relates to two Advisory Notices.

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 2023 demonstrates the important steps taken by the RPBs and their relevant committees.

Please note that regulatory and disciplinary action taken by RPBs may lead to a number of individual outcomes, each falling into a different category and requiring a different follow-up action.

Table 6: Sanctions during 2023

Category	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Published sanctions	20	20	2	0
Non-published sanctions	1	0	0	1
Licence impact
Suspension/restriction	0	2	0	0
Exclusion/withdrawal	2	0	0	0
Ongoing matters
Currently being considered by relevant Investigation or Disciplinary Committees	15	20	4	2

As in Tables 2-5, the above figures relate to outcomes finalised by the end of 2023, 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:

• Out of the 15 ongoing matters, 8 cases should be considered by the Conduct Committee in the first quarter of 2024, and 7 cases are to be considered by the Tribunal Committee, five of which are likely to be heard within the first quarter of 2024.
• At 31 December 2023 there were two additional matters that had been considered by the Conduct Committee and no prima facie case found. The complainants had requested a review by The Reviewer of Complaints. Both reviews were completed early in 2024 and both matters closed.

In relation to ICAS:

• All four ongoing matters were determined by the Investigation Committee within the first quarter of 2024.

Table 7: Alphabetical summary of regulatory and disciplinary sanctions issued in 2023

A detailed explanation of the Fundamental Principles referred to in the table below is 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 Register of Regulatory Findings and Orders
The list below is arranged by the type of sanction, then alphabetically by the RPB, and then alphabetically by the name of the Insolvency Practitioner.

Exclusions and withdrawals/revocations of licence

RPB	IP	Sanction	Reason
ICAEW	Donna Cartmel	Exclusion and ineligibility to hold an insolvency licence £13,960 costs	At the time this matter was considered, Ms Cartmel was not a licensed IP. As her licence lapsed on 31 December 2019, the Disciplinary Committee issued an Exclusion order in relation to Ms Cartmel’s failure, whilst holding a licence, to send 172 progress reports in 53 insolvency appointments over a 3-year period in breach of the Insolvency Act and Rules and fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due Care.
ICAEW	Kevin Lucas	Exclusion £17,500 fine £29,500 costs	At the time these matters were considered, Mr Lucas was not a licensed IP as he had resigned his ICAEW membership. The Disciplinary Committee issued an Exclusion order in relation to 3 separate sanctions in 3 unrelated complaints whilst holding a licence: 1.  Failure to respond to correspondence and a formal complaint while acting as joint trustee in bankruptcy.  2.  Failure to provide information, explanations and documents requested under ICAEW Disciplinary Bye-law 13. 3.  Failure to progress and finalise a liquidation for 4 years, including no progress reports being issued for 3 years, and a failure to declare the final dividend within the required 2-month period.
ICAEW	Mark Prideaux	Licence withdrawal £10,690 fine	Licence withdrawn by the Review Committee as a result of a failure to show any material improvement in relation to key issues raised during a monitoring visit.

Severe reprimands

ICAEW	John Paul Bell	Severe reprimand £18,000 fine £5,545 costs	Breach of SIP 6, as a proposed liquidator, by failing to ensure in two CVLs that directors were fully aware of their duties, and, in one of the CVL appointments, also failing to ensure a response was sent to the director’s correspondence.
ICAEW	Shane Biddlecombe	Severe reprimand £5,000 fine £2,000 costs	In respect of two administration appointments, as lead administrator,  failed to prepare and retain written records detailing the steps taken and conclusions reached to sufficiently identify, evaluate and respond to threats such that a reasonable and informed party were able to take a view on the appropriateness of relevant threats.  In respect of the same two administration appointments failed to comply fully with the requirements of SIP16.
ICAEW	Andrew Dix	Severe reprimand £20,000 fine £7,945 costs	Failure to properly assess whether Administration was the appropriate procedure, failure to take reasonable steps to evaluate the threats to compliance with the fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics that had been identified.  Failure to maintain sufficient written records to demonstrate the steps taken and conclusions reached in identifying, evaluating and responding to threats to compliance with the fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics.  Failure to be transparent and report openly to creditors in his Proposals about the relationship of his firm and another.
ICAEW	Andrew Dix	Severe reprimand £12,500 fine £6,595 costs	Failure to take reasonable steps to evaluate the threats to compliance with the fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics that had been identified.  Failure to maintain sufficient written records to demonstrate the steps taken and conclusions reached in identifying, evaluating and responding to threats to compliance with the fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics.  Failure to be transparent and report openly to creditors in his Proposals about the relationship of his firm and another.
ICAEW	Michael Leslie Grieshaber	Severe reprimand £10,000 fine £10,000 costs	Failure to file 63 progress reports and 25 prescribed statements over a two-year period when appointed as office holder in breach of the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due Care.  Failure to progress realisations in a bankruptcy for a period of 2.5 years in breach of the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due Care.
ICAEW	Roderick Julian Jones	Severe reprimand £10,000 fine no costs	Failure to progress a liquidation for the period of 8 years contrary to the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due Care.
ICAEW	Marc Justin Landsman	Severe reprimand £5,000 fine £9,950 costs	As Supervisor in an IVA, failed to prepare and send progress reports to creditors as required under the relevant Insolvency Rules and failed to adequately progress the IVA and/or arrange for a decision of creditors to take place to determine next steps.
ICAEW	Leonard Curtis Recovery Limited	Severe reprimand £20,000 fine £1,472 costs	Failure to ensure that the acceptance of administration appointments of some or all of the related companies between 2009 and 2017, where intended pre-pack sales to connected parties were to take place, were correctly categorised as higher than normal risk and subject to review by an independent person.  Failure to ensure that Ethical Review template forms required disclosure of the extent of prior personal and professional relationships between companies, director and shareholder.
ICAEW	Andrew Poxon	Severe reprimand £18,000 fine £7,362 costs	Failure to identify, evaluate and safeguard against threats to compliance with the fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics when accepting two Administration appointments. Additionally, failure to create sufficient written contemporaneous records relating to those potential threats.
ICAEW	Adrian John Denis Rabet	Severe reprimand £3,000 fine £3,370 costs	As Liquidator of a company in Jersey, failure to call meetings of the company and creditors and lay the necessary account before those meetings for a 5-year period.  Failure to communicate with an individual about their position on a liquidation committee for a period of 3 years.
ICAEW	Gerard Nicholas Ratcliffe	Severe reprimand £15,000 fine £10,063 costs	Failings to fully comply with SIP3.1 in respect of five IVAs.
ICAEW	Samuel Jonathan Talby	Severe reprimand £2,500 fine £2,590 costs	In the role as lead Administrator failed to comply fully with the requirements of SIP16.
ICAEW	John Malcolm Titley	Severe reprimand £18,000 fine £7,362 costs	Failure to identify, evaluate and safeguard against threats to compliance with the fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics when accepting two Administration appointments where there had been a prior professional relationship. Failure to create sufficient written contemporaneous records relating to those potential threats.
ICAEW	Sean Williams	Severe reprimand £5,600 fine £2,945 costs	Failure to identify, evaluate and safeguard against threats to compliance with the fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics when accepting an Administration appointment where there had been a prior professional relationship. Failure to create sufficient written contemporaneous records relating to those potential threats.
ICAS	Kevin McLeod	Severe reprimand £5,000 fine £13,400 costs	In relation to 15 PTDs, 7 bankruptcies and 11 liquidations, failure to submit statutory forms and documentation to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, failing to administer the PTD cases diligently and timeously, failing to pay interim dividends, as well as dishonesty in communicating with ICAS in relation to the above.
IPA	Kieran Bourne	Severe reprimand £24,000 fine £13,110 costs	In respect of three allegations: 1. When acting as liquidator, failed to verify employees’ claims or carry out independent verification of the information provided by directors, and failed to raise any concerns with Redundancy Payments Service (RPS) regarding the veracity of the claims before or after submitting required forms to RPS in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care. 2. Failure to keep contemporaneous records to evidence meetings with directors/shareholders when acting as liquidator or potential liquidator, in breach of SIP 1 and Regulation 13 of the Insolvency Practitioners Regulations 2005. 3. Failure to carry out due diligence and verify the identity of the fee-paying entity when acting as liquidator or potential liquidator of two companies, in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR17).
IPA	Neil Henry	Severe reprimand £6,000 fine No costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence & Due Care when acting as liquidator and, separately, trustee in bankruptcy, by failing to progress the cases in a timely manner.
IPA	Adam Jordan	Severe reprimand £6,500 fine £870 costs	Breach of Regulations 27 & 28 of The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘MLR17’), when acting as liquidator, by failing to carry out due diligence, assess the risk of money laundering prior to establishing of business relationship and accepting funds from company and/or directors.
IPA	Patricia Marsh	Severe reprimand x3 £20,000 fine No costs	1. Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care by failing to prepare and/or file a number of annual progress reports at Companies House. 2. Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care by failing to: 1. prepare and/or submit Corporation Tax returns to HMRC in four cases, 2. undertake case reviews and record details of the case strategies in 5 cases, 3. make enquiries into the existence of a pension scheme in 2 cases, 4. demonstrate that any ethical considerations, checks on conflict, or an evaluation of AML risk were made in 2 cases, 5. failing to deal adequately with estate assets or document the strategy for dealing with estate assets, progress made and decisions in relation to realisations and, 6. failing to comply with SIP 2 by either failing to locate the company’s books and records or failing to complete an initial investigation into antecedent transactions, and 7. progress the administration of insolvency estates. 3. Breach of SIP 9, when acting as liquidator between 22 July 2015 and 1 March 2017, by allowing payments of approx. £38,000 to themselves and/or their associates for remuneration/expenses, which was not a fair and reasonable reflection of the work undertaken.
IPA	Kenneth Patullo	Severe reprimand £6,000 fine No costs	Failure to adequately document discussions with debtors in two Protected Trust Deeds, in breach of SIP 3.3.
IPA	Craig Ridgeley	Severe reprimand £9,000 fine No costs	Breach of The Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations (‘MLR’) 2017, by failing to complete adequate customer due diligence to verify the source of third-party funds paid into the IVA, and re-assess the level of risk following receipt of new information relevant to the risk categorisation when acting as IVA Supervisor. Additionally, when acting as liquidator, failing to re-assess the level of risk following receipt of new information relevant to the risk categorisation.
IPA	Nickolas Rimes	Severe reprimand £5,000 fine £870 costs	Breach of The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘MLR17’), when acting as liquidator, the IP failed to carry out customer due diligence or assess the risk of money laundering prior to the establishment of the business relationship and acceptance of funds from the company and/or directors.
IPA	Stuart Rathmell	Severe reprimand £6,000 fine No costs	Breach of Fundamental Principle of Competence and Due Care by failing, despite secretariat instructions to improve systems and procedures, to provide a competent professional service based on current technical and professional standards and relevant legislation, and act diligently and in accordance with applicable technical and professional standards.
IPA	Nigel Heath Sinclair	Severe reprimand £6,000 fine £825 costs	Failure to prepare and/or file 8 annual progress reports at Companies House in 5 cases, and to file 28 annual/progress reports in 19 cases in a timely manner in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence & Due Care.
IPA	Mark Tailby	Severe reprimand £7,000 fine No costs	Failure to file Annual Progress Reports in 39 cases in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care.
IPA	Mark Tailby	Severe reprimand x2 £14,000 fine No costs	In respect of 2 allegations: 1. Breach of ‘The Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations’ (‘MLR’) 2017, when acting as liquidator, by failing to carry out adequate customer due diligence and verify the identity of the customer prior to the establishment of a business relationship, and failing to maintain adequate records of due diligence carried out. 2. Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care when acting as officeholder of a number of companies, by failing to satisfy the IPA that adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance run-off cover was in place for a minimum of six years after ceasing to act.

Reprimands

ICAEW	Lauren Louise Auburn	Reprimand £4,000 fine £4,705 costs	Seeking to recover pre-appointment remuneration that was not provided for within Rule 6.7 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016  in 2 CVL appointments.
ICAEW	Sukhvinder Kaur Bains	Reprimand £4,000 fine £4,030 costs	Seeking to recover pre-appointment remuneration that was not provided for within Rule 6.7 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016  in 4 CVL appointments.
ICAEW	Thomas Guthrie	Reprimand £4,000 fine £4,435 costs	Seeking to recover pre-appointment remuneration that was not provided for within Rule 6.7 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 in 3 CVL appointments.
ICAEW	Gordon John Johnston	Reprimand £2,000 fine £1,000 costs	As joint administrator of two companies, failed to prepare and retain sufficient written records on conclusions and actions to identify, evaluate and respond to threats such that a reasonable and informed party were able to take a view on the appropriateness of relevant threats.
ICAEW	John William Rimmer	Reprimand £5,000 fine £5,680 costs	Seeking to recover pre-appointment remuneration that was not provided for within Rule 6.7 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016  in 13 CVL appointments.
ICAEW	Peter John Windatt	Reprimand £4,500 fine £4,165 costs	Seeking to recover pre-appointment remuneration that was not provided for within Rule 6.7 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016  in 9 CVL appointments.
IPA	Donald Harper	Reprimand £1,000 fine £1,680 costs	Breach of SIP 3.1 when acting as nominee of an IVA, by failing to have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the debtor received appropriate advice and  that proportionate investigations into, and verification of, income and expenditure, and assets and liabilities were carried out.
IPA	Karen Potts	Reprimand £2,000 fine £4,170 costs	Failure to ensure that a complete and accurate Form RP15 was submitted to the RPS before closing the liquidation, in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care.
IPA	Nigel Price	Reprimand £2,000 fine £225 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care by failing to satisfy the IPA that adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) was in place in 45 cases in breach of the IPA’s PII regulations.
IPA	Joseph Sadler	Reprimand £2,000 fine £225 costs	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care, by failing to satisfy the IPA that adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) was in place in 82 cases in breach of the IPA’s PII regulations.
IPA	Nicholas Wood	Reprimand x2 £17,500 fine £8,760 costs	1. Failure to ensure that adequate systems were in place to prevent submission of invalid votes to the Official Receiver prior to being appointed as trustee in bankruptcy, in breach of Fundamental Principles of Professional Competence and Due care and Professional Behaviour. 2. Failure to ensure that adequate systems were in place to prevent invalid votes from being submitted to the Official Receiver prior to being appointed as trustee in bankruptcy, despite assurances to the contrary made to the Official Receiver on various occasions after 25 October 2018, in breach of the Fundamental Principles of Professional Competence and Due Care and Professional Behaviour.

Other disciplinary penalties

ICAS

Ronan Anthony Duffy

Caution £3,400 costs

Failure to create sufficient records of ethical considerations when identifying, evaluating and responding to a potential threat to the fundamental principles, while appointed as IVA Supervisor.

Regulatory penalties

CAI	James B Kennedy	Regulatory penalty of £10,000	Breaches of SIP 9 and CAI’s Insolvency Licensing Regulations.
ICAEW	Deborah Ann Cockerton	Regulatory penalty of £5,000	Failure to inform the RPS that employee claims were unverified; material delay in submitting forms RP15/15a on a liquidation; and material delay in pursuing debts of a liquidation.
ICAEW	James Gibson	Regulatory penalty of £7,000	Failure to administer IVAs according to their terms, by failing to pay dividends in 2019 as required by the proposal terms in breach of SIP 3.1.
ICAEW	Simon John Lowes	Regulatory penalty of £1,500	Failure to pay a dividend in a timely manner in a liquidation.
ICAEW	John Edmund Paylor	Regulatory penalty of £1,000	Failure to undertake a compliance review in 2022 in accordance with ICAEW’s Insolvency Licensing Regulations and Guidance Notes.
ICAEW	Phillip Barrington Wood	Regulatory penalty of £4,500	Breach of the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care in relation to overdue statutory filing.

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 the 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 SIP 16, the Insolvency Practitioner acting as administrator must send a copy of their SIP 16 statement 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 2023

	ICAEW	IPA	ICAS	CAI
Statements received	338	198	7	2
Statements reviewed	n/a	69	7	2
Number generally compliant	n/a	69	7	2
Number deemed non-compliant	n/a	0	0	0
Of which resulting in regulatory action	n/a	0	0	0

The volume of SIP 16 statements has increased significantly compared to the data provided for 2021 and 2022. The RPBs have reported the receipt of 545 SIP 16 statements in 2023, in comparison to 358 statements received in 2022 and 201 in 2021.

Notes:

In relation to ICAEW:

• Following an analysis of the results of previous SIP 16 reviews and complaints received in respect of SIP 16 statements over a 4-year period, ICAEW made a decision to move away from enhanced targeted SIP 16 monitoring. ICAEW ceased conducting standalone SIP 16 reviews and moved to a business-as-usual monitoring, with a view to conducting a thematic review to test ongoing compliance in due course.
• As one SIP 16 statement can cover more than one entity, the figure above relates to the number of companies for whom ICAEW received SIP 16 statements and not the number of individual statements.

Table 9: Analysis of pre-pack administrations in respect of connected person sales in 2023

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	208	118	1	2
Number of connected person sales where evaluation has been obtained	208	118	1	2
Number of connected person sales where creditor approval has been sought	0	0	0	2
Evaluator’s opinion regarding reasonableness of grounds and consideration of transaction
Satisfied	207	118	1	2
Not satisfied	1	0	0	0

Similarly to the volume of pre-pack administrations, which has increased since 2022, the data reported by the RPBs shows a similar rise in the number of sales to connected persons (329 in 2023 as compared to 201 in 2022 and 106 in 2021).

4: Complaint Statistics

4.1 Insolvency Practitioner 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 2023, the Gateway received 750 complaints, a 9% increase in comparison to 2022. Of these, 169 (23%) were referred to RPBs, 169 (23%) were rejected, 390 (52%)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 22 (3%) were awaiting further information to reach a decision.

The Gateway only refers cases that 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. In 2023, there were 37 appeals, 2 of those were upheld, 1 was closed, and the remainder were rejected.

Table 10: Complaints received by the Gateway (2020-2023)

Complaints	2020	2021	2022	2023
Total complaints	782	810	688	750
Referred to the RPBs	371	423	212	169
Rejected/closed	408	346	364	559
Ongoing	3	41	24	22

Table 11: Number of complaints referrals made to RPBs

	2020	2021	2022	2023	% in 2023
IPA	222	169	124	92	55%
ICAEW	133	234	89	63	38%
ICAS	12	15	6	12	7%
CAI	1	3	1	1	1%
Total	368	423	220	168	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 12: Gateway complaint referrals by insolvency procedure

Insolvency Type	Referrals	%
Liquidation	71	42%
Individual voluntary arrangement (IVA)	49	29%
Administration	27	16%
Bankruptcy	14	8%
Trust Deed	4	2%
Sequestration	2	1%
Company voluntary arrangement (CVA)	1	1%
Other	1	1%
Total	169	100%

IVAs, liquidations and administrations are the most common insolvency procedures the Gateway deals with and refers on. After a drop in referral numbers in relation to liquidations in 2022, 2023 saw 71 referred to the RPBs (compared to 46 in 2022 and 83 in 2021). By contrast, IVA referrals went down to 49 as compared to 82 in 2022 and 93 in 2021, as did referrals in relation to administrations (27 in 2023, 46 in 2022 and 172 in 2021).

Table 13: Gateway complaint referrals by subject matter

	Referrals	%
Communication breakdown	73	43%
Competence and due care	30	18%
SIP 3	23	14%
Behaviour	19	11%
Other	12	7%
SIP 1	5	3%
Dividend delay	2	1%
SIP 9	1	1%
Conflict of interest	1	1%
Dealing with assets	1	1%
Irregularity at creditors meeting	1	1%
Intelligence	1	1%
Total	169	100%

Communication breakdown between parties remained the most frequent reason for a referral (73 in 2023 as compared to 71 in 2022). This was followed by referrals in relation to a potential breach of the Fundamental Principle of Competence and Due Care (no change in numbers on last year) and SIP 3 matters, where there was a marked drop in the number of referrals (23 as compared to 49 in 2022).

Table 14: Gateway complaint referrals by complaint source

	Referrals	%
Creditor	53	31%
Debtor	43	25%
Third party	30	18%
Director	14	8%
Other	9	5%
Debtor’s friend/family	7	4%
Insolvency Practitioner	5	3%
Debt advisor	5	3%
Employee	1	1%
Shareholder	1	1%
Insolvency Service	1	1%
Total	169	100%

When considering referrals by complaint source, creditors and debtors remain the most frequent parties raising concerns.  However, where in 2022 company directors were the third single source of complaints at 11 referrals, this changed to third party in 2023 due to a systemic issue across a number of cases and appointments as reported by one organisation.

Table 15: Reasons for rejection of Gateway complaints

	Rejections	%
Effect of insolvency	109	64%
Commercial matter	28	17%
Conduct over three years	14	8%
Other	7	4%
Director’s conduct	6	4%
Actions of third party	5	3%
Total	169	100%

There was an increase in the number of complaint rejections in 2023: 169 as compared to 2022, which saw 78 rejections. The number of complaints about various effects of insolvency more than doubled, from 52 in 2022 to 109 in 2023. Similarly, complaints in relation to commercial matters went up from 5 in 2022 to 28 in 2023 as did complaints made out of time, which did not feature in the 2022 review.

Table 16: Reasons for closure of Gateway complaints

	Closures	%
No response to request for evidence/ information	224	57%
Asked to complain to IP first	105	27%
Complaint not about an IP	28	7%
Already been through the complaint process	15	4%
Complaint withdrawn	14	4%
Other	4	1%
Total	390	100%

There has been an overall increase in the number of complaints closed by the Gateway over the past three years, from 272 closures in 2021, 364 in 2022 and 390 closures in 2023. The top reasons for closure have not changed: no response to a request for more information (224 as compared to 247 in 2022) and no further contact with the Gateway after the complainant was asked to raise the issue with the Insolvency Practitioner first (with a marked increase from 58 in 2022 to 105 in 2023). The number of complaints about individuals and bodies other than Insolvency Practitioners has only slightly changed from 25 in 2022 to 28 in 2023.

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	1	1	0	0
Upheld	0	0	0	0
Partially upheld	0	0	0	0
Rejected	1	1	0	0
Closed/withdrawn	0	0	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 2022	65	24	2	3
Total complaints opened	58	32	1	2
Rejected/closed	60	21	1	4
Ongoing	63	35	2	1

Notes:

CAI advises that there were originally 4 complaints carried over from 2023. However, an adjustment was made to the balance of complaints brought forward as the member involved no longer holds either an Insolvency Licence or an Insolvency Practicing Certificate. The investigation, however, is ongoing as the former Insolvency Practitioner remains a member of CAI.

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 on 31 December 2023, ordered by year of when they were opened.

Complaints of this nature are often complicated. Each RPB provides this information to the Insolvency Service quarterly for progression to be tracked and, when appropriate, challenged.

RPB	Total	Pre-2016	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
ICAEW	47	0	0	1	0	5	5	9	27
IPA	19	2	0	0	2	1	1	3	10
ICAS	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2
CAI	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1

For comparison, the relevant totals in the 2022 Annual Review were as follows: 69 for ICAEW, 12 for IPA, 2 for ICAS and 1 for CAI.

Notes:

In relation to ICAS:

• Three of the complaints listed above relate to the same insolvency appointment and have been conjoined for investigation purposes. One complaint was received from the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) in 2022 and two via the Insolvency Practitioner Complaints Gateway in 2021. The two Gateway complaints were placed on hold between February and November 2022 pending the outcome of the AiB’s investigation.
• All four complaints remaining open for more than 12 months were determined by the Investigation Committee within the first quarter of 2024 as shown in Table 6.

In relation to ICAEW:

• The 47 complaints remaining open for more than 12 months include 15 that are being considered by Committees as shown in Table 6, and 2 complaints being considered by the Reviewer of Complaints (ROC). The complaint from 2017 was one of the complaints being considered by the ROC which closed in January 2024.
• In addition, there are 17 complaints opened between 2013 and 2018 that relate to a former Insolvency Practitioner that ICAEW is unable to progress following a ruling of the Fitness to Practice Committee. These complaints are not included within Tables 14 and 15.