Welcome to this first edition of Technical Insights. We have curated a focused round-up of key messages, legislative reminders and essential updates to support you and your practice to ensure continued compliance in an evolving regulatory landscape.
IPA Regulation
Changes to SIP 16 Reporting Requirements
There is a change in the IPA’s approach regarding Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 ‘Pre-packaged sales in administrations’ (‘SIP 16’) disclosures, led by the Insolvency Service (‘INSS’) and supported by the IPA, effective immediately.
Background
Since 2024, the IPA has applied a risk-based approach to SIP 16 submissions, focusing primarily on connected party transactions. Following sustained high compliance and minimal issues identified, full reviews were reduced to 10% in 2025. Given this continued low-risk profile, it had been anticipated that this would reduce further to 5% in 2026.
Details of change
The INSS has confirmed that it will no longer collect data regarding SIP16 submissions. Based on the shared assessments of the Recognised Professional Bodies (‘RPBs’), the INSS considers this to be an area of low regulatory risk. Responsibility will therefore rest with the RPBs to determine, through their own risk approaches, whether there are matters of concern relating to SIP 16 compliance and individual Insolvency Practitioners (‘IPs’). With effect from 19 March 2026 –
- There is no longer a requirement for IPs licensed by the IPA to submit SIP 16 disclosures directly to the IPA via the designated mailbox.
- The IPA will continue to monitor SIP 16 compliance as part of its routine monitoring visits.
- IPs must continue to file SIP 16 disclosures at Companies House.
We trust that this reduction in administrative reporting will be a welcome change.
Anti-Money Laundering
Payment Diversion Fraud explained – Hear from the UK Financial Intelligence Unit
The UK Financial Intelligence Unit (UKFIU) Podcast on Payment Diversion Fraud is a 35-minute podcast aimed at the legal sector and conveyancing practices, but has considerable overlap with the insolvency profession.
Why? Because the risks are remarkably similar. Both professions have fund transfer risks and operate under pressures that sophisticated criminals actively exploit. The podcast highlights how criminals invest heavily in research, social engineering and timing – with techniques that constantly evolve, the profession needs to review the risks regularly.
Focusing on Payment Diversion Fraud, the UKFIU identifies two practical goals for Insolvency Practitioners:
(1) Make it difficult for criminals to succeed
(2) Make it harder to be a victim
The low reporting rate is particularly concerning. Every unreported fraud – even attempted ones – represents lost intelligence that could protect the public and colleagues across our profession and create viable investigation lines.
Key takeaways for Insolvency Practitioners
- Do not assume lower volumes mean lower risk.
- Review your payment verification procedures with fresh eyes.
- Build awareness across your teams about the sophistication of the current threats.
- Understand that procedural controls alone aren’t enough – criminals adapt.
- Report all incidents – attempted and successful (Report Fraud).
The podcast outlines practical control measures from the conveyancing sector that translate directly to insolvency practice and should feed into your SIP 11 financial controls and safeguards review. It really brings home the level of planning and patience these criminals employ.
Listen now on Spotify.
Case Law
Wonop ApS v Jagger (as joint administrator of FAI Realisations 2024 Ltd) [2026] EWHC 362 (Ch)
In this case, the High Court considered whether the filing and subsequent registration of a notice under Paragraph 84 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (Moving an administration to dissolution.) automatically ends the administration.
The court ruled that the cessation of an administrator’s office is “self-executing” statutory process triggered by the Registrar of Companies. Once the notice is registered, the administration ends by operation of law, regardless of any ongoing disputes or pending applications. As Judge Briggs noted:
“The language of Paragraph 84(4) is clear and unambiguous. It provides that the appointment of the administrator shall cease to have effect when the notice is registered. The statute does not provide for any ‘wait and see’ period, nor does it allow for the suspension of that termination because an application under Paragraph 88 or 91 is pending. The act of registration is the operative event that brings the administration to an end by operation of law.”
IPs must be certain that they wish to end the administration before filing a notice under Paragraph 84. Once the notice is sent and registered, it is effectively a point of no return.
“Once the Registrar has registered the notice, the ‘administration’ as a legal state has ceased to exist. To suggest that the court can retrospectively invalidate a validly filed and registered notice under Paragraph 84, in the absence of a specific statutory power to do so, would be to ignore the self-executing scheme of Schedule B1.”
Aerovías del Continente Americano S.A. Avianca & Ors v Versilia Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 282 (Ch)
In this case, the High Court addressed the scope of a Provisional Liquidator’s power to sell company assets and the Court’s jurisdiction to ratify such sales retrospectively.
Versilia Solutions Ltd was facing a winding-up petition and had effectively ceased trading. After the appointment of Joint Provisional Liquidators (‘JPLs’), an offer was received to purchase the company’s business and assets for £70,000. Following expert advice that this was the best net realisation available, the JPLs proceeded with the sale on without first seeking explicit Court approval. The Judge ultimately held that the sale was permitted under the original appointment order as a means of “protecting” the assets’ value.
The Court clarified that the standard duty of a Provisional Liquidator to “protect” assets is not limited to physical preservation; it extends to protecting the financial value of those assets.
Despite the ruling, the Judge made it clear that “this judgment should not be seen as some form of carte blanche for provisional liquidators to sell the business and assets of a company in respect of which they have been appointed. My decision to do so in this case is based solely on the unusual fact pattern here and the urgency of the situation in which the JPLs found themselves. In addition, this judgment should not be seen by provisional liquidators and those advising them as a green light to undertake such sales without having been granted the necessary functions and powers by the Court in advance, either on appointment or by way of an urgent application to vary and extend those powers. If this situation were to arise again, I would expect a provisional liquidator to make that urgent application and allow the Court to decide what was appropriate in advance, rather than being presented with a fait accompli.”
The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Robinson Webster (Holdings) Limited [2026] EWHC 151 (Admin)
In this case, the High Court clarified the liability for Non-Domestic Rates (‘NDR’) on unoccupied premises where a tenant is subject to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (‘CVA’).
Robinson Webster (Holdings) Limited (‘RWHL’), trading as “Jigsaw,” held a lease for a shop in London. Due to financial difficulties during the Covid-19 pandemic, RWHL entered a CVA. Under the CVA terms, the shop was classified as a “Category D” property, meaning RWHL would exit the premises and offer to relinquish its right of occupation.
The landlord refused to accept a formal surrender of the lease to avoid becoming liable for rates and other tenant obligations. The City of London sought to recover unpaid NDR from RWHL as the owner (the person entitled to possession). The High Court ruled that RWHL remained the owner for rating purposes because the lease still subsisted, and a CVA cannot unilaterally terminate proprietary rights or force a surrender on a landlord.
“It is well-established that, while a CVA may make an arrangement or composition as between a company and its creditors (that is their rights inter se as debtor and creditor), a CVA cannot remove or vary a proprietary right, such as the right to forfeit of a company’s landlord. … Such a scheme cannot impose a surrender of a lease on the landlord, because that would interfere with a proprietary interest. … Notwithstanding the terms of the CVA and the arrangements made as between the landlord and RWHL as creditor and debtor respectively, the lease subsisted. Unless and until surrendered, only RWHL remained immediately entitled to possession of the shop.”
Consultations
Corporate Civil Enforcement Reform Consultation
The Insolvency Service has published the Corporate Civil Enforcement Reform Consultation (Consultation) which seeks views on a number of options that would update the existing corporate civil enforcement (Enforcement) regime administered by the Insolvency Service and add new flexibilities for dealing with varying degrees of corporate abuse.
The Consultation sets out a range of proposals that fall into three main categories:
- Structural Reforms: Modernising the existing Enforcement framework by introducing additional tools to enhance flexibility and improve efficiency. These measures would enable government to address a broader range of corporate abuse while supporting more proportionate and targeted responses to lower-level misconduct. They also aim to accelerate enforcement processes, speeding up the removal of individuals responsible for corporate abuse and strengthening protections for the public and the marketplace.
- Information Gathering Powers: Strengthening powers to seek and gather the information necessary to support effective and efficient investigations into corporate abuse. This ensures the regime is fit for purpose, particularly in light of new powers introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
- Procedural Changes: Improving and modernising the current director disqualification process to make it more efficient and responsive.
The closing date for responses to this Consultation is 16th June 2026.
The IPA is reviewing these proposals and will soon consult with members to ensure our final response represents the association as a whole.
Companies House
Companies House Upload Service
On 17 March 2026 the Insolvency Service issued a bulletin advising that the Upload Service at Companies House had been temporarily taken offline due to a technical issue. On 24 March 2026 Companies House confirmed that a fix had been applied to their Upload Service, and the system is now fully operational.
ID Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers
Companies House have announced the delayed implementation of mandatory presenter information and 3rd party agents filing to be registered as Authorised Corporate Service Providers (‘ACSPs’). These changes will now be no earlier than November 2026.
Companies House “By no earlier than November 2026 Companies House should be able to:
- make identity verification of the presenters a compulsory part of filing any document
- require third party agents filing on behalf of companies to be registered as an ACSP”
Companies House: increase in fees
From 1 February 2026, some of the Companies House fees changed. These included:
- incorporation digital filing fee will change to £100.
- confirmation statement digital filing fee will change to £50.
- voluntary strike off digital filing fee will change to £13.
Full list available here.
HMRC
HMRC Guidance – Check if and when you need to register as a tax adviser with HMRC
From 18 May 2026, HMRC will introduce an online registration system for agent services accounts. This will replace the current way to register.
Good news. Insolvency Practitioners are exempt from online registration –
“You will not need to register for an agent services account if you:
- are an employer or in-house tax team, running payroll for your own staff
- only deal with tax affairs within your own company group
- provide tax advice services for free (for example, charitable services or helping friends or family with tax)
- interact with HMRC on behalf of taxpayers because the law requires it, even if you get paid (for example, insolvency practitioners, some pension or investment firms)”
HMRC Guidance – Insolvency Practitioner’s Handbook
This HMRC handbook:
- is a new way to help you find the guidance and information that you need to carry out your role as an insolvency practitioner (IP).
- explains basic principles of how HMRC treats insolvent businesses.
- procedures which IPs are asked to follow when dealing with HMRC.
- also contains all the information from ‘Insolvency (VAT Notice 700/56)’. You can also read the HMRC IP bulletins for the latest news and updates on topics and issues that may affect you if you’re acting on behalf of a business or individual.
HMRC MVL Team Query Form
Effective Monday 2 February 2026, all enquiries to HMRC regarding Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (‘MVL’) cases must be submitted via the interactive MVL Team Query form.
HMRC has confirmed that any emails sent directly to the MVL team without using the form will not be actioned. The form takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. It consists of up to six sections, though the workflow adapts based on your specific responses.
Notice of Intended Dividend
While the form is titled a “Query” tool, it is the mandatory channel for delivering a Notice of Intended Dividend (‘NOID’) for MVL cases. HMRC has confirmed that Insolvency Practitioners (‘IPs’) should use the form’s attachment function to upload the NOID for MVL cases, which is considered sufficient for a liquidator to fulfil statutory requirements regarding the wording and delivery of the notice. Using this tool ensures the NOID reaches the correct department without the delays associated with manual email sorting. Upon submission, a file note and evidence of the submission must be saved to the case file to ensure a robust audit trail.
IPs should ensure that all staff and case managers are aware that the interactive form is now the sole point of contact for HMRC MVL matters.
Legislation
Increase to Protective Award – The Employment Rights Act 2025
For all dismissals taking effect on or after 6 April 2026, the maximum “Protective Award” for failing to comply with collective consultation obligations will double from 90 days’ pay to 180 days’ pay per affected employee.
Tribunals currently award a just and equitable period based on the default, with 90 days as the starting point for a total failure to consult. From 6 April 2026, the new ceiling is 180 days (approx. 6 months) of gross, uncapped pay. While the award doubles, the Insolvency Service (RPS) restrictions remain i.e., arrears of pay capped at 8 weeks (56 days) of pay, subject to the statutory weekly limit.
Make Work Pay: threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations
The UK Government is seeking views on the level and methods by which the new organisation-wide threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations might be set. The government is considering two options to set the new organisation-wide threshold:
- using a single fixed number in the range of 250 to 1,000.
- tiering this new obligation based on number of employees.
The consultation can be found here.
The IPA will keep members updated on the progress of these proposed changes by the government.
The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025
The Act took effect on 2 December 2025, modernising UK law by officially classifying digital assets like non-fungible-tokens and cryptocurrencies as personal property. This landmark legislation provides statutory clarity for the digital economy.
It is worth remembering that UKJT Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law addresses the way in which English insolvency law applies to digital assets. The Legal Statement concludes, amongst other things, that digital assets fall within the definition of property in the English Insolvency Act 1986, and that proprietary rights can be retained to digital assets held by insolvent estates. A valid statutory demand cannot yet, however, be served in respect of a debt of a digital asset.
Redundancy Payments Service
Guidance – Case set up guidance for insolvency practitioners
Guidance for Insolvency Practitioners who need to set up a case with the Redundancy Payments Service.
A few key takeaways –
“It is your responsibility to give the case reference number and the RP1 factsheet to all employees that are eligible to apply to us for a payment.”
“Do not submit an RP14 and RP14A without the case reference number. This will reduce the risk of duplicating a case.”
“Complete part four of the case set up template if you’re dealing with large numbers of redundancies or a complex case. Provide us with as much information as you can that may be relevant to the case. This will help us to prioritise and deal with this type of case more efficiently and quickly.”
Sanctions
Move to a single list for UK sanctions designations
The OFSI Consolidated List of Asset Freeze Targets has closed. The UK Sanctions List will be the only source for all UK sanctions designations. There are no changes to the structure of the current UK Sanctions List. Please ensure that your systems reflect this change.
OFSI webinar explains the move to a single list for UK sanctions designations. Slides are available on the guidance page.
UK Sanctions List Search Tool: User Guide
A user guide has been published to accompany the UK Sanctions List search tool. It sets out the functions and features of the search tool, how it works and how to use it.
The user guide helps to explain a number of features to help determine if a person, entity, or ship is included on the UK Sanctions List.
These include:
- Exact matches and partial matches of a search term
- Fuzzy searching
- Exact word or phrase
- Highlighting of search matches
- Multi-select filters
- Search URLs
- Results ranking
Scotland
Stage Three – Independent Review of Scotland’s Statutory Debt Solutions
The final report of the independent review of Scotland’s statutory debt solutions has now been published.
This publication sets out 52 recommendations to ensure Scotland debt solutions remain effective, accessible, and work well in a modern economy.
Notes for Guidance – Common Financial Tool
AiB will only require sight of supporting evidence/estimates if it has been determined that the spend will exceed £146.50 per month. This will decrease to £137 per month from 1 April to 30 June 2026.
Notes for Guidance – Bankruptcy
Update to section 13.6 – Distribution in respect of accounting period
A copy of the notification should be uploaded to the relevant account in BASYS within 14 days of issue, together with a certificate of posting to be included in the electronic Sederunt Book.
E&W Court
Guidance for Insolvency Practitioners using the Business & Property Courts in Manchester
The purpose of the guidance is to provide IPs with a list of practical steps to help facilitate the proper administration of the Courts and the conduct of hearings in the Manchester BPC.
Use of AI in preparing court documents
At its annual strategy meeting in January 2025, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) agreed to set up a working group examining the use of AI by legal representatives for preparing court documents. The Use of AI in Preparing Court Documents Working Group are holding an eight-week consultation, closing on 14 April 2026. More information can be found here.
Other
Funding the recovery – are insolvency and restructuring cases becoming uneconomic?
FromCounsel are inviting Insolvency Practitioners to take part in a short, anonymous survey. The survey takes approximately 7 minutes.
This is an opportunity to share candid feedback on the issues that matter to you in practice – and to ensure those views are heard.
Responses will inform FromCounsel’s ongoing conversations around best practice and future guidance and help shape the knowledge service it is launching for R&I professionals.
For further details about FromCounsel, please click here.
If you have any queries regarding any of the contents of this edition of Technical Insights, please do not hesitate to contact Ben Luxford, Technical Lead, by email: [email protected].