Of course, Ministers have had a few other things on their mind over the past year\u2026 but the landscape has not changed much since May 2018 when the 2017 report was published, so I would have hoped that the Insolvency Service would have anticipated realistic timescales back then.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So, if the above projects have not progressed as anticipated last year, what has the InsS achieved in 2018 and are they proposing any other outputs in the year ahead?<\/p>\n It all sounds a bit secret squirrel, but the report\u2019s overview emphasises the Service\u2019s investigatory work.\u00a0 It seems that their staff have identified and been referring \u201cpotential criminal offences by insolvency practitioners\u201d, they \u201chave been making effective use of information gathering powers to investigate areas of concern leading to a number of referrals to appropriate bodies\u201d and they have \u201cused our powers to undertake our own enquiries on a number of occasions\u201d.\u00a0 They expect to \u201creport on what we have found when we are able to, given the progress of the investigation\u201d.<\/p>\n Of course, this is going to be the focus of a lot of the Service\u2019s efforts.\u00a0 I found the report alarming: it states both that they are considering \u201cwhether or not to consult on a single regulator\u201d and that they are hoping to reach a position on \u201ca recommendation on whether or not to exercise the power\u201d to create a single regulator.\u00a0 So\u2026 could they decide on the single regulator question without consultation?!<\/p>\n In any event, however, they are expecting \u201cto publish shortly\u201d a \u201cformal call for evidence\u201d, so at least we may have an opportunity to contribute something.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t have a chance to blog on the subject, but I\u2019m sure the Service\u2019s September 2018 report on RPB monitoring did not pass you by.\u00a0 The report was pretty scathing about much of the monitoring of volume IVA providers and included many recommendations, largely focusing on the extents to which they felt RPBs should be investigating, and taking to task, IPs who appear to be failing: to provide appropriate advice; to pay fees and expenses from estates that are fair and reasonable; and to manage the ethical threats arising from relationships with introducers and service-providers.<\/p>\n The Service\u2019s 2018 Annual Report states that they are in the process of reviewing how the recommendations from the earlier review are being implemented by the RPBs and that this would inform their Single Regulator work \u2013 no threat there, then!<\/p>\n So\u2026 no sign of a revised Ethics Code, but we do learn about the JIC\u2019s work on revising SIPs.\u00a0 In their in-box at the moment are:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So, the Service\u2019s to-do list never gets any shorter, does it?\u00a0 And it seems to me that the usual project-management rule applies to insolvency projects: estimate the timescale and then double it!<\/p>\n In my next blog, I\u2019ll look at the complaints and monitoring stats\u2026 or I may get back to my 50 Things list\u2026<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I\u2019ll start my review of the Insolvency Service\u2019s Annual Review of IP Regulation in reverse order this year.\u00a0 Let\u2019s first look at the progress made on the InsS\u2019 2017 to-do list. Here\u2019s a comparison of items listed in their 2017 … Continue reading ![\"IS](\"https:\/\/thecompliancealliance.co.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/IS-2018.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n