Open consultation

Second Review of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 and the Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018 – Public Consultation

Published 14 July 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Ministerial Foreword

Minister McDougall

Economic growth is this government’s number one mission, and strengthening our economy is essential to securing long-term prosperity for the British people. Central to that is delivering economic confidence, encouraging businesses to invest, and removing the barriers that hold back new industries. Sustained economic growth helps raise living standards, supports good jobs across the country, and provides the revenue needed to fund our public services.

A world-class insolvency framework is an essential part of this. It provides businesses and investors with the confidence to take informed and proportionate risks, with the reassurance that there is a clear, fair and predictable process in place when things go wrong.

The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 and the Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018, ‘the Rules’, were introduced as part of a wider programme of modernisation with the goal to reduce unnecessary regulation and deliver better outcomes for creditors and other stakeholders. These goals have not changed, and while stability and predictability are essential features of a well-functioning insolvency regime, the Rules cannot stand still as the world moves on.

I am therefore pleased to publish this consultation to review the Rules. This is an important opportunity to make meaningful improvements to how the Rules work, identify disproportionate administrative or regulatory burdens, and seek greater efficiency without undermining the safeguards that are central to a fair and trusted system.

The consultation also reflects the need to modernise the Rules in response to changing economic and technological conditions. Advances in digital communication, artificial intelligence, and new forms of assets are reshaping how businesses operate and how financial information is created, shared and used. Our insolvency framework must be able to keep pace with these changes and deliver confidence to businesses and the public.

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to shaping the scope of this consultation. Their insights, drawn from day-to-day experience of working with the Rules, have been invaluable in helping to ensure that this review is focused on issues that really matter to stakeholders.

I encourage all those with an interest in insolvency — including practitioners, creditors, businesses, representative bodies and others — to engage with this consultation and share your views. Your responses will play a vital role in informing the government’s post-implementation review and shaping any future reforms.

By working together, we can ensure that the Rules continue to support economic resilience, encourage responsible risk-taking, and help deliver the government’s overarching mission of growth.

Blair McDougall MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Small Business and Economic Transformation)

Introduction

General information

The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 and the Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018, together referred to as ‘the Rules’, provide a detailed framework for the conduct of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 ‘the Act’.

The consultation will inform the government’s statutory post-implementation review ‘PIR’ report, explore options to reduce unnecessary burdens, gather feedback on potential improvements, and consider future developments that may impact upon the Rules.

Comments are welcome on individual rules as well as how well the Rules work as a whole. Further information as to the scope of the review is set out below.

The consultation will run for 12 weeks, and responses will inform the statutory PIR, which will be published by 6 April 2027.

Consultation details

Issued:                      14 July 2026

Respond by:            11:59pm on 6 October 2026

Enquiries to:           

Policy Team – Second Rules Review
Insolvency Service
Floor 16
1 Westfield Avenue,
Stratford, London
E20 1HZ

Email: policy.rules.review@insolvency.gov.uk

Consultation reference: Second Review of the Insolvency Rules 

Territorial extent

This consultation covers Great Britain.

This consultation covers the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 in England and Wales, and the Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018 in Scotland. Competency for insolvency and company law in Scotland are partly reserved and partly devolved. Where a proposal applies only to England and Wales, this is stated explicitly.

Any future amendments to other secondary legislation enacting other rules within the UK insolvency frameworks will be outside the scope of this consultation and would be taken forward separately.

Who this is for

This consultation is open to all, but will be of particular interest to:    

• Insolvency practitioners ‘IPs’
• Creditors and creditor organisations
• Debtors including directors of insolvent companies
• Recognised professional bodies
• Insolvency trade bodies
• Related professionals (lawyers, accountants)
• Academics
• Other interested parties with experience of using the Rules

How to respond

Email: policy.rules.review@insolvency.gov.uk

Write to:

Policy Team – Second Rules Review
Insolvency Service
Floor 16
1 Westfield Avenue,
Stratford, London
E20 1HZ

Online: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/R803RG/

To help us analyse responses efficiently and ensure accessibility, we ask that respondents do not submit responses in PDF format where possible. Please provide responses using the online questionnaire, Word document (.docx), or another editable text format.

Please keep responses to open questions succinct and include contact details (your name and either email address, postal address or telephone number) so that we can follow up if clarification is needed. When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation, and whether your responses cover England and Wales, Scotland or both.

Your response will be most useful if it is framed in direct response to the questions posed, although further comments and evidence are also welcome.

Confidentiality and data protection

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information legislation, primarily the:

• Freedom of Information Act 2000
• Data Protection Act 2018
• Environmental Information Regulations 2004

If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please say so clearly when you send your response to the consultation. It would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded by us as a confidentiality request.

We will summarise all responses and place this summary on the GOV.UK website. This summary will include a list of names or organisations that responded but not people’s personal names, addresses or other contact details.

We may share responses with other government officials responsible for insolvency policy across the UK including the Accountant in Bankruptcy for Scotland and Insolvency Service Northern Ireland.

See our privacy policy. personal information charter.

Responses provided during this consultation will be analysed to inform policy development. To support this process, we may use artificial intelligence ‘AI’ tools to assist with summarising feedback.

AI will only be used as an aid to human analysis; all final interpretations will be made by officials.

Quality assurance

This consultation has been carried out in accordance with the government’s Consultation Principles.

If you have any complaints about the consultation process (as opposed to comments about the issues which are the subject of the consultation) address them to:

Email: statistics@businessandtrade.gov.uk

Executive summary

The UK insolvency framework is well established and well regarded internationally. The Rules are a key element of that framework as they set out the procedural requirements for insolvency proceedings contained within the Act.

Regular review of the Rules is important to ensure they continue to support a modern, effective insolvency regime. The first Post Implementation Review ‘PIR’[1], published in 2022, incorporated feedback from the 2021 call for evidence. It concluded that, for the most part, the Rules are operating as intended, however some areas within the Rules were raised for possible change or clarification.

Since the first PIR, the government has continued to engage with stakeholders, published research (Creditors Voluntary Liquidation ‘CVL’[2], Individual Voluntary Arrangement ‘IVA’[3], Company Voluntary Arrangement ‘CVA[4], Insolvency Regulation[5]), provided updates and clarification on existing guidance, and revised the Rules via The Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026.[6] Where matters raised in the first PIR remain relevant and unresolved, stakeholder responses on potential rule changes are included in this consultation.

The consultation also aims to identify and explore options to address any unnecessary administrative or regulatory burdens, and to consider future developments that may impact the Rules.

Section 1 of this consultation focuses on the statutory elements of the PIR. This includes whether the Rules remain fit for purpose, and opportunities to reduce burdens in the following areas: medium, small and micro businesses, uncontested court applications, Gazette notices, exchanging information within insolvency proceedings, IP fee estimates, better use of guidance, and increasing consistency across the Rules.

Section 2 considers a range of potential future changes to the Rules. The topics build on stakeholders’ responses from the first PIR in 2022, along with research and feedback received in the interim period. The government is not consulting on preferred options but seeking to gather a wide range of opinions and potential solutions that may improve the functioning of the Rules for the benefit of stakeholders. Consultation responses will help inform the government’s position on what change, if any, is needed for each specific area. Topics include:

• Deemed consent for electronic delivery of information
• Inviting creditors to form committees
• Processing personal data
• Out of court appointments of administrators
• Small debt provisions
• Employee debts
• IP fee approval where CVL creditors do not vote
• Fees for replacement IPs
• Decision-making timelines
• Opting out of correspondence
• Inflationary uplifts to financial thresholds set out in the Rules
• Impacts on the Rules of changes to other areas

Section 3 examines how to future-proof the Rules. It is a forward look to consider how the Rules might need to adapt to accommodate emerging issues to ensure continued effectiveness in a rapidly changing world. It covers advancements in technology and artificial intelligence, as well as digital assets and cryptocurrencies.

All consultation responses will be carefully reviewed before any decisions are made on whether to proceed with changes to the Rules. The government’s response to the consultation will be in the form of a PIR report that will be laid in Parliament and published on legislation.gov.uk before 6 April 2027. Rule changes identified as necessary in the report will be implemented via secondary legislation. Proportionate appraisal of any changes identified as part of the PIR will be conducted in line with the better regulation framework.

This consultation does not seek views on the Act, nor any other areas of law. Changes to the Rules must comply with the primary legislation contained within the Act. Should the government’s response identify that the Rules cannot remain effective without amendments to the Act, changes to the Act would be progressed separately, when parliamentary time allows.

Government approach to the second post-implementation review of the Rules

Background

The insolvency regime plays a pivotal role in the UK economy, facilitating the rescue of viable but struggling businesses, and the orderly exit of failed businesses from the marketplace. It provides access to debt relief for individuals facing problem debts and preserves value for creditors through a fair and timely distribution of assets. It supports public confidence in the economy through transparency of insolvency processes, safeguards to deal with and deter abuse and, for those who are or may become creditors, information to properly assess risk.

The legislative foundation for the insolvency regime is set out largely in the Act, with provisions on how the Act should be applied in practice set out in accompanying rules and regulations.

The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 ‘England and Wales Rules’ set out the detailed procedure for the conduct of insolvency proceedings in England and Wales. The Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018 ‘the Scotland Rules’ set out the detailed procedure for conduct of Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration proceedings in Scotland. The Scotland Rules cover the operation of the Act in Scotland for those policy areas which are reserved to the competence of the UK Government.

The Rules provide a detailed framework for the conduct of insolvency proceedings, for example by setting out the duties of office-holders, creditor and debtor rights and obligations, the role of courts, the orderly collection and distribution of assets, and the timeframe to complete proceedings.

The Rules represent the most significant pieces of legislation in respect of operation of the insolvency regime after the Act itself. The Rules are well used, familiar to the sector, and bring the benefits of certainty and stability that help make the UK an attractive place to do business. The Rules are not intended to cover every possible eventuality, particularly as office-holders are qualified, bonded, and regulated professionals.

The England and Wales, and the Scotland Rules are closely aligned to provide a cohesive and consistent insolvency framework. The Rules in their current form consolidated and modernised earlier insolvency rules and the accompanying legislation that had developed since 1986. The re-cast rules aimed to provide a simpler, more accessible set of rules than existed previously. The primary purpose of the consultation is to inform the Secretary of State’s report covering the statutory requirements of the PIR report due to be published by April 2027. The PIR will assess the extent to which the objectives of the Rules are being achieved, and whether those objectives remain appropriate to meet the expectations of an efficient and effective insolvency framework for 2027 and beyond. Our starting point, based on feedback and research, is that the Rules are necessary for the effective functioning of the insolvency framework, and the first PIR in 2022 found that the objectives of the Rules had been achieved. There have been no major legal, operational, or policy changes since publication of the 2022 PIR.

However, the Rules cannot remain unchanged as the world moves on. Communication, technology, culture, and the day-to-day realities of personal and corporate finance continues to change at pace. It is crucial that the Rules are reviewed and amended where necessary.

Earlier in 2026 stakeholders provided detailed and valuable representations regarding the proposed scope of this consultation, including many very specific technical issues within the Rules. Some of these have been addressed via The Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026 which introduced measures to modernise language, removed references to outdated technology, amended references, and clarified expectations to improve user experience. An explanation of the changes is provided in Annex B.

Scope of this consultation

The consultation will inform the government’s upcoming PIR report, explore options to reduce unnecessary burdens in the Rules, gather feedback on potential improvements, and consider future developments that may impact upon the Rules.

The Rules are a necessarily complex area of law embedded in the existing operational systems of insolvency, legal, and financial industries. They have been in use for a number of years without significant change. Reducing administrative and regulatory ‘burdens’ derived from the Rules will need care and precision.

The Rules must accommodate different types of insolvency proceedings, classifications of creditor, and jurisdictions. The government recognises that change itself is a burden. The scope of the consultation will be limited to areas within the Rules where changes could deliver meaningful real-world benefits. The government will take a holistic approach to ensure that future changes deliver the intended benefits, with particular care taken where those benefits could be offset by a loss of consistency.

The government is pursuing an active policy agenda to maintain a world-leading insolvency framework. Some topics have been excluded to minimise duplication with other workstreams, such as policy development following a call for evidence on the personal insolvency framework.[7] Where consultation responses overlap, the government will take a pragmatic approach on the most effective vehicle for addressing concerns.

Even where no change is proposed, seeking views helps ensure that the government’s position is proportionate and responsive, and that any future research, guidance, or legislative intervention can be properly targeted as and when justified.

The consultation questions indicate whether they apply to one or both sets of rules for England and Wales, and Scotland. Respondents are similarly asked to indicate if their responses are in respect of England and Wales, Scotland or both.

The government is aware that both the court structure and the titles for members of the judiciary in Schedules 6 and 10 of the Rules is outdated. A wider review of these schedules and their content will be undertaken separately in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice.

The government is aware that changes to the England and Wales Rules have not been applied to the Scotland Rules. Remaining updates to the Scotland Rules will be delivered alongside changes resulting from this PIR.

The scope of the consultation will be limited to the two specified statutory instruments: Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 and the Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018. Primary legislation (such as the Act) and any other secondary legislation (rules and regulations), including special administration regimes, are excluded from this consultation. Statements of Insolvency Practice and other government or regulatory guidance is similarly out of scope of this consultation.

Respondents should bear in mind that the Rules clarify and provide detail to the Act, and that the law should be read holistically. When read in this manner, apparent discrepancies often fall away, and the correct interpretation is clear.

Filter questions

Name.

Contact details.

Are you responding with views on behalf of an organisation? Yes/No

If Yes, please supply details of the organisation.

Which category best describes you as a respondent?

• Insolvency practitioner
• Creditor or creditor organisation
• Debtor including directors of insolvent companies
• Recognised professional bodies
• Insolvency trade bodies
• Related professionals (lawyers, accountants)
• Academics
• Government departments
• Other interested parties
• Members of the public

Do your responses cover England and Wales, or Scotland, or both?

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please tell us, but please be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality in all circumstances.

Section 1 Post-implementation review

Section 1 covers both England and Wales, and Scotland

The legal requirement for PIRs helps ensure that regulations with significant regulatory impact on business only remain in force where they are necessary, have the intended effect, and any associated costs to business are appropriate.

The requirements of a PIR report are set out in the Rules. The report must:

• set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the regulatory system established by the Rules
• assess the extent to which those objectives are achieved
• assess whether those objectives remain appropriate, and if so, the extent to which they could be achieved with a system that imposes less regulation

Part 1.1 of the consultation will consider the statutory elements of the PIR and focuses on the impact of the Rules on the insolvency framework. Part 1.2 will consider opportunities to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden of the Rules.

Part 1.1 Post-implementation review

The government is seeking information regarding the impact that the Rules have had, and the way that they have worked, with reference to their objectives as explained below. While all evidence will be helpful, practical examples and personal experiences in dealing with the Rules over the last 5-year period will be particularly useful.

Our starting point is that the first PIR in 2022 found the Rules are necessary for the effective functioning of the insolvency framework, and that the Rules as a whole work well.

The Rules are not intended to explicitly cover every possible event. Office-holders are qualified insolvency professionals working under the oversight of the courts. However, the regulatory system may be affected if the Rules do not adequately provide the means by which to resolve situations that may arise. Respondents should raise any issues where, if the matter is left unaddressed, there is a realistic possibility that the operation of the regulatory system will be adversely affected, such as any significant gaps that exist in the law, any contradictions in the law, and other matters that threaten the Rules’ ability to provide a coherent framework for insolvency proceedings. As the Rules have not changed significantly since the first PIR in 2022, respondents are asked to provide compelling evidence if reporting that the Rules are adversely affecting the regulatory system in a material way.

Any responses pertaining to potential improvements to the Rules that would not meet the threshold of ‘adversely affecting the regulatory system’ should be answered in question 39.

The objectives of the Rules are detailed in the explanatory memorandums published during their implementation, and can be summarised as follows;

Objective 1 – Providing the detailed procedural frameworks for the Insolvency Act for England and Wales and Parts 1 and 2 of the Insolvency Act for Scotland.

Objective 2 – To consolidate the respective rules from the 1986 Rules in both England and Wales, and Scotland with previous rule amendments.

Objective 3 – To implement changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 effected by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

Objective 4 – To modernise the Rules.

When assessing the extent to which the objectives have been achieved, no detailed analysis is required for objectives 1, 2 and 3 listed above. The Act (as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015, and Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015) remains in force. The Act continues to require the procedures for insolvency processes to be laid out in the Rules. That the Rules consolidated previous amendments, and implemented the changes made to the primary legislation, was reviewed and determined as being successfully achieved in the 2022 PIR.

The fourth objective was assessed in the 2022 PIR and found that, when introduced, the Rules achieved the objective of modernisation through the introduction of new policies that;

• provide for electronic communication between office-holders and creditors
• permitted the use of websites to communicate certain information
• simplified time periods for progress reports in insolvency cases
• improved protection for personal information of customers and employees in statements of affairs, which are filed with the registrar of companies
• removed the need to use prescribed forms to communicate certain information

Question 1. The first post-implementation review in 2022 found the Rules are necessary for the effective functioning of the insolvency framework, that the Rules met their objectives, and that the Rules as a whole work well. Is that view still true? Yes/No. If No, please explain your answer.

Question 2. Are the objectives of the Rules the right ones for an effective insolvency regime? Yes/No. If No, please explain your answer.

Part 1.2 Reducing administrative and regulatory burdens

A PIR requires the Secretary of State to consider the extent to which the objectives of the Rules could be achieved with a system that imposes less regulation. The scope of ‘burden reduction’ for the purposes of this consultation is set purposefully wide. It covers both changes that would directly support the government’s aim of reducing regulatory burden on business, and the overall administrative burden on all users of the Rules. We are seeking to identify opportunities to reduce the time and costs borne by those involved in insolvency proceedings, whilst maintaining the policy intent of the Rules.

Consistency and stability minimise burdens by increasing certainty for both the insolvency industry, and those investing and doing business in the UK. A suggested improvement from one stakeholder, or group of stakeholders, may bring additional burdens for other users of the Rules.

Here we seek to identify opportunities for reducing burdens across a number of broad areas:

• medium, small and micro businesses
• uncontested court applications
• Gazette notices
• information exchange
• fee estimates
• better use of guidance
• increasing consistency within the Rules

Feedback is particularly welcome on whether the real-world impact of future changes would exceed the effort needed to implement change, and any unforeseen consequences that could arise as a result. Respondents’ views are also welcome on any other areas of the Rules where changes could reduce burden.

1.2.1 Medium, small and micro businesses ‘MSMBs’

Approximately 99 per cent of businesses in the UK are small (10-49 employees) or micro-businesses (0-9 employees). The government has committed to considering whether the impacts of regulatory changes will fall disproportionately on them, and whether such businesses could be exempted from regulation, or the impacts mitigated in some way without compromising policy objectives. The Better Regulation Framework[8] also seeks to consider whether medium-sized businesses (in the range 50 to 499 employees) might also be exempted or granted mitigations to reduce the impact of regulatory burden.

Regulation can place a disproportionate burden on MSMBs, particularly where new or amended requirements are introduced. This is because many of the compliance costs associated with meeting regulatory requirements are fixed, regardless of business size. These costs therefore represent a larger share of overall expenditure for smaller businesses, which are also less likely to have dedicated staff or resources to manage regulatory requirements.

As a result, MSMBs may need to spend significant time and money understanding, implementing, complying with, recording and reporting on new regulations. Unlike larger organisations, MSMBs are less able to spread these costs across higher volumes of activity, meaning the average cost of compliance may be higher for smaller businesses. Private individuals, such as customers, employees, friends and family members of debtors, would not meet the definition of a MSMB, but are also likely to face similar challenges to MSMBs in navigating and complying with the Rules.

The government recognises that there is a policy tension for the Rules when considering how best to minimise the burden on MSMBs. The Rules need to provide for a wide range of procedures, across different jurisdictions, whilst remaining as simple, streamlined, and consistent as possible for all users.

Respondents are invited to provide feedback on whether aspects of the current Rules may place a disproportionate burden on MSMBs, and if so, whether there may be opportunities to make changes to the Rules to reduce those burdens. Any potential impact, positive or negative, on other stakeholders, particularly those with limited expertise and resources, should be considered.

Question 3. Do the Rules place a disproportionate burden on businesses with less than 500 employees? Yes/No. If Yes, to what extent could the Rules be changed to address this? Please give details to explain your answer.

1.2.2 Uncontested court applications

Court applications play an important role in insolvency by providing judicial oversight, ensuring proceedings are lawful and fair, and safeguarding the interests of creditors, debtors, and other stakeholders. This oversight promotes confidence in the insolvency regime, particularly where decisions are complex, contested or have significant consequences. The ability to seek court directions ensures that the Rules can adapt flexibly to the practical complexities that arise from unique or novel circumstances. The court also acts as a safeguard against misuse of insolvency processes or inappropriate use of powers.

However, not all court applications present the same level of risk or require the same degree of judicial decision making. Where applications are uncontested, procedural, or routine, and do not involve material judicial discretion, the case for mandatory court involvement is weaker. In such instances, it may be possible to achieve the policy objectives of transparency, fairness and legal certainty through alternative mechanisms.

Reducing or removing requirements for routine uncontested applications, where the court is not adding a necessary level of oversight or protection, could help ensure that court involvement is focused where it adds most value; such as resolving disputes, approving significant or contentious actions, or addressing procedural misuse. Any change would need to maintain effective oversight while reducing unnecessary cost, delay and burden, and supporting a more efficient overall system of regulation.

We are seeking stakeholder views on the benefits and proportionality of court involvement, particularly where they support administrative functions. We are also interested in whether alternative approaches could reduce burdens while maintaining appropriate safeguards, and how these might operate.

Question 4. Are there any court applications required by the Rules where court involvement does not add a necessary protection? Please give details to explain your answer.

1.2.3 Gazette notices

The Gazette has been the UK’s official journal of record since 1665 and consists largely of statutory notices that members of the public can search for and download free of charge.[9] Most notices placed in the Gazette relate to corporate and personal insolvency or deceased estates. Notices are placed by registered and verified persons acting in an official capacity (such as office-holders) who have the authority to create an official record of fact.

Publication in the Gazette constitutes formal legal notice to creditors and the wider public, often triggering statutory deadlines. A wide range of matters must be gazetted during insolvency proceedings to ensure transparency and provide notice to interested parties including (but not limited to):

• Winding up petitions and orders
• Bankruptcy orders
• Appointment of office-holders
• Creditors’ meetings and decision procedures
• Dividend distribution

In most cases, the Gazette requires a fee to be paid.[10] Depending on the circumstances of each insolvency case, Gazette notices can add up to several thousands of pounds. These costs are borne by the insolvency estate, so any money spent on Gazette notices reduces the amount available to repay creditors.

The Rules standardise both the content and format of notices and set out the detailed requirements for office-holders to Gazette notices. While digital systems have modernised how notices are submitted and accessed, the underlying legal position remains unchanged: gazetting is still central to procedural compliance.

Stakeholders have expressed differing views on the use of Gazette notices in insolvency proceedings. Some question whether Gazette notices remain proportionate to the costs, others viewing it as a useful searchable permanent record.

The government is seeking evidence to evaluate whether changes to the Rules on Gazette notices would bring benefits to stakeholders.

Question 5. Are there any Gazette notices required by the Rules that do not add value, and if so what if any changes to the Rules could address this?

1.2.4 Information exchange

The Rules provide detailed protocols for the effective exchange of information between parties in insolvency proceedings. This includes correspondence between debtors, office-holders, courts and creditors. Communication methods permitted within the Rules to exchange information have embraced a range of modern business practices.

The government is seeking to better understand how well the Rules on information exchange between parties are operating in practice, and whether they give rise to unnecessary burdens, friction or inefficiencies. Stakeholder feedback suggests that, while the existing framework generally enables the provision of information to creditors, there are a number of practical challenges that may affect how effectively that information can be accessed, understood, and used in practice.

Large volumes of material can make it difficult for creditors to identify what is most relevant to their interests. The timing and frequency of communications can also influence how useful information is in practice. The government is particularly interested to hear creditors’ opinions as to whether the Rules strike the right balance between completeness and usability. NB: The use of creditor opt out provisions are considered separately in section 2 of this consultation.

Respondents are invited to share their experiences of how information provided by office-holders is received and used in practice. In particular, whether creditors consider the information they receive to be proportionate, relevant and accessible. This includes views on whether communications are too limited or overly detailed, whether they contain irrelevant or repetitive material, and whether the format, timing and level of complexity support effective engagement. Feedback is also sought on the extent to which information is clear, easy to navigate, and presented in a way that meets user needs, including whether it is accessible in formats such as easy-read or machine-readable versions, and whether more streamlined or self-service approaches could improve usability.

Question 6. If you are a creditor, what barriers do you face in how you use information from office-holders, and how might these be addressed?

The introduction of notices issued via websites is generally viewed as a success. Extending communication via websites to debtors and creditors is out of scope for this consultation. However, views are sought on expanding the provision of information via websites to qualified IPs acting before their appointment as office-holders.

Where notices need to be sent by post, the government seeks views of whether or not the Rules should be updated to reflect the introduction of additional Royal Mail services intended to provide postal delivery as fast or faster than first class, and/or to reflect competition in the letter delivery industry, so as to permit postal delivery by other delivery service providers. Views are also sought on whether additional safeguards might be needed to prevent any conflict or ambiguity concerning the deemed delivery date of postal notices sent by alternative methods.

Question 7. To what extent could the Rules be amended to ensure stakeholders receive the information they want and/or need during insolvency proceedings?

1.2.5 Insolvency practitioner fee estimates

It is right that creditors both understand and approve the fees that IPs earn. The government believes there should be complete transparency in relation to remuneration and costs at an early stage, to provide creditors and other interested parties with confidence in the regime. However, a number of respondents to the first PIR in 2022 commented that the level of detail required of an office-holder in providing a meaningful fee estimate to creditors absorbs significant resource, making the fee approval process both lengthy and costly. Any funds used to generate IP fee estimates reduces the amount of money available to creditors.

The government is keen to understand from creditors whether the Rules on IP fee estimates are working well for them, and whether the reports they receive provide valuable information to enable them to understand, monitor and where appropriate challenge IP fees.

Question 8. If you are a creditor, to what extent are IP fee estimates helpful in providing the information you need to understand, monitor and/or challenge IP fees?

1.2.6 Better use of guidance

Government guidance can help reduce burdens by moving routine explanatory material out of prescriptive rules and into accessible and easily updated guidance. Better use of guidance may help to make requirements easier to understand and apply, reduce duplication, and support more consistent practice, while maintaining the legal protections and policy objectives that underpin the Rules.

Guidance already plays an important role in insolvency practice, particularly in promoting consistency and professional standards for office-holders. However, stakeholders have raised concerns that the prescriptive nature of the Rules may lead to ‘information overload’ for creditors, which could negatively impact effective creditor engagement. This may be particularly relevant where information is explanatory rather than where responses are required, or where different users require different levels of detail.

Since GOV.UK was launched in 2012, it has become a trusted source of information for UK citizens, and a key part of the government’s digital infrastructure with 2.3 billion page views in 2025. Therefore, the government wishes to explore whether any of the information currently required to be provided by an office-holder to the creditors, could instead be provided centrally, with GOV.UK links to access additional information where appropriate.

Any such approach would need to ensure that core statutory information continues to be provided to all creditors and that transparency and confidence in insolvency processes are maintained.

In addition, respondents are invited to provide feedback on whether any elements within the Rules themselves might be better conveyed via government guidance.

Question 9. To what extent could the Rules be improved by the better use of guidance?

1.2.7 Improving the consistency of the Rules

The government recognises the importance of consistency across the Rules in promoting clarity, efficiency and fairness. Aligning procedures, language, and structure helps provide certainty for IPs, debtors, creditors and other stakeholders, reduces the risks of procedural error, and supports predictable outcomes.

However, full uniformity is neither achievable nor appropriate. Under the devolution settlement, responsibility for insolvency law is shared between the UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament. Personal insolvency is devolved, while corporate insolvency includes both reserved and devolved elements. The Scotland Rules align closely with the England and Wales Rules where possible, but differences remain to reflect Scotland’s distinct legal system and court processes.

There are also purposeful differences between insolvency procedures within each jurisdiction. For example, different types of debtors, how the insolvency is triggered, and whether they are rescue or terminal proceedings, means that some variation within the Rules is necessary. Therefore, a fully harmonised approach would not be appropriate.

We are seeking views on whether any remaining differences within or between the England and Wales Rules and the Scotland Rules are unnecessary, unclear, or create avoidable complexity in practice.

Question 10. Are there any remaining differences within or between the Rules which are unnecessary, unclear, or create avoidable complexity in practice? Yes/No. If Yes, please explain your answer.

Please note that this question is limited to consistency between the two sets of Rules subject to this consultation. Inconsistences between the Rules and other legislation should be answered in question 29.

Additional options to reduce burden

The government is keen to identify further opportunities to reduce unnecessary administrative and regulatory burdens arising from the Rules.

Respondents are encouraged to think broadly about how the objectives of the Rules could be achieved in a more streamlined and proportionate way. This may include incremental improvements, more substantial reforms, or entirely different approaches to how procedural requirements are delivered.

We welcome views on any aspect of the Rules that could transform stakeholder experience, simplify processes, reduce costs, improve efficiency, remove duplication, or make the Rules easier to understand and operate in practice.

Question 11. To what extent could other changes be made, to achieve the objectives of the Rules with a system that imposes less regulation?

Section 2 Future rule changes

Section 2 covers specific areas where stakeholders indicate that the Rules are not working as well as they could. They include feedback received via:

• the first PIR in 2022
• complaints and correspondence
• suggestions for change made directly to the Insolvency Service
• early engagement with stakeholders on the draft scope of this consultation

The government is not proposing new policies but is keen to gather responses from a wide range of stakeholders, to help inform whether any future changes might improve how the Rules work. Respondents are encouraged to consider whether these areas are presenting significant operational challenges, as well as any potential unintended consequences or safeguards, that may need to be accounted for before any changes are made.

Each part of section 2 should be considered independently.

2.1 Deemed consent for electronic delivery of information

Part 2.1 applies to England and Wales rules 1.45 and 1.48, and Scotland rules 1.41 and 1.43.

We are seeking to update the Rules to better reflect modern methods of communication. At present, the framework for delivering documents is rooted in more traditional methods, such as post, and does not fully accommodate the widespread and routine use of electronic communication. The Rules require the intended recipient of a document to have given the office-holder actual or deemed consent.

Deemed consent, in the context of electronic delivery of documents in insolvency proceedings, is where the intended recipient and the person who is the subject of the insolvency proceedings had customarily communicated with each other by electronic means before the proceedings commenced. The Rules require office-holders to include a statement that the recipient may request a hard copy of the document and a telephone number, email address, and postal address that may be used to make that request. They also provide recipients with the option for consent to be withdrawn and provide further context to determine whether consent has been revoked.

Stakeholders have reported that these rules can create uncertainty about whether electronic communication is valid, in particular around establishing what ‘customary’ means for deemed consent. The requirement to include statements on the detailed process to request hard copies in every email, also appears out of step with the normal expectations of conducting financial correspondence in 2026. As a result, office-holders, recipients, and creditors may face unnecessary burdens, which in turn increases the time and costs of insolvency cases.

The government is therefore considering modernising the Rules to change the deemed consent provisions for electronic communication such as:

• applying deemed consent where the intended recipient has, either before or after the commencement of proceedings, provided an electronic address to the debtor or the office-holder
• applying deemed consent for companies where an electronic address is provided via publicly-available “contact us” information
• removing or changing the Rules to simplify the statement on how to request hard copy documents
• replacing the Rules on how to request hard copy documents with guidance available on GOV.UK

The underlying policy that electronic communication requires consent would not change. The ability to revoke consent will remain, as will the requirement for office-holders to provide hard copy documents free of charge within 5 business days.

Question 12. To what extent could the Rules on deemed consent for the electronic delivery of documents be amended?

2.2 Creditors committees

Part 2.2 applies to rules 3.39, 6.19, and 10.76 England and Wales, and Scotland rule 3.39.

The Act gives creditors and contributories (anyone who is liable to contribute to a company’s assets in the case of winding up) the right to establish a committee. These committees are called creditors’ committees in administration, administrative receivership, and bankruptcy proceedings. In creditors’ voluntary liquidation and compulsory liquidation, they are called liquidation committees.

Committees represent the interests of creditors as a whole during insolvency proceedings. They serve as a link between the office-holder and creditors, keeping creditors informed about the insolvency proceedings, providing industrial insights, and ensuring the office-holder remains accountable in carrying out their functions. Committees vote to approve decisions such as office-holder remuneration (fees). The opportunity to elect a committee is a key right given to creditors, so it is important to ensure that the Rules provide a clear, concise and efficient procedure to facilitate this engagement. However, during the first PIR, a number of concerns were raised about how the current framework operates in practice.

Respondents indicated that committees are relatively uncommon across insolvency cases, although they are considered to be a useful tool where creditor engagement is higher, particularly in larger insolvencies. A consistent theme was that in cases where no committee has been formed, the requirement to invite creditors to form a committee each time a decision is sought may be unnecessarily repetitive and burdensome. Creditors typically decide at the outset whether they wish to establish a committee, and repeated invitations rarely result in committees being formed later in the process. This has led to views that the requirement to keep inviting creditors to form a committee adds to the expenses of insolvency proceedings without providing a clear benefit to creditors.

Practical issues have also been raised about the effectiveness of the process. For example, creditors may vote in favour of forming a committee, but fail to nominate sufficient eligible members, meaning that committees cannot be constituted in practice. In light of the issues identified, the government is seeking feedback on possible improvements to the Rules.

The underlying policy that creditors have the right to form a committee and that office-holders must inform them of that right will not change. Nor will there be changes to the formation or functions of committees.

Question 13. To what extent could the Rules about creditor and liquidation committees be improved?

2.3 Processing personal data

Part 2.3 applies across both England and Wales Rules and Scotland Rules.

In the UK, data protection is governed by the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Everyone responsible for using personal data must follow strict rules called ‘data protection principles’ unless an exemption applies. The processing and disclosure of personal data is permitted where this is necessary to comply with a legal obligation. The insolvency framework, including the Rules, provide a legal basis for office-holders to lawfully process and disclose personal data.

Insolvency proceedings can involve the disclosure and sharing of personal data relating to a wide range of individuals including personal details of non-corporate creditors such as employees, self-employed contractors, customers, friends, family and sole traders, as well as the company officers and shareholders of insolvent companies. During the first PIR, respondents questioned whether the current approach within the Rules to the processing and disclosure of personal data in insolvency proceedings remains appropriate. Concerns centred on both the disclosure of creditor information in the statement of affairs documentation required to be filed on the publicly accessible Companies House website and the sharing of personal information between creditors of each insolvency case. At that time, the government considered that the balance struck by the Rules between the interests of relevant parties and the effective administration of insolvency proceedings remained appropriate.

Creditors play a central role in determining how insolvency proceedings are conducted. This may include decisions relating to the appointment of the office-holder and the approval of their remuneration. There are also circumstances in which creditors may need to communicate with one another in order to make collective representations or to advance alternative proposals regarding the conduct of the proceedings. Creditors are also entitled to understand the wider creditor position. This includes the ability to identify other creditors of the insolvent entity and to review and, where appropriate, challenge the value of claims submitted.

While transparency and creditor engagement are important features of the insolvency framework, there are circumstances where the disclosure of personal information can create risks of harm, distress or vulnerability for particular individuals.

The Rules already provide specific safeguards, limiting disclosure of employee and consumer creditor details on the Companies House register. Office-holders may apply to the courts for an order restricting disclosure where information required to be included in a statement of affairs might reasonably be expected to lead to violence against any person. Insolvency Service guidance has been issued to office-holders to consider whether the sharing of information between creditors is appropriate in particular cases.

The government also recognises the practical challenges in identifying risks and applying current safeguards. In many cases, office-holders have limited information about an individual’s circumstances and may need to balance competing legal and operational requirements. Consumer creditors are unlikely to be aware of a pending insolvency, nor that their personal contact details will be disclosed through a statement of affairs. Once information has been disseminated to a potentially large number of recipients, any subsequent intervention is likely to have limited practical effect.

The government is therefore interested in understanding whether the current Rules strike the right balance between transparency and privacy, and whether additional safeguards may be appropriate. We welcome views on how the Rules could be improved to provide greater protection for individuals who may be at risk, while remaining practical, proportionate and workable in the context of insolvency proceedings.

The government is also considering how the Rules could better reflect the increased use of electronic communications. The requirement to disclose postal addresses presents modern day challenges. Business records increasingly contain only email or phone numbers in place of traditional postal contact details.

However, the need to balance the facilitation of creditor engagement with protection of personal data means that substituting one form of contact information for another may not provide a straightforward or risk-free solution. In particular, and in addition to data protection considerations, the publication of lists of email addresses relating to an insolvent business’s creditors may create increased risks of misuse by bad actors, including for the purpose of phishing activities, when compared with the disclosure of postal addresses.

The government is keen to gather stakeholder views on handling personal data in insolvency cases. Respondents are asked to carefully consider any unintended consequences.

Question 14. To what extent should the Rules on handling personal data in insolvency proceedings be amended?

Please note due to significant overlap with the Personal Insolvency Review, the processing and sharing of an individual debtors’ personal information is out of scope of this consultation.

2.4 Appointment of administrator by qualifying floating charge holders

Part 2.4 applies to England and Wales rules 3.20 to 3.22.

A qualifying floating charge holder ‘QFCH’ can appoint an administrator outside of court opening hours, by filing notice at a designated email address. Paragraph 19 of Schedule B1 to the Act says that the appointment takes effect when the conditions set out in paragraph 18 are met. This means that the appointment takes effect when the notice of appointment is filed with the court. In practice the appointment takes effect from the time and date the email is sent. HM Courts and Tribunals Service ‘HMCTS’ then forward a copy of the notice to the court which has jurisdiction over the case, so that it can be placed on the court file. Recent rules amendments have removed the provisions for filing notices by fax.[11]

Rule 3.20 to 3.21 requires the appointer to (amongst other things):

• create a hard copy of the email, see rule 3.20(5)(b)
• retain a hard copy of the email, see rule 3.20(6)
• take to the court, when next open for business, three hard copies of the email and the supporting documents, see rule 3.20(9)
• include an undertaking within the notice of appointment that they will take to the court, when next open for business, three hard copies of the email, see rule 3.21(1)(j)(ii)

The court seals the notices and endorses them with the date and time when, according to the hard copy of the email, the notice was sent, and the date when the notice and accompanying documents were delivered to the court.

Paragraph 19 of Schedule B1 establishes that the appointment takes effect from the date and time of the email. Rule 3.22 provides that it ceases to have effect if the requirements of rule 3.20(9) are not completed on the next occasion the court is open for business. Where any question arises in relation to the date and time that the notice of appointment was filed with the court, it is a presumption capable of rebuttal that the date and time shown on the hard copy of the email is the date and time at which the notice was filed.

The basic principle as to the date and time of the appointment is contained in the Act. The government is not seeking to change this nor the rights of a QFCH to make an appointment outside court opening hours. The government also accepts that it is necessary to retain documents to confirm the date and time of the appointor’s email to HMCTS, as this information is key to establishing when an appointment takes effect.

However, the creation, retention, and taking to court of hard copy (printed) emails appears to be an outdated concept given modern ways of working, particularly given the introduction of electronic filing ‘E-filing’ for some courts in England and Wales.

Therefore, the government is considering whether making amendments to these rules would reduce administrative burdens and bring the Rules into line with modern ways of working.

Question 15. To what extent should England and Wales rules 3.20 to 3.22 be amended to reflect modern ways of working?

2.5 Appointment of administrator by the company, or its directors

Part 2.5 applies to England and Wales rules 3.23 to 3.26.

The Rules provide a specific mechanism for a QFCH to make effective out-of-court administration appointments outside of court opening hours ‘out-of-hours’; rules 3.20 to 3.22. These rules require the court to be told the reasons for filing out-of-hours, including why not doing so would have been damaging to the company or its creditors. The Rules do not provide an equivalent out-of-hours procedure for out-of-court appointments by the company, or its directors.

Many courts in England and Wales accept electronic delivery of documents using the CE File ‘E-Filing’ system. The introduction of E-Filing appears to give the company or its directors the ability to file the notices needed to make an out-of-court appointment at any time. However, under Schedule B1 to the Act the appointment of an administrator is effective on filing the prescribed notices with the court.

Stakeholders have told us that the introduction of E-Filing has led to uncertainty regarding the validity of the appointment, when a company or its directors use this facility to make an out-of-court appointment and send the documents via E-Filing out-of-hours. Previously, the required documents could only be filed when the court was open.

The Rules do provide for the Civil Procedure Rules[12] and Practice Directions[13] to make provision for electronic filing, including filing made out-of-hours. However, the Rules are silent on whether sending the required documents via E-Filing out-of-hours would constitute “filing” for the purposes of effective out-of-hours appointment of an administrator by the company or its directors.

The courts have taken steps to minimise the impact of this issue by issuing temporary practice directions. These directions provide that a notice of appointment of an administrator by the company or its directors, sent to E-Filing out-of-hours, is treated as delivered to the court at 10am when the court is next open for business.

The government is considering whether it would be beneficial to clarify the Rules. For example, the company and its directors could continue to have the flexibility to send notices out-of-hours (where the court offers E-Filing), but the administrator’s appointment would not take effect until the court is next open. This would align with the temporary practice directions and should address the uncertainty around when an appointment takes place, without unduly restricting the current flexibility companies have in using E-Filing to send the notice to the court at a time of their choosing.

To ensure consistency within the Rules, any change would similarly apply to the E-Filing of notices of intention to appoint an administrator.

These changes would confirm the original policy position, whereby only a QFCH can make out-of-hours appointments.

Question 16. To what extent should England and Wales rules 3.23 to 3.26 be amended to provide clarity on the exact time at which notices filed via E-Filing are deemed to be effective?

We encourage responses that consider possible unintended consequences, and alternatives that could achieve a better result.

2.6 Small debt provisions

Part 2.6 applies to England and Wales rule 14.31 and Scotland rule 3.118

In insolvency proceedings, a proof of debt is the mechanism by which a creditor formally establishes and evidences their claim. Creditors are generally required to submit their claims in writing, providing sufficient detail to enable the office-holder to assess the amount and validity of the debt.

The insolvency framework includes a small debt provision. This removes the requirement for creditors owed up to £1,000 to submit a formal proof of debt. Instead, the office-holder may rely on the debtor’s records to determine the amount owed. Before making a payment, the office-holder must give the creditor an opportunity to tell them if the amount is wrong.

In practice, this means small creditors can still get paid (in full or in part) without having to fill in a formal proof of debt. It is meant to make dealing with small claims quicker and simpler, where the cost and effort of the full process would be out of proportion to the amount owed.

The current small debt threshold is £1,000. The government is seeking views on whether the small debt threshold remains appropriate. One possibility could be an increase in line with inflation, to help ensure that the small debt provisions continue to apply to a similar cohort of creditors. NB for further discussion on inflationary impacts please see Part 2.15

We are also interested in whether the threshold should be increased beyond an inflationary adjustment, in order to expand the benefits of the small debt provision to a broader group of creditors. Early this year, when seeking feedback on the draft scope of this consultation, one stakeholder has suggested raising the small debt limit to £3,000 so that it is in line with the Anti-Money Laundering threshold.[14]

Increasing the threshold would reduce the time spent by creditors to read, understand, prepare and submit proofs of debt. It would maximise returns to creditors by reducing the office-holder costs to review, admit and store the proofs of debt. This increased efficiency needs to be balanced against maintaining the integrity of insolvency proceedings, and ensuring creditors have confidence that they are treated fairly. We are interested in identifying the correct tipping point between these competing aims.

The underlying policy of having small debt provisions and the restriction of those provisions to cover only the payment of dividends are out of scope.

Question 17. To what extent should the Rules on small debts be amended?

2.7 Employee debts

Part 2.7 applies to England and Wales rule 14.31 and Scotland rule 3.118.

When businesses enter insolvency, typically there is insufficient money available to pay employees all of the money they are owed. The government recognises that the sudden loss of income can have a devastating impact on household finances. Redundancy Payments Service ‘RPS’ provides a statutory safety net, so that employees whose employer becomes insolvent receive a payment towards the money they are owed, even when there is not enough money for the office-holder to pay a dividend.

RPS can only pay employee debts, and the amounts are limited by the Employment Rights Act 1996. To receive a payment the employee must make a claim directly to RPS. The office-holder separately provides information to RPS confirming the debtor’s information for each employee, such as salary, start and end dates, and how much the employee is owed. RPS uses this information to verify how much can be paid under the statutory payments scheme. Once it has made a payment, RPS becomes a creditor in the insolvency proceedings for the amount it paid to the employee, and submits a proof of debt to the office-holder. The statutory limits mean that RPS payments do not always cover the full amount that an employee is owed by their insolvent employer. If this is the case, the employee may submit a proof of debt for any amounts still outstanding after their RPS payments have been received.

This three-way exchange of information appears burdensome, both to the office-holder and to the employee. One suggestion from the first PIR was that the small debt provisions be extended to include more employees of insolvent businesses.

One option would be to change the small debt provisions to include certain employee debts where all of the following apply:

• the employer’s records contain details of the employee debt
• the office-holder has provided this information to RPS
• RPS has submitted a proof of debt to show how much it has paid
• the office-holder has invited the employee to tell them if the amount is wrong

For example, an employee is owed wages, redundancy pay, arrears of pay, and notice pay; a total of £20,000. The employee submits a claim to RPS for these amounts. The office-holder confirms to RPS that these amounts are due. RPS makes statutory payments totalling £7,500 and submits a proof of debt to the office-holder. Currently the employee must submit a proof of debt to the office-holder for the additional £12,500. If the Rules were changed, the employee would not need to submit a proof of debt for the additional £12,500 and could receive a dividend under the small debt provision.

Respondents are invited to consider any and all possible options for improving how employee debts are handled between the office-holder, RPS, and employee creditors.

Question 18. To what extent could the small debt provisions be amended to improve how employee debts are handled?

2.8 IP fee approval where CVL creditors do not vote

Part 2.8 applies to England and Wales rule 18.23.

Creditors or committees vote to approve IP fees. The Act does not allow IP fees to be agreed by deemed consent. If no creditors vote the IPs fees are not approved.

Prior to commencement of the 2016 rules, IPs in CVLs could use Schedule 11 Scale to determine their fee. This option was removed to give creditors greater control and improve the transparency, as IP fees reduce the amount of money available to repay creditors. Now, if no creditors vote, the Rules provide for an IP to ask the court to set their fees.

IP stakeholders have described low levels of creditor engagement, particularly where a distribution is unlikely. In some cases, they report that IPs do not apply to the court. Instead, they may pursue creditors for votes, distribute funds without taking fees, or close cases without paying either fees or creditors. These approaches do not reflect the policy intent of the Rules.

One suggested solution is to introduce a statutory fee of £10,000. It should be noted that the CVL research commissioned by the government, along with information provided by the stakeholder, indicates that in approximately 50% of CVL cases, IP fees for CVL work are currently below £10,000. If this specific fee amount was applied, creditors in such cases would receive less money than they do currently.

Another option is to consider reintroducing scale for CVLs, where creditors choose to vote on a fee proposal. This would need careful consideration. It is not clear whether this would address the problem as CVL cases often have low levels of assets. The median value of assets realised is £5,798 for CVL cases.[15]

The Rules should ensure creditors have the means to engage where it is appropriate and important for them to do so. The underlying policy that IPs should seek creditor approval for their fees will not change. However, the government invites respondents to consider if, and how, the Rules could be amended to provide a more efficient outcome where no creditors vote to approve those fees.

Respondents are invited to consider any and all possible options including (but not limited to):

• no change; the rules provide a mechanism for securing IP fees in circumstances where no creditors vote, by way of application to court
• reintroduce scale; this would bring CVLs in line with bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation but may have limited impact given the low value of assets in many CVL cases
• introduce a statutory fee for CVL cases; this could impact on the consistency across different types of insolvency proceedings and potentially reduce creditor returns in cases where the new statutory fee exceeds the amount an IP would currently seek approval for
• explore possible changes to primary legislation

It should be noted that changes to primary legislation would be out of scope for the PIR of the Rules and would be dependent on securing parliamentary time for new primary legislation.

Question 19. What is the best way to set office-holder fees in a CVL when creditors do not vote to approve the fees?

2.9 Fees for replacement IPs

Part 2.9 applies to England and Wales rule 18.29.

An administrator, liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy is entitled to receive remuneration for services as office-holder. Equally, it is important that creditors and other interested parties with a financial interest in the estate have confidence that the rules relating to the approval of, and amendments to, office-holders’ fees and remuneration are applied consistently and appropriately.

Changes to the amount of remuneration (such as increasing a set fee, or the number of hours needed to complete a case) are permitted under the Rules, subject to approval by the committee, the creditors, or the court.

Rule 18.31 sets out that any decision, determination, resolution or court order continues to apply to the remuneration of the new office-holder until a further decision, determination, resolution or court order is made in accordance with those provisions. Rule 18.32 sets out the process for apportionment (sharing) of fees whenever an office-holder is replaced.

Changing the basis for fees (such as change from a set fee, to hours and rates) is restricted in rule 18.29 to those cases where ‘there is a material and substantial change in the circumstances which were taken into account in fixing it’. While this supports consistency and creditor certainty, IP stakeholders have indicated that practical challenges can arise where the office-holder who originally secured approval of the fee basis has been removed by creditors or the court and a newly appointed office-holder is required to work within the existing fee basis. IP stakeholders report that this can create operational difficulties, particularly where the inherited fee basis does not reflect the nature or requirements of the new office-holder’s work.

The government is interested in understanding the extent to which the current Rules create practical difficulties for IPs. It also invites views from a wide range of stakeholders, particularly creditors, on whether the removal of an office-holder should provide grounds for revisiting the basis of remuneration, and if so, what limits or safeguards might be appropriate.

Any changes to rule 18.29 would need to be carefully framed to ensure that it remains consistent with the underlying policy objective: that changes to remuneration should only be permitted where there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances, and with appropriate safeguards to protect creditor interests.

Question 20. To what extent should the removal and replacement of an office-holder provide grounds for revisiting the basis of remuneration?

2.10 Timelines in decision-making processes for approving CVAs

Part 2.10 applies to England and Wales rules 2.27 and Scotland rules 2.26.

Before a company can enter a CVA, the nominee (usually an IP) asks the creditors to vote on whether to agree to the proposed CVA. The England and Wales Rules 2.25 to 2.33 set out the process and timelines involved for creditors and shareholders to consider the CVA proposal. The Scotland Rules 2.24 to 2.32 set out the equivalent procedures for CVA proposals in Scotland.

Stakeholders in the first PIR 2022 reported that the required timeframe for reviewing, amending and approving CVA’s was very tight, 28 days from filing the nominee’s report with the court. The timeframe is designed to balance the need for creditors to have the opportunity to consider the proposal and seek amendments (including proposing a different supervisor) with the need to protect the value of available assets and provide the company with timely access to insolvency protections. Where a moratorium is in place, the timeline allows the supervisor to clarify the position of any creditors seeking remedies stayed by that order.

Therefore, the government is seeking to understand whether the timeline for decision procedures in rule 2.27 (England and Wales) and rule 2.26 (Scotland) are causing real-world problems for stakeholders, and if so, whether improvements could be made to the Rules that will not impact on the overall effectiveness of CVAs.

Question 21. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 2.27 and Scotland rule 2.26 be amended?

2.11 Timelines in decision-making processes for approving IVAs

Part 2.11 applies to England and Wales rule 8.22.

Before an individual debtor can enter an IVA the nominee asks creditors to vote on the proposal. Rules 8.22 and 8.23 set out the process and timelines involved for creditors to consider the IVA proposal before voting.

Stakeholders in the first PIR in 2022 reported that, similar to the CVA process in part 2.10 above, the required timeframe for reviewing, amending and approving IVAs were also very tight. The timeframe is designed to balance the need for creditors to have the opportunity to consider the proposal and seek amendments including proposing a different supervisor, with the need to protect the value of available assets and provide the debtor with timely access to debt relief. Where an interim order is in place, it allows the supervisor to clarify the position of any creditors seeking remedies stayed by that order.

Therefore, the government is seeking to understand whether the timeline for decision procedures in rule 8.22 is causing real-world problems for stakeholders, and if so, whether improvements could be made to the Rules that will not impact on the overall effectiveness of IVAs.

Question 22. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 8.22 be amended?

2.12 Timelines for nominating replacement liquidators

Part 2.12 applies to England and Wales rule 7.52.

Rule 7.52 sets out the timelines for nominating an IP to replace the OR as liquidator in compulsory winding-up. Creditors must be given 5 business days to nominate an IP.

Where nominations are received, rule 7.52 further stipulates that a decision on the nominations, either by decision procedure or deemed consent, must be no later than 21 days after the date for receiving proposals has passed. This 21-day period includes a 14-day notice period for creditors.

In the first PIR in 2022, stakeholders indicated that the overall timetable for progressing nominations and arranging a decision can be challenging in practice. These requirements were designed to ensure that decisions are taken in a timely manner and broadly reflect the 28-day time limits that previously applied under rule 4.57 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. However, the move away from physical meetings means that the overall 28-day timeframe from seeking nominations to holding the vote must now accommodate both the nomination period and the voting period.

As a consequence, the period available for creditors to seek alternative liquidators, secure the necessary consent, and submit nominations is limited to 5 days.

The government is seeking views on whether these time limits strike the right balance between ensuring timely decision making and enabling meaningful creditor participation, or whether changes may be required.

Question 23. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 7.52 be amended?

2.13 Timelines for nominating replacement trustees

Part 2.13 applies to England and Wales rule 10.67.

Where creditors decide to remove a trustee under S298 of the Act, but do not resolve to appoint a new trustee, rule 10.67 requires the existing trustee to ask creditors to propose (nominate) who should be the replacement trustee. Creditors have 5 business days to provide those nominations.

Where nominations are received, rule 10.67 further stipulates that a decision on the nominations, either by decision procedure or deemed consent, must be no later than 14 days after the date for receiving proposals has passed. This 14-day period includes a 7-day notice period for creditors.

The time limits contained within rule 10.67 are designed to ensure decisions are made in a timely manner, and to provide certainty to both creditors and office-holders on the future conduct of such cases. This is particularly important as S289(4) and (4B) of the Act provides that the original decision by creditors to remove the current trustee does not take effect until the new trustee is appointed.

The formal notice period available for creditors to seek an alternative trustee, secure the necessary consent, and submit nominations is limited to 5 days. However, in these circumstances creditors will have previously been asked to vote on whether to remove the existing trustee. In the first PIR in 2022 stakeholders indicated that the overall timetable for progressing nominations and arranging a decision can be challenging in practice.

The government is seeking views on whether these time limits strike the right balance between ensuring timely decision making and enabling meaningful creditor participation, or whether changes may be required.

Question 24. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 10.67 be amended?

2.14 Opting out of correspondence

Part 2.14 applies to England and Wales rules 1.37 to 1.39 and Scotland rules 1.33 to 1.35.

Creditors receive a wide range of information from office-holders, particularly at the start of insolvency proceedings. Provisions within the Act grant creditors the ability to opt out of receiving certain notices. This does not apply to notices about dividend payments, or when the court orders any or all opt out creditors to be notified.

Rules 1.37 to 1.39 (England and Wales) and 1.33 to 1.35 (Scotland) provide the details on the effect of opting out, how creditors can exercise their right to opt out, and how the office-holder communicates this right to creditors.

The opt out provisions were designed to give creditors greater control over the information they receive from office-holders and to reduce the expense of dealing with unwanted correspondence about the insolvency. However, feedback from the first PIR in 2022 suggests that the provisions may be used infrequently in practice, with estimates that less than 1 in 100 creditors chose to do so. Respondents also commented that the opt out provisions add to the amount of information to be sent to and understood by creditors.

The opt out process places ongoing administrative and compliance requirements on office‑holders. These include explaining the opt out option to creditors, recording creditor preferences, and managing any changes to those preferences over the life of a case.

The government is interested in understanding whether opt out is valued by creditors who wish to minimise interaction with office‑holders, as well as whether the rules around opting out, and notifying creditors about the right to opt out could be improved. Removing opt out rights would require a change in policy.

Question 25. How frequently do creditors choose to opt out of receiving correspondence?

Please provide any data you have which would help us to understand whether the use of opt out provisions by creditors has changed since the first PIR.

Question 26. If you are a creditor, what value does opting out of correspondence bring?

We would like to hear whether creditors value this option, and whether there are any risks to be aware of if it were changed.

Question 27. What improvements could be made to the Rules on opting out?

2.15 Inflationary impact on the Rules

Part 2.15 applies across both England and Wales Rules and Scotland Rules.

Where the Rules include monetary thresholds, inflation may affect whether those thresholds continue to achieve their original policy intent[16]. However, inflation does not necessarily mean that current thresholds are no longer appropriate. A range of factors may influence how well the Rules continue to operate, and the government is not suggesting a general or automatic uplift.

The government is seeking feedback to understand whether inflation has affected how the monetary thresholds in the Rules operate in practice. For example, the value of a vehicle that an individual may retain under a debt relief order was uplifted in 2024 to reflect increases in second-hand vehicle prices.

Respondents are invited to provide real-world examples evidencing problems caused from continued use of current monetary thresholds.

Question 28. Are there any areas of the Rules that have been adversely impacted by inflation? Yes/No. If Yes, please explain your answer.

2.16 Interaction with other legislation

Part 2.16 applies across both England and Wales Rules and Scotland Rules.

The UK legislative and regulatory landscape continues to evolve. While the Rules are intended to provide a detailed framework for the conduct of insolvency proceedings under the Act 1986, the Rules intersect with many other areas of legislation and regulation. In practice, the court’s overarching role in supervising proceedings provides a high degree of flexibility where new or unforeseen issues arise.

The government is seeking feedback on any instances where the functioning of, or compliance with, the Rules has been adversely impacted by changes outside of the insolvency framework developed and maintained by the Insolvency Service.

In particular, the government is keen to understand where developments in other areas of legislation have created significant unintended consequences for the Rules, or given rise to uncertainty for stakeholders.

Amendments to other areas of law would be outside the scope of the PIR.

Question 29. To what extent have other legislative developments impacted on the effectiveness or utility of the Rules, or created unintended consequences?

2.17 Interaction with E-Filing

Part 2.17 applies to England and Wales only.

Many courts in England and Wales accept electronic delivery of documents using the ‘E-Filing’ system. The government is keen to understand whether the introduction of E-Filing has led to practical difficulties with the Rules, in addition to those discussed at parts 2.4 and 2.5 of this consultation.

Respondents are not asked to review the E-Filing platform itself, nor would changes to how the court operates be within the scope of this consultation. We would however encourage stakeholders to provide any real-world examples of where the introduction of E-filing has caused difficulties that could foreseeably be addressed by future rule changes.

Question 30. Are there any other areas of the Rules that present practical difficulties following the rollout of E-Filing? Yes/No. If Yes, please explain your answer.

Section 3 Future-proofing

Section 3 applies across both England and Wales Rules and Scotland Rules.

Sections 1 and 2 of this consultation focus on whether the Rules operate effectively for current users. Section 3 explores how advances in technology and evolving working practices may affect their future effectiveness. It considers whether changes may be needed to ensure the Rules keep pace with wider economic, technological and business developments. The government invites views on whether the Rules will continue to function effectively in this context.

This section will cover developments in;

• technology
• artificial intelligence
• cryptocurrency

3.1 Technology

When the Rules were introduced, they aimed to modernise the way insolvency processes were handled, removing many of the restrictive requirements from earlier legislation. This enabled the sector to adopt technological developments such as email, websites and remote voting. More recently the Rules were updated to reflect that fax machines have become increasingly obsolete. The Rules also proved sufficiently resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing statutory functions to be completed without physical interaction.

The government recognises that technology continues to evolve at pace. Advances in computing and IT systems have fundamentally reshaped how businesses operate. Organisations have moved away from traditional paper‑based manual processes, with information increasingly shared and stored electronically on cloud-based platforms. Machine reading has reduced the time and cost of managing large volumes of documentation, and automation can support routine tasks around fraud detection, risk assessment, and financial decision‑making.

Citizens’ needs and expectations have evolved. How individuals access and consume information has changed rapidly. This is reflected in the growth of electronic communication, social media, and mobile internet access. Individuals are more connected, and have vastly greater access to information, than previously.

The government is asking respondents to consider whether any changes may be required to ensure the Rules remain fit for the technological reality of 2026 and beyond

Question 31. How might the Rules need to adapt to accommodate technological changes?

3.2 Artificial intelligence

The Rules pre-date the widespread adoption of AI. The government is seeking feedback to better understand the implications of AI for the operation of the Rules and for those who rely on them.

In the context of insolvency, AI has the potential to support better outcomes by improving service delivery, enhancing user experience, increasing productivity, and reducing the time and cost of completing statutory processes. AI is also changing the expectations of interacting with businesses, such as the increasing availability of AI-enabled customer services on a 24-hour basis.

The government’s industrial strategy aims to position the UK as the best place in the world to invest in AI. It seeks to encourage adoption across the economy through pro-innovation regulation.

This consultation seeks to understand both how AI is currently being used, and how AI could impact on the future useability of the Rules. Responses are encouraged from a wide range of users, including creditors and other financial institutions who consume insolvency information from various sources.

Question 32. To what extent do you currently use AI in insolvency proceedings? Please give details to explain your answer.

This question is for anyone who uses the Rules and seeks to understand the extent to which the Rules currently facilitate the use of AI, and to gather information about any current barriers stakeholders face in incorporating AI technology into insolvency processes. We are particularly interested in any barriers that are directly related to restrictions resulting from constraints within the Rules.

Question 33. If you are an office-holder, do you currently inform recipients whether AI has been used to undertake office-holder functions prescribed within the Rules? Please give details to explain your answer.

This question is for office-holders who are generating documentation or exchanging information in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules.

Question 34. How might AI impact on the future useability of the Rules?

This question seeks to understand both how the Rules could inhibit AI innovation, and how AI could cause difficulties in complying with the Rules. We are interested in identifying where the Rules may need to be modernised to enable the sector to embrace technological advances, particularly where this would improve the outcomes for creditors by reducing costs, improving the timeliness of proceedings, or reducing friction in information exchange.

3.3 Digital assets and cryptocurrency

Digital assets are assets that exist in digital or electronic form and can be owned, transferred or traded using technology. They include cryptocurrencies, non‑fungible tokens, and other digital representations that have a value or confer rights. Digital assets may be used for payment, access to services, investment, or speculation.

The use of digital assets has increased significantly in recent years. IPs and courts are encountering digital assets more frequently in both corporate and personal insolvencies. These cases may involve cross‑border activity, pooled holdings, custodial or exchange‑based arrangements, and reliance on third‑party platforms. The international appetite for cryptocurrency regulation is also both diverse and could change rapidly as government, policy, and citizen experiences mature.

The government’s preliminary view, supported by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce report ‘Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law’, is that the existing insolvency framework is capable of accommodating digital assets and that no substantive amendment to the Rules is currently required. However, the scale and diversity of digital assets have developed rapidly. Stakeholder experience may have evolved, and this consultation provides an opportunity to identify whether material or systemic difficulties are arising in practice.

The government has not identified evidence that digital assets, as a category, undermine the functioning of the current regime. The insolvency framework is deliberately flexible and has historically accommodated new forms of property without frequent rule changes.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 ‘PDAA’ provides an updated legal context. Although the Act does not mandate changes to insolvency legislation, it is right to ask whether the existing rules continue to operate clearly and consistently both in England and Wales, and Scotland. (NB: Scotland has a different approach to defining assets and therefore is not included in the territorial extent of the PDAA.)

Antecedent recoveries, such as transactions at undervalue or preferences apply to digital assets. While the nature of digital assets may present additional challenges, there is no indication that bespoke insolvency rules are required to permit the reversal of these transactions where they involve digital assets.

Where digital assets form part of an insolvent estate, office‑holders are subject to the same duties as apply to other property, including acting in good faith and obtaining the best price reasonably obtainable on realisation. Although volatility may complicate decisions on timing and method of sale, these issues fall within the scope of professional judgement. The Rules also permit assets to be distributed in specie (i.e. in their original form) where appropriate.

The government’s preliminary conclusion is that no change to the Rules is currently necessary. They work appropriately for digital assets, and the principal challenges identified are not ones that Rule changes are likely to resolve. The government nevertheless invites views on whether clarification, guidance or other non‑legislative measures would assist practitioners and stakeholders in the consistent application of the existing framework.

Question 35. To what extent do the Rules provide an appropriate framework for dealing with digital assets?

Digital assets are not currently treated as money for insolvency purposes. As a result, the provisions in the Rules for foreign‑currency conversion would not apply. This reflects their current legal and tax status as assets rather than money.

While future developments, such as a cryptocurrency being adopted as an official foreign currency, may change that legal status, existing foreign currency provisions in the Rules appear sufficient. However, the government is keen to consider stakeholder views on whether the rules on foreign currency would benefit from changes or clarification. In particular, whether or not the rules as currently written, have sufficient flexibility to adapt to such a development.

Question 36. To what extent would the Rules, as currently written, be appropriate should cryptocurrencies be considered currency rather than assets?

Many challenges in recovering digital assets arise from their decentralised and cryptographic nature. Recovery may depend on access to private keys, cooperation from third parties, or systems operating outside UK jurisdiction.

Office-holders already have broad investigatory and enforcement powers, including the ability to seek court orders for the disclosure of information necessary to recover assets. The government’s current view is that further amendments to the Rules are unlikely to address issues rooted in the underlying technology or decentralised global structures. However, respondents are invited to consider whether any amendment to the Rules could support more effective recovery.

Question 37. To what extent could the Rules be amended to better support office-holders when recovering digital assets? 

Emerging markets can be notably volatile. As cryptocurrencies continue to expand, office-holders are likely to be appointed to manage the insolvency of businesses trading in or providing services to support cryptocurrency and digital asset industries. The unique nature of such businesses, and the types of assets and liabilities likely to be encountered, may bring additional challenges in administering such cases. This may include (but is not limited to) segregation of digital assets held for clients, the volatility of asset value and whether creditors would be best served by distribution in specie, establishing jurisdiction for insolvency proceedings including the centre of main interest for a decentralised autonomous organisation, and the lack of intrinsic value to the assets themselves. The government is keen to gather views on whether the existing Rules are sufficiently flexible to adapt adequately in these circumstances.

Question 38. To what extent could the Rules be amended to better support office-holders when dealing with insolvent digital traders? 

Other possible improvements to the Rules

The government is inviting respondents to consider whether there are any other Rules or areas within the Rules where changes could bring real-world benefits to stakeholders.

Question 39. To what extent could further changes to the Rules bring real-world benefits to stakeholders?

Next steps

The government will consider all responses to this consultation carefully before completing the PIR. A summary of responses to the consultation will be published in due course.

Where the consultation indicates the rules would benefit from specific changes, and that those changes could be made via secondary legislation, we will act to make these improvements. Where improvements to the Rules would require changes to primary legislation, these will be considered as and when parliamentary time allows.

Monitoring and evaluation

The government intends to retain proportionate evaluation of the Rules in line with better regulation requirements.

Annexes

Annex A – list of consultation questions

Name.

Contact details.

Are you responding with views on behalf of an organisation? Yes/No

If Yes, please supply details of the organisation.

Which category best describes you as a respondent?

• Insolvency practitioner
• Creditor or creditor organisation
• Debtor including directors of insolvent companies
• Recognised professional bodies
• Insolvency trade bodies
• Related professionals (lawyers, accountants)
• Academics
• Government departments
• Other interested parties
• Members of the public

Do your responses cover England and Wales, or Scotland, or both?

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please tell us, but please be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality in all circumstances.

Question 1. The first post-implementation review in 2022 found the Rules are necessary for the effective functioning of the insolvency framework, that the Rules met their objectives, and that the Rules as a whole work well. Is that view still true? Yes/No. If No, please explain your answer.

Question 2. Are the objectives of the Rules the right ones for an effective insolvency regime? Yes/No. If No, please explain your answer.

Question 3. Do the Rules place a disproportionate burden on businesses with less than 500 employees? Yes/No. If Yes, to what extent could the Rules be changed to address this? Please give details to explain your answer.

Question 4. Are there any court applications required by the Rules where court involvement does not add a necessary protection? Please give details to explain your answer.

Question 5. Are there any Gazette notices required by the Rules that do not add value, and if so what if any changes to the Rules could address this?

Question 6. If you are a creditor, what barriers do you face in how you use information from office-holders, and how might these be addressed?

Question 7. To what extent could the Rules be amended to ensure stakeholders receive the information they want and/or need during insolvency proceedings?

Question 8. If you are a creditor, to what extent are IP fee estimates helpful in providing the information you need to understand, monitor and/or challenge IP fees?

Question 9. To what extent could the Rules be improved by the better use of guidance?

Question 10. Are there any remaining differences within or between the Rules which are unnecessary, unclear, or create avoidable complexity in practice? Yes/No. If Yes, please explain your answer.

Question 11. To what extent could other changes be made, to achieve the objectives of the Rules with a system that imposes less regulation?

Question 12. To what extent could the Rules on deemed consent for the electronic delivery of documents be amended?

Question 13. To what extent could the Rules about creditor and liquidation committees be improved?

Question 14. To what extent should the Rules on handling personal data in insolvency proceedings be amended?

Question 15. To what extent should England and Wales rules 3.20 to 3.22 be amended to reflect modern ways of working?

Question 16. To what extent should England and Wales rules 3.23 to 3.26 be amended to provide clarity on the exact time at which notices filed via E-Filing are deemed to be effective?

Question 17. To what extent should the Rules on small debts be amended?

Question 18. To what extent could the small debt provisions be amended to improve how employee debts are handled?

Question 19. What is the best way to set office-holder fees in a CVL when creditors do not vote to approve the fees?

Question 20. To what extent should the removal and replacement of an office-holder provide grounds for revisiting the basis of remuneration?

Question 21. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 2.27 and Scotland rule 2.26 be amended?

Question 22. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 8.22 be amended?

Question 23. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 7.52 be amended?

Question 24. To what extent should the timelines for decision-making processes in England and Wales rule 10.67 be amended?

Question 25. How frequently do creditors choose to opt out of receiving correspondence?

Question 26. If you are a creditor, what value does opting out of correspondence bring?

Question 27. What improvements could be made to the Rules on opting out?

Question 28. Are there any areas of the Rules that have been adversely impacted by inflation? Yes/No. If Yes, please explain your answer.

Question 29. To what extent have other legislative developments impacted on the effectiveness or utility of the Rules, or created unintended consequences?

Question 30. Are there any other areas of the Rules that present practical difficulties following the rollout of E-Filing? Yes/No. If Yes, please explain your answer.

Question 31. How might the Rules need to adapt to accommodate technological changes?

Question 32. To what extent do you currently use AI in insolvency proceedings? Please give details to explain your answer.

Question 33. If you are an office-holder, do you currently inform recipients whether AI has been used to undertake office-holder functions prescribed within the Rules? Please give details to explain your answer.

Question 34. How might AI impact on the future useability of the Rules?

Question 35. To what extent do the Rules provide an appropriate framework for dealing with digital assets?

Question 36. To what extent would the Rules, as currently written, be appropriate should cryptocurrencies be considered currency rather than assets?

Question 37. To what extent could the Rules be amended to better support office-holders when recovering digital assets? 

Question 38. To what extent could the Rules be amended to better support office-holders when dealing with insolvent digital traders? 

Question 39. To what extent could further changes to the Rules bring real-world benefits to stakeholders?

Annex B The Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026

The Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026 introduced measures to improve the Rules for England and Wales. This instrument modernised language, removed references to outdated technology, amended references, and clarified expectations to improve user experience. A summary of the changes are detailed below.

• Change outdated references to ‘registrar’

Rules 3, 16-22 of the amending Statutory Instrument ‘SI’

In 2018, the title “Registrar in Bankruptcy” was replaced with “Insolvency and Companies Court Judge” by The Alteration of Judicial Titles (Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court) Order 2018. Whilst this was reflected throughout the England and Wales Rules 2016 ‘IR16’ by the 2018 Order’s amendment to the definition of “registrar” at rule 1.2 IR16, the use of “registrar” became outdated and confusing for users, particularly as the roles of registrar of companies and Chief Land Registrar are also used throughout IR16. The changes simplified and clarified IR16 for users by amending the definition of “judge” to include all judges who hear insolvency matters, and removing the definition of “registrar”. Amendments are then made throughout Part 12 and at rule 13.2 IR16 to refer simply to “judge”.

• Removal of references to fax

Rules 4, 6-8, 12, 14

The increase in the use of email and other online systems for the transfer of information means that the use of fax technology has become outdated, and neither the courts nor the Insolvency Service retain fax capability. These changes do three things. Firstly, a change was made at rule 1.45 IR16 to clarify that fax is not a method of electronic means of delivery. Secondly, references were removed to the use of fax notifying the appointment of administrators out of normal court opening hours, instead relying on the use of email. Lastly, the references to the use of fax as a prohibited means of submitting an application, whether to the official receiver for a debt relief order (rule 9.4 IR16) or to the adjudicator for a bankruptcy order (rule 10.36 IR16), were removed.

• Remove requirement for multiple copies where documents are delivered electronically

Rule 5

IR16 are drafted on the basis that proceedings will be conducted using hard copy documents, and in many instances two or more copies of documents are required to be delivered to the court, or provided by the court to another party. The move towards widespread use of electronic methods of communication, including the High Court’s e-File system, means that the need for multiple copies of documents has become unnecessary where transmission takes place using electronic means. This change inserted a new paragraph in rule 1.46 IR16, removing the need to provide multiple copies where documents are delivered electronically. This will relieve some of the burden on users and also reduce the risks of version control where additional, redundant copies of documents may be created. Where documents are sent via traditional ‘hard copy’ means, IR16 remains unchanged.

• Remove the requirement for the date and time of the appointment of an administrator to be included in the notice of appointment

Rules 9, 10

As previously drafted, rules 3.24(1)(j) IR16 and 3.25(2)(k) required the date and time of the appointment to be included in the notice where an administrator is being appointed under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986. Once filed, per rule 3.26(3) IR16, the court then endorses the notice with the date and time of filing. This led to confusion, as the administration does not commence until the court has endorsed the notice with the date and time of filing (paragraphs 29 and 31 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986). These changes removed the requirement for the notice to include a date and time, removing ambiguity as to the timing of the appointment once the notice has been endorsed by the court.

• Update references to Centre Of Main Interest ‘COMI’ proceedings

Rule 11

The UK’s exit from the European Union meant that some of the terminology to describe the territorial extent of proceedings were no longer correct. This rule updated rule 8.24(c) IR16 to align with references that were previously amended, at rules 8.2 and 8.19 IR16. The change provides for the different types of proceeding, one of which must be specified in the report of the creditors’ consideration of a proposal for an individual voluntary arrangement.

• Increase the limit for bankruptcy petitions to be presented to the High Court in the London Insolvency District

Rule 13

This change reflects one of the measures, in operation in the courts since April 2025 via the Pilot Practice Note, for managing the listing of insolvency matters in the London Insolvency District. Rule 10.11 provides a monetary debt limit, below which a creditor’s petition for bankruptcy must be presented to the County Court in Central London ‘CCCL’ rather than the High Court. The increase in that limit from £50,000 to £500,000 reflects the current allocation of work within the court system, making more effective use of judicial time and reducing the administrative burden on the courts incurred in transferring petitions from the High Court to the CCCL.

• Final notice before vacating office

Rule 15

When a trustee in bankruptcy completes their administration of a case, they must confirm they have provided certain notices to receive their release from office. Since 2016, individuals seeking their own bankruptcy have applied to the adjudicator (an official in the Insolvency Service), rather than petitioning the court. This means that the majority of bankruptcy proceedings do not have a court file, but instead an electronic bankruptcy file maintained by the official receiver, who is appointed once the adjudicator makes the bankruptcy order. This amendment to rule 10.87(3) IR16 clarifies that, where the adjudicator has made the bankruptcy order, the required notices should be delivered to the official receiver, not the court.

• Amendment of reference at rule 14.1

Rule 23

This change amended a reference at rule 14.1(6) IR16 to a preceding paragraph, restoring the rule to consistency with its predecessor, rule 13.12 Insolvency Rules 1986. The rule forms part of the definition of “liability” within insolvency proceedings, for which there is extensive case law; it was not intended to make any change, either in the drafting or the policy behind it, when the rule was replicated in IR16.

• Clarify information to be included in reports

Rule 24

This rule removed an unnecessary and confusing reference at rule 18.3 IR16 which required the provision of identification details for a bankrupt. This information is irrelevant in corporate matters and, in a bankruptcy, is already incorporated by the inclusion of “identification details for the proceedings”, which is covered at rule 1.6 IR16.

• Ensure the committee is consulted first where approval to exceed a fee estimate is being sought

Rule 25

Where the basis of an office-holder’s remuneration is fixed by reference to the time spent, a fee estimate must also be approved. If that fee estimate subsequently proves insufficient, the office-holder must return to the body that fixed the basis to request approval to exceed the estimate. Previously rule 18.30 IR16 did not accommodate a situation where creditors fixed the basis and the fee estimate but then elect a committee to act on their behalf. This change corrects the ‘hierarchy’ of approving bodies so that, where a there is a committee, even if it is formed after creditors have approved an office-holder’s remuneration, that committee is the first body that must consider approving a request to exceed the fee estimate.

---

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-review-of-the-insolvency-england-and-wales-rules-2016/first-review-of-the-insolvency-england-and-wales-rules-2016

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creditors-voluntary-liquidation-cvl-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service/cvl-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service

[3] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/insolvency-service-research-into-individual-voluntary-arrangements-ivas

[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-voluntary-arrangement-cva-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service/company-voluntary-arrangement-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-of-insolvency-regulation/outcome/the-future-of-insolvency-regulation-government-response

[6] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/561/made

[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/call-for-evidence-review-of-the-personal-insolvency-framework/outcome/review-of-the-personal-insolvency-framework-summary-of-responses-and-next-steps

[8] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67587ba55a2e4d4b993bfa83/better-regulation-framework-guidance-2023.pdf

[9] https://www.thegazette.co.uk/about

[10] https://www.thegazette.co.uk/place-notice/pricing

[11] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/561/contents/made

[12] https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil

[13] https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/temporary-insolvency-practice-direction-supporting-the-insolvency-practice-direction

[14] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/877/contents/made

[15] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creditors-voluntary-liquidation-cvl-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service/cvl-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service

[16] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/gdp-deflators-at-market-prices-and-money-gdp-march-2026-quarterly-national-accounts