Transparency data

Insolvency practitioner sanctions: Colin Wilson 14 April 2026

On 14 April 2026 a Disciplinary Consent Order was made against Colin Wilson of London

• From: The Insolvency Service
• Published: 11 May 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Documents

Disciplinary Consent Order Colin Wilson

ODT, 32.7 KB

This file is in an OpenDocument format

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.

Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@insolvency.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Details

This Order is made in relation to a complaint that Mr Wilson, in his role as Nominee and Supervisor of an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), breached the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care of the Insolvency Code of Ethics when he:

1. Failed to ensure sufficient clarity in the IVA Proposal regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a property; and
2. Failed to identify and disclose to creditors a potentially voidable transaction in the IVA Proposal and Nominee’s Report; and
3. Failed to insist upon up-to-date accounts information to establish the debtor’s interest in a company prior to issuing the IVA Proposal and failed to disclose the potential interest in the Proposal and Nominee’s Report; and
4. Failed to establish before issuing the IVA Proposal whether the majority creditor would limit their claim as stated in the Proposal; and
5. Failed to insist that funds due into the IVA by a third party were deposited with the Supervisor in accordance with the terms of the IVA; and
6. Issued a resolution to creditors which was not sufficiently specific; and
7. Failed to ensure sufficient clarity in the recording of votes of creditors attending a meeting of creditors; and
8. Failed to inform creditors that resolutions previously advised as approved had been revoked as they were not validly approved; and
9. Issued inconsistent receipts and payments accounts; and
10. Distributed to the majority non-preferential creditor in advance of other non-preferential creditors (and a preferential creditor who made a subsequent claim), leading to a disparity of outcomes for creditors.

Accordingly, Mr Wilson was found liable to disciplinary action under the IPA’s Articles of Association.

Published 11 May 2026