I write in response to the recent editorial on insolvency regulation (“Policing the ‘wild west’ of UK insolvencies”, FT View, October 15) which we at R3, the insolvency and restructuring trade body, believe paints an inaccurate picture of our system.
The UK’s insolvency profession is one of the most regulated in the world, and helps to rescue thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and returns billions of pounds to creditors every year.
Reference to a small number of historic cases should not be taken as reflective of the wider profession and current state of insolvency regulation.
Last year, out of almost 124,000 personal and corporate insolvency procedures, there were only 371 complaints against insolvency practitioners referred to regulators. This equates to a complaint referral rate per insolvency procedure of 0.3 per cent, or 1 in every 334 cases.
While we’re not opposed in principle to the introduction of a single regulator for the profession, this would not be a silver bullet solution for concerns about insolvency regulation.
As the article suggests, the government assuming this role could lead to a conflict of interest as it would set insolvency legislation, regulate insolvency practitioners and then effectively compete with those same insolvency practitioners for work — while not being subject to the same regulation itself.
Nicky Fisher
Deputy Vice-President, R3
London EC1, UK
Letter: A single regulator is not an insolvency silver bullet
Pinoy Variant