Insolvency Practitioners
Your RPB will select the files. Are they ready?
My RPB monitoring visit assesses procedures, processes and controls across a sample of appointments. My case decisions are documented — but the reasoning behind them, the SIP compliance trail, the conflict checks — they are not always in a form that would withstand a structured review.
When your RPB picks the file, Evidentia is the difference between a coherent SIP trail and a reconstruction project.
2
The regulatory landscape
Insolvency practitioners are regulated by recognised professional bodies (RPBs) with SIP-based standards covering ethics, conflicts, fees, estates and stakeholder communications. Monitoring visits sample real cases — not policy manuals.
The Insolvency Service and RPBs coordinate on competence, integrity and systems findings. Communication failures and competence issues dominate complaint statistics — both require documentary evidence of what the IP did and when.
AML and OPBAS expectations apply where practices provide trust or company services — documentation must meet the same "show your working" standard as other professional firms.
3
What regulators look for
RPB reviewers select appointments and ask for the trail: conflict checks, fee approvals, creditor communications, SIP 9 and SIP 16 compliance, and estate decision reasoning. Partial files read as control failures.
Interviews test whether the IP personally understands the file — not whether the admin team "has it somewhere."
Where complaints escalate, the RPB compares the contemporaneous record to the narrative given to creditors. Divergence is a discipline risk.
4
What Evidentia gives you
Case decision records
Each appointment's critical decisions — conflicts, fees, strategy pivots, stakeholder steps — sealed with reasoning and chronology.
SIP compliance trail
Structured entries mapped to the SIPs that matter for your appointments — ready when the visit letter arrives.
Immutable governance chain
Demonstrable integrity for records you may need to produce to RPBs, creditors or the court.
5
The evidence gap
Most IPs we speak to run tight operations under pressure. The gap is archival: reasoning spread across team inboxes and working papers that were never consolidated into a single system of record.
When the sample case is not the one you remember best, reconstruction is slow — and slow reads as weak control.
6
Key enforcement facts
Communication breakdown is the most common reason for complaints referred to RPBs; competence and due care is second — Insolvency Service, 2024.
RPB monitoring visits sample live files without a rehearsal window.
SIP compliance is assessed on what is in the file — not what the IP remembers saying.
Find out whether your current approach would withstand scrutiny.
Do you need us? →Join the founding cohort
Join the founding cohort. Your sector is pre-selected below — change it if needed.