What the latest Insolvency Service enforcement statistics show us

The Insolvency Service has updated its enforcement outcomes management information to include May 2026 data and final revisions for 2025/26. Charles Mather, solicitor, looks at the latest figures.

The numbers so far

The latest management information shows that director disqualification remains the principal enforcement tool used by the Insolvency Service.

There were 1,158 director disqualifications in 2025/26, compared with 1,037 in 2024/25 and 1,222 in 2023/24.

For the current reporting year, 182 disqualifications were recorded in April and May 2026.

The average length of disqualification also remains significant. In 2025/26, the mean period was 8.1 years. For April and May 2026, the mean period was 7.7 years. These represent substantial restrictions on an individual’s ability to act in the management of a company.

The majority of those outcomes continue to arise under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which concerns unfit conduct in relation to an insolvent or dissolved company.

There were 1,044 section 6 disqualifications in 2025/26 and 161 in the first two months of 2026/27.

COVID-19 support scheme abuse remains an issue

The most striking trend is the continuing prominence of COVID-19 financial support scheme abuse.

In 2025/26, 773 section 6 disqualifications involved allegations relating to COVID-19 support schemes. In April and May 2026, a further 104 such cases were recorded. By comparison, the figure was 737 in 2024/25 and 831 in 2023/24.

The periods of disqualification in these cases are also consistently higher than the overall average. The mean length for COVID-related director disqualifications was 9.4 years in 2025/26 and remains 9.4 years for 2026/27 year to date.

The message is clear: misuse of government-backed financial support is still being investigated, and the consequences remain severe.

Frequent areas of enforcement

The updated figures show several recurring areas of wrongdoing and enforcement activity.

1. COVID-19 financial support scheme abuse. This remains the most prominent category in the published wrongdoing data. It appears across director disqualification, bankruptcy restriction and criminal enforcement statistics.
2. Unfair treatment of the Crown (i.e. HMRC) The 2025/26 figures record 119 section 6 disqualification cases involving allegations of trading to the detriment of HMRC. A further 16 were recorded in April and May 2026. This is particularly relevant where tax liabilities have accrued and other creditors or business interests have been preferred.
3. Misconduct in insolvent companies. Section 6 disqualifications continue to dominate, showing that conduct in the period leading up to insolvency remains a key enforcement focus.
4. Dissolved companies. Although reported section 6 disqualifications relating to dissolved companies have reduced, the Insolvency Service retains powers to investigate directors of dissolved companies. Dissolution should not be treated as a means of avoiding scrutiny.
5. Bankruptcy and debt relief misconduct. Bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions have fallen in number, but COVID-related allegations still represent a significant proportion of outcomes.
6. Criminal conduct. In 2025/26, 81 defendants were convicted following Insolvency Service criminal investigations, with 31 relating to COVID-19 support scheme abuse. Sentencing outcomes included imprisonment, suspended sentences, unpaid work and confiscation orders.

Compensation and public interest action

The figures also show that enforcement is not limited to disqualification.

In 2025/26, there were 125 civil compensation orders and undertakings, with a reported value of £4.548 million. In April and May 2026, there were a further 17 outcomes with a reported value of £606,075.

The Insolvency Service also continues to use public interest winding-up powers. In 2025/26, 52 companies were wound up in the public interest following live company investigations. A further 4 orders were recorded in April 2026.

This demonstrates a broader enforcement strategy: removing unfit directors from the market, pursuing compensation where losses have been caused, prosecuting serious misconduct, and taking action against companies where continued trading presents wider risks.

Practical steps for directors

The statistics are a useful reminder that insolvency does not automatically lead to enforcement action, but misconduct before or during insolvency can have long-term consequences.

Directors should take the following practical steps where a company is under financial pressure:

1. Keep accurate and up-to-date accounting records, board minutes and creditor communications.
2. Review the company’s tax position regularly and avoid preferring other creditors where liabilities to HMRC are building up.
3. Ensure that any historic COVID-19 financial support was properly applied for, used for legitimate purposes, and documented.
4. Take care before dissolving a company where there are outstanding liabilities, creditor concerns, or unresolved questions about the company’s trading history.
5. Seek restructuring or insolvency advice at an early stage, particularly where continued trading may worsen the position for creditors.
6. Preserve evidence of decision-making, especially where directors have had to make difficult decisions in challenging trading conditions.

The latest figures confirm that the Insolvency Service remains active across civil, criminal and public interest enforcement. Directors who are facing financial distress, creditor pressure or questions about historic conduct should deal with those issues promptly and with a clear audit trail.

If you need advice on director duties, insolvency risk or regulatory enforcement, get in touch with Harrison Drury’s insolvency and regulatory teams on 01772 258 321.