13. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong in any part of Mr H’s complaint.
14. Our Principles of Good Administration (Our Principles) say that public bodies should do what they say they are going to do. They should also be clear about what the public can expect from it, as well as the expectations it has for the public.
15. Additionally, Our Principles say that organisations should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for the decisions they make.
16. The Insolvency Service’s Guidance ‘Reporting misconduct by companies, directors and bankrupts to the Insolvency Service’ (the Guidance) is publicly available via www.gov.uk. It explains that it has powers to consider complaints about live companies where it has received reports of serious corporate abuse such as significant misconduct, fraud, scams or sharp practice in the way the company operates. It goes on to say that it does not usually investigate live companies where there is an isolated instance of misconduct rather than a deliberate pattern of this, where the issue is being, or should be, investigated by the police or another regulator, where the crux of the complaint is that one party is owed money by the other, or where the Insolvency Service does not consider the misconduct serious enough.
Inconsistent responses and lack of rationale
17. Mr H complains that the Insolvency Service demonstrated inconsistencies in its responses to his contact with it. He explains that it dismissed his initial contact then changed its mind when he sent it further information. He also complains that the Insolvency Service did not provide a rationale for its decisions.
18. Mr H first referred his concerns about Company X to the Insolvency Service on 29 September 2020. Within this, he said he considered Company X had breached its contract with him by telling him he had to make an additional payment to it.
19. The Insolvency Service responded to Mr H on 21 October. It explained that it had decided it was not appropriate to use its powers to investigate Company X at that time. It went on to reiterate its Guidance by advising Mr H that it reserves its powers, ‘for cases where there are very serious concerns and there is suspicion of ongoing fraud or very serious misconduct and the matters of concern are not the responsibility of any other regulator’. In line with Our Principles, it also told Mr H that there was either no grounds, or not sufficient grounds, to warrant asking the Secretary of State to open an investigation into his concerns.
20. The Insolvency Service’s decision also told Mr H that its decision did not prevent him from taking any action against Company X in an alternative manner. It said that if he had any further information to provide, he was welcome to do so, and it would review its decision accordingly.
21. Mr H sent further information to the Insolvency Service in October and December 2020. On each occasion, the Insolvency Service wrote to him to say that it maintained its decision not to investigate his concerns further, providing the same rationale for this. It repeated its advice about taking action elsewhere and continued to invite any further information for review.
22. In March 2021, Mr H sent the Insolvency Service more information which he had obtained after engaging a solicitor. In April, it told him that it was going to make some further enquiries about his concerns.
23. We acknowledge Mr H’s frustration in being told three times that the Insolvency Service would take no further action, for it to then decide to look into the matter six months later. That said, we do not consider that the Insolvency Service was wrong to do this.
24. The Insolvency Service’s Guidance which it referred to in its responses to Mr H’s concerns, is clear about what it is likely, or not likely, to do. As his concerns did not meet the threshold for it to investigate further, it explained its decision and what he would need to do for it to review its decision. When it received more information, it decided to look further at the issues, and explained this to Mr H. We are therefore satisfied that the Insolvency Service has acted in line with our Principles both initially, and when it decided to look into matters further in April 2021.
25. Mr H feels the Insolvency Service did not provide reasons for its decisions. We found it told him there was not sufficient grounds to take further action, which is one of the reasons its Guidance says it may not investigate further. While we accept Mr H may have wanted to know more about why this was the case, the Insolvency Service provided a reason in line with its Guidance. Therefore, there are no indications anything went wrong.
26. For these reasons, we will not consider this aspect of Mr H’s complaint further.
Confidentiality of investigations
27. Mr H complains that the Insolvency Service failed to tell him that it conducts investigations confidentially and so he would not receive any further contact from it. This relates to the Insolvency Service’s letter of 20 April 2021. It sent this to Mr H in response to the additional information he provided on 16 March.
28. The letter explains that it has decided it will make further enquiries before deciding whether to investigate Company X. The Insolvency Service says it will only contact Mr H if it needs more information, explaining that its investigations are confidential, so it cannot tell him if it’s investigating the company or what it finds if it does investigate. While this does not say it will end communication, it explains that it will not keep someone informed about an investigation. This shows Mr H was aware he would not receive further updates as its investigations are confidential.
29. Mr H sent emails to the Insolvency Service in June and July 2022 complaining about a lack of further contact since April 2021. While we note his frustration here, the Insolvency Service had told him it would not tell him if it was or was not investigating a company. Therefore, it would not keep him up to date on what action it was taking. For this reason, we are satisfied that the Insolvency Service communicated in line with our Principles, and there are no indications that anything went wrong here.
Responses
30. Mr H complains that the Insolvency Service did not provide timely and clear responses about what he could expect from it.
31. His first contact with the Insolvency Service was on 29 September 2020. It replied on 21 October declining to investigate his concerns. This was well within the two month timescale www.gov.uk explains that the Insolvency Service aims to respond within. The response explained why this was the case and told Mr H what he could do next. This was in line with Our Principles.
32. Mr H wrote to the Insolvency Service again on 21 October and received a response the following day. He then sent in more information on 16 December, followed by a complaint about the organisation on 30 December. The Insolvency Service responded to the former on 8 January 2021 which was again within the two-month timescale. It replied to the latter on 11 January, 15 working days later. This is in accordance with the Insolvency Service’s Customer Charter which says it aims to respond to routine contact within 15 working days.
33. The further correspondence entered into between Mr H and the Insolvency Service continued to meet all specified timescales.
34. As we have set out previously, we have seen that the Insolvency Service was clear about what Mr H could expect from it. We have not identified any delays in any correspondence being exchanged and we find its letters to be unambiguous and transparent about its actions and expectations.