Fifteen years on from BBC Radio 4’s File on 4 shining a light on dodgy time sheets and a Liverpool landlord’s court fight over a fashion chain, Northern suppliers still ask the same question: when a customer goes under, has anything really changed for the people owed money? In 2010 a judge tore up the Miss Sixty administrators’ deal as “disquieting”, and investigator Stephen Hunt described fabricated time entries in fee claims. Those cases framed a decade of promises to clean things up.

Some reforms did follow. In 2013 the Insolvency Service set up a single Complaints Gateway so creditors had one route in rather than eight or nine different bodies. It did make complaining easier, but it hasn’t transformed outcomes: the 2023 review shows 750 complaints, with fewer than a quarter referred on to regulators and over half closed because information wasn’t provided in time. For frustrated suppliers, that still feels like a maze.

Parliament then rewired the rulebook. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 introduced statutory regulatory objectives and new powers for the government’s oversight unit to fine or direct the professional bodies that license practitioners - and to go to court directly in the public interest. On paper, that’s a stronger backstop than in 2010.

Day‑to‑day insolvency practice also shifted. The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 replaced the 1986 rules, bringing in email, websites and “deemed consent” to cut costs and speed up decisions. Fewer physical creditors’ meetings mean less travel and admin - but also fewer chances for small firms to eyeball an office‑holder about fees and recoveries. The government’s own five‑year review says the rules largely work, though some processes are now more complex.

The most visible change came in 2021 after years of controversy around pre‑pack sales to connected buyers. Since April 2021, an administrator can’t sell all or a big chunk of a business to a connected party in the first eight weeks without creditor approval or an independent evaluator’s report. That has nudged deals into the open - but there’s a catch. Evaluators don’t need formal professional qualifications and, even if their opinion is negative, a sale can still go ahead if the administrator justifies it.

On the wider regulation question, ministers in 2023 stepped back from ripping up the system. The government dropped plans for a single, state‑run regulator and instead promised to regulate firms as well as individuals, create a single public register showing sanctions, and take control of ethical and professional standards. The direction is clear; the timetable is not - legislation will come “when Parliamentary time allows”. Until that’s on the statute book, it’s intention, not change.

There has, however, been tidying at the edges. Bonding rules - the insurance that covers losses if an insolvency practitioner fails in their duties - were updated from December 2024, including a £750,000 general penalty pot and provisions for interest above SONIA on relevant losses. Important, but technical, and hardly the sort of change a joiner in Bolton will notice when chasing an unpaid invoice.

Discipline has become more visible, with regulators publishing more outcomes. The Insolvency Service’s 2024 review lists dozens of published sanctions across bodies, and ICAEW has fined practitioners - including for excessive or unreasonable fees - with commitments to return money to unsecured creditors. That’s a shift from the opacity that angered creditors in 2010, though the profession remains largely self‑policed via its membership bodies.

On fees and disclosure, updated standards (SIP 9 and SIP 7) now tighten how office‑holders report payments to themselves and their associates, and make clear that overheads can’t be billed to estates. It’s dryer than a Wednesday board pack, but these rules matter: they make it easier for creditors to query costs and, where needed, challenge them.

What about the North right now? Insolvencies remain high by historic standards. March 2025 saw 1,992 company cases in England and Wales - up on a year earlier - and R3’s North West team has flagged repeated spikes in “insolvency‑related activity” over the spring. As chair Fran Henshaw put it in June, the region is still wrestling with cost pressures and tax changes, and that’s feeding through to closures.

And the question of returns? Some unsecured creditors still get little or nothing, especially in CVLs. The Debenhams collapse left an estimated £1.3bn hole for unsecureds after its brand was sold - a national example with a long tail across high streets in the North. It underlines the core truth: structure and transparency help, but asset values, security, and timing still decide outcomes.

If you’re a Northern supplier today, you do have more tools than in 2010. Ask for the SIP 16 disclosure pack on any pre‑pack, read the evaluator’s report, use the new decision procedures to object to fee bases you don’t recognise, and if you think conduct falls short, use the Complaints Gateway - it’s the only route the regulators will accept. None of that guarantees a dividend, but it puts you in the room when decisions are made.

So, what’s really changed? The regime is more transparent than it was, with clearer rules, published sanctions and extra checks on connected sales. But the fundamentals are intact: the profession is still overseen by recognised membership bodies (now fewer, after CAI stepped back in 2025), with government watching from above. A promised public register and firm‑level regulation could be a step change - if and when Parliament finds the time. Until then, treat the press releases with healthy scepticism and keep pushing for disclosure on every case that touches your ledger.