How incomplete records can hinder pre-pack administrations

27 January 2026

By, Stuart Hopewell, director of Pre Pack Pool

Way back when I was studying for an accountancy exam (as part of my credit management qualification), I remember struggling with a module on incomplete records. From memory students were given a few facts about the business in question and using these and a basic knowledge of how a profit and loss and balance sheet were compiled had to fill in the blanks.

All this comes flooding back when viewing some of the applications to the Pre Pack Pool. Despite copious guidance notes, by amongst others, the Insolvency Service, the Pool and our friends in the insolvency profession the lack of detail included in some applications is frankly amazing.

A lack of detail will inevitably lead to a delay in issuing an evaluator's report, so it’s important for insolvency practitioners advising on a pre-pack to advise clients to provide as much information as possible up front to avoid delays. This is especially the case given the number of pre-packs continues to increase. The latest data from the Insolvency Service shows the number of connected party sales has risen by 20% from 329 in 2023 to 395 in 2024.

Common omissions

It may help to understand which information is often missing from pre-pack documents when advising your clients on what to include.

Common omissions are:

• A lack of any narrative around how the business came to need a pre-pack or what steps were taken to mitigate the situation.
• The reasons for preferring a pre-pack to any other solution and most importantly what will be different going forward.
• The basics of the transaction, including asset lists and valuations: Many buyers are keen to highlight the value of the offer but fail to supply any details as to what is being acquired. Alongside this an evaluator needs to know how the offer stacks up against any available valuation. Finally in this section any deferred payment needs to be fully explained as the evaluator needs to feel comfortable that the time scale is realistic.
• Who the creditors are and whether they fall into the advantaged or disadvantaged category: one of the principal reasons independent reviews were originally proposed was a perception that such “deals” were presented as a fait accompli, with little information available to creditors. The evaluator’s role is to provide some comfort that there is a reasonable case for a connected party pre-pack but to do this it’s vital to include this information.
• A viability statement illustrating the prospects of the newco. Although most (but not all) applicants supply accounts and marketing information, this statement is often missing. That may be because the Insolvency Service guidance describes it as ‘may be supplied’, so applicants may not always feel obliged to supply it.

Fortunately, many prospective administrators, will assist in obtaining the missing items and some even provide their clients with a set form which effectively guides the applicant in what should be submitted. This does illustrate the co-operation and transparency envisaged within the guidelines issued alongside the formal regulations.

In summary

In the experience of the Pre Pack Pool, incomplete records can lead to incomplete applications as there’s often little structure with which to “fill in the blanks.” Please, if advising on a connected party pre-pack, encourage your client to submit as much information as possible. Where insolvency practitioners provide clients with a list of what information to include, this will lead to cases being dealt with swiftly. Fully complete applications are of great benefit to all parties and speed up the entire process.

For more information see www.prepackpool.co.uk (Guidance Documents)