Here are three League Tables for IVA firms, showing all firms that registered more than 500 IVAs in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
This article is a complication of three previous articles. The comments on each year’s figures were the comments I made at the time.
The data came from the Insolvency Service, it was supplied to Louise Yates. As some of the notes to the League Tables and the comments below show, there seemed to be some problems and discrepancies with the data.
Now the Insolvency Service has started publishing its own figures (2017 & 2018) I have stopped compiling the League Tables here. The published IS data is not directly comparable to the tables here, see the notes below on the 2016 figures.
Contents
2016 IVA league table
The up/down column shows how firms have moved up or down the table compared to their position in 2015. “0” shows no change, “~” shows the firm was not in last year’s table.
| Firm | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | up/down | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Creditfix | 1,074 | 1,626 | 2,758 | 4,162 | 17,533 | +3 |
| 2 | One Advice | 5,655 | 7,587 | 9,583 | 8,800 | 5,883 | -1 |
| 3 | Knightsbridge | 489 | 1,861 | 6,156 | 5,805 | 4,105 | -1 |
| 4 | Hanover | 2,796 | ~ | ||||
| 5 | Aperture | 6,346 | 4,015 | 2,900 | 2,009 | 2,263 | 0 |
| 6 | Payplan | 7,982 | 6,386 | 5,263 | 5,749 | 1,892 | -3 |
| 7 | Kingsgate/Vanguard | 2,697 | 1,835 | 1,876 | 357 | 1,673 | ~ |
| 8 | ClearDebt | 1,362 | 1,643 | 2,681 | 1,399 | 1,179 | 0 |
| 9 | StepChange | 1,124 | 1,247 | 1,303 | 1,369 | 1,162 | 0 |
| 10 | McCambridge Duffy | 827 | 701 | 565 | 747 | 1,018 | +5 |
| 11 | Johnson Geddes | 671 | 566 | 503 | 1,204 | 877 | -1 |
| 11 | Pareto | 163 | 337 | 313 | 170 | 769 | 0 |
Are the 2016 figures accurate?
They are Insolvency Service figures. I have added together lines where different names have been used for the same firm – sometimes different legal entities, sometimes these appear to have just been typos. Joint/interlocking IVAs are counted as two, not one. There have been oddities in previous year’s data regarding re-registrations and also when an IP either moves between two firms or works for more than one firm.
Note that the table has some significant differences from the one published by the Insolvency Service in January, see Individual Voluntary Arrangements: Outcome Status and Provider Breakdown page 7. As far as I am aware, these differences have occurred where an IP takes cases from more than one firm. My table above is based on the firm who set up the IVA. The table in the IS report is based on the way the IS allocates an IP to a firm.
IVAs in 2016 – a fast-changing market
There has been a huge increase in market concentration in 2016 – the largest firms are doing a much bigger percentage of the business:
- in 2015 there were 18 firms doing more than 500 IVAs in a year, now there are only 12 firms;
- in 2015 the largest firm had about 20% of the market; in 2016 Creditfix has more than 38%; and
- the monthly breakdown shows that this concentration increases further during 2016 – in the last 6 months of the year Creditfix had about 45% of the market
- the mid-sized firms may be the main losers from this. in 2015 there were eight firms doing 500-1000 cases a year; in 2016 there are only two doing this level of business.
Here is the “League Table” for IVA firms in 2015, showing all firms that registered more than 500 IVAs in the year to end July 2015. This includes new IVAs and IVAs that have been re-registered by a firm if they have taken over a book of existing IVAs. Joint/interlocking IVAs are counted as two, not one.
2015 IVA league table
The up/down column shows how firms have moved up or down the table compared to their position last year – as you can see there was no change for the largest three firms. The “% change” shows the increase or decrease over the previous year.
| Firm | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | up/down | % change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | One Advice (Harrington Brooks) [3] | 3,304 | 5,655 | 7,587 | 9,583 | 8,800 | 0 | -8% |
| 2 | Knightsbridge Insolvency (Money Advice Group) | 431 | 489 | 1,861 | 6,156 | 5,805 | 0 | -6% |
| 3 | Payplan [4] | 6,210 | 7,982 | 6,386 | 5,263 | 5,749 | 0 | +9% |
| 4 | Creditfix | 984 | 1,074 | 1,626 | 2,758 | 4,162 | +4 | +51% |
| 5 | Grant Thornton UK | 7,206 | 6,346 | 4,015 | 2,900 | 2,009 | +1 | -31% |
| 6 | Debt Free Direct | 5,284 | 3,646 | 4,423 | 2,950 | 1,841 | -1 | -38% |
| 7 | Sandra Marshall & Associates | 285 | 227 | 111 | 807 | 1,566 | +5 | +94% |
| 8 | ClearDebt | 1,891 | 1,362 | 1,643 | 2,681 | 1,399 | +1 | -48% |
| 9 | StepChange Voluntary Arrangements | 1,182 | 1,124 | 1,247 | 1,303 | 1,369 | +2 | +5% |
| 10 | Johnson Geddes | 579 | 671 | 566 | 503 | 1,204 | +7 | +139% |
| 11 | Freeman Jones (Gregory Pennington) | 5,396 | 5,466 | 4,642 | 3,208 | 788 | -7 | -75% |
| 12 | Varden Nuttall | 831 | 466 | 409 | 686 | 765 | +3 | +12% |
| 13 | PDHL | 514 | 362 | 777 | 705 | 755 | +1 | +7% |
| 14 | Bennett Jones [5] | 754 | – | – | ||||
| 15 | McCambridge Duffy | 947 | 827 | 701 | 565 | 747 | +1 | +32% |
| 16 | Moneyplus Group | 1,453 | 1,421 | 1,867 | 2,816 | 650 | -9 | -77% |
| 17 | Mitchell Farrar (Debt Advisory Line) | 826 | 1,125 | 986 | 1,179 | 584 | -5 | -50% |
| 18 | Unity Corporation [5] | 211 | 580 | – | 175% |
Notes:
- The data for “2015” runs from August 2014- July 2015.
- The data for all the previous years runs from September, so “2014” is Sept 2013-August 2014.
- For One Advice. the numbers for 2014 and 2015 are the number of new IVAs registered during the periods. I have substituted these – as I did last year – because One Advice say the figures from the Insolvency Service are wrong and a considerable over-estimate.
- The Payplan line includes the numbers the Insolvency Service gave for Payplan Partnership, Payplan Bespoke Solutions and (in 2015) Harrisons Grantham.
- Two firms joined the “over 500” group: Bennett Jones and Unity Corporation – I’ve omitted their previous years figures where they were small or zero.
To provide a very rough yardstick to assess how a firm has done, the total number of new IVAs registered in the year ending end June 2015 was about 16% lower than the number in the year ending 2014. This is only rough because the dates aren’t quite the same and the League Table also shows re-registrations.
2014 IVA league table
The following league table shows how dramatically the “top IVA firms” have changed since 2010. All firms who have registered more than 500 IVAs in 2014 are included, sorted by the last year’s figures.
| Firm | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One Advice (Harrington Brooks) | 2,169 | 3,304 | 5,655 | 7,587 | 9,583 # |
| Knightsbridge Insolvency (Money Advice Group) | 0 | 431 | 489 | 1,861 | 6,156 |
| Payplan Partnership & Bespoke Solutions | 5,716 | 6,210 | 7,982 | 6,386 | 5,263 |
| Freeman Jones (Gregory Pennington) | 4,439 | 5,396 | 5,466 | 4,642 | 3,208 |
| Debt Free Direct | 7,945 | 5,284 | 3,646 | 4,423 | 2,950 |
| Grant Thornton UK | 9,540 | 7,206 | 6,346 | 4,015 | 2,900 |
| Moneyplus Group | 1,231 | 1,453 | 1,421 | 1,867 | 2,816 |
| Creditfix | 1,115 | 984 | 1,074 | 1,626 | 2,758 |
| ClearDebt | 1,092 | 1,891 | 1,362 | 1,643 | 2,681 |
| Kingsgate Insolvency (Churchwood) | 3,548 | 1,332 | 2,697 | 1,835 | 1,876 |
| StepChange Voluntary Arrangements | 1,006 | 1,182 | 1,124 | 1,247 | 1,303 |
| Mitchell Farrar (Debt Advisory Line) | 824 | 826 | 1,125 | 986 | 1,179 |
| Sandra Marshall & Associates | 204 | 285 | 227 | 111 | 807 |
| PDHL | 322 | 514 | 362 | 777 | 705 |
| Varden Nuttall | 1,013 | 831 | 466 | 409 | 686 |
| McCambridge Duffy | 929 | 947 | 827 | 701 | 565 |
| Johnson Geddes | 294 | 579 | 671 | 566 | 503 |
Notes:
1) the figures come from Freedom of Information requests to the Insolvency Service except the one marked # see below
2) the data years run from September to August, so “2014” is Sept 2013-August 2014
3) interlocking (“joint”) IVAs for a couple are recorded as 2 IVAs
4) the 2 Payplan IVA companies have been summed into one row
What are the figures and are they accurate?
These Insolvency Service figures used to be circulated by RSM Tenon. They include not just “new” IVA cases but also some “re-registrations” e,g, when a book is transferred to a different firm.
The IS file for 13/14 had the figure of 20,223 for One Advice. I am informed by One Advice that this is wrong and a considerable over-estimate. The IS originally supplied the data to Louise Yates – she has had discussion with them about the accuracy of the figures.
It seems that because of complications to do with the way firms report to the IS and the IS records this, there can be some double-counting of records for re-registrations. I have therefore substituted One Advice’s own figure for the number of new cases during that period.
Several firms have confirmed that their 2014 figures look about right.
NB There are no problems with the IS’s normal published statistics. The complications here arise because the data is being reported at firm level.
Anon says
I’m concerned by your numbers – Harrington Brooks has no where near that many IVAs – You have misrepresented them as the dominant player. In the Step Change Statistical Yearbook for 2013 they state that they made 13,719 IVA/trust deed recommendations yet you’re only showing a fraction of that in your details. I would consider reviewing your information
Debt Camel says
I am happy to correct any figures that are wrong but as I said, the stats came from the Insolvency Service.
StepChange in their Yearbook quote “client recommendations” – the actual numbers of clients that follow through with an insolvency recommendation can be surprisingly low.
Louise Yates says
I received these figures direct from the Insolvency Service. I questioned StepChange in regards the big difference in relation to the number reported in their yearbook but did not get a response. It has been mentioned that they use third party IP’s as well. Maybe that’s why? Also do bear in mind the insolvency service count joint cases as separate IVA’s. In which case the HB figures will be around 900-1000 per month but the ratio of size to their nearest competitor is the same whichever way you cut it – HUGE!
Matthew Cheetham says
I’m the CEO of One Advice Group. I too was surprised by the numbers which are totally incorrect. I suggest that you remove the post until you have the correct numbers. which may lead you to some very different conclusions.
Debt Camel says
My apologies, Matt. I have removed the 2014 figures and will be rechecking them
Louise Yates says
Hi Matt. I have spoken to the Insolvency Service. They stand by the figures, but the employee who collated the report is off until Monday. I will speak with her directly then. It would be helpful if you could respond to my email in regards how wrong they are, and where they are wrong. Otherwise I’m shooting in the dark. I’ve looked at the numbers for Johnson Geddes 388 convened with a 35-40% addition for the separation of joint cases get us to the reported 503 or near enough, so id say they were more or less correct there.
Andrew F Smith says
For me there is one other outstanding statistic in this table. Why are Stepchange doing so few IVAs? They do so many debt management plans that one would expect the IVA proportion to be much higher. Many DMPs last more than ten years and as contribution levels are usually similar, the debtor pays roughly twice as much, over twice as long as they would in an IVA. Even when DMPs are free – as Stepchange’s are – one must question why the IVA is not more often the most appropriate solution for the debtor.
Andrew F Smith says
In ClearDebt’s experience every IVA is still an individual thing: All debtors are different. Frankly many of them are in problem debt because the banks weren’t prepared to look closely enough at individual circumstances and instead just treated them as part of a risk group with a predictable failure rate.
The key resource is not necessarily the number of Insolvency Practitioners. It’s whether the firm has enough appropriately experienced and trained members of staff to ensure people get the help they deserve. The responsibility always lies with the IP and their supervision of the work of their colleagues makes IVAs the well-regulated debt solution they are. Handling too many cases or slapdash supervision leads to the very real possibility of the IP losing her/his licence. And, of course, the big IVA houses are very closely monitored by their RPBs.
The government has also recognised that IP regulation works by creating the exemption from FCA and FOS.
Anon53 says
Hi. Its always good to see some anyalysis. The numbers only show the appointments made and not how they arose. Some of the appointments will be previous DMP’s from associted businesses converted into IVA’s while others will be cases acquired from other IVA firms leaving the marketplace which creates an appointment but isnt necessarily a new IVA case being created.
As such, it doesnt always reflect the work done to generate new work based on a good reputation in providing solutions for clients.
Seeing the numbers also highlights some anomalies as Andrew has pointed out
Louise Yates says
Sounds like the figures are correct but some firms just don’t like them being published. For me it does not make a different how the IVA came about i.e. new cases or acquisition. I don’t understand why it would? The numbers are there to show market share and for me the ratio of cases per IP is important. I do challenge Andrew’s view on this. Andrew writes “The key resource is not necessarily the number of Insolvency Practitioners. It’s whether the firm has enough appropriately experienced and trained members of staff to ensure people get the help they deserve”. Its not often I disagree with my good friend Andrew but in this instance I do.
This was a debate about 10 years ago and the criticism was then aimed at Accuma if I remember correctly. It was thought that the system of robust process and procedures as mentioned by Andrew was enough; however they were talking about IP’s managing books of 3000 clients at that point. I do not believe the regulator would agree a ratio of 1 IP per 30,000 cases is an appropriate level or even 1 per 10,000. If they do, then they are basically advocating system driven advice and case management. This decision tree/criteria based model is bad enough for lending decisions, surely this cannot be appropriate for insolvency and debt solutions? For me, the level of qualification, skill and experience of an IP cannot be replicated in systems and junior staff to that extent. What we have then is a variance in the quality of advice and care. If you come to an IP led practice like Johnson Geddes you get to see the Doctor but if you go to a volume provider you just get to see the nurse.
anon53 says
I don’t agree with Louise’s view. It’s a very arrogant and outdated view that only IP’s can give balanced advice and smacks of envy of the larger IVA houses who have invested heavily in staff training and developed systems sufficient to manage large numbers of cases such as the top five or six firms. If the larger firms were doing a bad job, the number of complaints to regulators would be high but over the last few years it’s been a fraction of a percentage of appointments. The duration of an IVA would also increase rhe possibility of complaints but doesn’t appear to have. The IP world is changing and IP’s need to adapt and change to the market place. In the corporate world firms are offering CVL’s for less than £2k and MVL’s for less than £1k. Given the number of regulators and the archaic views of IP’s the FCA as regulator can’t be that far away.
Matt says
There continues to be a surprising difference in the number of IVA’s between Payplan and StepChange.
They are both creditor funded, have large DMP back books of which StepChange is larger therefore, all other things being equal, I would expect the same % conversion off a larger number of DMP back book cases and therefore more Stepchange IVA’s rather than significantly fewer new IVA’s than a comparable competitor.
Lou says
StepChange do outsource some IVA cases – to GT I think. Even If that is the case the numbers still appear relatively low. They used to publish the stats in their yearbook I once managed to calculate the % of all advised clients to take a solution that were advised IVA was less than 0.5%. They haven’t published the figures in the same way the last few year’s so I can no longer work it out. Its fair to say the StepChange average client does differ from other organisations. Looking at their yearbook, its more akin the CAB client profiles with low income, low asset and DRO plays a bigger role in this demographic. Whilst we are on the subject. Where are Christians Against Poverty IVA cases?
alan says
No wonder Grant Thornton are after that PPI money with a big drop over last couple of years in fees from IVA’s
Jan Chadwick says
Hi Sara, would be interesting to drill down into the figures for Creditfix. Just had a client who’s IVA was registered but he never paid as it was unaffordable. Not saying this is the rule rather than an exception, but with such a high level of increase in business and market share one wonders……..