Sample Bank Analysis report
A worked example of an Insolnet pre-appointment Bank Analysis output on an anonymised owner-managed company. Real cases vary; the structure and severity grading are the same.
Case header
Headline findings
Four substantive findings carry through to the working call with the introducing accountant. Two are amber, two are red. Each is cross-referenced to the relevant statutory hook in the pre-insolvency adjustments framework.
Potential s.239 preference — £42,800 to connected counterparty “Springfield Holdings Ltd”
Two payments of £22,400 and £20,400, on 12 February and 7 March 2026, to a counterparty surfaced by Companies House cross-reference as a connected entity (same director). Trade creditors aged over 90 days at the same dates totalled £87,200. Pattern is consistent with repayment of a connected-party loan in the run-up to insolvency.
Statutory hook: IA86 s.239 Preferences — 2-year look-back for connected parties; desire to prefer presumed.
Overdrawn director's loan account — £128,400
Net director drawings over the 26-month period analysed exceed declared remuneration by £128,400. Cross-referenced against the company's PAYE/RTI history (HMRC submissions, where supplied) and any declared dividends on file: no offsetting entries reconcile the gap. Position is a personal debt due from the director to the company on liquidation.
Statutory hook: Framework §4.1. Recoverable directly by the liquidator; no discretion to write off.
Likely unlawful dividend — £18,200 declared 31 January 2026
Dividend of £18,200 voted and paid on 31 January 2026, referenced to the year-end accounts to 31 March 2025. By the date of declaration, post-year-end trading losses likely eroded distributable reserves below the level required to support the distribution. Subject to confirmation of management-account reserves at decision date.
Statutory hook: CA06 ss.829-853; Re Marini Ltd [2004] BCC 172. Recoverable from the director-shareholder under CA06 s.847.
HMRC arrears inferred from cash-flow pattern
VAT payments to HMRC dropped from quarterly £14k–£18k (2024) to nil in Q1 and Q2 of 2026. PAYE payments dropped from monthly £3.2k average to £0 from January 2026 onwards. Pattern is consistent with HMRC arrears building; cross-reference with the director's direct knowledge or any time-to-pay correspondence is recommended.
Statutory hook: not in itself an antecedent-transaction claim, but a signal for the IA86 s.214 wrongful-trading "moment of truth" analysis — HMRC non-payment is a primary indicator of cash-flow insolvency.
Categories with zero findings
For completeness: the categoriser flagged no candidates in the following categories on this case.
- Transactions at undervalue (IA86 s.238)
- Asset transfers to a successor company (phoenix indicators)
- Granting of security to a connected party (IA86 s.245)
- Section 423 indicators (transactions defrauding creditors)
Joe's recommended conversation with the introducing accountant
A working call covers four points in this order:
- The s.239 preference (FND-001). Where the director understood the £42,800 paid out to be: was it documented as a connected-party loan? On what terms? What were the trade-creditor positions at each payment date? Liquidator-side recovery is likely; the question is whether anything legitimate sits behind it.
- The overdrawn DLA (FND-002). Is the figure correct on the accountant's records? If so, what realistic options exist before any decision to liquidate? A personal repayment from outside funds; a properly-declared bonus with PAYE/RTI; a lawful dividend (subject to reserves at decision date); restructuring options.
- The likely unlawful dividend (FND-003). Was the management-account reserve position checked at 31 January 2026? If the dividend can be re-classified as remuneration (with the appropriate PAYE consequences) the s.847 exposure is removed. The decision needs to be taken before any onset of insolvency.
- The HMRC trajectory (FND-004). Are there time-to-pay applications in flight? When does the director consider the “moment of truth” under s.214 to have been? Documenting the decision point matters for the wrongful-trading defence.
Outcome. Not every case where this kind of finding appears proceeds to liquidation. Sometimes the position can be lawfully remediated, an HMRC time-to-pay arrangement holds, and the company continues trading. Sometimes it cannot, and a properly-structured CVL is the right outcome for the director. The Bank Analysis is the artefact that lets the accountant, the director and the IP have the conversation with the same information in front of them.
Run a real Bank Analysis on a watch-list client
Pre-appointment, accountant-led, the client stays your client. Findings in minutes, reviewed personally by Joe before the working call.