A fourth company director has been disqualified following an Insolvency Service investigation into a scheme involving almost £14 million in unauthorised banking transactions.
The case is a useful reminder that directors are expected to maintain proper oversight of company finances, even where another director, employee or connected person deals with the company’s bank accounts on a day-to-day basis.
For directors who are contacted by the Insolvency Service, an investigation does not automatically mean that wrongdoing has been established or that disqualification is inevitable. There are recognised stages to the process, and the way in which a director responds to the initial concerns can materially affect what happens next.
What happened in the £13.9 million Barclays scheme?
The Insolvency Service announced on 27 July 2026 that Daryl Dylan had been disqualified for seven and a half years.
- Dylan was a director of Oldcocdt Ltd and Oldcostl Ltd, which were previously known as C&D Transport Solutions Ltd and Six Ten Logistics Ltd. He signed applications to open Barclays bank accounts for the companies in April 2021 and named his half-brother, Scott Dylan, as the primary contact for the accounts.
- Four accounts were opened the following month and were first used in mid-July 2021. According to the Insolvency Service, Daryl Dylan did not adequately monitor their use between July and September 2021.
- Unarranged overdrafts on Oldcocdt Ltd’s accounts were used to make net payments of £1,042,220. Most of that money was transferred to connected companies. A further £586,454 was transferred from Oldcostl Ltd’s account to another connected company.
Barclays obtained freezing orders on 24 September 2021. It demanded repayment of £1,056,970 from Oldcocdt Ltd and £600,114 from Oldcostl Ltd. No repayments were made, and both companies entered liquidation in January 2022.
Dylan became the fourth director disqualified in connection with the wider arrangement. The Insolvency Service said that the four directors had received combined disqualification periods totalling 38 years.
Why was the fourth director disqualified?
The Insolvency Service stated that Dylan failed to exercise the level of care, skill and diligence reasonably expected of a director responsible for a company’s affairs.
In particular, the concerns related to his
- failure to monitor the bank accounts adequately; and
- to ensure that the money drawn through the unarranged overdrafts could be repaid to Barclays on demand.
Dylan had been due to stand trial in the High Court in Manchester in late July 2026. Instead, he signed a director disqualification undertaking, which was accepted by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on 17 July 2026.
The seven and a half year disqualification takes effect on 7 August 2026. During that period, Dylan cannot act as a director or become involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company without the court’s permission.
Director disqualification proceedings are civil rather than criminal proceedings. The fact that a person has been disqualified does not, without more, mean that they have been convicted of fraud or another criminal offence.
What does reasonable care, skill and diligence require from directors?
Section 174 of the Companies Act 2006 provides that a director must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.
- The required standard considers both the knowledge and experience reasonably expected of someone carrying out the director’s functions and the director’s own knowledge, skill and experience.
- A director with specialist financial, accounting or industry experience may therefore be expected to apply that experience when making or supervising company decisions.
The Barclays case illustrates how this duty can become relevant where substantial sums are moving through company bank accounts.
Directors should generally understand
- who has access to company accounts,
- what authority that person has; and
- how transactions are reviewed;.
- they should also have reliable systems for identifying unusual payments, unauthorised borrowing or transfers to connected businesses.
This does not mean that every director must personally approve every transaction. Companies can divide responsibilities and delegate operational tasks. However, delegation should be supported by appropriate reporting, access to financial information and meaningful board oversight.
The Insolvency Service’s announcement indicates that naming another person as the primary contact for a bank account did not remove scrutiny of Dylan’s own responsibility to monitor the accounts.
Our director duties guide provides further information about the statutory and fiduciary responsibilities that apply to company directors in England and Wales.
Can directors rely on others to monitor company bank accounts?
A director may rely on employees, accountants, fellow directors and professional advisers for support. However, directors should remain sufficiently informed to make their own decisions and identify matters requiring investigation.
- Where responsibility for banking is delegated, sensible safeguards may include regular management accounts, payment authorisation limits, dual approval for substantial transfers and clear reporting of overdrafts or payments to connected parties.
- Directors should also question transactions that appear inconsistent with the company’s ordinary business. Payments involving connected companies deserve particular attention because they may create questions about conflicts of interest, corporate benefit and the proper use of company assets.
- The appropriate controls will depend on the size and nature of the business. A small company may not require the same procedures as a large corporate group, but it should still have a proportionate and reliable system for monitoring its finances.
- Records are also important. Minutes, board papers, bank statements and correspondence may later help demonstrate what information was available, what questions were asked and why a particular decision was made.
Early decisions and record-keeping can become important if the company later enters liquidation and the conduct of its directors is examined.
What is a director disqualification undertaking?
A disqualification undertaking is a legally binding agreement under which a person accepts that they will be disqualified without the court making a contested disqualification order.
Once accepted by the Secretary of State, an undertaking has substantially the same effect as a court order. It restricts the individual from acting as a director or becoming directly or indirectly involved in company management without court permission.
An undertaking can avoid the cost, uncertainty and time involved in continuing to trial. However, accepting one is not simply an administrative step. The proposed period, the agreed allegations, the effect on existing businesses and any potential exposure to related claims should be considered carefully.
Disqualification periods commonly range from two to fifteen years, depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the conduct. A seven and a half year undertaking falls within the middle bracket generally associated with conduct treated as serious.
Directors offered an undertaking should obtain advice before deciding whether to accept it. Our guide to disqualification undertakings explains the issues that may need to be considered, including the proposed period and the possible wider consequences.
What should a director do if contacted by the Insolvency Service?
Contact from the Insolvency Service should be taken seriously, but it should not be treated as confirmation that a disqualification claim will succeed.
The first step is to understand precisely what conduct is being investigated and which period, company and transactions are involved. Relevant financial records, board papers and correspondence should be preserved and reviewed before a detailed response is submitted.
Directors should avoid guessing about events or providing an incomplete account based solely on memory. Responses should be accurate, properly supported and consistent with the available documents.
It may also be necessary to consider whether other proceedings could follow. Depending on the facts, an investigation may overlap with liquidator claims, compensation proceedings or allegations relating to the use of company money.
A director who receives an Insolvency Service questionnaire, formal allegations or an offer of an undertaking can obtain director disqualification advice before responding. Early advice can help identify the evidence available, explain the procedural options and reduce the risk of avoidable admissions.
Francis Wilks & Jones advises directors throughout England and Wales on Insolvency Service investigations, disqualification proceedings and undertakings. We can provide a clear assessment of the allegations and the practical options available.
We have been successfully advising and defending directors for the past 24 years. We can help you too.
