The figures provide a useful indication of the conduct currently appearing in director disqualification cases. Of the 415 disqualifications recorded under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, 258 involved at least one allegation relating to COVID-19 financial support schemes.
For directors in England and Wales, the figures are a reminder that decisions made during periods of financial pressure can continue to be examined some time later. An Insolvency Service investigation does not, however, automatically mean that a director will be disqualified. Directors should understand the allegations being made and carefully consider the information and records available before responding.
The full figures are contained in the Insolvency Service’s 2026/27 enforcement outcomes data.
What do the latest director disqualification figures show?
The Insolvency Service recorded 466 director disqualifications for the 2026/27 financial year to the end of August 2026.
The average disqualification period across those cases was 7.6 years.
Monthly figures were
- 108 disqualifications in April,
- 81 in May,
- 99 in June,
- 109 in July and 69 in August.
These are year-to-date management figures rather than final annual statistics. The Insolvency Service states that the data comes from live administrative systems, which means figures can be revised as information is updated.
The figures nevertheless show continued enforcement activity and provide some insight into the types of allegations being pursued.
Directors who want to understand the wider process can read our director disqualification guide, which explains the different stages of a disqualification matter.
What conduct is currently putting directors at risk of disqualification?
A particularly important part of the latest figures relates to section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
Section 6 concerns unfit conduct relating to an insolvent or dissolved company. The Insolvency Service recorded 415 section 6 disqualifications between April and August 2026.
Of those cases, 55 involved allegations concerning unfair treatment of the Crown.
A much larger number, 258, involved at least one allegation relating to COVID-19 financial support scheme abuse.
This means that around 62% of the section 6 disqualifications recorded during this period involved a COVID financial-support allegation.
It is important to be precise about what the figures mean. They do not say that every director concerned committed fraud. The Insolvency Service records cases in which at least one relevant allegation relating to a COVID-19 financial support scheme appeared on its administrative system.
There can also be many different circumstances behind a director disqualification investigation. Our director disqualification solicitors page provides further information about how these claims arise and how they may be addressed.
Why do COVID financial-support schemes remain important in director disqualification cases?
The latest figures show that conduct connected with COVID-19 financial support remains a substantial part of current section 6 enforcement activity.
Of the 415 section 6 disqualifications recorded to August 2026, 258 involved COVID financial-support allegations. The average disqualification period for cases involving those allegations was 9.3 years, compared with an overall average of 7.6 years across all disqualifications reported for the period.
This is significant for directors who received financial support for businesses during the pandemic and are subsequently contacted by the Insolvency Service.
The central issue for any individual director will depend on the particular allegations and evidence in their case. The headline enforcement figures cannot determine whether a particular director has acted improperly.
We have further information about director disqualification cases involving Bounce Back Loans and COVID financial support for directors dealing with allegations in this area.
What happens if the Insolvency Service investigates a director?
The enforcement figures also show the scale of ongoing investigation work.
As at 31 August 2026, there were 1,360 company cases under civil director disqualification investigation. During the financial year to that date, 854 companies had been targeted for civil investigation and 472 company case investigations for civil director disqualification had been concluded.
Being investigated is not the same as being disqualified.
A director who receives correspondence from the Insolvency Service should therefore focus on understanding what conduct is being questioned and what evidence is available to explain the decisions made at the time.
Contemporaneous company records, financial information and correspondence may all be relevant to understanding the background to the allegations. The appropriate response will depend on the facts of the particular case.
The important point is to deal with an investigation methodically rather than assuming that disqualification is inevitable.
How can directors protect their position when disqualification concerns arise?
The latest statistics demonstrate that the Insolvency Service continues to investigate substantial numbers of cases.
For a director who becomes involved in an investigation, decisions made at the early stages can affect how the matter develops.
The starting point should be to identify precisely what the Insolvency Service is asking about. Directors should then consider the relevant company records and the circumstances in which the decisions under investigation were originally made.
Where allegations concern government financial support, tax liabilities or decisions made as a company approached insolvency, the factual context can be particularly important.
Taking advice can also help a director understand the director disqualification process, the significance of the allegations being made and the options available for responding.
Our director disqualification team advises directors at different stages of Insolvency Service investigations and director disqualification proceedings.
