Making a complaint

Complaints Process

Oliver Elliot places a high priority on client service and are keen to ensure that the quality of this is maintained.

We are committed to providing a professional, fair, efficient and courteous service to all participants in the insolvency process, whether they are creditors, directors, shareholders, bankrupts or debtors.

In the event that you are dissatisfied with the service you are receiving then we want you to contact us immediately in order that we can and we will try to resolve your complaint. In the first instance, please try to resolve your complaint by emailing our CEO, Elliot Green at elliot.green@oliverelliot.co.uk.

In order to assist us with dealing with your complaint as quickly and efficiently as possible, your letter of complaint should include as much detail as possible and, in all cases, the following information:

  • Your name and address;
  • The full name of the insolvency case together with the Court name and number if applicable;
  • Copies of any relevant correspondence and documents relating to the complaint;
  • The name of the person or persons against whom your complaint is made;
  • Full details of your complaint;
  • An explanation of how you would like us to resolve your complaint.

As the process continues, please let us know as soon as possible if your circumstances or expectations change or if any of the information provided with your letter of complaint changes or ceases to become applicable. In the unfortunate event that it is not possible for Oliver Elliot to resolve your complaint, you can refer the complaint to The Insolvency Complaints Gateway, gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner.

The Insolvency Complaints Gateway will review the complaint and decide whether it is appropriate to refer the matter to our CEO, Elliot Green’s authorising body, The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Elliot Green is bound by the Insolvency Code of Ethics.

Please note that the Insolvency Service, the body responsible for running the Insolvency Complaints Gateway, encourages a complainant, in the first instance, to attempt to resolve any complaints via the internal complaints process of the firm in respect of which the complaint is being made.

If you have difficulty accessing the online complaints form you can also make your complaint through the Insolvency Service Enquiry Line – email insolvency.enquiryline@insolvency.gov.uk or telephone: 0300 678 0015 and you will be taken through the same questions over the phone.

You can post a complaint to IP Complaints, 3rd Floor, 1 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9DA.

Policy for Handling AI-Generated Complaints

1. Purpose

This policy sets out how we handle complaints that have been generated, drafted, or substantially assisted by artificial intelligence tools. We are committed to treating every complainant courteously and taking every complaint seriously. At the same time, AI tools can produce complaints that are unusually long, repetitive, or that raise numerous tangential or speculative points alongside the genuine substance of a complaint. This policy ensures our response is proportionate, fair, and focused on resolving the real issues raised, without committing disproportionate time to addressing points that do not have substance.

2. Scope

This policy applies to any complaint received in writing, by email, or through an online form, where it appears (whether stated by the complainant or reasonably apparent from its content, structure, or style) that the complaint has been generated or materially assisted by an AI tool. It applies alongside, and does not replace, our general complaints handling policy.

3. Guiding Principles

  • Courtesy first. Every complainant is treated with courtesy and respect regardless of how their complaint was produced. The use of AI to draft a complaint does not reduce the complainant’s entitlement to a considered response.
  • Substance over form. We will identify and engage with the genuine substance of a complaint, rather than treating every sentence or numbered point as requiring an individual, discrete response.
  • Proportionality. The time and resource spent investigating and responding to a complaint will be proportionate to the substance and seriousness of the issues it raises, not to its length.
  • No penalty for AI use. A complaint is not treated less favourably, or dismissed, simply because it was produced with AI assistance. It is assessed on its merits in the same way as any other complaint.
  • Transparency. Where we have narrowed our response to focus on the substantive points, we will say so clearly, so the complainant understands how their complaint has been handled and can raise anything they feel has been missed.

4. Procedure

4.1 Initial review

On receipt, the complaint is read in full to consider:

  1. The core issue(s) or outcome the complainant is seeking.
  2. Any specific, factual, or evidenced allegations.
  3. Any points that are repetitive, generic, speculative, hypothetical, or not tied to an identifiable act, omission, or decision by us.

Where a complaint is lengthy or contains many numbered points, our review will take into account points that appear to have substance and which appear to be padding, repetition, or irrelevant to the matter at hand.

4.2 Identifying “substantive” points

A point will generally be treated as having substance if it:

  • identifies a specific decision, action, omission, or communication by us;
  • is capable of being investigated against records, policy, or correspondence; and
  • if upheld, would justify a remedy, correction, apology, or change in practice.

A point will generally be treated as not requiring an individual response if it:

  • restates or duplicates another point already raised in the same complaint;
  • is generic commentary, speculation, or opinion not tied to a specific act or omission by us;
  • relates to matters outside our remit or control; or
  • appears to have been included as boilerplate or padding rather than reflecting the complainant’s actual concern.

Where it is unclear whether a point has substance, we will aim to address it, at least briefly, rather than omitting it.

4.3 Investigation

We will investigate the substantive points identified, using the same standards, timescales, and evidence-gathering steps as for any other complaint of comparable seriousness.

4.4 Response

Our written response will:

  • be courteous and professional in tone throughout;
  • intend to address substantive points identified;
  • group or summarise repetitive or overlapping points rather than responding to each individually;
  • invite the complainant to identify, within a reasonable period, any specific point they feel has not been adequately addressed.

4.5 Follow-up

If a complainant responds to say a specific point has been missed, that point will be considered and a supplementary response may then be provided accordingly.

4.6 Vexatious complaints

Where a pattern emerges of repeated, very lengthy AI-generated complaints from the same source that, on review, contain no substantive new issues, then we may well refer the complainant to the policy herein and indicate that no further response will be provided in line with this policy.

5. Record Keeping

For each AI-generated complaint handled under this policy, we will retain:

  • the complaint as received;
  • the final response sent.

We aim to ensure we demonstrate, if challenged, that the complaint was considered fairly and that the approach taken was proportionate and reasonable.

6. Review

This policy may be reviewed periodically and updated to ensure it remains fit for purpose as AI tools and their use by complainants evolve.