Claims from unsecured creditors to administrators of Surrey-based contractor Blenheim House Construction have rocketed to more than £60m – more than triple the £19m originally flagged when the firm went under.

The surge has all but wiped out earlier hopes of a 10p-in-the-pound return for suppliers and subcontractors.

In a fresh update, administrators from S&W Partners say unsecured claims received to date “far exceed” the £19m owed to 578 unsecured creditors set out in the directors’ statement of affairs when the £87m turnover business collapsed last July.

They have so far received claims from 195 creditors. But a further 304 creditors – with claims estimated at around £7,434,321 in the Statement of Affairs – have yet to submit proofs of debt, meaning the final tally could climb further.

Administrators also revealed they have received several counter-claims from employers and debtors that were not anticipated, alongside insurance company claims which are expected to increase.

The scale of the claims now makes any dividend projection highly uncertain.

Secondary preferential creditor HMRC has lodged a revised claim of nearly £2.1m. That must be settled ahead of trade creditors and suppliers.

Administrators said that, based on current estimates, there should be sufficient funds after paying secondary preferential creditors either to move the case into liquidation or to seek court approval to distribute funds to unsecured creditors through the administration.

But they cautioned the likely dividend is “extremely difficult to estimate at this point” and will depend on overall realisations, the final value of HMRC’s claim and the ultimate quantum of unsecured claims.

So far £2.8m has been realised, including £700,000 from the sale of Blenheim’s Chertsey headquarters and £110,000 from the sale of a company boat. Around £181,000 has been paid to staff.

Administrators are also in legal discussions to recover around £223,000 in directors loans.

In their report they said: “As administrators we have a duty to not do anything that might worsen the position for unsecured creditors. However, we do not have a duty to consider or agree the claims of unsecured creditors. Therefore, apart from the non-preferential element of the claims of the former employees, my team has tried to minimise the time it spends in dealing with the claims of unsecured creditors and this includes not considering or challenging the various counter claims submitted at this stage.”