Solicitor watchdog's PI plans will create an 'uneven playing field'
A new proposal from the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA) to shake up the rules around professional indemnity (PI) requirements could create an "uneven playing field" within the insurance broking community, experts have warned.
The SRA's proposal would mean PI cover for work undertaken for financial institutions conducted on or after 1 October 2011 would not be a regulatory requirement, although firms and insurers would be free to arrange cover if they wished.
Richard Brown, director and head of professions at Prime Professions, said if the SRA watered down the protection for financial institutions then it was likely that smaller brokers would find it hard to compete.
"Currently, under the SRA's minimum terms and
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@insuranceage.co.uk.
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@insuranceage.co.uk to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@insuranceage.co.uk to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@insuranceage.co.uk
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@insuranceage.co.uk
More on Regulation
FCA makes “significant changes” to ‘name and shame’ proposals
The Financial Conduct Authority is making four “significant changes” to its initial transparency proposals labelled ‘name and shame’.
MPs and peers slam “incompetent at best, dishonest at worst” FCA
A cross-party group of MPs and peers has hit out at the Financial Conduct Authority and demanded substantial changes after its call for evidence found the regulator “is seen as incompetent at best, dishonest at worst”.
Blog: What implications could the motor finance scandal have on insurance brokers?
As the industry shoots itself in the foot. Again. Matthew Maxwell Scott, founder and executive director of the Association of Consumer Support Organisations explores how the motor finance scandal fallout might see brokers caught in the cross-fire.
Government to consult on leasehold commission ban “very shortly”
The Government has revealed it plans to consult on a proposed ban on leasehold insurance commission next year.
FSCS gives first insight on increasing levy to £394m
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has indicated its levy for 2025/26 will rise to £394m from £265m this financial year as it cited having lower surpluses to carry forward and offset bills – a factor that has benefited brokers for two years in a row.
FCA promises reframed and revised ‘name and shame’ plans but no decision until early next year
In a House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee evidence session earlier today, Financial Conduct Authority CEO Nikhil Rathi said no decision will be made on its investigation transparency proposals consultation until early next year.
FCA closes in on authorisation targets as performance rises again
The Financial Conduct Authority has improved its delivery on the two broker-related authorisation metrics that remain in the ‘amber’ zone as it hones in on delivering a ‘green’ performance in all five relevant categories.
FCA bans broker and issues £1.1m fine for misusing insurer funds
Leigh Mackey, formerly sole director of closed broker Inspire Insurance Services, has been banned by the Financial Conduct Authority and fined £1.1m after using insurer funds to support the firm’s operating costs and pay for personal living expenses.