View more on these topics

FCA: Mandatory PI wording ‘would prevent competition’

FCA logo new 3 620x430

The regulator is unlikely to introduce mandatory wording for advisers’ professional indemnity insurance policies, according to FCA senior technical manager Rory Percival.

Percival told delegates at the Institute of Financial Planning’s annual conference today that to do so would be prohibitive to competition.

PI broker O3 Insurance Solutions managing director Jamie Newell said the lack of mandatory wording – which he argues is in place for all other major professions – allows insurers to apply exclusions which leaves gaps in cover.

Newell told the audience: “All the other professions have a mandatory policy, and they also mandate run off cover. Financial Services Compensation Scheme levies are going up by as much as 100 per cent, but if we had a mandatory wording in place it would get the bad eggs out of the industry.

“It would be a small pain for the first couple of years as PI premiums would increase, but the levies would then come down because the good firms would not be paying for the bad.”

But Percival said the introduction of mandatory wording is “unlikely for a number of reasons”.

He said: “One is that we are not a heavily prescriptive regulator, we are more principles based. We don’t have to prescribe the contracts for investment funds, for advisers’ charging disclosure or for suitability reports.

“The second reason is it is effectively counter intuitive from a competition point of view. One of our statutory objectives is to promote competition in the interests of consumers, so prescribing contracts or key elements to contracts would be prohibitive to competition.”

But Percival added that the Treasury’s Financial Advice Market Review, which is examining access to advice, is likely to look at advice firms’ liabilities.


Pensions-savings-retirement-piggy bank

Is Govt pension policy killing off savings incentives?

Company bosses shunning pensions in favour of cash is an “awful indictment” of the Government’s pensions policy, advisers say. Last month the TUC’s annual PensionWatch survey of FTSE 100 executives’ pensions found high earners are choosing to take cash over pension contributions. It says more top directors than ever before (70 per cent) opted for […]


Pru could quit UK over Solvency II

Prudential is weighing up moving its headquarters away from London because of new European Union capital rules. The UK’s largest insurer is understood to have first drawn up plans to move its global base from the UK to Asia three years ago. The Sunday Times reports a move, probably to Hong Kong or Singapore, is […]


Partnership chief slams ‘frustrating’ FCA advice gap delays

The Government and the FCA have been labelled “frustrating” and accused of “navel gazing” for for failing to deliver a solution to the advice gap. Speaking at the Institute of Financial Planning’s annual conference in Newport today, Partnership chief executive Steve Groves said it is time for the regulator to “step up to the plate” […]


ABI: 80% of pension withdrawals made by under 65s

Eight in ten cash lump sum withdrawals post-pension freedoms were to savers under the age of 65, data from the Association of British Insurers reveal. The figures also show around 60 per cent of all cash paid out in the first three months of the reforms went to savers younger than 60. Of those who […]

Parental leave and pensions

Fiona Hanrahan  – Senior Product Insight and Technical Support Analyst We are often asked how parental leave impacts workplace pension schemes in terms of funding in general, auto enrolment and salary exchange. This article will explain each of these. How does parental leave impact the funding of workplace pension schemes? A member of a defined […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Since when did the FCA ever bother to check whether intermediaries flogging high risk junk had adequate PII coverage to do so? Never, because it never examines in detail any of the RMA Returns, thereby proving them to be a pointless imposition for their own sake. Pragmatic my arse. If it had, it could have stopped intermediaries selling high risk junk for which they had no PII cover. But it didn’t. It FAILED.

    And that’s why our FSCS levies are now skyrocketing (not to mention banks having to pay out billions of pounds in compensation for having been allowed for years to mis-sell MPPI). Regulatory negligence. Nothing to do with an absence of standard wordings in PII policies.

    And anyway, if PI insurers (for our sector) were told what wordings they must include in their policies, even more of them would withdraw from the market and those that remained would hike their rates even further. Gordon Bennet, isn’t it obvious?

  2. Oh Rory, Rory, Rory !!
    He said: “One is that we are not a heavily prescriptive regulator, we are more principles based.

    Not heavily prescriptive ! Eh ? do you really know what you are talking about ? remind me……. how big is the FCA rule book how many “COB,s” are there ?

    Sounds like the FCA is an all bases covered, regulator……. Prescriptive or principle, makes no real difference

    You (the FCA) are so consumed by the “nirvana” that is, you only get positive consumer outcomes, is that whilst one section of society is liberated; you financially enslave and sanction another !

    But then you (the FCA) will always argue, they are only applying the rules ………… being prescriptive ! and that is the principle you live by !

    Please disengage your head from your backside !

Leave a comment