Posts Tagged: insurance

UK Landlord deposit rules change

compare landlords insurance quotes

Compare Landlord Insurance

New rules that, from October 2010, requires  landlords to formally protect tenants deposits on tenancies worth between £25,000 and £100,000 a year have been warmly welcomed by the Deposit Protection Service (DPS)…

According to the DPS the change in the law will bring protect a further 15,000 new tenancies under the umbrella of deposit protection.

The original tenancy deposit legislation covered Assured Short hold Tenancies of up to £25,000 because tenancies valued above this were seen as contractual tenancies, where deposits did not need to be protected.

Who are the DPS?
The Deposit Protection Service (The DPS) is open to all landlords and letting agents, and is the only scheme that is free to use.

The DPS is secured with UK approved banks, so for safe, secure and straightforward deposit protection and provides landlords. The DPS is the only Government-authorised custodial scheme that is free to use.

However, the DPS believes this left some groups vulnerable as director, Kevin Firth, explains: “While it is natural to think of a high value tenancy and conclude that we are in the realms of the rich and successful, often the opposite is true.”

He adds: “Students, for example, often group up and move into large houses, paying a combined rent that could easily exceeds £25,000 PA.

Compare Landlord Insurance

Directors liability insurance – protection from disgruntled shareholders

compare directors liability insurance

It is easier for shareholders to claim against directors for negligence and breach of directors’ duties.

The Companies Act extends shareholders’ current rights to sue directors for wrongs done to the company. From October 2007,  shareholders have been able to sue directors for negligence even where the director concerned has not benefited from his negligence.

They will, however, need the court’s permission to do so, and the courts have the power to speedily dismiss unmeritorious claims.

Changes in the law affecting directors’ liability

Companies may, going forward, bring more claims against their directors. The Companies Act 2006 has set out directors’ duties to the company. A director must act in a way which he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company. In doing so, he must have regard to the following:

  • the likely long term consequences of any decision
  • the interests of employees
  • the need to foster relationships with suppliers, customers and others
  • the impact of the company’s operations on the community and environment
  • the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct

Compare quotes for directors liability insurance

COMPLIANCE, RISK ASSESSMENT & RISK MANAGEMENT

compare employers liability insurance

EUROPEAN UNION

There is genuine concern for EU independence and French State interests following the appointment of Michel Barnier as European Commissioner for Financial Services.  This is a full appointment, replacing Charlie McCreevy who previously acted in the role.  The broad concern in the UK is that General Insurance is not the Banking Sector and any regulation needs to be effective, proportionate and professional.

GOVERNMENT and the FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (FSA)

The views of Lord Turner, Chairman of the FSA, are widely known as a result of the economic and financial crisis.  The tripartite model of Treasury, Bank of England and FSA failed as without clear and specific responsibilities the problems went through the middle.   Any future government must ensure that the regulatory model has clear and specific responsibilities, however they are structured in organisational terms.  Within UK and EU considerations, it is appropriate to distinguish General Insurance from Life Insurance, equally, Retail Banking from Investment Banking.

In the UK, regulation has developed by industry default.  By my enquiry to senior officials in the original Securities and Investment Board, it was clear that all Property related business was excluded, the principle being that business was covered by Trust law. As matters have developed with the FSA, many aspects have been brought into regulation. ‘Precipice Bonds’ failing to cover mortgages was an early warning. Only recently has the FSA covered equity release schemes, second and subsequent mortgage lending, home reversion schemes.  In Life Assurance, mis-selling within industry has led to progressive regulation of most aspects of the Life Assurance, long term business.

AVIVA GROUP

A Special Report by Andrew Cave in The Daily Telegraph 23 October 2009, ‘Assessing the Carbon Risk’ reported on the career background and views of Lord (Colin) Sharman of Redlynch.  With a long background in what became KPMG, he is Chairman of Aviva Group, non-executive director of BG Group and Reed Elsevier.  Elected to the House of Lords in 1999 as a Liberal Democrat peer, he has acted as a Spokesman on aspects of Trade and Industry.  A significant role was in Committee forming the Companies Act 2006 and regarding the Corporate Homicide and Corporate Manslaughter Act.  This Special Report covers key aspects of risk in the framework of Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Climate Change and Energy Conservation. He is quoted ‘There is no point in having a list of responsibilities if you don’t report against them.’

LEGAL & GENERAL

Group Chief Executive, Tim Breedon, reporting in The Daily Telegraph on 13 December put forward various comprehensive arguments for the role of Insurers in the economic recovery.  Fundamental is that the State may only be able to target the most needy in Welfare terms and a shift in the present balance of roughly 65% government and 35% industry support.  Quoted, ‘Our industry needs to do more to encourage high standards of governance and corporate behaviour, as well as supporting the managers of those companies which do successfully deliver benefits to customers and shareholders.’

HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE

Faced with a limitation on resources, there has had to be a sharp focus on Advice and Guidance, promotion of ‘Best Practice’ businesses and organisations, with a sign-up to HSE Strategy.  The underfunded Inspectorate are unable to attend the majority of work place fatalities. Convictions and fines remain relatively few and modest.  It is essential that future government addresses the focus and effectiveness of safety regulation.

The essential and primary purpose of the HSE, and Air and Rail regulators, is clearly to ‘SAVE LIFE, LIMB and WELLBEING’.

Any future government should ensure that all work place fatalities are investigated, including work-related suicides.  Stress and mental health remain a very high risk factor.

The bonkers, conkers and other nonsense has developed due to misunderstood or badly interpreted safety principles and Risk Assessment.  Some is clearly used as an excuse to cancel or avoid events on the grounds of perceived liabilities and insurance costs.  Some is the result of over concern rather than any application of HSE available guidance. Thus there is a key role for the General Insurance industry to play, in partnership with future government.  There has been a tacit failure of support owing to de-regulatory concerns.

ASBESTOS

Speaking as a shareholder at the Aviva Group AGM in 2009, I requested that Aviva do all it can to assist the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to identify the insurers of historic businesses involved in claims.  An identification rate of only 40% harms industry repute.

The advantage of incorporating statistics in media campaigns has been suggested to the HSE.  It is interesting to note a recent HSE Asbestos campaign.  ‘Estimates show that each week approximately 6 electricians die from this hidden killer.  Asbestos is responsible for an estimated 4,000 deaths ever year, and it could still be hiding in anything built or refurbished before the year 2000.’  The Independent on Sunday dated 22 November 2009 carried a report by Emily Duggan ‘A betrayal of our working class’ -    Asbestos will kill 90,000 Britons.  The authorities knew it was deadly more than 100 years ago, but it was only banned entirely in 1999. The annual death rate will peak at more than 5,000 in 2016 – now MPs have a chance to do the decent thing.  The Sun has also run a successful campaign concerning asbestos in schools.  Esso was given a Court Order to settle a case brought by a widow in October and Nestle faces a similar case.

A future government should ensure that insurers behave equitably and more promptly.

CORPORATE HOMICIDE and CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER

Much of the effect and implications of the legislation are yet to be felt on a wide range of activities.  Many organisations and people were involved in the formation of the law. The TUC, Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA) played a key role, HSE and others.  Lord Sharman was involved.  For the Aviva AGM in 2008, I helpfully raised the subject which accorded with the work of Lord Sharman in the House of Lords at that time.

I raised the implications of mobile phone equipment used whilst driving causing death.

Questions raised by shareholders, are of course, part of the formal corporate record.

Recent events and casework clearly indicate the diversity of potential application:-

Bus crash with lorry, Clapham (2009)  -  (20 hurt, 4 seriously)

A bus overturned after collision with a lorry, which was carrying two sections of rail extending over the cab and several metres in front of the lorry.  National Rail have apparently stated the responsibility for carriage lies with the haulage contractor.

Go-kart track, Cambridgeshire (2009)  -  (1 fatality)

Reported Go-kart track allowed to be used ‘out of hours’.  Teenage girl killed by scarf caught in engine.  Cambridgeshire Police investigating, criminal charges may result.

Residential Property (2009)  -  (6 fatalities)

The fire at Lakanal House, Camberwell and tragic six fatalities.  The single stairwell and ‘Stay Put’ issues are under review.   Reported in Private Eye, Southwark council has instructed Burton Copeland, Britain’s leading corporate manslaughter specialists.  Since the fire at Carisbrooke Gardens in Peckham, has added to the debate for improvements.

Dartmoor Endurance Trial (2007)  -  (1 fatality)

A teacher Is concerned with this tragedy, involving the death of a teenager.  ‘Controlling Mind’ is a feature with regard to pushing for the event to continue in very poor conditions, despite appeals from those involved. The Coroner has halted the current inquest and the case referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.   The Coroner has also criticised the investigation carried out by Devon and Cornwall Police and that a file will go to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

XV230 Nimrod spyplane crash Afghanistan   -  (14 fatalities)

The Daily Telegraph reported on 17 December 2009 to the effect that the Secretary of State for Defence has confirmed that two senior RAF officers blamed for safety failings in a key report are being investigated by Military Police.  The Secretary of State delivered his official response to the QC Independent Report in House of Commons 16 December.

RISK ASSESSMENT and RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk Assessment can be formally written or otherwise evidenced that it has been properly thought through.  It should very much be a good deal of common sense, experience and knowledge, supported by access to advice, guidance and information, as appropriate.

Levels of education, experience, knowledge and training are pertinent.

‘Controlling Mind’ and ‘Significant Failure of Management’ are key terms in the application and purpose of the law  -  the preventative nature of regulations.

A future government should not allow considerations of reduction in costs to authorities, businesses and organisations, to undermine the essential aim to save life, limb and well-being through good risk assessment, risk management and compliance.

It is a fact of life that tragic events occur.  However, it is prevention methods and their effectiveness that is crucial.  The case on cost savings has been well made.  It is not only the financial cost to business, insurers and the state, there is the human and wider social costs of affectation, family, friends and wider society.

There is a solid business case for the General Insurance industry to be pro-active.

The obvious benefit is a general reduction in potential claims costs arising from ‘Best Practice’ across the board adopted and performed by those insured.

Acknowledgement and premium reduction to those signed up to HSE Strategy.

Acknowledgement and premium reduction for properties refurbished to Decent Homes Standard.  New build with recognised safety features.

Greater involvement with government and agencies regarding planning and build on land subject to flooding annually or twice within any five years.  More sophisticated treatment to differentiate true risks within Post Code areas and Environment Agency mapping, rather than blanket declinature, which reflects badly on the industry.

Discussion with government for creation of FLOOD POOL for those risks that have become certain and frequent rather than fortuitous and insurable in historic terms.

This could operate similar to the arrangements for Terrorism Cover.

Improved guidance to customers for Disclosure of Material Facts.

Alan Ingram  -  Consultant

December  2009

Employers Liability Insurance

compare employers liability insurance

Employers Liability insurance (EL) is the most misunderstood cover that is available for the photographer today, so confusing are the rules and regulations that surround it even the Government are not sure! However, don’t let that put you off, as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) would be quick enough to prosecute you if they thought you should have it and you didn’t and there was an accident with someone who was assisting you.

If you don’t have EL cover and you should have then you could be taken to court and prosecuted – the maximum penalty being 14 years in jail and an unlimited fine although this would usually be as a result of an accident to someone who was assisting you. However, you could face a large fine and be disqualified from running a company just for having incorrect insurance. For that extra premium it really isn’t worth it?

Do I really need it Employers Liability Insurance?

Firstly, if you are a husband and wife team, or your sons/daughters assist then you generally do not need EL cover. If you’re in doubt, then usually a good way round it is to insure them jointly with you – that way all the cover applies to them as well as you. The exception to this is if you are a Limited Company with 2 or more working directors then you MUST by law have this cover even if you are a husband and wife team under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. There is an exception to this legal requirement which is a Limited Company with only ONE working person who is a director and owns fifty per cent or more of the issued share capital, i.e. there are no other persons whatsoever doing any work in the company.

It is also usual for Employers Liability to be required if you have work experience students or volunteers assisting you even if there is no payment.

Don’t be fooled – you may only have a “friend” assist you, who is not getting any payment but if something happens to them, even if they don’t try and sue you, the HSE may take up the matter or indeed the Police may decide to prosecute for negligence. Remember, EL is dealt with under criminal law – the same as murder, assault and arson!

Could I be held responsible if someone injures themselves whilst following instructions from me?

Absolutely yes! The easy way to define the differences between EL and Public Liability (PL) would be to use the example of a wedding. If you gather the bride, groom and all the family together and ask them to step back and one of them falls off a ledge and injures themselves that would be a claim under Public Liability. If the same thing happened with a student that you were training or an assistant the cover would be under EL.

What is the definition of an employee?

This is the million pound question and where the regulations get confusing, for example, someone that assists you to whom you pay a “day rate” would be classified as an employee even though you are not responsible for their tax and national insurance contributions!

You are responsible for the health and safety of your employees while they are at work. Your employees may be injured at work, or they or your former employees may become ill as a result of their work while in your employment. They might try to claim compensation from you if they believe you are responsible. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 ensures that you have at least a minimum level of insurance cover against any such claims.
In general, you may need employers’ liability insurance for someone who works for you if:

You deduct national insurance and income tax from the money you pay them;
You have the right to control where and when they work and how they do it;
You supply most materials and equipment;
You have a right to any profit your workers make although you may choose to share this with them through commission, performance pay or shares in the company. Similarly, you will be responsible for any losses;
You require that person only to deliver the service and they cannot employ a substitute if they are unable to do the work;
They are treated in the same way as other employees, for example, if they do the same work under the same conditions as someone you employ.

In general, you may not need employers’ liability insurance for people who work with you if:

They do not work exclusively for you (for example, if they operate as an independent contractor);
They supply most of the equipment and materials they need to do the job;
They are clearly in business for personal benefit;
They can employ a substitute when they are unable to do the work themselves;
You do not deduct income tax or national insurance. However, even if someone is self-employed for tax purposes they may be classed as an employee for other reasons and you may still need employers’ liability insurance to cover them.

These are only guidelines – you have to decide yourself if your situation would fall into either of these categories although my advice would always be err on the side of caution if in doubt!