Report comment

Re Jeffrey Shaw's comment, we did of course have a Master. Policy from 1976 until 1987. Difficulty in filling the slip in 1986 because of the state of the PII market generally led to the decision to set up SIF. That period was probably a harder market for PII than we have seen at any time since. It was however long before the lender claims of the 90s. I am fairly sure there was no premium loading under the Master Policy, purely a division of premium on a per head basis.

Premium loading under SIF was a problem because for technical reasons it had to be done according to a mathematical formula, which always meant there were winners and losers, albeit that is probably the case under any system to a greater or lesser extent. In addition, SIF could not decline cover.

But there are many different solutions working well around the world, particularly in Australia and Canada - one of which enjoyed a premium holiday one year! The challenge is fair apportionment of the premium and ability to exclude bad apples.

The position here is made more difficult by the conveyancing claims, which are not such an issue in some other jurisdictions because their systems differ.

If we could tackle the lender claims an awful lot of problems would fall away. It should not be as difficult as it appears to be. I don't think it even requires CQS if firms could follow a few simple rules e.g.

1 Make sure you know who you are acting for - not relying on what the estate agent told you;
2 Tell the lender how much the buyer is actually paying;
3 Tell the lender if the seller has not owned the property for 6 months;
4 Tell the lender if the buyer is not going to live in the property;
5 Make sure everyone in the firm complies with 1-4.

I am not suggesting that would dispose of all claims but it would have a significant impact.