header-logo header-logo

10 October 2022
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

LNB NEWS: SRA launches consultation on consumer protection scheme for post six-year claims

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has launched a consultation on the arrangements and rules for the SRA-run consumer protection scheme for post six-year negligence. 

Lexis®Library update: The consultation comes as a result of the decision by the SRA's Board which found that an SRA-run indemnity scheme provided the most cost-effective and proportionate solution to providing appropriate consumer protection for those who have suffered financial loss due to a solicitor's negligence, the claim arose after six years and the closing firms had no successor in practice. The scheme is due to come into effect in September 2023 and will replace the Solicitors Indemnity Fund arrangements, although the levels of protection will remain the same. The consultation will close on 3 January 2023.

The consultation document can be found here.

Responses to the consultation should be submitted online.

The President of the Law Society, I. Stephanie Boyce, said: 'We will thoroughly examine the new proposals, but I can say now we are positive about the way in which the SRA’s position on PSYROC [post six year run-off cover] has evolved, and glad they now agree it is necessary to protect the long-term interests of consumers'.

Sources:

• Consultation opens on arrangements and rules for SRA-run consumer protection scheme for post six-year negligence

• Solicitors’ regulator takes first steps to running its own indemnity scheme to protect consumers

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 7 October 2022 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal inSouthampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll