header-logo header-logo

24 June 2022
Issue: 7984 / Categories: Legal News , Conveyancing , Profession
printer mail-detail

PII changes for conveyancers

Property and probate firms must submit at least one application for professional indemnity insurance (PII) two months ahead of the renewal deadline, under plans approved by the Legal Services Board (LSB)

The rule change applies from 2023 to all firms regulated by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC). Insurers receiving applications will be required to respond no less than one month before the 1 June deadline, in order to reduce the risks involved when firms and insurers take renewal to the wire (30 June cut-off).

The rule change, agreed by the CLC, aims to give practices enough time to seek alternative cover if needed.

The CLC will also require an automatic 90-day extension of cover in the event a practice is unable to renew, with the last insurer paid a pro rata premium based on the most recent policy. During the extended cover period, the practice will be barred from taking on new work. If the firm succeeds in finding a new insurer during the extended cover period, the new policy must be backdated to 1 July.

However, these new requirements will not apply where a firm’s insurer has notified the firm and CLC by 31 March that it will not renew.

CLC director of strategy and external relations Stephen Ward said: ‘We believe that the package of reforms we have agreed with the LSB are fair to both our regulated community and insurers alike, and at the same time meet our primary responsibility to protect the public interest.

‘A robust and sustainable professional indemnity insurance scheme is a cornerstone of our regulatory approach, and we will continue to monitor its effectiveness during the renewal round, as we do every year.’

Ward said the CLC will also review policy on cyber-cover, as there is ‘significant support for mandatory cover but also concern about its cost and the wide variations in what is provided by different policies’.
Issue: 7984 / Categories: Legal News , Conveyancing , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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