PIA considers cap on financial compensation
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NIC CICUTTI
Thousands of victims of fraud or bad advice face the risk of a cap on any compensation they receive, under new plans now being considered by the Personal Investment Authority, the City regulator.
The PIA is discussing whether to scrap a requirement for its 4,000 independent financial advisers to have professional indemnity cover, to meet claims from dissatisfied investors.
Instead, the regulator suggests that advisers could make bigger payments to the Investors Compensation Scheme, the savers' safety net.
Another alternative would be to relax rules for advisers who have indemnity insurance, allowing them to negotiate cheaper cover.
The PIA's comments, outlined in a discussion document yesterday, admit that, unlike claims met by indemnity insurers, the Investors Compensation Scheme has a maximum limit of pounds 48,000 on payouts. It also accepts that having indemnity insurance is good business practice.
But the document adds that forcing IFAs to have cover means if they cannot obtain it they are not allowed to trade. In effect, the regulator surrenders its vetting powers to insurers.
A PIA spokesman said: "Professional indemnity has been a constant issue for years. There are arguments on both sides and we want to hear people's views on this subject, including what the alternatives are."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments