This policy statement provides feedback to responses to the PRA Consultation Paper 1/17 ’Financial Services Compensation Scheme – Management Expenses Levy Limit 2017/18’ (the CP) and final rules for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) Management Expenses Levy Limit (MELL) for 2017/18.
In this consultation response, the CII provides feedback on the FCA’s review into funding of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
This consultation paper opens up discussions on the funding of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) and consults on a number of specific changes to the scheme rules.
In this paper we consult on proposed changes to some of the rules in our Compensation sourcebook (COMP) that govern the operation of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
In this paper, we summarise the feedback to CP12/16, FSCS Funding Model Review (July 2012), and our response. We also confirm the final rules except in one area, relating to the funding of costs that exceed FCA FSCS funding class thresholds, via the FCA retail pool.
The FSCS is the UK’s statutory compensation scheme of last resort for customers of authorised financial institutions. This paper proposes changes to some of the rules in our Compensation sourcebook that govern the operation of the FSCS. The paper also discusses insurance specific issues.
It is well recognised that it is disproportionately expensive to bring a low-value compensation claim. The ABI surveyed over 50,000 low value motor accident claims from September 2009 to March 2010, and found that for every pound paid in compensation, 87p was paid in legal costs.
The FSA proposes to increase the ombudsman service’s award limit from £100,000 to £150,000, effective for any complaint referred to the ombudsman service on or after 1 January 2012. This will prevent a decline in the consumer protection afforded by the award limit in real terms.
In this consultation response, the consumer publication, Which Magazine responds to the Financial Services Compensation Schemes review of limits from a consumer perspective. In our view the current proposals do not go far enough to provide adequate consumer protection in a number of circumstances.