It does not apply if either vehicle is registered outside the UK.

General Points

• Once liability is admitted at stage 1, it is binding on the insurer throughout the process.
• Admitting liability, before the start of the process, is not binding. This arises if a non injury claim is already progressing for, e.g. vehicle damage or hire.
• Admitting liability for the accident does not prevent an insurer from raising fraud issues.
• Stage 3 costs are much lower than legal proceedings outside of the process.
• If a claim leaves the process, it cannot reenter under any circumstances.
• Insurers will wish to keep as many third party claims as possible within the process.
• As the Motor Insurance Database (MID) will be used to help identify the relevant insurer, it is important to maintain this on an up to date basis.
• If the MID is wrong, by the time your insurer receives the third party notification claim, it may be too late get the case into the new process.
• If you want any further information or help please contact your claims handler.

It is just over one month since Iceland’s volcano, Eyjafjallajokull, took the world largely by surprise and caused massive disruption to air travel and air freight. So what lessons can we learn from this and how can we apply them to our contingency planning?

Perhaps we should start with the question “Do we have a business continuity plan at all?” If the answer is “No” this must surely be a call to action. If it is “Yes” then “Did it contain the right contingency plans for this event and did they work?”

There are probably few UK organisations with a specific plan for volcanoes and that is understandable but it doesn’t let us off the hook. The consequences could have been caused by any number of events so they should have been foreseen and planned for.

Terrorism, adverse weather, earthquakes and strikes all have the potential to disrupt transport systems with knock-on disruption to supply chains, travel arrangements and prolonged absence of staff stranded abroad. Contingency plans for those events would work just as well for the consequences of a volcano.

Government continues to review the level of ash content in the air which determines whether airways are to be closed. It has been increased twice since the eruption which caused the first week of closures, first by ten-fold and then doubled again yesterday. It should follow that we are much less prone to air restrictions going forward but there is no certainty of this.

The intensity of any repeat eruption and the strength and direction of the wind will still be major determinants. Three of the four known eruptions of Eyjafjallajokull have been followed by the eruption of its neighbour, Katla, which scientists suggest could be within months to a year and much more severe.

Interestingly, the bookmaker, Paddypower, is currently backing Katla as the next volcano to erupt with odds of 9/4.

In any event, we know that we can’t control a volcano, that safety will take precedence over commerce when decisions are being made by those in charge and that any disruption to air travel will put instant pressure on land/sea transport services and cause a build-up of pressure on air services as and when they resume. This problem looks to be with us for some time so firms which are dependent on airlines should examine how they could mitigate the impact of delayed or cancelled air services.

Those in the airline business with the most extreme safety and commercial considerations should already have responses embedded in their management processes. For those outside the industry there are no simple or uniform solutions because each will have its own particular concerns.

However, when facing a potential crisis, they can and generally should adopt a common approach. Disruption should trigger the assembly of a crisis team charged with managing the event, aware of the point at which delays become critical and what options are available. Can outbound or inbound consignments be delayed or re-routed? Can alternative transport methods be quickly up-scaled? Can goods be sourced from alternative suppliers? Should reserve stocks be increased? Every firm must find its own answers to these questions and attempting to answer them in the heat of the moment without any advance planning or a dry-run at managing the event will almost certainly guarantee a poor outcome.

Just-in-time supply processes bring the benefits of closer relationships with suppliers and the reduced need to hold stocks. However, they also create the potential for much quicker disruption if the supply chain is not resilient. For it to be resilient, firms need to understand all the links in the chain and the risks to their suppliers. A risk audit on suppliers should reveal their financial stability, operational capability, the level of their own stocks and, of course, the resilience of their transport systems. Dependency on any single supplier carries obvious risk but it is not automatically extinguished just by having multiple suppliers. If they can both be affected by the same disrupted air services, we are clearly back to square one so a better solution must be developed.

For the executive who is stranded abroad, the mobile phone and internet now make remote-working much easier than before. Some advance planning can increase the opportunity for executives to work effectively and keep involved while plans for repatriation are made. If no workplace is available, a laptop computer with mobile internet is more convenient and secure than an internet café or the computer at a local bar. Internet phone services are cost-effective and there are a growing number of web platforms for conferencing and crisis management. So what is left that cannot be safely conveyed by the internet? Subscribing for the services of an emergency support organisation via travel insurance arrangements would be a good idea and, for those who need access to internet banking, make sure to carry any passcode-generating device that is needed to access banking facilities.

In just a few weeks we have experienced the drama of a volcano, worries about currency collapse, a complete change to the political landscape and now the prospect of economic stringency. These are not good times to be caught out by the unexpected. The application of some management time in contingency planning looks more than ever to be a very wise investment. There is no shortage of advice and support tools to ease the task and speed the process.

If you are interested in preparing your own Business Continuity Plan or simply looking for some advice, please click here to contact us now. We can at a relatively low cost give access to a competitively priced online Business Continuity planning solution.

Many thanks to Joe Aspey - MD of Risk Analysis Services Ltd for the above content

Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions is actively pursuing its concerns about the potentially hazardous effects of using fuels with a proportion of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) content derived from crops.

It may be helpful to go over some of the background.

These types of fuels are frequently referred to as biodiesel or biofuel.

The concerns go back to 2007 when a UK government survey into the whole field of greenhouse gas emissions culminated in the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) issuing its document ‘Biofuels - at what cost?’. If of interest this can be sourced here (http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/oecdbiofuels.pdf )

In this document they recommended the increased adoption of biofuels, to deliver much lower greenhouse gas emissions.

In pursuit of the emissions objective, DEFRA issued its presentation ‘The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation’ (RTFO) which outlined the benefits of biofuels (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/steven.hall/moffitt/presentations/AndrewPerrins.pdf ).

The mandatory Obligation to ensure that all diesel fuel would contain a minimum of 2.5% biocontent (increasing to 5% this year) was intended to reduce the greenhouse emissions from conventional fuels as part of a move towards clean, low-carbon transport.

This was to be encouraged by fuel duty incentives of up to 20p/litre off biofuels.

The Renewable Fuels Agency is the organisation charged by the UK government with running the RTFO.

It allocates Renewable Transport Fuel Certificates (RTFCs) to suppliers of biofuels (biodiesel or bioethanol) in the UK. It promotes the supply of sustainable biofuels and administers the world’s leading carbon and sustainability reporting system. This is all to be applauded as a move to controlling greenhouse gases ……

. . . but unfortunately, it seems that some people have overlooked the word ‘Transport’ in RTFO. Its area of concern was intended to be transport applications.

A lorry is filled with biodiesel, its then driven, thrown round corners, Then bought back to be refilled from the on-site fuel storage facility, this is repeated daily. In other words the fuel is held for a short period of time and subjected to regular disturbance.

Advice from the Department of Transport confirms biofuels were intended for vehicle engines and not for stationary engines of the kind found in the pumps of sprinkler systems or emergency generators.

Tyco’s have issued an excellent leaflet ‘Living proof that Bio Diesel Fuel is a growing concern for business’ explains that biodiesel is a perfect growth medium for micro-organisms.

And here is the problem. Many organisations have emergency generators/engines which are diesel powered. The comparatively small, static diesel fuel tanks in sprinkler systems provide nice, relatively undisturbed conditions for encouraging the microbial-growth sediments which have the potential to block supply filters and, for example, prevent a sprinkler pump from operating.

The prevailing British Standard is BS 2869: 2006: Fuel oils for agricultural, domestic and industrial engines and boilers. That includes diesel engines that drive sprinkler pumps. Most sprinkler pump manufacturers specify their equipment suitable for use with fuels to BS 2869: Class A2. Class A2 currently allows as much as 5% bio-content but you should note that Class A2 with 0% biocontent is available widely in the UK and you may feel that it is advisable to source this.

The Fire Protection Association’s practical advice on this subject is:

• use a quality fuel from a trusted supplier;
• order supplies of fuel with the lowest possible biocontent;
• make sure that the pump set maintenance of a sprinkler system is carried out by a competent person and in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions;
• adhere to the maintenance regime specified in the LPC Sprinkler Rules;
• try not to store too much fuel for too long.

Details of additional precautionary measures can be found via the Department of Transport link ( www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/off-road-equipment ).

The Tyco ‘Living proof that Bio Diesel Fuel is a growing concern for business’ pdf can be obtained from here

( http://www.tycofis.co.uk/bio-diesel/bio-diesel.pdf?sksearchtext=bio%20diesel )

Depending on your level of concern you may also wish to access the website of Powerpro Fuel Technology, Tyco’s research partner, at www.powerprouk.com , select Powerpro Fuel Technology and peruse their working history on fuel contamination and the research paperwork which you can download.

The concern, of course, is that lives may be at risk if sprinkler and emergency generator pumps do not operate instantly.

Commercial property landlords could face claims for damages and be subjected to action from regulatory bodies for failing to address environmental safety even if it is a tenant who is at fault.

That is the claim of Cowens Survival Capability, a firm that advises companies on how to assess any potential risks to their business and aims to ensure that they have the correct policies in place to cover any eventualities.

It added recent changes in legislation, including Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act and a number of EU directives, coupled with increased public awareness driven by the media, means that there is now more pressure on landlords to take action.

Stuart Williams, from Cowens SC, commented: “The changes mean that a lot of landlords do not have the correct insurance cover in place should they be held liable for damage to the environment, whether that’s to water, land, buildings or people.

“For example, property insurance does not normally cover historical pollution or contaminated soils, often found when brownfield sites are being developed. With existing liability insurance, there’s often no cover for damage to one’s own property or cover for historical pollution.

“Our advice is for landlords and the owners of commercial property to complete a thorough review of the risks concerned with environmental liability and ensure that their insurance cover is more than adequate.”

He concluded: “There is a lot of cover now available, such as specialist policies that cover premises pollution or contractor pollution. It could prove costly to take the risk of not being insured.”

Cowens claims businesses who should examine their cover include land developers, manufacturers, SMEs, service companies, the petro-chemical industries, owners of sites where hazardous materials are stored, companies working in the utilities sector and contractors.

According to figures from the Environment Agency, there were 723 pollution incidents during 2008 that had a serious impact on the environment in England and Wales, with 79 causing major environmental damage. In 2008 there were 251 companies fined as a result of action by the EA, with the average fine totalling £10 580.

This in an excert from an article on Postonline.co.uk and a similar article on FreshBusinessThinking.com by Lea Pachta.

http://www.cowenssc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/insurance-confidence-suppliment.pdf

Our belief is that the Chartered status will continue to raise the profile of the business and help enhance the professionalism of insurance broking in general in the eyes of consumers, commentators and the FSA.

Chartered titles are jealously guarded by professional bodies and are not awarded lightly. Chartered status therefore brings with it a number of serious obligations. A Chartered title is not simply recognition for staff having passed examinations.

The title Chartered Insurance Broker is a public declaration that the advice given is of the highest quality, is based solely on the researched needs of the consumer and is provided by someone not exceeding their level of competency.

A Chartered title is therefore a commitment to an overall standard of excellence and professionalism.

Regards

Stuart Williams ACII

Chartered Insurance Broker

Director

Organisations guilty of corporate manslaughter can be given up to a seven-figure fine, and rarely less than £500,000, states the Sentencing Guidelines Council. For other health and safety offences that result in death, convicted companies can expect a six-figure penalty.

Issuing its long-awaited guidelines on 9 February, the Sentencing Guidelines Council underlined that “punitive and significant fines should be imposed both to deter and to reflect public concern at avoidable loss of life”.

As stated in the draft guidelines, issued in October last year, the level of penalty should not be linked to company turnover or profit. However, account must be taken of the financial circumstances of the offending organisation, as well as the impact on employment of innocent parties, and the extent to which the fine could inhibit the delivery of services to the public - for example, in the case of a local authority, health trust, or police force.

For the guidelines to apply, a significant causative link between the conduct of the offending body and the death that occurred must be established. Some respondents to the Council’s consultation on the guidelines raised concern that many cases proceed as guilty pleas with limited opportunity to assess evidence of causation, and that the requirement could lead to lengthy argument in court as to whether or not the guideline applied.

It has been suggested that the issue of whether the organisation’s actions or inaction constitute a significant cause of death will be the subject of much legal argument. However, others have said; they can’t see how the prosecution could accept a guilty plea on the basis of a breach not causing a death and then reintroduce an argument that it did cause the death during any hearing or sentencing.

Factors increasing the seriousness of the offence include the foreseeability of serious injury, whether non-compliance was common and widespread across the organisation, and how high up the organisation’s chain of command responsibility for the breach lay.

Other aggravating offences include the number of deaths and serious injuries caused, injury to vulnerable persons, failure to heed warnings or respond to near-misses of a similar nature, cost-cutting, and deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences.

Publicity orders will only be an option in the case of corporate manslaughter convictions, but should “ordinarily be imposed” in such cases. These may require offending organisations to publicise, in a specified manner: the fact of conviction; particulars of the offence; the level of fine; and the terms of any remedial order.

The publicity order should normally specify the place where public announcement is to be made, e.g. newspapers, company websites, and give guidance on the size of the notice or advertisement required. However, the guidelines also suggest that a newspaper announcement may be unnecessary if the proceedings are ‘certain’ to receive news coverage in any event. It will also be up to the court to determine the specific terms of an order.

It is hoped that the orders would have a huge impact; as organisations are not used to publicly advertising their failings. It is likely that the publicity will have a significant impact, especially as the court and prosecution will get a say in what is publicised, so it will not be an easy time for them

The Council’s decision not to go down the route of linking fines to profit or turnover was has been broadly welcomed; as there would have been the scope for astronomical fines if based on turnover, and there would have also been scope for huge variations in fines for the same offence for different-sized companies.

However, others have described the approach taken by the Council as “a sledgehammer”. Their stance is that this approach to fines positively encourages the small employer who is cavalier about health and safety and would be bust by a £500,000 fine to carry on regardless, and won’t put a dent in the profits of a big company that doesn’t care.

A significant aspect of the guidelines is that they take effect so soon. Unlike changes in legislation, which are rarely retrospective, and only apply to incidents that occur after a new Act or set of Regulations come into force - as these guidelines apply only to sentencing then they will apply to all cases which appear before the courts after 15 February - even if the incident occurred a number of months, or even years ago.

It should be remembered that whilst most of the publicity and commentary on the new sentencing guidelines focused on the size of fine and the emphasis on publicity orders, a conviction under this legislation, can carry up to two years imprisonment, for individual directors, managers or employees for health and safety breaches, organisation should now be in no doubt that demonstrating a strong health and safety culture ia as strategically vital as dealing with any other business risk.

The first prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, involving Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd, is due to commence in the next couple of weeks.

The aim of the new powers is to give the regulator greater flexibility to enforce environmental law. The existing system was considered to be too reliant on costly and time-consuming criminal prosecutions.

The range of new powers includes fixed and variable monetary penalties, and stop notices to prevent a business from continuing to carry out an activity until steps have been taken to ensure compliance.

Other options include: compliance notices - a requirement to take steps within a stated period to ensure that an offence doesn’t continue, or reoccur; restoration notices - a requirement to take steps within a stated period to ensure that a situation is restored, so far as possible, to what it would have been if no offence had been committed; and enforcement undertakings - which will allow businesses to take corrective action quickly without the fear of further sanction for that offence.

The new powers will not replace existing informal methods, such as advice and guidance, and businesses and individuals will have access to an appeals process through an independent tribunal.

A spokesperson for the Agency told stated : “Civil sanctions will be introduced for some but not all of the regimes that we enforce, and so, initially, will have a limited effect on those we regulate.

“Fixed monetary penalties will be used sparingly to tackle the more minor offences, such as paperwork and administration offences. Variable monetary penalties will allow us to address more serious offences while seeking to ensure that restoration is carried out, and any financial gains or savings are removed without using the criminal system.”

However, he emphasised that criminal prosecutions would still normally occur in instances “where there is deliberate, reckless activity, or grave effects”.

Ian Lucas, business and regulatory reform minister, said: “Creating a more flexible and proportionate regulatory system is at the heart of the Government’s ‘better regulation’ agenda. The award of these new powers is a significant step forward that will provide an alternative to costly and time-consuming criminal proceedings. It will mean businesses will benefit from a more straightforward process with sanctions that better fit their non-compliance, and send a clear signal that the worst offenders should receive the toughest criminal penalties.”

The Environment Agency will be consulting business from 15 February to help shape how the new powers will be implemented. It will include proposals on: the methodology for calculating Variable monetary penalties; the Agency’s revised approach to enforcement and sanctioning; and details on its governance structures and monitoring requirements for the use of civil sanctions.

Gareth Stace, head of climate and environment policy at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, welcomed the intention “to create a fairer, more effective and more proportionate enforcement regime”, adding: “We remain encouraged that the transition of civil sanctions from legislature to regulator can now be fairly and equitably applied.”

However, Peter Newport, director of the Chemical Business Association, expressed some concern that there may be “a fear of the new and unknown” among businesses, and suggested that the Environment Agency had been very inconsistent in its enforcement approach in the past.

He stressed the need for “clear and transparent central guidance” to clarify how the new powers will be implemented, and suggested the Agency “police the activities of its inspectors” to ensure consistent enforcement.

On this issue, the Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We understand the importance of consistency of approach across our organisation and will put appropriate checks, balances and monitoring in place to deliver this. We will maintain consistency through a combination of new training and appropriate governance.”

He clarified that the Government has decided, for the time being, not to give the Agency civil sanctions in certain areas where it is a co-regulator, e.g. with local authorities and the HSE. He added: “A Government review of the use of civil sanctions is planned to take place two years after their introduction, and will consider this issue further.”

The HSE decided in 2008 not to apply for the new sanctions after concluding there was no ‘enforcement gap’ in health and safety regulation, either for itself or for local authorities.

Many company directors are still not aware of their responsibilities as part of the Companies Act 2006, and remain ignorant that they could be prosecuted for their failures to take appropriate action when required.

That’s the view of Stuart Williams, a director at Cowens Survival Capability, a business that helps firms understand how to ensure that they have the right business continuity procedures in place.  Stuart says that recently, Cowens SC has been inundated with enquiries from directors who fear that the economic environment could signal the end of their business, and are concerned about the  consequences.

Stuart commented: “Under the Companies Act 2006, directors must make decisions and take appropriate actions that make their business a success.  The difference now though is that directors can be individually held liable, not just the corporate entity.  Many people are unaware that they do not even have to be named as a director to incur liability, as being in position to control or influence a business can leave an individual open to liability.”   Failure to take correct actions could lead to a director being sued by the company, shareholders and customers, with consequences including fines or jail terms.  Business continuity planning is about ensuring the right strategies are in place ensuring the right strategies are in place so that when a crisis happens, a business can respond quickly and effectively.  Part of building a robust plan involves correctly analysing internal and external risks, such as site safety, fraud, environmental procedures, and health and safety issues.  The role of a director, as defined by the Government, is someone who must decide on what is most likely to promote the company’s success - in effect, a long-term increase in value.  Says Stuart: “It’s a complex role being a director, and whilst it is a good title to have, people must realise that the duties are now enshrined in law.  The company, its shareholders, employees, creditors, competitors, regulators and even the Government could sue you if they feel a loss has arisen because of a director acting incorrectly.

This means that if a claim is brought against a person, they may be personally liable to defend those claims, something that could put personal assets at risk.  The effects of this could be that a person is disqualified as a director, a criminal prosecution leaving to a jail term, personal bankruptcy, the loss of a job or reputation and then of course there is the impact on a family unit should any of this happen.”  Cowens advises its clients across the UK on these issues, first ensuring that a risk analysis is carried out before an appropriately strong risk management system is implemented.

Having developed over the past 25 years, the knowledge, expertise, experience, understanding and resources to help and guide people to carry out risk analysis properly.  Cowens will suggest practical measures to eliminate, reduce or minimise exposure.

Advisors at Cowens will provide the tools and technical support to assess the probability of the risk occurring and give people all the information they need to make a qualified commercial decision whether or not to accept it.

For more information on business continuity planning, and the responsibilities placed on directors and individuals, visit www.cowenssc.co.uk or contact Cowens now.

According to research, three-quarters of employers did not know that under a new European law, employees holding commercial driving licences will be required to have eye tests every five years.

The legislation, which will be rolled out in 2011, also requires private licence holders to be tested every 10 to 15 years.

Despite the legislation passing through the EU Parliament in 2006, 78% of employers were unaware that it would be rolled out in 2011, with 2013 set as a final deadline for the directive to be translated into national law.

We have already established how hazardous driving on business in and so these changes to the law can only be applauded, however are you ready for the changes in particular for private licence holders, do you feel that a 10 year period is really a short enough period? Are your ready for the change? How will you handle occasional drivers, in particular using their own vehicles?

Now that the thaw has set in, we here at Cowens Survival Capability, are preparing our claims department for a spate of burst pipe claims. The last time we dealt with losses on such a great scale was over ten years so we felt it would be very useful to offer you some advice on how to cope with the resulting damage.

Remedial Steps:

A burst pipe is classed as a water emergency - it can cause serious damage to a home’s or business premises structure and electrical wiring.

The following steps describe what you should do as soon as you discover a burst pipe.

Handling the Insurance Claim:

1. Call your Insurance broker to report the loss

The bursting of water pipes, tanks or apparatus is a valid peril under most insurance policies, but a number do contain warranties about the length of time a property can be left unoccupied without draining down the water system. You must be sure they have complied with limitations for your claim to be met.

2. Install a dehumidifier

You will be expected to take all steps to mitigate the loss and if the water has been running for some hours or days, it is most likely you will need to install a dehumidifier to commence the drying-out process. Act sooner rather than later, there may well be dearth of dehumidifiers if there is a spate of similar losses.

3. Alternative accommodation or alternative trading premises?

Your family can be re-housed under the alternative accommodation section of their policy if the property is uninhabitable. That means without any of the basic utilities, electricity, gas, and water or if the majority of ceilings have collapsed. Short term accommodation (hotel or friends) should be taken until the insurer’s representative has eventually viewed the damages. They will give approval for a short to medium term let of a comparable property. For commercial occupiers where damage is extensive, alternative trading premises may be required. Cover is usually provided under the Increased Cost of Working sections of a Business Interruption policy. For Landlord’s, a claim for loss of rent may be made where tenants move out to accommodate drying and repair works.

4. Redecorating and minor repairs

The full extent of water damages only appears after the property is completely dry and it might take several weeks of drying-out before the full extent can be assessed. You should resist the temptation to redecorate too early. Insurers will not pay for two lots of redecoration. Minor repairs can be conducted but once again it is prudent to wait until the property dries.

The damage is likely to come from three sources:

• Wind
• Frost and snow
• Burst pipes 

Wind 

In the UK we generally do not get the devastating hurricanes which regularly affect areas of the US, however many coastal areas can suffer storms, with winds gusting to over 100 miles an hour. 

Protection and Preparation 

• Keep track of weather forecasts.
• Periodically inspect roofs and flashing.
• Check vents, skylights, and signs to ensure they are secure.
• Check that windows, doors and their frames are securely fixed to the building.
• Inspect any trees that are close to your building.
• Ensure loads are secured during transit.
• Inspect all buildings after severe storm 

Frost, snow and burst pipes 

Freezing conditions regularly lead to flooding from burst pipes. In addition, snow melts combined with

fresh rain falls can overwhelm the drainage system and result in local flooding. In very extreme conditions heavy snowfalls can impose significant loads on roof structures although this is thankfully extremely rare in the UK. In addition to direct damage to property from the buildings, accidents and incidents are also more likely during periods of cold weather. 

Protection and Preparation 

• Plan for safe methods of snow removal. Check all heating units for reliable operation as winter approaches. See that building insulation is in place, windows are not broken, and openings are sealed.
• Provide fire hydrants, sprinkler valves and fire brigade sprinkler connections with markers visible above potential snow piles.
• Provide generators as back-up power supplies for critical operations.
• Develop a strategy for protecting water pipes.
• Ensure temperature sensitive materials are adequately stored.
• Store all stock/WIP off the floor to prevent damage by flooding.
• Clean all roof gutters and down pipes ensuring they are free from obstruction.
• Service heating systems regularly and ensure thermostats/frost-stats are working correctly and set appropriately.
• If portable heaters are required, ensure they are adequately maintained, staff are trained to use them safely and that fire risk assessments are updated to reflect the additional hazard.
• Ensure sprinkler systems are maintained; alternate systems are drained.
• Ensure sprinkler pump houses are adequately heated.
• Drain water pipes in areas likely to freeze. Where this is not possible ensure the pipes are properly lagged.
• Ensure all traffic and travel routes on your site are kept clear of snow/ice.
• Provide a stock of salt/grit for keeping paths and traffic routes free of snow/ice.
• Ensure fire hydrant markers are kept clear of snow drifts.
• Ensure vehicles are serviced, water levels and anti-freeze are adequate.
• Plan routes to avoid minor roads, which may not have been cleared of snow and ice.
• Inspect your buildings after a period of freezing weather.

Employees

For employees who have to work outside or work in unheated buildings, risk assessments must be revised, taking the cold weather into account. Simple controls can be implemented to mitigate the effects of the cold weather. 

• Provide warm waterproof clothing where required.
• Ensure regular breaks where employees can rest in a warm area.
• Provide regular hot drinks.
• Undertake job rotation, ensuring individuals’ exposure to the cold is limited. 

The following checklist may help when determining the required actions:

Special thanks to Travelers Insurance Co Ltd, for the above useful guidance.

Hundreds of businesses in the East Midlands are still not covered by the correct insurance programmes and only find out when they try to make a claim, says a Mansfield firm.

Cowens Survival Capability, based on Commercial Gate, says many businesses are needlessly going under because they do not take the time to ensure they have correctly assessed the risks associated with their business.

Said director Stuart Williams: “The time to find a business is under-insured is not when it makes a claim.  It’s a sad fact that 67 per cent of businesses don’t last for two years following a claim - this need not be the case.

“Perhaps because of the economic situation over recent months, businesses are failing to look at the detail of contracts and programmes of cover.”

Cowens SC is an established firm of business solutions providers which specialises in advising clients on how to ensure they have the right insurance cover and the correct procedures in place should crises happen.

Taken from the ‘Mansfield Chad’ 25th November 2009.

Written by Ashley Booker - Ashley.Booker@Chad.co.uk

Preparation is only half the battle

A recent survey found 98% of brokers would like to see business continuity planning as part of an insurance risk assessment. Stephanie Denton reports on a recent event where the possibility of this becoming a reality was debated.

In a recent survey, 98% of brokers questioned said that business continuity planning should be part of an insurance risk assessment. Post, in association with Crisis Survivor, therefore, gathered industry experts together at a round table event to find out why BCP is viewed as so important for risk assessments and how much effort it would take to make this an industry-wide achievement?

Stuart Williams, director of Cowens Survival Capability, started the debate by explaining that to be able to arrange an insurance programme to meet a firm’s requirements, brokers have to fully understand the business: “You have got to drill down to it, get into their DNA; you have to understand their attitude towards risk and risk transfer. You have got to understand the structure of the business, and you have got to look at all these things.” And, once brokers have done this he believes insurers should recognise it. “If you can demonstrate that you have a customer that has got BCP and is fit for purpose in all other areas, such as health and safety, an insurer should understand they represent a different risk to the next man who hasn’t,” he explained. “And there should be a price differential between the two.”

A win, win, win situation

Julian Rhodes, head of sales and marketing at RWA Group, agreed and added that this is good for all parties: “Everybody benefits from this; insurers, brokers and the end user, the customer. This is a win, win, win situation.”

Bill May, director of risk management at Crisis Survivor, explained: “There is a benefit as far as the insurer is concerned, the broker will benefit because it means that his portfolio is better risk profiled. This makes his business more attractive to an insurer, which means that he should get better terms generally. And for the customer it allows them to tender for contracts that require this approach and it demonstrates to their client base that they are going to be there for the long run. It demonstrates to investors that this is a robust business.”

And it is even good for the government, according to Steve Foulsham, technical services manager at the British Insurance Brokers’ Association: “At small to medium-sized enterprise level it makes it easier for UK plc to operate following a disaster, because it is not in anyone’s interest that at the moment 80% of companies are failing within 18 months of a disaster, it is in no one’s interest if that happens.”

And Stuart McEwan, director of the risk solutions division at James Hallam, had such faith in BCP that he explained: “One of the comments that we discuss with customers when we are talking about BCP and interallied with business interruption insurance is if you get it right and do it correctly, if you get 10 years worth of accounts out, you should not be able to see where there was an actual loss. And that is a really important thing.”

So, it is a surprise that insurers are not fully behind this idea. “It is like pulling teeth to get insurers to appreciate the true value of it,” said Mr Williams. “You speak to insurers and discuss BCP with them and they are all for it, they would like it, but they won’t differentiate the quality of it. And even when you try to leverage this as a positive risk attribute, their understanding is not there.”

Mr Foulsham agreed and added: “We need insurers to give better rates and better terms for businesses for those that do have robust BCP in place.”

However, Mr Williams acknowledged that some movement is being seen for bigger risks: “That will become more prevalent in the hardening market. With larger risks, larger exposures, insurers will be asking about BCP. Whether they are geared to understand the true value of it, time will tell.”

“Insurers are starting with big risks but you have got the propensity for loss across every business, and you can get comparable losses from effectively small premium spend as you can get from a large customer. To a degree, they are probably the ones that need it or deserve it more, because larger organisations have some level of management and understanding of their exposures.”

Mr May supported this saying: “We shouldn’t leave the SME sector behind, because they are the least advised.”

While Mr Rhodes added: “I would go further and say there is a real need to look at the SME sector because the larger risks tend to get the attention from insurers, in terms of the survey, the risk management, and looking at that business in much more detail. At the smaller end, the SME market, which represents a considerable percentage of the overall UK gross national product, tends to be more price sensitive and is less likely to get the value added service. But, actually, there is a need for them to get that.”

And the good news according to Tony Gimple, managing director at Crisis Survivor, is that although not much movement is being seen at the moment, insurers are becoming more interested in this idea. “A number of insurers, reinsurers and managing general agents have expressed rather strong interest in making this integral to the underwriting of their portfolio, ranging all the way through from commercial combined, up to business interruption - and even professional indemnity.”

And he believed the introduction of the first business continuity accreditation -British Standard 25999 - has spurred this all forward. “Suddenly, with the introduction of BS25999, the compulsion that all publicly funded work should have a continuity plan, at least at tender stage, started to introduce it into this to the supply chain,” he explained. “Banks are starting to make it a condition of lending in some cases. Where firms are putting in audited accounts, auditors are beginning to report on that, and that is something that has a direct impact on their credit rating. If the plan is mentioned and it is not up to scratch, it doesn’t please the analysts at all. However, if the plan does exist and it is up to scratch, Standard & Poor’s have said it will automatically increase the firm’s credit rating.”

Raising awareness

However, BS25999 is not an instant pill for the problem according to Mr Foulsham. “Biba recently commissioned some independent research in to the SME sector and one of the questions that was specifically asked was ‘are you aware of BS25999′? And of the number of SMEs that were asked, only 15% had actually heard of it. So, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done,” he explained.

Mr Williams echoed this: “Customers are just not aware of it. We are in a flat market, the economy is low, and they are concentrated on other areas. They are focused on their business, on running it, making sure they are surviving. They are probably aware that there are a lot of compliance issues, and thinking about health and safety and legal and all sorts of other things, they know they should be taking care of but in essence they are not.”

And one of the reasons for this he believes is there is no requirement to achieve this standard. “Nobody is policing it, there is no disqualification, prosecutions-personal or any other”.

Colin Burtenshaw, senior manager in enterprise risk services at Deloitte, raised the point here that there are lots of standard out there: “There is a fair degree of overlap and you have your pick of standards. It is often a case of what certificate do you want on the wall? Big organisations, yes they have invested in it, they have to, they need to and they want to. It is the SME sector that is quite interesting because they are resource constrained, they can’t really afford resources to deal with this. And so they lack capability and they lack the knowledge and all they see is just this snowstorm of information out there and it is very difficult for them to make sense of it.”

Brokers have got an important role to play in this - educating customers and insurers. S.Williams

So, which party should be responsible for driving this forward? Mr Williams firmly believed that the management of this should not be left to insurers. “The insurance industry has not yet managed to be uniform in any way,” he commented. “They never managed to get a common cover note out- don’t leave anything to insurers to come on a uniform approach. This should be treated as best practice, it should be something driven from the top down. Brokers have got an important role to play in this-in educating customers and insurers.”

He also believed customers are in no position to do it: “Customers are stuck with the ostrich syndrome, left to their own devices they either don’t do it because they don’t know how to, or they don’t know who to go to, so consequently they do nothing.”

Mr Foulsham supported this: “When you consider that in excess of 80% of commercial business in the UK market is delivered through brokers, then they are the people to look at that and to drive that forward.”

Anne Williams, general manager of partnership at Our Network, believed the starting point has to be policies that are individually written to make insurers understand the value of this. She said:

“Most of the SME market now is automated by web sites and trying to get an insurer to agree a question set is a nightmare. personally have been involved in it and it is almost impossible. It has to start somewhere. I know I will certainly do my bit with the insurers within Our Network panel to promote it, once we have got people on board.”

Government role

Mr Gimple agreed with this but thought the government also had a role to play. “We believe there is actually a case for, by granting tax relief, encouraging people to become more resilient. It is one of the simplest things government can do to actually reinforce the UK economy. By keeping 80% of businesses in business, post disaster, you are going to bringing in corporation tax, income tax, national insurance, rather than paying out benefits. It keeps the supply chain going.”

Mr McEwan supported this: “There used to be a lot of the tax and investment relief for research and development and plant and machinery. We are not that type of country any more, we are now a service industry country. And to take some of the savings they have gained from not giving it to these types of industries, as they used to, and put them into something else would help everybody.”

However, Mr Foulsham was cautious about whether any government would do this with an election due next year. He said: “You have to remember that we are in a desperate state as an economy. And I don’t think either the existing government or any future government would have the appetite for tax relief on BCP, I am afraid.”

Yet Mr May stated that if it was suggested to the government in a positive light it may have more success: “What we should be looking to do is to say, the cost to UK plc of a failed business totally outweighs a small cost up front. And again, the loss of tax revenue from a failed business can be very significant”.

So, if BCP did become part of a risk assessment would brokers be best placed to provide that service to customers? Mr Rhodes said: “There has to be an element of practice what you preach in terms of selling this to customers. And, apart from that being right in itself, there is of course the regulatory requirement placed upon brokers to have arrangements in place to ensure that they can continue to function in the event of an unforeseen interruption to their business. So this is not something that they can choose to do or not choose to do, in terms of whether or not they are meeting Financial Services Authority requirements.”

Tickbox special

And Mr Williams was first to admit that brokers are not perfect at their own BCP: “If I am entirely honest, I would say it has been a tickbox special. We are the first to recognise that what we had in place just clearly was not good enough. So, I can’t go and tell somebody else to do it if I haven’t done it myself. And ours is basically being pulled apart at the moment.”

Ms Williams, therefore, said this was an ideal time for brokers to get their own houses in order. “Nobody is exempt from learning, however old you are, however much experience, you can’t think of everything,” she explained. “We are trying to sell this to brokers in that we view brokers need touse experts. They are bringing their clients in, and we are highlighting areas that they could be exposed to and then handing it over to the experts.”

Mr McEwan added: “We get them to the stage where we give them risk scenarios, the loss scenarios, we try to get them to do as much risk improvement as they can. So that the plan they write is based on the best picture”.

However, it was acknowledged that just getting customers to start their initial BCP is not enough. Mr McEwan explained: “We are a growing company, we have made acquisitions and we’ve taken a new team on so the BCP changes, it is a living document as well. But trying to get that through to people is a challenge.”

Mr Rhodes supported this: “It has to be regularly reviewed and it has to be tested and it has to work. So if brokers do that, which they have to, then it should be very easy for them to then talk to their clients about that and to promote the awareness of it as part of their overall value added service.”

Mr Williams added: “The BCP needs to be fully owned at a senior level and then drilled down into the DNA of the business. People know they have a requirement for a BCP, so they get one of the internet, fill it out and say, ‘yes, we have got one’. It goes on the shelf, it is not communicated, it is not discussed, and it is not delivered properly. It becomes ‘oh, but we have got one.-what use is it?’.”

“It is not about a document, it is about a culture within an organisation to realise the value of business continuity, not as a project we do only now and then, but actually it is a business as usual component,” added Mr Burtenshaw.

L-R: Gimple, McEwan and Burtenshaw debate business continuity planning.

Decision support

And he believed technology does not help this view. “A lot of technology around is helping people to manage paper documents and it doesn’t actually help people to keep it alive, keep it fresh and to use it in the event of an incident. They have become more about planning for an event at some time in the future. There is very little in there which is decision support. So you can’t take your plan off the shelf, wipe the dust off it and then actually use it. I have yet to see any incident occur which exactly matches the, or one of the, scenarios on which the plan is predicated. No plan survives contact with the enemy as the saying goes.

“There is a lot of headroom there in the market for technology to assist people in the development, testing, and then the use of the plans that they have put in place.” And, according to Ms Williams, another big challenge are time limitations-but she believed brokers need to embrace BCPs and to realise that by running through their plan they will free up more time in the end: “We will be saying to brokers: have a review of your own strategy and BCP and then pass it on to somebody else. Because it will actually save you time. And it is such a barrier that we all face, time.”

So, there is room for technology to develop and help, for brokers to advise their customers on this matter and for insurers to realise the value of BCP and start to price accordingly but where will it start.

“Anything that can be done is a start. You have got to start the ball rolling somewhere,” concluded Mr Williams. “Customers will look at it along the lines of, ‘what is in it for me?’ They have got to understand the cost benefit, they have got to understand its value, and not just the price spend. The key is definitely education and it has got to be an industry driven approach.”

8 out of 10 business which lose access to business resources due to fire, flood or other disasters, go out of business within 18 months 

• Protect your firm from disruption

• Make your business fully compliant

• Differentiate your business form your competitors

• Increase your premium income from each client

 Benefits to brokers of Business Continuity Planning 

• Differentiate your service beyond pricing and least cost quotes
• Enable clients to understand professional risk management
• Learn more about your clients’ business and win their trust
• Gain valuable opportunities to cross-sell more classes of business
• Make your clients more resilient whilst protecting premium income
• Be better prepared for the impact of the Law Commission review
• Gain qualified referrals to new clients

CALL: 01273 893 337 TODAY or visit www.crisissurvivor.co.uk

11 PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY DRINK DRIVERS ON *UK* ROADS EVERY WEEK.

I think the best place to start an article on this subject is to establish how dangerous driving is. The reality is that we are all very relaxed about the perils ad dangers of driving, we all fall into the trap of feeling we are close to invulnerable as we sit cocooned in our warm comfortable metal boxes!

 The following statistics may make you reconsider;

 Probability of being killed

• North Sea Diver   1:1,000
• Miner   1:7,000
• Construction Worker   1:10,000
• Driving 12,000 business miles p.a.   1:8,000
• Driving 25,000 business miles p.a.   1:1,250
• Driving 30,000 business miles p.a.   1:200

Clearly there are a number of factors that skew these figures and statistics can be used to prove almost anything, but … even taking all of this into account I am sure you will agree that Driving on business is a surprisingly hazardous occupation.

Given the very real dangers of driving, there is no real option other than to say, that you should not drive with any level of alcohol in your system.

The effects of alcohol
Alcohol is a depressant drug and even small amounts of alcohol (such as half a pint of lager) affect drivers’ reaction times, judgment and co-ordination. Alcohol also makes it impossible for drivers to assess their own impairment because it creates a false sense of confidence and means drivers are more inclined to take risks and believe they are in control when they are not. 

It is also impossible to calculate how much alcohol you have in your blood (even if you know exactly how much you have consumed), or how long it will stay in your system. The speed at which alcohol is absorbed into your system (and how quickly your system gets rid of it) depends on a large number of factors, including your sex, weight, metabolism, health, how much you drank, how long you have been drinking for, how much and good a sleep you had, and when and what you last ate.

There’s no way of knowing exactly how long it takes to sober up completely after drinking, but it’s probably longer than you think. For example, if you finish your fourth pint of normal strength beer at 11pm, you probably won’t be sober until 10am the next day.  But it could take much longer.

Drinking coffee, eating, sleeping and showering don’t make you sober up any faster. It just takes time.

The fight against drink-driving goes on
Drink-drive casualties (deaths, serious injuries and minor injuries) decreased significantly during the 1980s, but rose by nearly a third between 1993 and 2002 (from 14,980 to 20,140). Drink-drive deaths account for one in six road deaths.

These Government statistics only include casualties caused by drivers over the drink-drive limit, yet many more drink-drive crashes are caused by drivers who only have small amounts of alcohol in their blood. Drivers who are under the drink-drive limit, but who have a significant amount of alcohol in their blood cause an estimated 80 road deaths per year.

The risks
Drink-driving puts both drivers and other road users at risk. Of the 20,060 people killed or injured in drink-drive crashes in 2002 there were:
740 pedestrians, including 120 children;
140 cyclists, including 40 children;
6,930 car passengers, including 850 children;
720 passengers in other vehicles, including 40 children;
plus many drivers and motorcyclists who had not been drinking themselves but were hit by drink-drivers.

At twice the legal limit, drivers are at least 50 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.

The law - the drink-drive limit
The current drink-drive limit in the UK is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, significantly higher than the majority of EU countries (the EC recommends a limit of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood or less). Research shows that a driver’s judgement and motor skills are affected when they are still well below the legal alcohol limit.
An estimated 80 people die each year in crashes caused by drivers who are impaired by alcohol but who are under the limit.

Charges and penalties
If a driver is found to be either over the drink-drive limit, and/or driving while impaired by alcohol, they can receive a maximum penalty of six months in prison and an unlimited fine. Anyone convicted must also receive a one-year disqualification. If a driver kills someone while under the influence of alcohol, they can be charged with death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years in prison.

Please take this seriously in particular remember the “morning after ” issue

A self-testing kit if you must attempt to drive the next morning is a possible consideration, but how do you know whether the kit is anywhere near accurate or you have used it properly? Also what are you testing for, just are you legal to drive or are you safe to drive?

In simple terms the only effective solutions are

Don’t drink the night before.

Find other transport, or someone who has not been drinking to drive you

As a last resort be ultra cautious and set off much later the following day

I know this looks like the usual kill joy approach from the health and safety nannies, but if its a choice between a “Merry” Christmas or being arrested, banned, losing your job, injuring or killing someone, which would you honestly prefer?

I’m tempted to sign off “Bah humbug”, or as Scrooge, but that really isn’t what I’m aiming for, all I am saying is remember it takes a lot longer to get sober than you think, so consider alternatives to you driving if you have even had a half decent night out.

Simon Fabian Tech IOSH

Risk Advisor

Thanks to Cardinus and the Brake organisation for the statistics.

You may have heard a few mutterings about Driver CPC recently. It’s one of the current hot topics in the haulage industry. But what’s it all about?

Driver CPC - or Driver Certificate of Professional Competence - is about improving the knowledge and skills of those who drive large vehicles. A good thing, we think, as it should improve safety on our roads.

It isn’t a voluntary thing. It’s all underpinned by legislation. Now here’s where things start to get a little complicated. Allow us to offer a simple explanation of the changes.

What is the Driver CPC?

The Driver CPC is a scheme for LGV (and PCV drivers) who drive professionally throughout the UK. It is being developed as a requirement of the EU Directive 2003/59, which is designed to improve the knowledge and skills of professional LGV and PCV drivers throughout their working life.

When will the Driver CPC scheme start?

Legislation to underpin the Driver CPC was put in place on 22nd March 2007 and the Driver CPC for LGV drivers will be implemented by 10 September 2009.

How will the Driver CPC affect my drivers?

Your driver’s individual circumstances will determine how they acquire the Driver CPC.

• New drivers acquiring a vocational entitlement (C1, C1+E, C or C+E licence) after the 10th September 2009 will have to obtain an initial CPC in addition to their LGV driving licence.
• Existing drivers who already hold a vocational licence on the 10th September 2009 are exempt from the initial CPC. This is known as “acquired rights”.

What will happen once a driver has their Driver CPC?

Irrespective of when or how a driver obtains the Driver CPC, he/she must complete a total of 35 hours Periodic Training within the following five years to keep the Driver CPC valid. LGV Drivers who are exempt from the Driver CPC via acquired rights will have to complete their periodic Driver CPC by September 2014.

Why react now?

Understandably, given the economic climate, some hauliers aren’t too happy about Driver CPC. This 35 hours of training will cost them time and money. Because of the recession, many in the industry look likely to put off training until the end of the 5 year deadline.

However, we would encourage those with haulage fleets to get their drivers trained to meet the Driver CPC requirements sooner rather than later.

To begin with, it’s a way for hauliers to stand out from the crowd, by showing they take the safety of their drivers and other road users seriously. We also feel over the next year or so, insurers may reward fleet operators that demonstrate that they take their driver training seriously, by starting their CPC programme early.

But also, there are around half a million licenced LGV drivers in the UK. If hauliers leave it too late, they could find there aren’t enough approved Driver CPC training centres around to cope with demand.

It goes without saying that haulage companies can’t operate without drivers and the inevitable mad scramble for qualifiaction in 2014, may leave you with too few qualified drivers. 

The above is only intended as a brief guidance on the legislative changes, you may find this guidance document helpful to determine how you want to proceed and whether you want to establish yourself as an approved trainer or outsource the training.

For further information, please download this document here:

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/CPC/guide_to_periodic_training.pdf

Written by Simon Fabian - Risk Advisor

Research shows that currently only 33% of businesses that have suffered a major loss are still trading two years later. To me these figures are a terrible indictment on the industry that I’ve known and come to love over the last 25 years.

I’m convinced that there are two primary contributors to these terrible statistics. The first is the lack of care, attention and time given by Insurance Brokers, when designing a programme of cover. Secondly, most businesses just don’t fully appreciate what it really takes to ensure a claim will be met. Put another way, few businesses realise how even the smallest breach in their insurance conditions, some of which, they may not have been consciously aware, can result in significantly reduced or non-payment of claims.

Whatever the underlying reason, I’m convinced the vast majority of businesses out there believe their Insurances would work satisfactorily in the event of a claim … When in fact they would not. I say this with confidence having spent the majority of my career, looking at other peoples programme designs and actively looking for the holes … I am afraid finding flaws in programme designs is all too easy to achieve in the vast majority of cases

Now it is my belief that the only way clients will ever understand the impact of things like breaches of insurance conditions, poor business interruption cover, or the meaning of warranties, is for brokers to take a far more proactive role in educating clients about the effects that such things can have on a business.

Take the example of the bus company who were asked (by their broker) to sign a declaration at renewal, stating they understood and complied with the warranties in their insurance programme, which the company duly did. Naturally the signature protected the broker and would have been pretty useful to the insurance company in the event of a claim. The problem was even though the client said and believed they were compliant, in reality they were not.

The issue was that they were required to store oily rags in a metal-lidded bin. In fact they did not have a single metal bin lidded or not in the place. Had there been a loss it would be simplicity itself for the insurer to decline the claim. Please be under no illusion if you are in breach of a material warranty, the Insurer will not pay.

My view is that it is the Brokers job, not just to pay lip service to adherence of warranties, but actually nail the point home. We always draw particular attention to these matters and whilst you can’t adhere to the warranties for a client it is possible to do absolutely everything you can to reduce the number of warranties in the first place. Then make sure they are complied with, in the second.

Now I know Insurance is boring, no one wants to spend time looking at Insurance clauses, warranties etc. However I can think of someone who likes nothing better, your friendly neighbourhood loss adjuster. Believe me, after you have burned down Insurance gets very interesting.

It’s my view that a broker’s prime responsibility is to protect clients, not to sell them insurance. To do that properly takes knowledge dedication and commitment. The fact that the industry is regulated by the FSA is not enough, they regulate systems and procedures.

The FSA require authorised Intermediaries to have a system in place for ensuring that employees are competent. This does not inform you as to the level of competence. Primarily a regulator can only ensure procedures are followed, boxes ticked and documentation is sent. In some ways a regulated environment is worse for you, because the Regulator checks the systems and makes sure you have the policy document, so you have no way out. It is your duty to read it.

So how can you choose a Broker that you know will look after you and has the knowledge commitment and understanding to actually create an Insurance programme which will work? Well, I am afraid there is no Golden Rule, but there are some things you could look for.

For example how well trained are the staff? What qualifications do they have? Are they chartered? What associations does the broker belong to?

At Cowens we take the training of staff very seriously indeed. Being recognised as a Chartered Insurance Broker is something we are incredibly proud of, as it puts us amongst less than 2% of all the insurance brokers in the UK.

Achieving chartered status is no mean feat. I see it as a badge of quality. It means we consistently demonstrate a commitment to the continuous development of our people. Today around 95% of Cowens staff are Institute members … committed to exams and qualifications that prove knowledge and understanding of our industry. Chartered status also means that half our board of directors are qualified as chartered; a qualification that few brokers in the UK would be able to meet. This ensures we really understand the industry from the top down and are committed to protecting the interests of the UK market.

On our website www.cowenssc.co.uk a visitor would soon see the just how far reaching Cowens commitment to quality is. For example, I don’t know of anyone else that has anything similar to our unique 126-point checklist; designed to ensure no stone is left uncovered when putting together a programme of insurance. Another testimony of our drive for quality is recognition as Investors in People. We see IIP as yet another indication to the commitment of developing our people. All this is to ensure we are able to provide the very best in advice, programme design, service and business survival capability.

As you might expect we also comply fully with all FSA regulations and the code of practice expected of us as members of BIBA the British Insurance Brokers Association.

Finally, the reason I reckon we go further than other brokers is simple. It is because we passionately believe that 67% of all businesses that experience a significant claim need not lose their livelihood within two years. So, in closing, whoever you choose as your insurance broker, my advice would be; don’t focus just on price, put some of your focus onto your survival capability should you be misfortunate enough to rely upon an insurance claim to ensure your business continuation.

Written by Paul Chaplin, a member of the Chartered Insurance Institute and a Chartered Insurance Broker