LSB to take on £110,000 cost of supervising immigration advisers

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

16 November 2010


Immigration work: other regulators can apply for designation

The Legal Services Board is expected take over responsibility for overseeing the regulation of immigration advisers by the legal professional bodies from the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), starting in April 2011.

In a letter to the Lord Chancellor asking that the transitional period under schedule 18 of the Legal Services Act be ended on 31 March, the LSB agreed to take over the OISC’s oversight of the regulation activities of the Law Society, Bar Council and Institute of Legal Executives.

Under schedule 18, the LSB will also be able to provide for other approved regulators to apply to become designated qualifying regulators of immigration advice.

At the moment the three regulators pay the OISC a levy for its oversight regulation role. In 2009-10 the bill was around £110,000. But in a summary of the risks and mitigations involved in the transfer of powers, presented to the LSB’s board in September, it was made clear that the LSB would have to budget for the extra burden.

The document said: “The OSIC currently charges… for each regulatory activity that it does. The LSB does not consider that this arrangement would practically fit with its regulatory approach.”

Tags: , , , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

The skills shortage in law firms is the biggest threat to handling cybercrime

CLC Roundtable discussion at Malmaison Hotel, Charterhouse Square

The skills shortage in our businesses is the biggest threat to our industry when looking at cybercrime. Cybercriminals are not just after money but are looking for sensitive information too, so the legal services sector is an obvious target. In the last year we have had reports of around £7m of client money being lost to such crime. This is not an IT issue and it should not be left to the IT teams to sort out. It is a high-level responsibility and a board-level issue that must be taken seriously. We suspect that we will look back on 2016 and ask why we didn’t respond quicker.

March 21st, 2017