Consumer watchdog gives SRA’s ABS application green light – with reservations

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

9 May 2011


Hayter: consumers “did not relate” to Code of Conduct's guiding principles

The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) application to become a licensing body for alternative business structures (ABS) has been endorsed by the Legal Services Board’s consumer watchdog, but with reservations.

While it described the SRA’s proposed arrangements for regulating ABSs as being “broadly right”, the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) expressed disappointment that some recommendations it made during consultations were not adopted.

In a letter advising the board on the consumer impact of the application – in its role as a statutory consultee under the Legal Services Act – the LSCP’s chairwoman, Dr Dianne Hayter, highlighted that the SRA had adapted the solicitors’ existing Code of Conduct rather than started afresh, despite its own research finding consumers “did not relate” to its guiding principles.

Another issue still of concern was the failure of the SRA to fully incorporate the risks of consumer vulnerability – the fact that consumers have different needs, abilities and circumstances – into its regulatory regime. For example, the regulator had not promoted the issue from a voluntary “indicative behaviour” to a mandatory “explicit outcome” under the code, the LSCP complained.

The panel welcomed many aspects of the application, which it said were consistent with issues it raised during the SRA’s four consultations. These included proposing a single regime across regulated entities, giving consumers the same protections when dealing with ABSs and traditional firms; maintaining the separate business rule; a single compensation fund; the code’s approach to conflicts of interest; and protection for whistleblowers.

However, the LSCP called for evidence that plans or commitments made in the application have subsequently been followed through effectively. It also emphasised that the success of outcomes focused regulation would depend on its delivery, in particular whether the SRA could obtain good behaviour from providers without stifling innovation and be tough when dealing with those “that abuse the freedoms given to them”.

Lastly, the LSCP approved of the SRAs plans to create a consumer affairs unit but cautioned it was essential that all staff took responsibility for it. Also, the panel reiterated its view that the SRA should “develop capacity on behavioural insight in order to understand the impact of its policies on consumer behaviour”.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

Small claims 2013 v 2018: What has changed?

Brett Dixon APIL

Successive governments have considered increasing the small claims limit for personal injury claims, at the behest of the insurance industry lobby, from £1,000 to £5,000. But the lower limit remains unchanged because, so far, evidence and reasoning have prevailed. The last time the government tried to implement an increase was in 2013 when it concluded that it would keep the issue under consideration for implementation “when appropriate”. Nothing has happened to suppose a small claims limit of £5,000 is any more “appropriate” in 2018 than it was in 2013.

January 15th, 2018