December 12th, 2011 by Marie-Claire Clinton
If I didn’t know better, I would think that the BSB had stumbled upon my blog.
Not many of you will remember my post from May (http://www.lawadvice.uk.com/2011/05/alternative-business-structures/) where I commented that I would not be choosing the BSB as my practice’s regulator because they would not permit the holding of client money.
Lo and behold I read in the Gazette this week that they have had an about face on this issue and are setting up a scheme where their regulated practices will be able to hold client money after all.
I am still no clearer on the whole regulator issue but did see in the SRA’s small print in the indemnity insurance rules that they would consider a practice to be “ceasing” such that it would have to have run-off insurance in place if that practice was no longer going to be regulated by the SRA.
Why is that problematic, you may ask. Because run-off insurance costs 3-4 times the annual premium!
So quite a disincentive to switching regulator, and probably an unfair term to be honest provided that indemnity insurance required under another regulator’s rules was in place.
Now there’s an idea if I ever get bored!