Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)
This has been a significant piece of work which will have implications for the retail sector.
Although this particular problem mainly involves larger firms, the Panel remains concerned that, where firms do not have the resources to pay compensation then all general insurance intermediaries, very largely consisting of smaller firms, become responsible for providing the funding required by the FSCS.
We are continuing to monitor the developments.
If you have ideas or experiences that could contribute constructively to the Panel’s opinions and debates on this topic, please do use the feedback form below.
Do you want to comment?
Thank you for providing comments. The SBPP will use this information to help inform its discussions on financial services regulation.
What the SBPP has said previously on this topic:
During 2008, the Panel agreed with the proposals requiring the retention of stricter rules for higher risk products, such as Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) and other pure protection products. Equally the Panel, in principle, felt that the rules super-equivalent to the Insurance Mediation Directive (IMD) should be removed and, wherever possible, the FSA should adopt a more principles-based approach.