With regards to the FSA regulations coming into force in 2004-5, I believe they are designed to get rid of small brokers. Large brokers will not be affected by any of the rules, they can afford to have in-house solicitors taking care of any problems they encounter. However, the FSA may not be the right "body" to regulate the general insurance market.

This, I feel, should fall to the Gaming Commission. After all, the client gives the insurers money and if they do not claim the "house" wins. If, on the other hand the client has a claim, the "house" makes a loss. This is more like William Hill where clients are interested only in cheap premiums (low bets/stakes), not cover. Few show any kind of interest in the cover, as most brokers can testify, so should the FSA be replaced by the Gaming Commission?


Send letters to Insurance Times, 30 Cannon Street, London, EC4M 6YJ or email

or fax 020 7618 3499