Professional
Indemnity
Insurance
for Residential
Valuation
Surveyors
Reflecting on a broken model
Professional Indemnity
Insurance (PII) Report
Valuation Surveyors
Many column inches, committees and discussion sessions have been dedicated
to the thorny issue of PII for valuation surveyors over the past three years.
Here, Howden Windsor, the RICS preferred PII Broker provide an analysis of why
the situation has arisen and what might be done to prevent re-occurrence.
Contents
1.What is the problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04
2.How big is the problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 – 07
3.The main antagonists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 – 09
4.Why has it occurred? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10–13
5.Why is there a disparity between the professions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14–15
6.Preventing re-occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 –17
7.Howden Windsor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 18
8.Contact us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 19
3
1. What is the problem?
a) A rise in repossessions since 2007, usually
a result of the prevailing economic conditions,
has led to Lenders incurring losses when
properties are sold on.
b) This resulted in a significant increase in
allegations of negligence against surveying
firms involved in the provision of valuations
for lending.
2. how big is the problem?
d) Consequentially there has been a reduction
in the number of Insurers who are willing to
provide the primary £1m of PII to valuation
surveying firms.
Key figures
f) It has recently been suggested that there is
now a shortage of Valuation Surveyors. It is
undoubtedly the case that the rising cost of
PII combined with a significant decline in
new entrants to an ageing profession has had
an impact on the number of practitioners
operating in this specialised area.
c) Valuation Surveyors’ Insurers have made
significant pay-outs in terms of both
settlements and legal costs.
• Residential repossessions peaked in 2009 at 52,000
• 87% of properties sold, out of repossession, since the start of the financial crisis,
sold at a loss
• Average loss to Lenders estimated to be £53,000 per property
• Insurance industry speculation suggests average settlement in relation to a residential
valuation claim of £40,000
• Notifications against Surveyors alleged to exceed £500m
• GWP generated per annum by all RICS regulated firms circa £70m and falling
• PII rates for valuations for lending averaging 10% but may be as high as 25%
• Surveying firms going out of business – ‘a threat to the future of the profession’
e) This constriction in capacity has led to a steep
rise in PII premiums. Some firms have been
unable to afford PII and have subsequently
either entered the RICS Assigned Risk Pool
or ceased to trade with no run-off cover.
a) Residential repossessions peaked in 2009 at
circa 52,000 per annum but they have now
reduced to 33,900 1.
b) Almost 87% of properties that have been
sold since the start of the financial crisis have
sold at a loss. This compares with 34% of
properties sold prior to the financial crisis.2
80,000
70,000
c) Where a property is sold out of repossession,
the average size of the loss incurred is 28.6%.
Based on an average house price of £184,131
in Q3 2007 3 this would result in an average
loss to Lenders of approximately £44,700 per
property (assuming 90% LTV).
60,000
50,000
d) It is not possible to calculate how many
notifications have been made against Surveyors
in relation to valuations for lending, however,
it is not uncommon to see proposal forms for
firms that generate a few hundred thousand
pounds of income with 10+ open notifications
on their claims history.
40,000
30,000
20,000
Chart 1: Number of properties taken into possession each year Source: CML research
4
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
0
1991
10,000
e) In relation to residential valuations, anecdotal
evidence suggests that the average settlement
amount is £40,000 (excluding legal costs).
Given the figure stated above and allowing
for negotiation on settlement amount, our
experience suggests this figure is reasonable.
f) It is not uncommon for legal costs to exceed
the settlement amount. Even where the
claimant does not receive a settlement,
both the Insurer and, to a lesser extent, the
Insurance Broker will still incur legal and
administrative costs which must be taken
into account when calculating premiums
and brokerage or fees.
g) Insurers’ concerns regarding the legal costs
involved in defending an allegation against
an insured can lead to situations where it is
considered financially prudent to settle a
claim rather than defend it, even where the
valuation is found to be within the correct
range. This position is more likely to be
followed where there is a lack of evidence
to support the valuation.
1
Source: Fitch Ratings; Peak Vintage Originations Drives Higher UK Loss Severities 28/3/13
2
Source: Fitch Ratings; Peak Vintage Originations Drives Higher UK Loss Severities 28/3/13
3
Source: Housepricecrash.co.uk; Nationwide average house prices adjusted for inflation
5
h) Since the downturn of the early 90’s, the
professional negligence pre-action protocol
has been introduced (2001). Whilst this
requires law firms to comply with procedural
guidelines designed to facilitate the early
exchange of information, there is evidence,
as seen in the recent example of Webb
Resolutions v Waller Needham and Green
that certain law firms are not complying with
the protocol. This has recently resulted in law
firms acting for defendants to apply for cases,
where the protocol has not been followed,
to be struck out. Furthermore, until the
introduction of the Jackson Reforms, law firms
did not have to adhere to any strict guidelines
on costs management, thus further escalating
the costs that Surveyors’ Insurers incur.
i) RICS regulated firms currently generate £40m
of premium income to Insurers each year.
This figure relates to the primary £1m layer
only with total premium income estimated
to be circa £70m. Despite the steep rise in
insurance rates for Valuation Surveyors, the
premium income generated from the primary
£1m has fallen by 30% since 2005, in spite
of the fact that the number of RICS regulated
firms has increased by 15% since 2008. This
fall in income is likely to be attributable to a
combination of four key factors:
I. A reduction in PII rates for all other
surveying disciplines e.g. project
management, building surveying, agency,
property management etc.;
II. A reduction in overall income generated
by the surveying profession;
III.A greater proliferation of smaller firms
as larger businesses have been acquired
i.e. Jones Lang LaSalle’s acquisition of
King Sturge and Deloitte’s acquisition
of Drivers Jonas; and
IV.Greater competition amongst Insurers and
Insurance Brokers, resulting in downward
pressure on premiums as firms compete
to win and retain business.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
j) It has been suggested that once all matters
had been resolved, claims settlements would
amount to £500m. Unfortunately, it’s impossible
to ascertain how accurate this estimate is,
however, Howden Windsor have settled over
£70m of claims on behalf of our surveying
clients between 2008 and 2012. We estimate
that we represent approximately 10% of the
premium emanating from RICS regulated
firms (with a heavy bias towards the survey
and valuation professions), so that would
suggest the £500m estimate may, in fact, be
on the low side.
k) There are currently no more than five Insurers
(out of 30 on the RICS list) who would be
interested in providing a new quote for the
primary layer of insurance for a firm generating
£1m of fee income with a 25%+ exposure
to survey and valuation and a good claims
history. For smaller firms, this number reduces
to as little as one or even zero. Many small
firms have had no choice but to remain with
their existing Insurer irrespective of the
premium charged and, in some instances,
this will exceed 20% of fee income.
l) On a positive note, we are now beginning to
see new Insurers who are willing to quote
firms with a plus 25% exposure to survey and
valuation. Whilst their appetite is limited, we
would anticipate that new capacity would be
available to good quality firms at their 2013
renewal as the combined impact of the Statute
of Limitation and the Jackson Reforms begins
to be felt. However, any increase in capacity
is likely, initially, to be offset by Aviva’s
decision to withdraw from underwriting PII
for sub £10m fee income firms and by a
further restriction of appetite amongst larger
Insurers as they evaluate the likelihood of
unresolved claims progressing to some form
of settlement.
m)The number of firms in the RICS assigned risk
pool remains low at fewer than 15, despite a
small spike in 2009. There are a handful of
firms, some well publicised, that we know of
that have closed down without run-off cover
and we would anticipate that there are others
who have taken this course of action but
have done so unobserved by all but the Panel
Managers on whose behalf they were acting.
These figures suggest that the majority of
firms have elected to continue trading in spite
of premiums that may be as high as 25% of
fee income. However, that is not to say that all
of these firms continue to undertake valuations
for lending. Reductions to the number of
businesses on a lot of panels would suggest
they don’t, particularly given the fact that the
majority of panels will no longer work with Sole
Practitioners. Whilst this is a dismal reflection
on the state of the surveying sector it should
mean that as the housing market begins to
recover there will be a good supply of work for
firms that continue operating in this area, as is
evidenced by the rumours that there is now a
shortage of valuers.
n) Insurers who provide PII cover to Surveyors
often also underwrite other professions for
example Solicitors and Financial Advisers.
Valuation Surveyors are not alone in being
affected by a steep rise in claims and
notifications; Solicitors particularly those
involved in conveyancing and more recently
Financial Advisers have also been impacted
as have all other professions albeit to a much
lesser extent. This represents a triple hit for
some Insurers and partially explains why
businesses such as Travellers, Aviva and
Chubb have elected to significantly reduce
their PII books.
Chart 2: RICS listed Insurer premium income in £m from the primary £1m of surveyors PII, October 2012
6
7
3.The main antagonists
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to access collated
Insurer statistics on claims and notifications
against Surveyors. Consequently, we can’t
provide accurate data on which Lenders have
been most active in terms of making allegations,
although we can comment to some extent on
the experiences of our own insured’s.
At the outset of the current crisis, we would have
anticipated higher levels of activity from:
• Lenders which received ‘bail-outs’ or entered
Administration
• Sub-prime Lenders, providers of bridging
loans etc.
• Instances where multiple valuations had
been provided by the same firm in new build
developments
To some extent this has been borne out with
Lenders such as Northern Rock, RBS, Commercial
First and Bank of Scotland appearing regularly
as claimants. However, smaller Sub-prime Lenders
and providers of bridging finance appear less
frequently, although Insurers views of what
exactly ‘sub-prime’ lending is vary. It is important,
when assessing the level of claims originating
from sub-prime that one considers that in 2007
sub-prime mortgages only accounted for 7% of
the UK loans market.4
4
Our own conversations with representatives of
the sub-prime industry suggest their appetite for
making allegations against valuers is limited. This
lack of appetite may be partially accounted for
by a lack of willingness on behalf of Sub-prime
Lenders to open up their historical lending
practices to scrutiny. It may also reflect the fact
that Sub-prime Lenders are finding it harder to
find valuers who will undertake instructions on
their behalf (partially due to the severe lack of
availability of insurance for this work).
As a general rule of thumb Insurers are nervous,
and are likely to remain wary about any firm that:
• Values for Lenders routinely lending more than
90% LTV particularly where valuations were
done at the tail end of the peak of the market.
• Values for providers of sub-prime/
second charge/bridging finance
• Undertakes residential valuations at an average
net fee of below £120
• Operated in an area of the country where
re-possessions where high e.g. the North East,
North West and East Midlands.
• Carries out a high number of drive by
valuations
• Values a high percentage of total properties
in any one new build development
As an Insurance Broker and Adviser we would
counter concerns about several of these areas,
for example higher property values, as our
experience shows that claims are far less likely to
occur on prime property where LTVs are typically
lower and borrowers more financially stable, but
ultimately it must be accepted that, unless an
Insurance Broker insists otherwise, Insurers are
likely to apply a broad brush approach when
rating a risk rather than taking into account the
specifics of a firm’s activities.
Rightly or wrongly, Insurers take a more positive
view of those firms working for private client
banks. Typically, the relationship between Lender
and valuer is closer; the reporting format is less
likely to be standardised, thus allowing greater
capacity for the inclusion of caveats and warnings
regarding particular aspects of the property and
the fees received higher. Additionally, there is
a perception that purchasers who borrow from
a private client bank are far less likely to borrow
at a high LTV and it is expected that the bank
has an in-depth understanding of the borrower’s
financial stability.
Where multiple distributors are involved in the
instruction chain, the level of information Surveying
firms can provide at renewal decreases. We now
ask firms with a significant exposure to valuations
for lending to provide random audits of 100
valuations done at the peak of the market
showing Lender, LTV, Property Value and whether
or not the property has changed hands. Those
firms who have received an instruction via two or
even three distributors appear to find it difficult,
if not impossible to collate this information.
This makes it hard for Insurers to accurately
assess risk and reflects poorly on the firm’s
internal management systems. Most importantly,
the more remote the valuer becomes from the
lending institution, the lower the fee received
which directly impacts the premium Insurers can
generate.
Source: The return of the sub-prime mortgage; mortgage firms target ‘overlooked’ market, The Guardian,
8
Friday 29 October 2010 Patrick Collinson and Rupert Jones
9
4.why has the problem occured?
• Lenders have incurred losses
–­They have attempted to recoup losses and been strongly encouraged by law firms providing
access to After the Event (ATE) Insurance and Conditional Fee Arrangements (CFA)
• Valuers have made mistakes
­– The likelihood of a valuer making a mistake has been increased by the high volume of
reports undertaken on a daily basis during the boom
–­ Even where no mistake has been made the quality of the valuation file does not assist in
the defence
• Given escalating litigation costs prior to the introduction of the Jackson reforms it may be more
financially viable for an Insurer to settle a claim rather than defend it
• The low fees charged by Valuation Surveyors restricts the level of premium income that
Insurers can generate thus increasing the rate they have to charge
a) Compared to the recession of the early 90’s, repossession levels are proportionally significantly
lower during the current economic downturn (see chart 1), despite the fact that the variance
between total residential property transactions in the four years preceding each downturn was just
6% (6.8m in 1987–1990 compared with 6.4m in 2004–2007). The reduction in the number of
repossessions has been attributed to a combination of factors: low interest rates, low inflation,
comparatively low unemployment levels and the banks reluctance to repossess properties, given
the public’s already tarnished view of the role they played in causing the current downturn.
c) The most significant difference between the current recession and that of the early 90’s (in relation
to claims against Valuation Surveyors) is the availability of CFA and ATE insurance to claimants.
These arrangements have allowed Lenders to bring claims at no direct cost to themselves (any fees
owing are paid out of the final settlement amount). It is felt that many of the current notifications
arose not due to a genuine belief that negligence had occurred, but because law firms have
aggressively encouraged Lenders to make allegations, based on the availability of these facilities.
Combine this view with the acknowledgement that Valuation Surveyors’ output has improved markedly
in quality since the early 90’s and there is a feeling that, once the dust has settled, a lower
percentage of notifications will have resulted in settlement. One of our clients has recently used the
services of an external expert to retrospectively value 10 properties that are the subject of notifications
from a single Lender. In each instance, the expert’s view was that the valuations were within an
acceptable margin. Unfortunately, these services and those provided by law firms acting for defendants
all come at a cost and it is not, therefore, surprising that we would anticipate that legal fees
associated with notifications and claims will be significantly higher than during the last downturn.
What is After The Event insurance?
After The Event (ATE) insurance covers the legal costs and expenses incurred in litigation.
It can be used in any type of litigation by either a claimant or a defendant, although in practice
it is mainly used by claimants. It is normally purchased by Solicitors on behalf of their clients.
ATE insurance normally covers the legal costs which a claimant must pay to a defendant when
a claim is unsuccessful.
What is a Conditional Fee Arrangement?
A Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) is an agreement between a client and Solicitor whereby
the Solicitor agrees not to be paid unless they win the case. Hence their more common name,
‘no win, no fee’. The CFA usually incorporates a success fee, which is an uplift on the amount
of costs the client would have paid had they engaged their Solicitor on a usual retainer basis.
b) Despite the lower level of repossessions, having questioned several individuals who were involved
in Surveyor’s PII during the downturn of the early 90’s, the prevailing view is that there have been
more notifications during the current financial crisis.
10
11
d) Whilst there has been a noticeable
improvement in the quality of Valuation
Surveyors’ output, mistakes are still being
made and even where the valuation is within
an appropriate margin, the documentation
presented to assist in the defence of a claim is
not always of sufficient quality to demonstrate
that the Surveyor has met the standard of a
competent professional. At the extreme end,
we are still seeing instances where there is no
paper file to support a valuation.
e) Due to the lack of collated claims data from
across the entire valuation profession, it is
hard to pinpoint the most common underlying
causes of claims, however, discussions with
Insurers suggest that the following factors are
the most common causes of claims:
I. Lack of experience
II. Working outside a reasonable operational
area
III. Failing to fully audit high risk instructions
IV. Inappropriate comparables
V. Measurement mistakes
VI. Making incorrect assumptions
12
f) It has been suggested that these errors arise
because surveying firms were seeking to
maximise income whilst minimising their cost
base. Given the inability of firms to negotiate
uplift in income with Panel Managers
and Lenders, too much focus was placed
on minimising costs resulting in Surveyors
undertaking too many inspections in any
one day, the appointment of inexperienced
Surveyors, insufficient investment in systems
and procedures and a lack of focus on risk
management.
h) Whilst other professions are experiencing
similarly high levels of notifications, Valuation
Surveyors have been far harder hit in terms
of a rate rise than IFAs and marginally harder
hit than law firms undertaking conveyancing.
Even the highest risk IFA firm should be
able to secure a rate of circa 2%, whilst the
average rate for conveyancing is currently at
approximately 8% (marginally lower than the
estimated 10% for valuations for lending).
g) When assessing the viability of a particular
line of business, one of the key areas Insurers
will analyse is the potential risk to reward
ratio, as determined by the premium available
from a line of business against the likely
settlements and legal costs that will be
incurred. As already discussed, the total
premium income from the surveying
profession has fallen markedly over the last
six years. This has been directly affected by
the fees that Valuation Surveyors generate
from each instruction. As these have declined,
so too has the premium available to Insurers,
since it’s charged as a percentage of fee
income. Whilst this pressure on fee income
has also been felt by Solicitors involved in
conveyancing, we estimate that the lowest
fee a Solicitor receives is around double that
received by a surveying firm. If a surveying
firm received £300 for the average residential
valuation report as opposed to £150, Insurers
could halve the rate they charge whilst
maintaining premium income.
13
5.why is there a disparity between
the professions?
a) One of the key differences between
professions is the variation in fees previously
referred to.
b) Insurers of IFAs have the ability to restrict
cover and cover is offered on an ‘Aggregate’
rather than ‘Any One Claim’ basis. However,
a Solicitors PII wording (as laid down by the
SRA) is broader than the RICS minimum
terms.
c) Solicitors have the option to insure with
‘unrated security.’ Whilst this rarely makes
sense in the long term, particularly given the
demise of Quinn, Lemma and more recently
Balva, unrated Insurers will often offer very
competitive terms to enable them to rapidly
establish books of business. Whilst there have
been new Insurers who have been willing to
aggressively quote to win Surveyors’ business,
their appetite has often been short lived and
it remains the case that Surveyors (rightly so
in our opinion) do not have access to unrated
security. One only needs to explore the demise
of Quinn to find justification for the RICS strict
approach to monitoring the financial stability
of RICS listed Insurers. In 2008, the RICS
removed Quinn from its ‘Listed Insurers’ whilst
the SRA elected not to take any action. When
Quinn later entered administration, many law
firms where left uninsured.
d) Whilst the total premium pot for IFAs is around
£40m, Solicitors generate in excess of £200m
per annum (compared with a total of £70m
from RICS regulated firms) even though there
is only 1,000 more law firms in the UK than
RICS regulated firms.
14
e) Insurers consistently view lending valuations
as the highest risk activity a surveying firm
can undertake, irrespective of the fact that
outside of an economic downturn they will
receive a higher volume of claims from
property management, Home Buyers reports
and Building Surveys. Insurers take this
view because:
I. Higher values at risk – therefore,
potentially higher quantum’s associated
with claims. In 2009 we settled £36m
of claims on behalf of surveying firms as
compared with £20m for IFAs. In 2010
settlement amounts were broadly similar
but our IFA book is six times the size of
our surveyors’ book (in terms of number of
accounts)
II. Valuations are generally unpopular with
Insurers, as it is one person’s objective
opinion of a value, supported by
comparables, at a given time in a particular
set of circumstances (i.e. willing buyer and
willing seller). It is very difficult to get a
valuation ‘correct’ (whatever that means)
in those circumstances and equally difficult
for courts to ascertain correctness
III.Lenders are consistently viewed as being
highly litigious, although this impacts
conveyancing Solicitors as much as
Valuation Surveyors
IV.Concerns regarding fraud although, again,
this concern is equally applicable to
conveyancing firms. Furthermore banks,
through contributory negligence
reductions, are being forced to take greater
responsibility for their own actions in
relation to fraud.
f) There has been a suggestion that Surveyors
are less sophisticated buyers than their legal
and financial counterparts. There is no empirical
evidence to support this view, but my personal
experience suggests that surveyors are
more loyal to their Broker/Insurer (occasionally
irrespective of the service they receive) and
less inclined to negotiate hard on price at
renewal. Additionally, the profession’s approach
to purchasing PII is not always conducive to
enabling an Insurance Broker to secure a
competitive quote, or indeed any quotes at all.
Firms continue to submit illegible, inaccurate
proposal forms and to start the process just a
few weeks ahead of renewal. This is, however,
true of all professions.
g) It has also been suggested that Surveyors are
less sophisticated legally and commercially
when negotiating contracts with their clients.
The profession and its Insurers have certainly
not been helped by the broad contractual
obligations enforced by both Lenders and
Panel Managers.
15
6. Preventing re-occurrence
of the problems
We have tried within this section to make
recommendations that are achievable rather
than merely desirable and to recommend
actions that are within the control of the
individual surveying firm.
a) Don’t undertake instructions that are outside
your area of expertise in terms of either
geographic location or asset type.
b) Ensure that your firm has a robust audit
process in place and ensure that this is
consistently applied even during peak periods.
c) Highlight any concerns that you have
regarding the property and refer owners/
Lenders to appropriate professionals where
required. If you can’t carry out a full
inspection, e.g. walls are dry lined, refer to
this in the report.
j) Ensure that your reporting systems facilitate
the simple collation of data on items such as
Loan to Value ratios and Lenders for which
you have undertaken instructions. Ask panel
managers for full reports on all valuation
instructions you have undertaken to support
your renewal submission.
q) Maintain an open and frank dialogue with
other firms regarding their experiences.
Which Lenders are most active in terms of
allegations? Which areas/property types are
throwing up the highest numbers of notifications? Above what LTV level do claims typically
occur?
k) Remain in regular contact with your Insurance
Broker throughout the policy year to give you
the best chance of receiving an early warning
about the possibility of your existing Insurer
declining to offer renewal terms.
r) Remember that claims will occur as soon
as losses arise. Be wary of valuing in an
overheated market.
l) Know your client and be wary of accepting
instructions that have been through multiple
distributors.
There are more all-encompassing solutions to
the PII problem but the ability to deliver these
rests with a collective group of Panel Managers,
Surveyors, Regulators, Lenders, Insurers,
Insurance Brokers and Lawyers. For this reason
they have not been explored in this document.
m)Think very carefully about undertaking
valuations at a fee which you feel does not
reflect the workload and potential liabilities
involved. Remember that you will incur a
premium cost for that valuation for the next
seven years.
d) Ensure comparables are appropriate.
e) Attach photos to reports.
f) Ensure that electronic copies of all reports,
file notes, comparables and photos are
retained for at least 15 years and that all files
are regularly backed up.
g) Use a specialist Professional Indemnity Broker
with direct access to all RICS Listed Insurers.
h) Start the renewal process at least two months
ahead of renewal.
i) Ensure that your proposal form and
supplementary questionnaire is neatly
completed, legible and accurate.
16
n) Never allow a third-party to pressure you into
arriving at a valuation figure that you are not
entirely comfortable with.
o) Ensure you fully understand any agreements
that you sign up to. Don’t just accept items
such as unlimited assignment and unlimited
liability.
p) Consider setting aside a certain proportion of
fee income to cover the cost of PII insurance
and run-off cover in future years. The first year
of run-off cover will generally be equal to the
premium paid in the last full year of trading.
Subject to claims levels and insurer appetite
remaining stable, you should then budget for
a 15% year-on-year reduction.
17
ABOUT HOWDEN WINDSOR
Howden Windsor is the only Insurance Broker
to hold the Royal Institution of Chartered
surveyor’s preferred Professional Indemnity
Broker status. We are responsible for placing
over £20m premium per annum on behalf of
650 surveying firms, ranging from sole traders
to some of the world’s largest property
consultancies. We have assisted a large number
of Panel Managers and surveying firms
generating in excess of 50% of income from
valuations for lending in securing PII at a
competitive price.
We maintain strong relationships with all RICS
listed primary layer Insurers and are one of the
largest producers of PII premium to several key
Insurers to the surveying profession. We also
have strong relationships with key influencers
within the surveying profession including Panel
Managers, Lenders and Solicitors. This ensures
we can offer innovative insurance solutions
that respond proactively to changing market
conditions and client demands.
18
We have a highly experienced team, many
members of which have over 20 years’ experience
of handling PII on behalf of Surveyors, ensuring
we deliver the right premium for the right level
of cover, with the ability to tailor policy wordings
where required. In addition to our Account
Handlers and Brokers we operate one of the
largest in-house PII claims team in the UK, which
helps to reduce the time your directors, partners
and employees spend managing claims and
ensures that where coverage issues arise, you
have a tough advocate on your side.
Contact Us
Matt Farman
Tel: 020 7133 1565
[email protected]
Dale Williams
Tel: 020 7133 1575
[email protected]
www.howdenwindsor.com/surveyors
We are the specialist Professional Indemnity
division of Howden Insurance Brokers Limited,
as a team we are responsible for placing over
£134m premium per annum on behalf of over
7,500 businesses. The greatest testament to our
expertise is our dominance in many of the sectors
in which we operate; over 50% market share in
the IFA sector, the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors only preferred Professional Indemnity
broker and broker to 30% of the UK’s largest
Accountancy practices.
19
71 Fenchurch Street | London EC3M 4BS | United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7133 1400 | www.howdenwindsor.com
Howden Windsor is a trading name of Howden Insurance Brokers Limited, a subsidiary of Howden Broking Group Limited, part of
the Hyperion Insurance Group. Howden Insurance Brokers Limited is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority: firm reference
number 312584. Registered in England and Wales under company registration number 203500. Registered office 16 Eastcheap,
London, EC3M 1BD.
Disclaimer: The observations, comments and suggestions made in this document by Howden Windsor or any other part, are
advisory and are not intended nor should they be taken as legal, financial or insurance advice. Please contact your specialist broker,
legal or financial advisor for an analysis of your specific facts and circumstances.