Related provisions for DISP App 3.3.8
1 - 20 of 30 items.
2The report referred to in ICOBS 8.4.4R (1)(c) must:(1) be prepared on the basis of providing an opinion under a limited assurance engagement confirming whether the auditor has found no reason to believe that the firm, solely in relation to the firm's extraction of information from its underlying records, has not materially complied with the requirements in ICOBS 8.4.4R (2) and ICOBS 8 Annex 1 in the production of its employer’s liability register, having regard in particular
3A firm with actual or potential liability for United Kingdom commercial lines employers' liability insurance claims must take reasonable steps to conduct effective searches of their records when they receive a request to carry out a search for a historical policy from persons falling into one of the categories in ICOBS 8.4.4R (2)(c) or a tracing office which meets the conditions in ICOBS 8.4.9 R.
3A firm must put in place a written policy for complying with ICOBS 8.4.14 R and operate in accordance with it. The policy must cover at least the following matters:(1) details of where the firm's historical policies are held or are likely to be held (including details of records which are archived or stored off site);(2) details of the different types of records to be searched by the firm, such as electronic files, paper files, and microfiche; and(3) details of how the searches
(1) 3Where a firm has established that a historical policy does exist, the response should confirm what cover was provided and set out any available information that is relevant to the request received.(2) Where there is evidence to suggest that a historical policy does exist, but the firm is unable to confirm what cover was provided, the response should set out any information relevant to the request and describe the next steps (if any) the firm will take to continue the search.
In considering the information communicated to the complainant and the complainant's information needs, the evidence to which a firm should have regard includes:(1) the complainant's individual circumstances at the time of the sale (for example, the firm should take into account any evidence of limited financial capability or understanding on the part of the complainant);(2) the complainant's objectives and intentions at the time of the sale;(3) whether, from a reasonable customer's
23A relevant benefit derived from a corporate event may only be brought to account if the firm is able to demonstrate, with written records created at the time of the advice, that:(1) The firm foresaw the prospect of the event and the benefit;(2) The firm's advice included a statement recommending the particular policy because of the possibility of the benefit in question; and(3) The statement was a material factor in the context of the advice and the decision to invest.
The FCA will apply the following principles of construction to determine whether a contract is a contract of insurance.(1) In applying the description in PERG 6.3.4 G, more weight attaches to the substance of the contract, than to the form of the contract. The form of the contract is relevant (see PERG 6.6.8 G (3) and (4)) but not decisive of whether a contract is a contract of insurance: Fuji Finance Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. Ltd [1997] Ch. 173 (C.A.).(2) In particular,
(1) A firm which has in its possession or control documents evidencing a client's title
to a contract of insurance or
other similar documents (other
than documents of no value) or which takes into its possession or control
tangible assets belonging to a client,
must take reasonable steps to ensure that any such documents or
items of property:(a) are
kept safe until they are delivered to the client;(b) are
not delivered or given to any other person except
in accordance with instructions