Public RM Journal

SUMMER 2015 alarm-uk.org 1

UNLOCKING CYBER RISK

Changing volunteering

Alarm Forum previews

SMART GUIDE Social media

Child protection outsourcing challenges

CSE long tail claims

SUMMER 2015alarm-uk.org

2 alarm-uk.org SUMMER 2015

IS Y UR RI KM NA EM NTPR V DERM SS NGSO ETH NG?

We do the thinking …

Risk Management Partners0 20 7204 1800www.rmpartners.co.uk

We don’t cut corners. That’s one thing we never do. We’ll give you a dedicated account director. And a claims manager who understands your organisation. You’ll receive real-time access to your claims data. We continually monitor claims trends. We do all this to deliver a bespoke programme that reduces total cost of risk. It’s why we are one of the UK’s leading public sector insurance organisations. Maybe it’s time to ask yourself the question, is your risk management provider missing something? We like to think so.


A link between failings, and checks and balances?

CHAIRMAN’S COMMENT

ROBIN POWELLCHAIRMAN, ALARM

Please forgive the slightly angry and perhaps controversial tone of some of this column. I’m no Jeremy Clarkson so rest assured I’m not going to get involved in any kind of ‘fracas’. I also ought to preface this column with the usual comment that the views expressed in this article

are entirely my own and don’t represent the views of my employer or indeed, Alarm.

Some elements of the public sector just seem to lurch from one muck-up to another. In my introduction to the Spring edition of Public RM I referred to the Kerslake report about governance failings at Birmingham City Council. Just after we went to print on that edition, the Louise Casey report on Rotherham Council was published with hard hitting words shouting at me from the pages, such as ‘not fit for purpose’ and ‘failing in its duties to protect’. Government appointed commissioners are now running that Council aiming to rectify the mistakes of the previous regime, moving towards full council elections in 2016. I also now hear about child sexual exploitation elsewhere and a perceived ‘head in the sand’ mentality of officers and councillors who appear in a state of denial.

Is it me, or does nobody else see a link between these well published failings and a lack of checks and balances that a fully resourced and well governed publicly funded organisation would have were it not for cuts in resources and the continued need to demonstrate efficiency savings? It is too easy to cut corners, especially on areas of responsibility that don’t deliver front line services or generate income, such as governance, audit, risk and insurance management. There are lessons to be learned here for all of us, even if it is only a salutary reminder to avoid complacency in all that we do in our risk management activities.

By the time you read this we will have endured months of electioneering, media debates and gnashing of political teeth. I don’t know now what shape or colour of government we will be experiencing but no doubt there will be negotiations and promises made with the sole aim of wielding political power. Will this result in a better outlook for

the public sector? I’m not convinced: what’s good for politicians may not be good for those they govern. I wonder what future lies ahead for all of our publicly funded organisations? What we do know is that risks won’t go away, despite changes to government, and new risks will emerge. The debate continues as to how well those risks will be managed to avoid the type of headline grabbing situations I mention above.

Our new guide on FOI is included with this issue of Public RM. We all recognise that transparency and openness is extremely important and sits at the heart of good governance but let’s ensure that the legislation is used for its intended purpose, not to circumvent recognised due process, especially in respect of civil claims handling.

This edition of Public RM again contains something for everybody in the Alarm family. Articles on social media, cyber security and children’s services’ risks highlight matters concerned

with modern ways of communicating and new service delivery methods.

The 2015 Alarm National Educational Forum is being held in Birmingham, at a new venue at Aston University in June. I look forward to welcoming Members and sponsors to a

Forum that’s packed with insightful and useful workshops appealing to more sectors and covering a broader range of special interest

subjects that ever before. Please come and say ‘hello’ and tell me what you think of Alarm.

Our feature on volunteer risk on page

11 may have wider appeal than the third sector, with organisations increasingly

reliant on voluntary contributions to maintain

community services.

CHAIRMAN’S COMMENT

IS Y UR RI KM NA EM NTPR V DERM SS NGSO ETH NG?

We do the thinking …

Risk Management Partners0 20 7204 1800www.rmpartners.co.uk

We don’t cut corners. That’s one thing we never do. We’ll give you a dedicated account director. And a claims manager who understands your organisation. You’ll receive real-time access to your claims data. We continually monitor claims trends. We do all this to deliver a bespoke programme that reduces total cost of risk. It’s why we are one of the UK’s leading public sector insurance organisations. Maybe it’s time to ask yourself the question, is your risk management provider missing something? We like to think so.

3 CHAIRMAN’S COMMENT A link between failings, and checks and balances?

4 CONTENTS

5 ALARM UPDATE Forum Doing defence differently Forum Making an impact

7 ALARM UPDATE Forum practitioner sessions - Delivering the legacy of innovation Forum practitioner sessions - Risk sharing and risk management in a consortium 8 ALARM UPDATE Forum practitioner sessions - How many elastic bands does it take to survive? Alarm Highways Report

9 ALARM UPDATE Chairman’s farewell FOIL focus

11 CHARITIES Changing volunteering

14 INSURANCE The Insurance Act: fair presentation

16 INSURANCE CSE long tail claims

19 INSURANCE Collaborative working 20 CHILDREN Child protection outsourcing challenges

22 STRATEGIC RISK Unlocking cyber security

25 PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT Linking learning

26 LEGAL UPDATE How to manage social media risks

28 LEGAL UPDATE Keeping the faith on Coventry

30 LEGAL UPDATE On the case

32 HIGHWAYS Pothole partnership

33 MEMBER PROFILE Finding the value in risk

35 MEMBER AREA Events

36 MEMBER AREA Supplier Directory

CONTENTS


The views expressed in Public RM are the authors’ own and may not represent the views of Alarm. Detailed specialist advice should be sought before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the comments made in this publication which are intended to give an overview of the particular subject.

Alarm is grateful for the support of the following Platinum Corporate Sponsors: Risk Management Partners and Zurich Municipal.

Alarm, Ashton House, Weston,Sidmouth, Devon, EX10 0PF

Editor: Adele Cherreson Cole. Please submit ideas or articles for publication to [email protected]

Advertising Sales: To place display or directory advertising, please call 0333 123 0007 or email [email protected]

All content and images in this publication are copyright protected.


ALARM UPDATE

Kerry Underwood of Underwood Solicitors writes one of the most widely read blogs on public sector insurance claims. He will be challenging the norms, presenting his unorthodox views and offering up ‘sacred cows’ for debate at the Alarm National Educational Forum at Aston University in Birmingham.

During his session, Kerry will challenge beliefs on claims management, raising the question of whether corporate defendants could slash their legal costs by adopting a fundamentally different approach to defending claims.

With all three major political parties approving a massive increase in court fees (600% plus in some cases) it may be a good time to take stock. After all, a £10,000 court issue fee will end up on the defendant’s doorstep if the claimant wins.

Kerry will talk about the following issues:• Should we consider abandoning the courts to set up a private mediation or arbitration system that actually works?• Do costs negotiators do anything except massively increase costs?• Is the war of attrition a hopelessly expensive battle that neither the claimant nor defendant can win?• Are we conducting litigation on the same lines as the First World War? • Are the losers, the foot soldiers, being massacred while the leaders appear not to care about the damage they are doing? • Is it in everyone’s interest now to concentrate legal resources, (that is solicitors and barristers) at the beginning of a case, for example by making one really good early Part 36 offer and always going to trial if it is not accepted?• Is Qualified One Way Costs Shifting a rogue’s charter or a licence for defendants to under-settle, or both?

Defendants have been slow to realise the days of claimant solicitors fattening up a file like a pig for market are passing and that an early settlement (with lower fees for much less work) is in everyone’s interest.

Claimants’ representatives have failed to realise that those representing defendants are often under-paid and overworked and in the case of public bodies, under the same type of attack from the political parties as lawyers.

Rather than coming together to find common ground the respective camps have been driven further apart by the relief from sanctions fiasco and the harm it inflicted on long standing good relations.

Those newly born costs twins (contingency fees and fixed recoverable costs) mean that for claimants every minute spent unnecessarily on a file is a minute wasted; no longer is it more food for the pig.

Kerry Underwood is the Senior Partner at Underwood Solicitors, a Living Wage firm in Hemel Hempstead and Cape Town. A former employment judge and consultant to various countries and law firms, Kerry is current Editor of the Costs and Funding section, Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service, author of Fixed Costs and No Win No Fee No Worries, and the ATE chapter of Insurance Disputes. Kerry’s blogs (at kerryunderwood.wordpress.com) have attracted half a million visits. Follow Kerry on Twitter @kerry_underwood.

2015 Alarm National Educational Forum Tuesday 23 June, 10:30 – 12:15 Aston University, Birmingham

Doing defence differently

The public sector is undergoing transformational change and the need to adapt communication styles to new teams, cultures and sectors is becoming increasingly important.

The ability to customise a message and influence decisions is a powerful quality to possess.

This session will focus on personal presence and impact, as well as the value in tailoring your content to your audience. Often time with senior colleagues is limited, so getting the key information across effectively is vital to success.

In 2012 Gavin Oattes won Young Entrepreneur of the Year. Through his experience as a primary school teacher, motivational speaker and award-winning businessman, Gavin has witnessed first-hand the positive results that fun, motivation and engagement can have on individuals and among teams. Over the past decade Gavin has worked with hundreds of thousands of people and some of the world’s leading organisations. He can often be heard on the radio and writes a weekly column for a leading newspaper.

2015 Alarm National Educational Forum Sunday 21 June, 16:00 – 17:15 Conference Aston, Birmingham Soft Skills workshop kindly provided by Zurich Municipal

Making an impact

http://kerryunderwood.wordpress.com


2015 Alarm National Educational Forum

21st - 23rd June 2015Aston University, Birmingham

Managed Risk, Resilient Future

3 for the price of 2 delegate places

CPD approved by Alarm, CIPFA & IRM

BOOKINGS NOW OPENDelegate place from

just £215 +VAT

Find out more at www.alarm-uk.org

Session streams includeINSURANCE

RISKHOUSING

BLUE LIGHT


2015 Alarm National Educational Forum

21st - 23rd June 2015Aston University, Birmingham

Managed Risk, Resilient Future

3 for the price of 2 delegate places

CPD approved by Alarm, CIPFA & IRM

BOOKINGS NOW OPENDelegate place from

just £215 +VAT

Find out more at www.alarm-uk.org

Session streams includeINSURANCE

RISKHOUSING

BLUE LIGHT

ALARM UPDATE

The Alarm National Educational Forum 2015 offers a variety of learning opportunities across many aspects of public sector risk. It features sessions on; insurance, management of risk, housing and blue light. Here is a glance at what to expect from three practitioner-led sessions on 22 and 23 June in Birmingham. To find out more, go to: www.alarm-uk.org.

Delivering the legacy of innovation: Dynamic approaches to learning lessons and reducing risk, Session 8C

Risk management can be overlooked as a powerful tool in delivering innovation. Sometimes complex opportunities emerge that appear too challenging to embrace. In these circumstances, risk management can quantify the critical risks and suggest innovative solutions. The case study being presented is an excellent example of creative risk management in action.

This session focuses on the risk management approach used by Manchester City Council to deliver new house building in the city, and the subsequent project evaluation to identify successes and issues from the initial phases of the Housing Investment Fund project.

This pilot project was a completely new way of financing homes, investing £24 million across five sites, building 240 new homes for sale and market rent. In April 2014, Manchester City Council and the Greater Manchester Pension Fund set up Matrix Homes, an innovative partnership for residential development, which has set the precedent for new investment projects in the City. As the session will demonstrate, ‘lessons learned analysis’ is a logical outcome of good risk management, ensuring project outcomes can be replicated. Attendees will be shown how such analysis can be used at project initiation and conclusion stages, and how it can assist in both the delivery of the project and its legacy.

Joe Corr ([email protected]) Project Manager, Strategic Housing, Growth and Neighbourhoods Directorate, Manchester City Council.

Risk sharing and risk management in a consortium, Session 9D

Nine fire and rescue authorities have worked together for the last ten years to deliver improvements in their risk management and to gain a better understanding of the losses when claims do arise. The long-term aim is that they will continue to deliver cash savings back to their authorities. In the Fire and Rescue Insurance Consortium (FRIC) these authorities have bought insurance together and worked on risk management in key areas, for example, the management of operational road risk.

The consortium members are organisations that should understand risk: over the last decade the UK fire and rescue services have halved the number of life threatening incidents in their communities and have reduced their need to respond. This has been achieved through a long-term approach, increasing prevention activities and supporting improvements to protection. As a result fire and rescue authorities need to respond to fewer incidents. This approach is a core factor that underpins the way FRIC works and is the professional language of the fire service, which supports communities in reducing all road traffic collisions.

FRIC members can demonstrate innovation in a number of key areas such as the use of video when training firefighters to respond to incidents, or the benefits of externally fitted cameras on appliances in managing claims liabilities and costs. In 2014 FRIC worked with Alarm to support the special interest group for Fire, holding a two-day conference on managing operational road risk. In addition FRIC has worked with Zurich Municipal to develop significant improvements to the analysis of the costs of insurance claims.

The next stage of this shared journey is to move from common insurance to a pooling arrangement, where more of the risk is shared between the authorities. Not only will this deliver future savings in the overall costs, but will also directly benefit all consortium members from sharing best practice in risk management and reducing our corporate risk incidents in the same way that we have reduced community risk in the last ten years.

Mike Clayton ([email protected]) Finance Director & Treasurer to Fire Authority, Essex Fire Authority.

Alarm Forum practitioner sessions


ALARM UPDATE

How many elastic bands does it take to survive? Session 10D

Since 2010, Hampshire Constabulary has suffered a total budget cut of £55 million with a further £25 million to save between 2015-17. 33 police stations will have closed by 2018 and everything about how the Constabulary does its business has changed since April 2015.

The Forum session will look at the challenges Hampshire Constabulary has in managing the risks around a decreasing estate. There will also be discussion on what practical resilient opportunities are being put into place and how tight our elastic bands are being stretched.

The session will examine case studies of business continuity interruptions Hampshire Constabulary has experienced, such as the 2014 flooding of Winchester City Centre, power outages across the estate that have shown maintenance regime assumptions and tanker driver dispute planning. These have made the Constabulary look at reducing the stretch and how to prevent, where possible, events from reoccurring.

‘Future resilience’ has been a golden thread throughout the Estate Change Programme. The session will take delegates through some of these mitigations, including proposals for sharing of bulk fuel provisions with partners, ensuring new builds have built in future resilience such as flood proofing membranes, generator specifications, location of critical departments and implementing processes for ensuring that high risk items are not brought to site in the first place.

Penelope Page ([email protected]) Risk & Resilience Advisor, Management of Risk, Hampshire Constabulary.

In the last edition of Public RM we featured an article on Highways and Pothole Management; this is followed up by a further article in this edition on page 32-33. In a recent CIR article, Alarm Vice Chairman, Wayne Rigby also commented on the topic of potholes being of particular interest to the media, who use the subject

to highlight negative issues with the road network. The article went on to advise that rarely does a local or national news story highlight the excellent work that is being achieved by local authorities in maintaining the highway network and ensuring road users have safe journeys when walking, cycling or driving. Nor does it detail the Highway Authority’s duty under the Highways Act. The highlighting of ‘issues’ with the road network, and the absence of an objective view of what is reasonable, often gives the impression that a local authority will be responsible for any damage or injury that occurs on the highway. This in turn can create an increase in insurance claims and FOI requests, putting additional pressure on resources that could be utilised elsewhere. Many local authorities have high repudiation rates for these claims, however there are still lessons to be learned. Alarm has been working with a number of sponsors on an extensive highways guidance document for Members. This guidance covers:• Highways liability, including the current legal position, duties placed upon highway authorities and the statutory defence available.• Highways management, covering the code of practice, what you need to know in relation to insurance claims, and how to apply the code.• In depth advice on handling highways claims proactively. • Managing highways issues with outsourced providers.• The roles of risk and insurance managers in relation to highways. The Alarm highways claims management manual will be launched at the Alarm National Educational Forum in Birmingham on 21-23 June 2015.

Alarm Forum practitioner sessions

Alarm’s highways guidance

Highways Claims Management Manual

http://www.alarm-uk.org/news/cir-articles


ALARM UPDATE

Well, that was quick! I can’t believe 12 months have passed since taking on the role of Chairman and I’m now handing the reins of leadership back to Wayne Rigby. The role for me has been made that much

easier as Wayne has maintained and overseen a number of key responsibilities under my chairmanship, namely leading on sponsor engagement, and communications. I can’t write a column like this without recognising the part played by Wayne over the last year in ensuring that our organisation remains in a fit and sustainable state. My personal thanks go to him, especially in respect of a time earlier this year when I had a few health and family issues to deal with.

My time as Chairman has seen Alarm’s reputation as thought leaders in public sector risk and insurance management grow. Alarm was consulted by Michael Wade, the Crown Representative for Insurance, about the state of the local authority insurance market and our contribution has hopefully resulted in a greater understanding (within central government) of the pressures that local government face from a limited insurance market place. Co-incidentally, Maven, a new insurance carrier specialising in local government insurances, launched to market not long after those discussions and their place in the local government insurance market is very welcome. We have also been consulted by the media about a number of high profile insurance and risk matters, for example we were asked to contribute to the media discussion about insurer involvement in high profile children’s services enquiries. Ongoing discussions with our sponsor organisations will see Alarm move further towards being known as the ‘go to’ organisation about public sector risk and insurance management.

Effective board

Much of my effort this past 12 months has focused on ensuring the effectiveness of the Board. This is especially important bearing in mind that we don’t have a chief executive officer. We have a robust business plan which is driving significant change within the organisation, the outcomes of which will become apparent in the coming months. The Board has examined the most effective models for membership and also how we can continue to operate an effective and sustainable model of delivery for our annual flagship event. We’ve also examined how we deliver our business plan priorities and what additional support, if any, we need to achieve the outcomes we have agreed.

At the beginning of this year the Board re-examined our priorities, having regard for the feedback we received from our Member survey. It is clear that our Members and their employers continue to see Alarm as an organisation that adds value to their development; however we must not be complacent and must ensure our sustainability. Our

priorities are the continued development of educational content and products to meet the aspirational needs of our existing Members and improving our exposure in a number of other public and community focused sectors, for example the third sector and higher education establishments. Nothing can be taken for granted and as could be expected, difficult conversations have to be had to steer these changes through.

I’m very grateful for the spirit of diversity and alternative thinking that is shown by my fellow board members, which leads me to thank them all for their hard work and loyalty to Alarm. It’s a big ask for the chairs of our committees as they are responsible for the delivery of all our business plan actions. I must also thank Keith Southwell and Team Alarm at Sidmouth for all their contributions to Alarm. A huge amount of work goes on behind the scenes to ensure all our events run smoothly and the organisation operates effectively. One example of this hard work was the running of last year’s Autumn Forum in the South East. Excellent feedback was received and it was pleasing to see how we could run a national event in a more informal atmosphere.

Chairman’s farewell


ALARM UPDATE

Members survey

A number of comments we received through the Members’ survey indicated the Board needed to have more visibility. When I took on the role of Chairman I promised myself that I’d endeavour to get to see as many of the regions as possible. While I have not attended all, I did get to events in the South East and Wales last year and the North East and Yorkshire, and Anglia this year, as well as my own patch of the Midlands. Other board members attended Scotland, the North West and South West. I’m greatly encouraged and exceedingly grateful for the efforts all our regional committees put into the running of regional events. These local events are one of the most important deliverables of Alarm and are most valued by our Members.

Lastly, we could not function in the way that we do if it were not for the continued involvement of all our sponsors. Long may it continue and my thanks go to them for their ongoing support and their contributions to our educational content.

I’m certain that Alarm has the strong foundations that it needs to ensure both sustainability and growth and I know that Wayne will carry on the good work where he left off one year ago. I wish him all the best for 2015 and beyond.

Robin PowellChairman, Alarm

020 7086 3366 [email protected]

Insurance and Risk Solutionsfor the Public Sector

In the Spring issue of Public RM the Foil Public Sector Focus Team provided an overview of the October 2014 Horizon scanning meeting. The group met to update and reflect on the activities from the event and we were keen on feedback from the Portal Behaviour’s Committee.

We asked the Committee two questions, firstly: did the behaviour committee want issues to be reported on a case-by-case basis, or was it better for local authorities and their insurers to collate information on claimant practices, then feedback? Secondly: did they analyse information provided and if so, could we have access to that analysis?

The response is: firstly, they want issues sent in on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty we foresee is that trends may not be spotted so information cannot be used to take action - such as reporting a firm or adjusting tactics. Secondly: we cannot access Committee data.

We have not settled for these answers and have gone back to the Committee to exert further pressure. We will keep the Group and Alarm abreast of developments.

Bridget Tatham, Browne Jacobson LLP, Vice Chair Public Sector Focus Team

FOIL focus


CHARITIES

Where would we be without volunteers?

Volunteering is long established in the UK; it goes back to Victorian times and the development of the civic society. Many charities rely on volunteers and some operate along volunteer-only models, with few or no paid staff to deliver services.

The Blue Cross has around 3,500 volunteers compared to a paid workforce of around 750. When volunteer hours are converted into a measure that equates to full-time employee numbers, around one in five of our workforce is unpaid.

While traditionally perceived as the sole preserve of the not-for-profit sector, recently people are being employed in an unpaid capacity more extensively in public and other sectors. Some of this has been prompted by the introduction of austerity measures, which have reduced staffing and other budgets, with gaps being filled by those who don’t seek payment but care deeply for the continued existence of valued services.

This development has led to an increase in competition in recruiting volunteers from a growing number of organisations and from a diversity of sectors. Despite a steady growth in the UK population, studies have

shown that the overall level of volunteering in the UK has not altered significantly. Whilst the success of the Olympics Games saw a peak in people giving time to good causes, this was short-lived, with the usual patterns and volumes of volunteering eventually settling back to pre- Games levels.

The increasing demand for volunteers in an environment of static levels of giving time creates a supply and demand pressure: around three in ten volunteers provide about 90% of all volunteer time. This starts to take on a familiar look that parallels the risks for paid staff. Regardless of whether an organisation’s workforce is paid or unpaid, the competition to attract talented, experienced people and retain them is growing. The challenge for organisations that rely on volunteers is made harder as the usual levers of salaries, pensions and other perks can’t be applied to attract such a workforce.

Changing volunteering

020 7086 3366 [email protected]

Insurance and Risk Solutionsfor the Public Sector

Richard Hollands, Director of Business Assurance at Blue Cross, discusses the challenge of making the best use of an unpaid workforce in a changing environment.

Around three in 10 volunteers provide about 90% of all volunteer time.


CHARITIES

Where volunteers represent significant levels of resource on which organisations rely, this can have implications for the continuity and quality of services. However, there is some good news. Surveys within the charitable sector show that many people believe strongly in ‘giving something back’ and contributing to the social good. There is a well of goodwill and commitment to be tapped into by organisations.

If this is the future model of work for organisations across a range of sectors, how can this be managed effectively?

Out with the old

The traditional approach of ‘build it and they will come’ is no longer workable. If charities and similar-minded bodies were to be self-critical of their approach, in the past it has been that volunteer recruitment has been addressed solely on the basis of what their organisation needs. These organisations have, not unreasonably, set strategic aims and developed business and operational plans in pursuit of those aims. In charities that employ significant numbers of paid staff, the emphasis of approach can often start from their perspective. In the worst cases, volunteers can be used to fit in and address gaps in the overall skills or

experience needed. Many organisations are now realising the value of building the volunteer contribution into the business models from the start.

Some working arrangements are now considered to be rigid and inflexible. Many people volunteer because they are time rich and a routine, structured approach often suits many situations: charity shops make extensive use of volunteers and without their contribution, most charity retail units would be unviable. The use of volunteers working set rotas and hours provides valuable consistency and stability in an environment where shop opening times are known and predictable. However, increasingly there are many parts of a charity’s business where flexibility and adaptability are fundamental and the unbending adherence to a set model does not allow talented and scarce people to always make an impact.

If this scenario were adopted for paid staff it would become an unsustainable way of working very quickly. In the 21st century the old-school image of the civic-minded person wanting to put something back has changed, largely due to social factors.

While not exhaustive, specific developments have had an impact: • People are working longer. Recent changes to retirement age means that disposable time is declining. While people are living longer, they are retiring later and when they do have the time, they may be less active than they were.• People live more complex lives. Many individuals have more commitments now with different work patterns and other pressures, such as caring. When organisations come calling for help, it is often in direct competition with important personal aspects of their lives: however strongly they might feel about volunteering. • For some, the economic downturn has meant that time previously available to volunteer has reduced as individuals have taken on secondary paid employment to make ends meet. This limits the amount of time and energy they can give to causes they care about.

In with the new

Social and technological change is also driving new opportunities and ways of working that affects the use of volunteers and their management. Volunteer requirements

Many organisations are now realising the value of building the

volunteer contribution into the business models

from the start.


are becoming more unpredictable and old working patterns are giving way to shorter, more episodic forms. This makes planning and delivering services much more difficult where there is a reliance on volunteers. Charities are seeing an increase in the number of volunteers offering time and expertise as a one-off contribution, rather than an ongoing and regular commitment. If this is happening in the charitable sector, it is almost certainly being replicated in the public and private arenas that are starting to use people in an unpaid capacity.

The pace of change seems to be accelerating with an increase in short term project help as opposed to an ongoing commitment. Deploying volunteers in ways that make specific use of skills and expertise for short, single use events can be managed well. For charities, a natural home for this is on project work where there are temporary arrangements for the delivery of change.

Technological developments mean that physical models of work are not the only way someone can make a contribution. There is an increasing use of technology in charities to carry out their purpose. Examples include social media and website checking, and testing content management.

Attracting and keeping talented people

With a changing world and increased competition for unpaid talent, what can be done? Although charities have many years of experience of working with volunteers, some new approaches are starting to have a positive effect.

Importantly, the cause of an organisation or its overriding purpose is a powerful way of attracting and retaining talent. Many people offer their time and expertise because they want to make a difference to something they care about. Cause-related marketing is well established by charities as a fundraising vehicle and many organisations are now using this principle in recruitment.

Building the volunteer offer into business and operational planning from the start means that the contribution of all elements of the workforce can be considered and integrated into the organisation’s strategy and approach. As service provision changes in response to external stimuli, revised ways of working can ensure that talented, unpaid people are planned into an organisation’s future.

In many respects volunteers have the same status as paid staff, so changing the perception of a volunteer will have a positive impact. Adopting this mind-set can move organisations positively towards different approaches. A number of charities now base volunteer recruitment on their paid models with professionally developed job adverts, job descriptions and interviews. These are often supported by structured programmes for induction, training and exit. This also means developing an experience that they want (see point above about ‘the cause’) and striking a balance between a volunteer’s and the organisation’s needs.

Volunteering is a social experience and a powerful factor is to meet new people. Many organisational models are based on single volunteer experiences, which are not always attractive to volunteers. A number of charities are experimenting with group and family versions of the volunteer model that recognises this change.

There’s one last example that speaks powerfully to a changed world where people give their time. In August 2011 many areas of the UK experienced social unrest and riots resulting in damage to buildings, businesses and communities: London was hit particularly hard.

Shortly after the riots ended a clean-up operation started:• A call to action to clean up the damage started on social media and soon went viral.• People, caring deeply about their homes and places of work, identified completely with the cause and gave their time freely and willingly.• There were no traditional managers and supervisors to organise roles, responsibilities or working hours: the assembled masses, as far as observers could tell, were self-organising, although it’s likely that some natural leaders emerged (as is often the case).• People came to make a specific contribution: some with brooms, some with shovels, some made mugs of tea, etc. As far as we know, no one was turned away. • It’s likely that new friendships and connections were made that will last beyond the life of the clean-up event.• The work required was specific, episodic and short- lived. When it was completed the group disbanded.

This story might just offer the seeds of a model for successful volunteering in the 21st century.

Richard Hollands ([email protected]) is the Director of Business Assurance for Blue Cross, the animal welfare charity. www.bluecross.org.uk

Blue Cross online monitoring

Blue Cross has long been concerned with the online sale of pets and the associated lack of welfare. Working with like-minded charities, Blue Cross has lobbied successfully to introduce minimum codes of operation through online routes. A team of monitoring volunteers, who work remotely from their PCs, check online adverts for compliance. Standards are being maintained and concerns highlighted in this way. To use paid staff at irregular hours and times would be difficult in operational and financial terms. Quite simply, paid models of working would not fit at Blue Cross, which couldn’t work successfully without its volunteers.


INSURANCE

The Act received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015 and takes effect in 12 August 2016. The Act applies to all classes of non-consumer insurance and reinsurance and in part to consumer insurances in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Act brings into force the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, with minor corrections.

The new law doesn’t take effect until next year, however practitioners should understand the new regime and start planning now. You need to ensure you are able to satisfy the new law, for example the new Disclosure Rules (see panel over the page). Internal corporate governance and communication protocols must be adequate and effective, so that individuals with responsibility for making the fair presentation to brokers and insurers are fully conversant with the changes. As the industry digests the Act, we expect insurers will start to alter policies and procedures, which could take effect before August 2016.

With the exception of the Basis of Contract provisions, parties to an insurance agreement can contract out of the requirements of the Act, provided that any disadvantageous amendment is drawn to the insured’s attention clearly and unambiguously.

The duty of fair presentationThe existing duty of disclosure is replaced with a duty to ‘make a fair presentation of the risk to insurers’. The duty applies to disclosure before the contract is concluded (for both new contracts and renewals) as well as mid-term variations. It requires the insured to disclose every material circumstance that the insured knows or ought to know, or which gives the insurer sufficient information to put a prudent insurer on notice that it needs to make further enquires for the purpose of revealing those material circumstances.

What ‘the insured knows’ is deemed to include knowledge held by the insured’s senior management: those who make decisions about managing and organising the insured’s

activities, as well as staff with responsibility for the insured’s insurance. This includes risk

managers, insurance officers and any employee who assists in the collection

of data or negotiates the terms of the insurance. It also includes the insured’s agent who is responsible for placing the insured’s insurance.

This does not include confidential information acquired through a

business relationship un-connected with the contract of insurance.

Insurance and reinsurance protecting the same risk is regarded as ‘connected’

so confidential information acquired through association with the underlying insurance must also be disclosed to the reinsurer.

What an insured ‘ought to know’ is that which would have been revealed by a reasonable search of information available to the insured (and its agent). This includes what the insured suspected but deliberately refrained from confirming or refrained from making further enquires about, known as ‘blind eye knowledge’. The insured is not required to disclose material circumstances that diminish the risk, or that the insurer knows, ought to know, or is presumed to know.

What is ‘material’ is unchanged from current definition. It is still something that would influence the judgement of a prudent insurer in determining whether to take the risk and,

The Insurance Act: fair presentationNigel Cooper, Public Sector Practice Leader at Aon Risk Solutions, provides a practitioners’ guide to the significant Insurance Act, which alters the legal framework for insurance contracts.

The existing duty of disclosure is replaced with a duty to make a fair presentation of the

risk to insurers.


if so, on what terms. For example, special or unusual facts relating to the risk; any particular concerns which led the insured to seek insurance cover for the risk; or anything which those concerned with the class of insurance and field of activity in question would generally understand as being something that should be dealt with in a fair presentation of risks of the type in question.

The insured must also ensure that information supplied is substantially correct and that any representations as to matters of expectation or belief are made in good faith.

The fair presentation of risk requires the insured to make the disclosure in a manner that is reasonably clear and accessible to a prudent insurer. It can be contained in more than one document or oral presentation.

From an insured’s perspective, this change may seem subtle, however it means:• The insured needs to ensure a reasonable search is undertaken to reveal material information.• The insurer should be more actively engaged and make an adequate assessment of risk prior to conclusion of the contract. (It seems likely insurers will be more proactive, thorough and inquisitive before accepting a risk).• Data-dumping a large volume of information with insufficient direction or structure would not be considered ‘fair’. All material information will need to be clearly presented, structured, indexed and signposted.

Remedies

Proportionate remedyWhere an insured is found to have breached their duty of fair presentation, the insurer has a number of different remedies available depending on the type of breach.

Deliberate or reckless breach of duty of fair presentationFor this type of breach, insurers can still avoid the insurance. This will normally be from inception except where breach relates to a variation of the insurance, for example, a mid-term adjustment, in which case it will be from the date that adjustment takes effect. The insurer may retain any premiums paid.

A deliberate breach includes supplying false or inadequate information as well as fraudulent behaviour. A reckless breach occurs if the insured did not care whether or not it was in breach of the duty. For example, if the insured was irresponsible and did not take care to ensure the information supplied was correct. It is for the insurer to show that a qualifying breach was deliberate or reckless.

Any other breach of duty of fair presentationOther breaches of the duty, for example, an innocent breach, will also give insurers a remedy if the insurer can show inducement. The remedy is based on what the insurer would have done if the qualifying breach had

not taken place; that is if the insured had made a fair presentation of the risk.

For example:• If the insurer would not have written the insurance on any terms, then the insurer may avoid the policy and refuse all claims. The insurer must return the premium. Where this relates to policy variations, the insurer can treat the policy as if the variation was never made and the insurer must return any extra premium paid.• If the insurer would have written the insurance but on different terms (other than premium), the policy will be treated as if those different terms apply. • If the insurer would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may proportionally reduce any claim payment e.g. if the premium charged is 75% of what the insurer would have changed, the claim payment will be written down to 75%.

The special position under compulsory third party motor insurance contracts would appear the same. Insurers undertake to compensate injured third parties in full regardless of whether the insured has breached any conditions of the insurance contract. However, the

Key provisions of the Act are:• Insureds will be under a new duty of fair presentation, replacing the general obligation to disclose all material facts. The insured has to disclose; every material circumstance that the insured knows or ought to know; or sufficient information to put a prudent insurer on notice that it needs to make further enquires to reveal the material circumstances.• Warranties are to be treated as suspensive conditions, meaning that an insurer’s liability will only be suspended during a period of breach and a breach of warranty will no longer automatically terminate the policy. The breach of the warranty must have some bearing on the actual loss by increasing the risk of the loss occurring.• New proportionate remedies are available to insurers following a breach of the new duty of fair presentation.• Basis of contract clauses are abolished. (These clauses currently operate to turn the insureds pre-contractual representations, including answers to proposal form questions, into warranties).• Insurer remedies for fraudulent claims are clarified so they will remain liable for all legitimate losses suffered before the fraud. Insurers will still be able to avoid policy liability where there is a deliberate or reckless breach of the duty of fair presentation. For other breaches, for example, innocent breaches, there are a number of proportionate remedies available short of avoidance.• The duty of good faith remains, but the remedy of avoidance will be lost.


INSURANCE

insurer has the right to pursue the insured for an outlay in circumstances where the insurer would otherwise be entitled to avoid payment. (Or in the case of a failure to make a fair presentation, where the insurer is entitled to reduce the amount of any claim payment.)

What next?

Disappointingly, the Act fails to include insurer penalties for late payment of claims as had originally been proposed. This may be revisited at a later date.

With regards to current policies, continue as before but resist and remove Basis of Contract clauses on all policies, and wherever possible resist inclusion of any onerous conditions; warranties; Conditions Precedent and Due Observance clauses.

It seems likely that insurers will now be more amenable to altering policies to follow the spirit of the Act, for example, removing basis of contract clauses and improving warranty language, which is good. However, if insurers want to make changes to a policy or to the disclosure process, which is described as being Insurance Act compliant, please seek clarification or talk to your broker.

Nigel Cooper ([email protected]) is Public Sector Practice Leader at Aon Risk Solutions. Aon is a leading advisor to over 260 public sector bodies, is an active participant on a number of frameworks, and has over 40 years of specialist public sector experience. www.public-sector.aon.co.uk

The NSPCC statistics show that one in three children abused by an adult did not tell anyone, and one in twenty children in the UK have been sexually abused. The Jay1 and the Casey2 reports both make clear that child abuse and exploitation happens everywhere. All local authorities need to be aware of the potential for claims to develop.

The interaction of public sector employees with members of the public inevitably means there is greater potential for

a claim to arise under a public liability policy, than for a

commercial enterprise. It is not unusual for

a metropolitan or city council to generate in excess of 1,000 claims a year. However, in the case of

public liability claims it can be

years before any notification of a claim

is made. As recent

cases show, historic abuse cases from 10 or 20 years ago are only now reaching the courts. In another case of abuse that occurred when the claimant was one-year-old, they will be over 16 by the time the legal process is complete.

In insurance terms, these are long tail risks, where claims are submitted long after the original period of insurance. Typically it takes around 10-12 years before a public sector liability book of business is complete in terms of the claims to be reported and final payments to be made.

CSE long tail claimsChris Gill, Client Risk Manager at QBE outlines current issues affecting local authorities regarding child sexual exploitation (CSE) claims from an insurer’s perspective.

Promoting a culture in which individuals are encouraged, supported

and rewarded for flagging suspicious activity can also greatly minimise the risk of

systematic abuse.

The Act defines the insurer knowledge as:• ‘Knows’ - what is known to the individuals involved in that particular underwriting decision.• ‘Ought to know’ – information readily available to the underwriters or known by an employee or agent of the insurer (for example, information held by the claims team or reports produced by surveyors) who ought reasonably to have passed it on. As with the insured, this also includes ‘blind eye knowledge’.• ‘Presumed to know’ – what is common knowledge, and what an insurer offering insurance of the class in question to insureds in the field of activity in question, would reasonably be expected to know in the ordinary course of business.


Risk managing the issues

The outcome of many CSE related claims is largely pre-determined by the effectiveness of risk management disciplines applied in the past. From our experience we do know that prevention strategies can be effective.

Acknowledgement is the first step to risk managing CSE risks. All local councils need to recognise that this is a nationwide issue with financial, reputational, moral and legal implications. The culture of an authority and the attitude toward addressing the issue of CSE (determined by a chief executive, leader and executive) is one of the biggest drivers of success or failure and quality of decision making within an organisation. Top down strategic risk management is critical.

The Casey report2 states that: ‘There needs to be a shared ethos that no department or team can regard itself as serving its community well if the council is failing its most vulnerable people. All parts of the council must play a role in tackling that failure’.

We see a need across many of the authorities with whom we work to move away from a silo mentality to achieve a robust response to social care responsibilities and the development of a multi-agency approach to influence the holistic CSE risk profile positively. Some authorities have seen significant results from initiatives to break silos through commissioning a joint working team.

Some of the highlighted benefits have alluded to the following improvements:• Defined strategic risk management and leadership of change.• Recalibrating CSE risk tolerance for well managed and calculated risk taking.• Improving capabilities in managing risk.• Accurate CSE horizon scanning with an improved ability to address uncertainties and emerging risks.• Consistent positive influence on culture and behaviour.• Board level focus on the things that matter.• Clear ownership and accountability for risks.• Evaluation costing.• Feedback of lessons learned.

Representatives of a joint working team can be resourced from social workers, police, council representatives (including risk and insurance managers) local health services and other specialist workers including drugs and alcohol teams, the voluntary sector and others with a focus on the community and working with parents.

Certainly information sharing is critical. Authorities should ensure they have the operational capability to facilitate enhanced information sharing across departments and services and that they have a robust, frequently tested process for checking that it is functioning healthily. Information sharing, process and protocols should be

embedded across the authority. They should be designed to help prevent abuse by raising awareness and protecting children at risk, identifying and disrupting perpetrators, and prosecuting them through the legal process.

A review of social workers’ caseloads to ensure they are manageable will enable intensive and persistent work with children to build trusting relationships and support disclosure. Promoting a culture in which individuals are encouraged, supported and rewarded for flagging suspicious activity can also greatly minimise the risk of systematic abuse. Mechanisms for reporting suspicions need to be in place and clearly communicated to all individuals.

Claims

For insurers, CSE related claims are no different to any other claim in the sense that the outcome is heavily dependent on the availability and quality of witness evidence and documentation relating to an alleged incident. The long tail nature of this type of claim however does present additional challenges; accurate record keeping and monitoring which may not have been a priority in the past or was not designed to capture relevant data may only provide scant detail.

Maintaining an open dialogue around risk management with your insurer is key to inspiring confidence that, as an authority:• You have a good understanding of your own organisation’s risk profile.• You have the right strategies in place.• You can provide examples or cases to demonstrate that Social Service files are well organised, evidencing consistent forensic investigation containing signed and date notes, which record clear reason for the decisions being taken.• Your senior management is fully involved in the process and alert to the issues.

Finally, be open and honest with your insurer. Our experience tells us that utopian organisations do not exist, so be confident in sharing information. The role of an insurer should not just be viewed as the last line of defence for when things go wrong, but instead a partner who can offer risk management support with a view to help improve your own decision making and risk profile.

[1] Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham

1997 - 2013, Alexis Jay OBE, August 2014

[2] Report of Inspection of Rotherham MBC, Louise Casey CB, February 2015

Chris Gill ([email protected]) is Client Risk Manager for Casualty Risk Solutions at QBE European Operations. As a business insurance specialist, QBE underwrites Casualty and Motor lines for Risk Management Partners’ (RMP) public sector business, from local authorities to emergency blue light services. www.qbeeurope.com/crs


STRATEGIC RISK

CALL FOR ENTRIESDEADLINE: 17 JUNE 2015

Awards Gala Dinner & Ceremony

Thursday 12 November 2015

Millennium Hotel, Mayfair London

For organisations, innovation, people, services and professionalism

Tweet us: @CIRRiskAwards #RiskMangement Awards #RiskMangement Awards #RiskMangement Awards #RiskMangement Awards

FREE TO ENTER

cirmagazine.com/riskmanagementawards

RiskAd-A4.indd 1 19/02/2015 11:50:26


FORUM

CALL FOR ENTRIESDEADLINE: 17 JUNE 2015

Awards Gala Dinner & Ceremony

Thursday 12 November 2015

Millennium Hotel, Mayfair London

For organisations, innovation, people, services and professionalism

Tweet us: @CIRRiskAwards #RiskMangement Awards #RiskMangement Awards #RiskMangement Awards #RiskMangement Awards

FREE TO ENTER

cirmagazine.com/riskmanagementawards

RiskAd-A4.indd 1 19/02/2015 11:50:26

Negotiating contracts and managing supplier relationships can be a daunting prospect for contracting authorities, particularly when facing pressure to secure the most cost effective deal while ensuring excellent service delivery. With authorities spending in excess of £600 million annually on public sector insurance, they need to achieve value for money. Price and quality are paramount, but services also have to be fully compliant with procurement rules and regulations set out by the EU.

Historically, the approach to insurance procurement within the public sector has been fragmented, with little aggregation: there has not been a national agreement covering all classes of insurance across the UK. Recognising the demand for a single national agreement, the Crown Commercial Service (CCS), Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation (YPO) Eastern Shire Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) and North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO) collaborated to develop one arrangement to meet public sector requirements.

The aim of the national agreement is to increase savings for public authorities, delivering an estimated £40 million throughout its Framework lifetime of four years. It also allows for tailored procurement documentation and an increased use of e-technology, delivering a simple and auditable competition route, saving time for customers and suppliers.

Ultimately, the agreement improves efficiency. It is just one single national agreement with the public sector, providing a simple, easily accessible, cost effective route for customers. By March 2015, over 300 public sector organisations had accessed the agreement, saving £12 million. Blackpool Council alone has saved £500,000 through the agreement.

Since it launched there have been several service improvements through positive relationships and supplier management, including insurers increasing their classes of insurance and brokers reducing their daily rate by at least 30%. The agreement is enabling public sector customers to reduce lead-time by up to six weeks, compared with the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) process, saving both time and resource.

As well as supporting customers through their procurement process, a comprehensive set of guidance packs have been developed to help customers understand how the framework agreement operates. Customers can also review case studies from similar organisations that have used the agreement, to gain feedback and learn valuable lessons.

In addition to developing the agreement to deliver savings and streamline processes, the collaborative partners wanted to drive further efficiencies within the public sector. Working with the market, the partners have run a number of free market insight events, which provide customers with information on how to get the best value for money in their insurance procurements. Topics have included emerging risks and how to get the best cover for your property, and are led by suppliers.

Following the success of the agreement, there will be a second-generation insurance service agreement. Again this will be developed in collaboration with CCS, YPO, ESPO and NEPO. They aim to have a new insurance framework agreement by the end of October 2015. The collaborative partners aim to build and improve on the current agreement through expanding the scope to capture the full requirements of the public sector. Additional categories of risk will be added and streamlined supporting documents will be developed with an aim to make the procurement process easier and quicker for both buyers and suppliers.

A comprehensive pre-market engagement programme has begun with suppliers and customers. The collaborative partners are establishing a stakeholder group including representatives from all sectors. The partners have engaged with the industry and intend to increase the markets available on the new agreement. Supplier and customer feedback will be used to define the specification, agreement structure and the evaluation process to ensure a comprehensive and easy to use solution that meets the diverse requirements of the public sector.

Collaborative workingDavid Pyle, Category Lead at the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) updates Public RM on the Collaborative Insurance Services agreement in advance of exhibiting at the Alarm National Educational Forum 2015.

David Pyle ([email protected]) is Category Lead at the Crown Commercial Service. Tel: 0151 672 2164. www.gov.uk/government/organisations/crown-commercial-service. Anyone with an exhibition pass for the Alarm National Educational Forum 2015 will be able to speak to the team at the CCS stand on 21 or 22 June at Aston University, Birmingham.


CHILDREN

Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) and the claims against the police and local authorities are in the media. Local authorities are the organisations usually in the frame when it comes to any claims for damages made by alleged victims. It is not just the failings of local authorities that result in children falling through the child protection system. If the police decide not to pursue their enquiries and not to share information with child protection agencies, there is an inevitable risk that avoidable abuse and exploitation will continue. A recent example is the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation into historic sex abuse claims involving politicians and other public figures, where it is alleged the original investigations were shut down and information covered up.

Common themes arising out of the reports of various inquiries into CSE are that even today, policies, culture and attitudes within and between agencies are incompatible with good practice. Unfortunately it is precisely those agencies; police, schools and nurseries, primary healthcare providers, accident and emergency units and youth groups that child protection practitioners rely on to flag up behaviour indicators or signs of sexual, emotional and physical abuse.

With increasing budgetary constraints and pressure on local authorities to provide adequate services to protect children, it comes as no surprise that many local authorities are looking at how their children’s services can be delivered differently. Some local authorities are considering whether their children’s services can be delivered by the private and/or third sectors, with the aim to improve services and assist in efficiency savings. Given a local authority’s statutory duty to protect vulnerable children and the need to also protect its own reputation, outsourcing is not always a popular choice. This may be a supremely sensitive service to outsource but it is part of a culture change, with many other public services, including parts of the criminal justice system, benefits assessment, schools and health services leading the way.

Many reports on outsourcing public services cite the lack of evidence that it will, as predicted, drive improvement or innovation, and there is a significant amount of disquiet about the possibility of organisations making a profit out of such arrangements.

On the other hand there are some parts of the country where there is a belief that the existing arrangements cannot improve under an in-house delivery model, so outsourcing options have to be considered. In 2014 Staffordshire, and Kingston and Richmond Councils

were discussing outsourcing of these functions. (www.whatdotheyknow.com Freedom of Information Requests.)

What works for one area may not be suitable for another, but inspiration can be drawn from, among others:• The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Partnership – under which Hampshire has taken over the running of the Isle of Wight’s children services.• Doncaster Children’s Services Trust.• Evolve YP in Staffordshire – a partnership owned by its staff that provides services for Looked After Children.

Can you outsource the risk?In principle the idea of outsourcing the delivery of children’s services to the private and third sectors can, in the right circumstances, deliver not only service improvements but also cost savings. However, when it all goes wrong and a claim follows, in many cases the local authority will not be the only organisation in the frame. Historically the list of intended defendants could include a council, a mental health trust and GP practice plus others. But in the current environment, where civil claims arising out of a social care setting are increasingly common, future claims are likely to be brought solely against the local authority, even if the service is contracted to another body or the failing may be in the practice of other services. It is critical that this is taken into account before contracting out the service delivery as there is a real risk that the local authority will end up meeting the cost of such claims in any event.

The reason it is so important that this is considered is the well-documented case of Woodland v Essex County Council. Following the principles set out in this case, it is clear that the duty of care that is owed by the local authority to the children in its care is often non-delegable. As such, regardless of who provides the services, a significant portion of liability for any negligence or failure to protect may well lie with the local authority. It is therefore essential that, prior to entering into any contract for the outsourcing of child protection services (or indeed any similar services), clear and unambiguous agreements are made outlining the nature of the relationship. These should address claims management explicitly if any claims arise in the future. There are some important considerations.

Who will handle complaints?Claimant lawyers often suggest their clients initially pursue a complaint, without always telling the local authority why that complaint is being pursued. If a formal complaint report acknowledges shortcomings in the service provided, this will often be relied on as evidence of a breach of duty.

Child protection outsourcing challengesSarah Erwin-Jones, Partner at Browne Jacobson discusses some legal and risk management considerations when contracting out children’s services.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com


These shortcomings can form the basis

of a claim. If external providers could be

affected by this process they need to be aware of how the

complaints process works, and how this could affect their operation. They also need a practical understanding of how their practice may come under scrutiny in the context of Serious Case Reviews, Domestic Homicide Reviews and Inquests.

What are the arrangements for sharing information?Frequently, the shortcomings identified in child protection and abuse inquiries stem from different agencies having different policies, attitudes, and adherence to information sharing. It should be remembered that the Data Protection Act is a tool to enable agencies to share information safely, not a barrier to sharing it. Policies should be co-ordinated so they are consistent with each other. They should be widely and regularly communicated to front line staff.

Who will handle any claims arising?Ultimately the local authority owes a duty of care to children in its area, regardless of who is looking after them. A local authority may wish to remain in control of any potential claims made by such children and therefore may elect to handle all incoming claims themselves. Conversely, if an agreement is made between parties that the third party will be responsible for the making of any payments in relation to a claim, then it is likely that they may wish to retain some control of the matter and therefore, may want to handle claims themselves.

What about insurance provision?It is important to ensure that the party responsible for making payments has adequate insurance provision in

place. As part of this, it will be essential that policy wording is checked carefully to ensure any potential claims are covered and that such checks are made regularly.

Is a covenant required between parties?When an agreement is made between parties that the third party will be responsible for making payments on a civil claim, this agreement should be reflected in the contract made between the two.

Is further security required?In some cases it may be necessary for further security to be taken, for example a parent company guarantee.

The above is not an exhaustive list of considerations but goes to show the complexity of the relationship that contracting out creates.

The privatisation of child protection is not an exact science. The agreements made between third parties and various local authorities are likely to differ depending on local needs. Those involved will need to obtain adequate legal advice and enquire about insurance products that are available at the outset of the relationship.

If such considerations are not made and adequate protection is not put in place at the start of an outsourcing relationship, the short-term cost saving of privatising child protection may be lost entirely to the long-term potential costs of damages in civil claims.

Ultimately the local authority owes the duty of care to children in its area, whoever is looking

after them.

Sarah Erwin Jones, ([email protected]) is Partner at Browne Jacobson. Browne Jacabson specialises in social services, the care sector, education and negotiating legal costs; advises on risk management issues including data protection matters. www.brownejacobson.com


STRATEGIC RISK

For risk and insurance managers within any organisation, the important challenge of cyber security (including the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of cyber exposure) is one that might be unfamiliar and somewhat daunting. Public service organisations share this challenge as entities of all shapes, sizes, and functions seek to embrace technology to enhance service delivery and efficiency of process.

In the same way that a retailer now seeks to interact with its customer base through a multichannel retail strategy, public bodies look to find the optimum balance of communication with end customers through bricks-and-mortar facilities, telephone, web, and mobile applications. This allows the public to access services more conveniently and efficiently, moving from one delivery channel to another, while maintaining the continuity of experience. This level of multichannel activity establishes a new digital estate for those managing risk to get to grips with: one where the threat levels are significant and of a different nature to those that might have been considered in a more traditional business delivery model.

A brief look at some of the background factors that are driving the adoption of multichannel services shows how tempting embracing this new approach can be. For example, Ofcom reported in 2014 that 77% of adults in the UK have broadband and spend an average of nearly 37 hours

browsing online each month. Furthermore, more than 90% of people own or use a mobile phone, and 57% use one to access the internet. This enhanced level of connectivity is not wasted, with 74% having bought goods or services online in 2014 according to the Office for National Statistics, and 53% of adults are now using internet banking. In fact, people living in the UK are the most likely in the European Union (along with Denmark) to buy products online. This is the environment into which public bodies are now delivering their services, and the public expect online offerings to match those of the private sector.

Local authorities

The opportunity for local authorities to enhance communications and the ease of access through digital platforms is immense. This diversity presents those managing risk and insurance with particular challenges.

Unlocking cyber security Stephen Wares, EMEA Leader at Marsh Cyber Risk Practice, reviews the current cyber risk landscape for local authorities, universities and charities.

Commonly available, commodity hacking tools are the

normal expected breach mechanism for most hackers. These can be relatively easily

repelled at the network perimeter by adopting

accepted good practice in IT security.


Not only is the digital estate diverse but so is the nature of the threat. A common starting point for analysing cyber risk is to identify who might want to target the organisation and for what purpose.

Looking externally; criminals; hacktivists; dissatisfied customers; and random attackers, all might have a reason to pick a local authority as a target. For criminals, there is the potential to access payment card data through transaction services like online council tax payments or parking permits. Hacktivist groups may view the authority as representing part of an establishment they oppose. Like any other online operation, a local authority is exposed to random opportunistic attacks that might range from the vandalism of a website to the introduction of malicious and destructive code.

The range of possible attackers and motives, combined with the wealth of digital services and data assets, is likely to generate a significant number of risk scenarios for consideration. The confidentiality of personal data is clearly one risk that immediately leaps to the forefront of most people’s minds. Authorities handle high volumes of personal data, ranging from payment card details, to highly sensitive personal information collected and stored digitally by social services. While both sets of data share the common problem of being transmitted and stored securely, breaches of confidentiality clearly lead to very different outcomes. While the first places the data subject at some risk of financial harm, the later may directly impact mental health or even present a physical threat. This shows the importance of data classification as a means of determining the information that requires the highest level of protection. For those managing risk and insurance, the different outcomes of confidential data need to be understood and documented so that in addition to appropriate protection, the authority can prepare and test its response plans and ensure the insurance programme is fit for purpose in relation to these new exposures.

Clean up costsIn December 2013, a joint letter from the Chairman of the Local Government Association and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) highlighted the £1.5 million in fines that had been collected from local authorities in the previous five years. This included less sinister scenarios than cyber attacks, including lost portable devices and negligently sending details to the wrong recipient. While it is often the fine that generates a headline, the additional costs of handling a data breach incident can be significant, and regularly outweigh any sanction.

A forensic investigation and cleanup of infected or breached IT systems can be costly, depending on the scale of compromise and the time during which hackers may have had access to the network. Individual data subjects will need to be informed of the breach, services may need to be purchased to help protect individuals’ identities, and a communication centre established to deal with inbound calls from affected data subjects. The strain

on resources, as well as the additional cost of an incident, can be significant: one UK study by the Ponemon Institute estimated the cost to the public sector at £60 per record.

With well in excess of 50 incidents being reported to the ICO each quarter (second only to healthcare), this is an area of risk where there is still opportunity to improve practices. Meanwhile, the transfer of both the risk and the operational burden of running a data breach incident to insurance may also be a consideration.

Universities

In common with local authorities, the education sector suffers from a high frequency of data breach incidents, coming third in the ICO’s Data Breach Trends report, with an average of more than 30 reported incidents per quarter. However, for universities, the issue of confidentiality expands beyond personal data and encompasses the critical research that contributes significantly to university funding.

Global security

Managing cyber risks in an interconnected world (Key findings from The Global State of Information Security Survey 2015) by PwC describes one of 2014’s most far-reaching incidents as the Heartbleed defect.

‘It impacted almost two-thirds of web servers around the world, including some of the most popular email and social networking sites. It is believed to have compromised millions of websites, online shopping destinations and security applications, as well as software like instant messaging, remote access tools and networking devices. In the first intrusion… a US hospital chain reported theft of 4.5 million patient records in August 2014.’

‘It will always be difficult to know exactly which organisations have been compromised because many simply don’t know they have been under attack.’

‘The European Union Data Protection Regulation, is on track to being finalised in 2015. The regulation is expected to add new requirements for breach notification to individuals, require organisations that handle personal data to conduct risk assessments and audits, and increase fines for compromised businesses.’

‘Today’s interconnected business ecosystem requires a shift from security that focuses on prevention and controls, to a risk-based approach that prioritises an organisation’s most valuable assets and its most relevant threats.’

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/consulting-services/information-security-survey/assets/the-global-state-of-information-security-survey-2015.pdf





STRATEGIC RISK

Cutting-edge research in fields such as engineering,

life sciences and computing attracts another potential adversary: the state-sponsored hacker looking to gain an advantage for key national industries, or

directly from a private sector company.

The addition of state-sponsored espionage in

particular, moves the level of sophistication and technical capability of the adversary way beyond that of other hacking groups. Commonly available commodity hacking tools are the normal expected breach mechanism for most hackers. These can be relatively easily repelled at the network perimeter by adopting accepted good practice in IT security. However, a state-backed attack is likely to succeed by exploiting a zero-day vulnerability. This is a flaw in software, hardware or firmware that is exploited as soon as, or before, it becomes known.

Under these circumstances, there is a potential conflict between the natural free flow of information and open collaboration universities would naturally foster, and the requirement to lock down critical and valuable data. In such circumstances, the focus could shift from securing the perimeter of an internet-connected system, to removing those points of connectivity and working within a segmented offline environment for certain tasks. For the risk manager, the challenge will be to identify the data crown jewels within a university’s research programme and determine the financial and reputational impact of that data being compromised or destroyed.

Charities

Charities came fifth in the ICO’s data breach league table, averaging slightly more than 15 reported incidents per quarter. Clearly, the loss of personal information is a key concern. While many of the dynamics and motives for attacking a charity might be the same or similar to local authorities, there is one very important distinction when it comes to the outcome. Individuals freely choose to interact with a charity, whereas they have little choice, short of moving home, to interact with their local authority. A data breach is a breach of trust between the organisation and the individual who has consented to their data being collected, stored, and processed.

While the impact of a data breach may include many of the cost items already noted in relation to local authorities, for a charity the impact could continue to be felt in a drop in transaction revenue and a reduction in membership, due to enduring harm to reputation and/or credibility. Another

key risk for charities relates to the availability of web and mobile payment systems through which donations are collected. Most charities will run specific campaigns or enjoy periods of peak activity when awareness is at its highest. Any failure of critical transaction-based services during these times could cause severe financial harm for many charitable organisations.

Conclusion

The digital estate of public sector bodies will continue to evolve to allow more opportunities for convenient access and effective communication. With the cost of contact estimated to be less than one per cent of a face-to-face transaction, the movement to embrace technology will only grow to exploit these vital cost efficiencies, while the reported threat level continues to rise. For individuals with the responsibility for arranging insurances to protect the organisation from financial harm, these digital developments and new exposures must be incorporated into an organisation’s risk financing strategy. Where insurance forms a key component of that strategy, its protection has to remain current.

The UK insurance market leads the way in innovative cyber insurance product design. To take advantage of these developments in insurance, the buyer must be able to articulate their risks and requirements clearly. Insurance can form a central part of a plan to mitigate the impact of an event, but prevention and incident response planning should always take precedence. Each organisation should consider what is most appropriate, based on their profile and threats.

A few common considerations include:• Executive level ownership of the risk, recognising that a cyber breach or attack is a potential threat to the viability of the organisation.• Create, update and test an incident response plan specific to IT security breach events.• Implement a formal process of data classification to ensure appropriate controls can be applied in accordance with the criticality and confidentiality of data assets.• Undertake a regularly updated process of employee security awareness training to ensure that good technical controls are not undone by poor human practices.• Consider implementing an appropriate set of security controls for suppliers to ensure that they do not become the weak link that allows access to your network.

Stephen Wares ([email protected]) is EMEA Leader at Marsh Cyber Risk Practice. Marsh works with leading cyber risk insurers to develop cyber risk insurance protection for a wide range of Internet and network exposures. uk.marsh.com/RiskIssues/CyberRisk.aspx

A common starting point for

analysing cyber risk is to identify who might

want to target the organisation and for

what purpose.

http://uk.marsh.com/RiskIssues/CyberRisk.aspx


RISK MANAGEMENT

M_o_R® Certification - Management of RiskGoverning body APMG International www.apmg-international.com

Content and format M_o_R® (Management of Risk) is part of the Best Practice Guidance portfolio published by the Cabinet Office. M_o_R considers risk from different perspectives within an organisation; strategic; programme and project; and operational, as well as business continuity, security and health and safety.

M_o_R provides best practice guidelines and techniques for risk analysis and management, the documents necessary for managing a risk programme and a maturity model. It also shows people how to embed these practices, review them, and where necessary adapt them to changing circumstances.

M_o_R is aimed at business change managers, programme or project managers, risk management professionals, business and programme or project support staff, and others with responsibilities for identifying, assessing, planning, or managing risks, or reporting onrisk management activities across the organisation.

Alarm offers significantly discounted fees to Members. Alarm Members - £995 +VAT Non-members - £1195 +VAT

Risk Management National Occupational Standards (NOS)Governing body Skills CFA www.skillscfa.org/images/pdfs/Risk-Management.pdf

Content and format Skills CFA has worked with a range of Risk Management organisations and professionals, including the Institute of Risk Management (IRM) throughout the development of the National Occupational Standards (NOS) that were launched in 2014.

The Risk Management NOS are designed to be used in all sectors and cover a range of key risk management functions. These evidence based standards can be turned into a module on a business risk qualification like a Level 5 managers qualification.

The NOS cover occupational functions at a number of levels of responsibility and complexity. They are relevant to anyone involved in the risk management process.

The suite includes: • Develop a risk management strategy • Develop risk management policies and procedures • Raise awareness of risk management within an organisation • Identify, analyse and assess risk • Manage, monitor and report risk • Monitor and review risk management strategies, policies and processes.

NCRQ Level 6 Certificate in Personal Injury LiabilityGoverning body National Compliance and Risk Qualifications (NCRQ) www.ncrq.org.uk

Content and format This is a new certificate, launching in summer 2015. (A Certificate and a Diploma in Applied Health and Safety are also being launched this year.) It has been developed with representatives from large employers and local authorities, including the BBC, Royal Mail and Siemens plc, as well as leading barristers and academics.

Students will learn to: • Understand the law of negligence, and be able to apply it to any personal injury scenario. • Determine the likely outcome of a scenario, in terms of liability and approximate compensation. • Appreciate that both negligence and lack of evidence may cause a civil claim to be paid. • Understand the role of insurance, claims handling, solicitors and others in the civil claims processes.

• Be able to develop strategies to reduce the total costs of civil claims to an organisation. • Provide advice to an employer on specific control and documentation methods to reduce potential liability in areas that typically result in a high number of claims. • Incorporate the social value of an activity into a risk assessment, ensuring that the possibility of civil claims are used to implement only sensible, risk-based, proportionate controls.

The qualification: • Distance learning with full tutor support. • Study with a workbook, online activities and videos. • Assessment is by short assignments based on realistic scenarios. • Completion of the Certificate in Personal Injury Liability forms part of the NCRQ Diploma in Applied Health and Safety.

Linking learning Acquiring accredited skills in risk management and claims handling is not straightforward, with only a small pool of learning opportunities to dip into. Here is a roundup of three of the latest professional courses and topic specific modules.


SMART GUIDE

Whether or not your organisation uses social media, you can be sure that your customers and employees do. Unless managed properly, social media can cause organisations and individuals considerable harm.

Social media is a risk because it is everywhere. After all, it is a simple, easy way of communicating with other people. The vast majority of people in the UK use social media: Facebook alone has around 24 million people in the UK using it every day.

There’s the culture too. Many people see social media as informal, and that leads them to think that somehow ‘it doesn’t count’, or that if anyone complains it is an easy matter simply to delete the offending post. Wrong. Dozens of court cases have shown that anything written on social media can count legally. Once someone shares something you have written then you cannot delete it.

Some information can be ‘forgotten’ however. Google recently lost a case where an individual claimed a ‘right to be forgotten’ and had to delete data to comply with this ruling. The impending draft EU regulation on data protection also includes the principle of the right to be forgotten. The new challenge is that organisations will now need a means of identifying such instances and be able to action them.

Another problem is that on social media, personal and professional identities collide. State who you work for on a social media profile, then write something inappropriate, and your employer (and your career) could be seriously damaged.

What are the main risks?

Perhaps you think that social media is something for your PR people to handle? Unfortunately social media risk impacts on the whole of your organisation. At the very simplest there are risks to efficiency

if staff spend too much time on social media. (It’s probably pointless banning

them though as they will use their smartphones to get a Facebook fix).

There are also considerable reputational risks, even if you

are not running social media marketing campaigns.

Who is saying what about your organisation, or your employees, on Facebook? How well are you responding to customer questions and complaints on Twitter? In many organisations it is the intern that handles social media for the simple reason that they are the youngest person in the office: the (probably erroneous) assumption is that they must understand how to use it better than anyone else! At another level, how is your senior team presenting themselves on LinkedIn or Twitter? Do your policies cover them too? Would they be sacked for inappropriate posts?

It’s not just reputation at stake. Many other things can go wrong. It’s easy to leak strategic information accidentally on social media forums. HR professionals need to take particular care when deciding whether to use the analysis of social media profiles as part of recruitment or disciplinary processes. Procurement and commissioning departments are affected too: it is just as easy to enter into, or vary, a contract on social media as it is on email or on paper.

Perhaps the most serious concern is cyber security. The more information your employees expose about your organisation on social media the easier it is for fraud. Scammers can fool employees into parting with information and data (including login details) by sending them credible phishing emails tailored to their work.

Social media is a risky place. But an awareness of the risks, coupled with common sense, good management processes, and the appropriate tools and training, will help your organisation to avoid the worst of those risks and to minimise the damage when something does go wrong.

Ten top tips: protect your organisation from social media risks1. Don’t use social media for marketing just because it seems on-trend. If you don’t have SMART goals for your activities then you will almost certainly waste time and money and probably damage your reputation too. Many organisations have no reason to use social media beyond listening out for, and responding to, serious complaints.2. Develop a social media policy. It should explain to employees when and how they can use social media at work, and when and how they can talk about work-related matters on social media. For instance you might want to stop people from mentioning they work for your organisation on social media, except perhaps on LinkedIn. Remember that people may be using social media sites on personal devices such as smartphones and home computers as well as on your organisation’s computers.

How to manage social media risksAlarm has invited back digital business consultant, Jeremy Swinfen Green to create this Smart Guide on how organisations should recognise and manage risks arising from social media.


Your policy needs to make clear that it applies when people talk about work-related matters on personal devices (BYOD risk) and outside the organisation, just as much as it does when they use company equipment and are at work.3. Train everyone in what your social media policy means and why it is important. For example you might want to remind employees that the internet is public domain so the things they write may well be read by people they don’t expect to read them. And don’t forget to explain any sanctions for failing to follow the policy. 4. Make sure your organisation’s social media accounts have strong passwords. There really is no excuse for using ‘Password’ or the ubiquitous ‘1234’! Even ‘P455w0rd’ can be broken in seconds.5. Restrict access to your social media accounts. If you need to allow more than one person to access an account then you should implement a sign-in system that will allow you to track exactly who is posting what and when.6. Make sure you listen out for customer complaints and comments about your services. There are plenty of free tools about to do this although you get what you pay for. The more expensive ones will be more comprehensive in their coverage of social media and provide you with better management tools.7. Ensure that experienced people manage your social media responses. Take care with tone of voice as well as the detail of what you say. Everything you say counts so don’t promise what you can’t deliver. Don’t ignore people. If you don’t have a 24/7 team responding

to social media (and you probably don’t) take care with automated responses and never pretend they come from a real person!8. Make sure you are compliant with privacy and data protection rules. Double check marketing material and content. Archive your social media activity. 9. Take seriously social media cyber security risk. A scam delivered via a message on LinkedIn can look very credible, but it could be a way of fooling employees to part with login credentials. Adverts on social media can lead people to sites that download key-logging software. In addition it is relatively easy for people to give strategic information away accidentally when posting on social media forums. Educate employees about these risks.10. Understand that your organisation is likely to get damaged via social media one day. Vengeful ex-employees, political hacktivists, unhappy customers or citizens will get back at your organisation. Prepare for those unpleasant incidents by auditing risks and identifying likely damaging scenarios. Implement processes to triage and allocate social media problems. Make sure you have clear lines of communication and responsibility. And don’t panic: not everything that goes wrong on social media is a crisis.

Jeremy Swinfen Green ([email protected]) is a Director of Social Media Risk Consulting, a specialist consultancy providing audits and advice in the area of social media risk and the human elements of cyber security. www.socialmediarisk.co.uk

It’s time for something newFor claims expertise and solutions tailored to your needs, then you need the best of both Crawford and GAB Robins. Together we offer a broad range of services designed with you and your stakeholders in mind and delivered with absolute care.

• Claims Handling • Property Loss Adjusting • Casualty Loss Adjusting

• Major & Complex Loss • Surveying Services • Construction & Engineering

www.crawfordandcompany.com

To find out how we can help you, contact: Margaret Clubley on 01908 302030 or [email protected]

J2130 Alarm Conference Ad_V2.indd 1 29/04/2015 14:09


LEGAL UPDATE

The hearing of Coventry v Lawrence (see Public RM Winter 2014) took place before the Supreme Court in February 2015. The Judgment is yet to be handed down, and it would be foolish to predict the outcome as the arguments on both sides are compelling.

At stake is the possibility of a deluge of claims, most likely against the Government, by paying parties who, in certain cases, may have had their human rights breached by being ordered to pay success fees and insurance premiums.

The background

The issue was first raised before the Supreme Court by the Defendants (who were Respondents in the appeal). They had been ordered to pay 60% of the Claimant’s very substantial costs.

It was argued that the success fee under the Claimant’s Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) coupled with the After the Event Insurance (ATE) premium should not be recovered from the Defendant. It was viewed to be a disproportionate interference with the Defendant’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the right to a fair trial; and Article 1 of the First Protocol; the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.

Lord Neuberger expressed only a provisional opinion because it was based on only one side’s submissions but nevertheless, said that the Respondents may be right. He also recognised it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to decide the point without the Government having the opportunity to address the Court on the issue. This led to the further hearing in February this year.

Given the significance of the issues at stake, a number of parties intervened. Arguments were advanced not only by the Appellants and the Secretary of State for Justice but also by, among others, The Law Society, The Bar Council, the Association of Costs Lawyers and the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum UK. The involvement of the Asbestos Victims Support Group is particularly notable because, of course, recoverability of additional liabilities remains in place in mesothelioma claims.

The submissions

The submissions of the parties and interveners are long and complex and raise many arguments. It is not possible to set

out all the arguments but it is worth focusing on a number of the more interesting and significant ones.

It is common ground among most of the parties and interveners that the primary legislation is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The question is whether or not the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the Costs Practice Directions (CPD) and the application of those rules is incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

The Respondents accepted the principle that, in litigation, the loser should pay the costs of the winner, and that the recovery of success fees and insurance premiums had the legitimate aim of widening access to justice. However, they argued that the system as a whole is an unfair, irrational and disproportionate means of achieving that aim because the system, as a whole, interfered with the Respondent’s human rights.

The essence of the argument was that the CPR, the CPD and the way in which the courts interpreted and applied those provisions, were incompatible because they did not take into account the reasonableness and proportionality of incurring the success fees and insurance premiums, nor the ability of the payer (the loser) to meet them. Accordingly, although the system of recoverability had the aim of widening access to justice, the application was disproportionate (in human rights terms rather than costs terms).

The system would not be unfair, irrational and disproportionate if the application of the CPR and the CPD considered: (1) whether the total costs including success fees and premiums were proportionate; (2) the means of the paying party; and (3) the means of the receiving party.

The appellants took the opposite view. The Secretary of State argued that the courts have already made it clear that considerable weight must be given to the Government’s informed legislative choices and that they must be allowed

Keeping the faith on CoventryDavid Abraham, Consultant, and Dean O’Connor, Costs Lawyer, at Clyde & Co, explain the latest thinking in the landmark Coventry v Lawrence case as we await the Supreme Court ruling.

It is common ground among most of the

parties and interveners that the primary legislation is not incompatible with the

Human Rights Act.


to balance the competing interests of different groups in society. In particular, it was the economic and social balance struck by Parliament that unsuccessful defendants (wrongdoers) should pay the wider costs of civil litigation and that the decision by Parliament to permit the recovery of success fees and insurance premiums was within the margin of decision-making of Parliament. Ultimately, they argued, there should be no basis for re-visiting a well entrenched system.

The fact that the paying parties have been paying the success fees and insurance premiums of wining parties for such a long time was picked up by the Bar Council, who submitted that: ‘…it will be extraordinary – not to mention unfair – if the court, after 15 years of having supported, shaped and sometimes even promoted the recoverability of success fees, was then to decide that it had got it all wrong and that they were not recoverable after all.’

The consequences summarised in the Council’s submissions included that continuing cases would be plunged into uncertainty and any clients with ongoing cases may have difficulty in continuing those cases, which could breach their own human rights. Although the Bar Council did not say so, it seems clear that, if the consequences to which they refer occurred, our civil justice system could be brought into disrepute.

Finally, and interestingly for local authorities, was a very simple argument advanced on behalf of the Association of Cost Lawyers (ACL). They argued that the courts should determine whether it was reasonable and proportionate for additional liabilities to have been incurred and if it was not then they should not be recoverable. Accordingly, if the claimant is wealthy and can afford the cost of the litigation then it is not reasonable and proportionate for that claimant to seek recovery of the cost of funding arrangements, because the primary purpose of the system of recoverability

was to provide access to justice to those who could not, otherwise, afford it.

As noted by the ACL, this approach was advocated in Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2011) EWCA Civ 194, where the Claimant had insurance against the costs of the litigation and therefore, did not require a conditional fee agreement and an insurance premium to have access to justice. However this was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

If the Respondents are successful, and as Lord Neuberger has made clear, it could have very serious consequences for the Government, given litigants deemed to be ‘victims’ of the provisions could well have a claim for compensation against the Government for infringement of their human rights. These ‘victims’ could include local authorities. Although local authorities do not have human rights that does not mean they should not enjoy the protection afforded to parties with human rights.

Local authorities do not have human

rights but that does not mean they should not enjoy

the protection afforded to parties with human

rights.

David Abraham ([email protected]) is a Consultant, and Dean O’Connor (dean.o’[email protected]) is a Costs Lawyer within the Clyde and Co costs team. They deal with all cost issues with a particular focus on the cost liabilities of local authorities and insurers. www.clydeco.com


Strict liability for landlords on common parts Samuel Edwards v Baladas Kumarasamy [Court of Appeal Civil Decision 20 2015]

Comment The Court of Appeal clarifies the extent of a landlord’s liability in respect of common parts or areas falling outside of the demise of a tenant’s property. Lack of notice in respect of a defect has traditionally been the starting point of a defence for landlords in respect of claims brought by tenant claimants. However, this binding decision means such a defence will only apply when the defect in question is within the tenant’s actual property. If the defect occurs outside the tenant’s property - for example a common part, like a stairwell or an access path - then providing it can be deemed part of the structure or exterior, the landlord is liable for any injury, even in the absence of notice.

Background The Claimant rented a second floor flat as an assured shorthold tenancy from the Defendant. The Defendant was not the owner of the block of flats but had a long lease of the particular flat let to the Claimant. The Claimant suffered injury when he tripped over an uneven paving stone in the pathway, between the front door of the block and the communal bins. The path constituted an essential means of access for the Claimant to the flat. It was undisputed that the Defendant was not on notice of the defect pre-accident. At first instance it was found that the paved area was part of the

structure or exterior of the flat and awarded the Claimant damages for his injury. The Defendant appealed the trial decision and succeeded; it was held that the Defendant was not liable under the extended covenant implied to the tenancy by virtues section 11 (1a) of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985 because he believed it was a condition precedent for such a claim to succeed that the landlord had notice of the defect. The Claimant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Decision It was argued on behalf of the Claimant that liability arose as soon as the disrepair existed and notice was not, as the Judge had found, a condition precedent of such a claim. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It distinguished between a landlord’s liability when a defect occurred within the demised premises itself. In those circumstances a landlord would only be in breach of the repairing covenant (and therefore liable to compensate for injury) when they had actual notice as to the existence of the defect. However, where a defect occurred to the external part of the building, which was not demised to the tenant, the landlord was liable, even though he had no notice of the disrepair. This is akin to imposing a strict liability on a landlord in respect of defects arising to external and

common parts of the property, outside the demise of the tenancy.

What we can learnThe above decision will only apply in respect of accidents involving tenants against their landlord; the position remains unchanged in respect of visitors which are dealt with pursuant to the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Lack of notice of a defect falling outside the demise of the tenanted property will no longer be sufficient to defeat a claim, the decision essentially imposes a strict liability on landlords; liability arises as soon as the defect or disrepair occurs. Consideration should be given to landlords to their current inspection regimes, if any, in the hope defects can be identified in common parts and external areas before accidents occur as it will be prove difficult to defend once an accident occurs.

LEGAL UPDATE

On the case

On the case was compiled by: Sarah Davisworth ([email protected]) and Sarah Wilkinson ([email protected]). The Insurance Department at Forbes works with public sector organisations to understand their needs and complement their own areas of expertise, to offer a tailored and specialist service to meet all their legal requirements. www.forbessolicitors.co.uk


High Court derails cycle claim Andrew Foulds (2) Claire Foulds (Both as Personal Representatives of Benjamin Foulds, Deceased) v Devon County Council [Queens Bench Division of the High Court 09/01/2015] The Court clarifies the common law duty to road users.

Comment The Court has provided a helpful decision on the extent of the common law duty to road users and clarification as to when a local authority might owe a duty to cyclists and other users of the highway.

Background This tragic case relates to a cycling accident: An 18 year old lost control of his bicycle and left the carriageway, continuing through ornamental metal railings (positioned on top of a low retaining wall) falling down a large drop to a lower road. The Claimant suffered serious head and spinal injuries. The Claimant later died for reasons unrelated to the accident. A claim of negligence was brought against the local authority.

Decision At common law a highway authority owes no duty to maintain the road or to make it safe. The Judge found that the defendant was not under a duty to ensure that the railings were maintained to provide a structure of sufficient strength and structural integrity to withstand the forces exerted in the accident. The local authority had not acted to positively create a trap or danger that would not otherwise have existed.The Judge dismissed the argument that a duty had arisen from the fact the defendant had regularly visually inspected and maintained the railings, at no point had the Defendant intended the railings to be a crash barrier.

What we can learnThe case will be helpful to defendants and insurers when defending similar claims. Local authorities can be reassured that where they have inherited assets such as railings, and where they have carried out regular maintenance to the said fixture, a duty does not automatically arise unless the local authority had positively acted to create a trap or danger that would not otherwise have existed.

Comment A swimming teacher and a lifeguard had both breached their duty of care and were negligent. Despite neither being employed by the local authority, the local authority was held liable for their negligence in an earlier landmark decision, in the same case, by the Supreme Court. The issue before the High Court was whether the lesson was properly supervised.

Background Annie Woodland sustained brain damage following a near drowning incident during a school swimming lesson at a local authority pool. She brought a claim against the lifeguard, the swimming teacher and the local authority on the basis that it owed a non-delegable duty to take care of pupils during school swimming lessons.

Decision The High Court found for the Claimant. The probability was that if she had been rescued earlier, she would not have suffered the injury. The Court gave weight to what it described as an ‘impressive body of contemporaneous or near contemporaneous evidence’ provided by fellow pupils. The failure to notice a pupil in difficulties in the water for more than 30 seconds fell below the standard of care reasonably to be expected of a teacher and a lifeguard. Both the lifeguard and the teacher were found negligent and the local authority as a consequence was held liable for their negligence.

What we can learnThe Supreme Court had earlier ruled that Essex County Council owed the Claimant a ‘non-delegable duty of care’, with the result that it was liable for any negligence on the part of the lifeguard and/or the swimming teacher, despite neither being employed by the local authority at the time of the incident. However, it should be noted that liability is not open ended. The earlier Supreme Court judgment made clear that in the absence of negligence by the local authority they would not be held liable for contracted third parties unless it was their duty to carry out the relevant function.

High Court upholds ruling on ‘non-delegable duty of care’Annie Rachel Woodland (a Protected Party Represented by Her Father & Litigation Friend Ian Woodland) v (1) Deborah Maxwell (2) Essex County Council [High Court, 2015] Local Authority held liable for negligence of lifeguard and swimming teacher.


HIGHWAYS

The Pothole Planning article in Public RM Spring 2015 and in particular the panel on the partnership arrangements that Walsall MBC entered into with its highways contractor, sparked interest within Alarm. This article provides more detail about this partnership from a practitioner’s point of view.

The Highways Repairs and Maintenance Contract was first awarded to Lafarge Tarmac in April 2009, originally for six years to April 2015, however the contract has been extended to 30 April 2017.

The partnering contract continues to deliver its objectives through a combination of:• An inclusive governance structure which maximises opportunities to gather best practice and innovation from across the partnership.• Investment in new technology and processes which have promoted re-engineering of the service to increase efficiency and reduce costs.• Community engagement at all levels including the appointment of local apprentices to securing customer satisfaction at site level.

A collaborative relationship between the Council and its contractor has been the key to securing efficiencies and delivering more for less through the development of new technology, improved processes and inward investment principles. In essence this collaborative arrangement saw a step change in service delivery to a point where long term strategies and lifecycle planning are deployed effectively, despite the impact of reducing resources from central government.

Walsall’s highway maintenance strategy identifies four key objectives under the headings of: • Safety• Serviceability• Sustainability• Customer Service.

These have been further defined as:

Objective Description

Safety Find and fix process on urgent repairs.

Serviceability Innovative technology and processes for gully emptying and flood prevention.

Sustainability Creating a workforce for the future – Apprenticeship Scheme.

Customer Services

Capturing the imagination of the community through best practice and engagement.

The strategy also acknowledges that the Council has a statutory duty to keep the roads safe and recognises that a sound transport infrastructure is fundamental to the social and economic vitality of the region.

Lafarge Tarmac delivers:• Structural repairs to footways and carriageways• Minor highways improvements• Reactive highway repairs• Winter gritting and snow clearance• Emergency out of hours work• Road markings• Gully and stream cleansing.

Attending emergency flooding events at blocked gullies is expensive. The Council, along with Lafarge Tarmac worked with Kaarbontech, a specialist technology company to develop a gully cleaning programme for about 33,000 units. As a result of this work gully emergencies reduced from 247 in 2013/14 to 70 in 2014/15. On average this saved 221 man-hours and produced a saving of £18,000. This knowledge based mobile asset management project was based on the increased use of handheld devices with new software. This investment was designed to reduce the need for attendance at flooding hotspots with an improved knowledge base of gully assets, leading to further cash savings.

Immediate efficiencies in working methods have been recognised as the contractor has moved from nine daily reactive emergency call-outs to a proactive service. Up to 145 gullies a day are cleaned, reducing the average cost of cleaning one gully from £100 to under £10.

Process re-engineering and investment in plant has increased safety and public satisfaction as well as reducing the Council’s annual routine maintenance bill by £145,000.

Pothole partnershipNeil Pearson, Risk, Insurance & Loss Control Manager at Walsall Council, describes how a partnership agreement with a highways contractor works for Walsall.


Suffering the consequences of repeat site visits to attend failed pothole repairs, the partnership challenged the entrenched council process with its aging plant. Urgent action was needed to increase value for money and to reduce complaints.

Diagnostic techniques were used to examine each part of the pothole repair service. The principles of Value Stream Mapping and Root Cause Analysis were applied to look at the interaction of processes and resources were designed to identify and reduce redundancy and waste.

The Council embraced the recommendations, which lead to a 100% defect-free service comprising:• Investment in two Roadmender vehicles and a hot storage facility for asphalt, which promoted the one visit repair solution.• A new training programme for the workforce with some redeployment to new roles.• A performance management framework underpinned by appropriate key performance indicators for planned and emergency works, which promotes continuous improvement.

Collaborative working across the Council

Following the introduction of the process review and the reallocation of some functions for the highway inspectors mentioned above, there was a significant reduction in the number and frequency of highways inspections. This was reflected in an increase in the number of highways third party claims and a reduction in the defence rate.

Some of the increase in both claims numbers and values can be explained by poor winter weather conditions. However from the claims that were being handled in-house it became apparent there were some issues as the defence rate for these claims fell below 40%. This was due mainly to a lack

of inspections or inspection records. Once the reasons for the increased claims spend were identified, money was allocated to fund an additional dedicated repair gang for the claims hot spots. This freed up the existing gangs to cover the rest of the borough more effectively. Also an extra, temporary, inspector brought inspections up to date.

A link between the Council’s Children’s Services and Lafarge Tarmac has seen young people from the Looked After Children initiative join the highway service through an apprenticeship programme for both clerical and operational opportunities. The contract also supports the local economy by employing local people and uses a range of local SMEs as suppliers and sub-contractors. Many community projects have also benefitted from the highways skills and resource.

Due to the reallocation of resources within the highways section we have experienced a reduction in the ability to maintain a statutory defence on civil liability claims. Through analysis of management information this process weakness has been recognised with corrective action. We expect to see further significant improvements in the claims KPI’s over coming years: the early indications for 2014-2015 are encouraging. It is this flexible, collaborative approach that underpins the principles of this contract and is undoubtedly the basis of its success.

In conclusion, prior to 2009 it was clear the Council’s approach to highways maintenance and repair was creaking at the edges and would not be fit for purpose in the future. A strategic partner was secured with a joint shared vision of how the service could be delivered. The opportunity was taken to bring additional benefits to the Walsall area.

Neil Pearson, ([email protected]) is Risk, Insurance & Loss Control Manager, Risk and Insurance Services, Finance at Walsall Council.

Finding the value in riskKaren Locke is Risk Manager at Renfrewshire Council, an Alarm Award winning council, with active engagement in risk management linked to service improvements throughout the organisation.

What is your role? I’m the Risk Manager for Renfrewshire Council. I’m based in Paisley. Our Head Office is right next to the beautiful Paisley Abbey and Paisley

Town Hall. My role is to ensure that the Council has a good risk management framework that adds value to what we do. Ultimately that’s about making sure we can provide the best possible services and outcomes for the people of Renfrewshire in a safe manner, as well as providing a good environment for everyone who works for, or engages with us.

What do you enjoy most about your job? That’s not an easy question to answer. If I have to focus on one thing though, I would have to say that, being enthusiastic about my profession, I get the most pleasure out of those situations where a colleague who has struggled to understand how to apply good risk management suddenly ‘gets it’ and finds the value in it too.

What are the biggest challenges? There are always challenges in not having enough time to

MEMBER PROFILE


MEMBER PROFILE

focus on new developments we would want to pursue. However, one particular aspect I have found to be a big challenge has recently turned into something very positive: being able to really evidence the difference that good risk management makes. It’s that old chestnut of how do you prove that something negative didn’t happen because of the work you’ve been involved in? So, just a few years ago, we introduced our own local risk management award here at Renfrewshire. The primary aim of the award was to formally recognise the contribution that our colleagues were making towards managing risks not only within the organisation but those faced by our communities. However we had another aim! Rather than focus on proving how risk management ‘stops bad things happening’ (or reducing negative impacts), we turned it on its head and used the award scheme to show how good risk management could enable service improvements. The most pleasing aspect is seeing colleagues start to make links between service improvement activities and managing risk, and then going on to not only be recognised by their colleagues here, but also doing well with their initiatives at the Alarm Awards.

What has been the most effective learning you have experienced in this role? It’s difficult to narrow down what I’ve learnt here at Renfrewshire but I’ve really come to appreciate just how complex the business environment is that public sector organisations have to work within to provide safe and reliable services. You learn quickly how so many of the risks we face are inter-related. It is important to be alert to how the treatment of one particular risk could have a knock on impact on other risks. It’s a privilege to be working with senior officers here who are wholly supportive of risk management. It’s a natural topic of conversation and on the whole as an organisation we’re now much more risk aware.

What do you feel are the greatest emerging risk management opportunities and threats for councils? Two sides of the one coin I would say. Resources are ever tightening across all our services and so that’s probably the most profound threat, but there is an opportunity here for risk professionals in organisations to engage in the transformation agendas that are underway to redesign services and tackle resource issues. We often can bring an alternative perspective on matters, we can promote tried and tested risk management methods that will aid the right decisions to be made and we should continually seek out opportunities to remind our colleagues that we are here to help!

How are regulatory, statutory and budgetary changes and transformation programmes affecting your risk landscape? I would say that as we change the way we work, our risk landscape is impacted by an even greater need to make sure the full range of our resources are aligned to our

business needs and we have the right skills and competencies to deliver on these. We need to be careful that as we redesign management systems and processes that we do not lose essential controls protecting the Council’s financial and statutory integrity. There is also a real challenge for risk professionals in the public sector to support risk owners to evaluate how effectively a risk is controlled; to consider whether or not some risks are over-controlled; and how to add value to how the risk is treated.

What are the risks that keep your senior managers awake at night? It might not necessarily keep them awake at night but I do know that public protection and safety is certainly right up there in their priorities. At the end of the day that’s what we’re all about: providing services and doing our best (with our partners) to keep citizens safe. Other key risks would be; tackling poverty and inequality: tackling unemployment and supporting economic development in our towns: managing the changes associated with health and social care integration: delivering key regeneration projects: and continuing to manage the ongoing financial and demand pressures.

Karen Locke ([email protected]) is the Risk Manager at Renfrewshire Council.

You learn quickly how so many of the risks we face are

inter-related.


Managing risk or insurance?You need to join Alarm.

Alarm EventsJune

3 ‘A Day at the Seaside’ Region: North West

Venue: Fylde Council Town Hall

8 ‘Insurance and Risk Forum’Region: Scotland

Venue: Hilton Dunblane Hydro Hotel

21-23 Alarm National Educational Forum 2015‘Managed Risk, Resilient Future’Delegate places from just £215 +VAT

Venue: Aston University, BirminghamFor more information visit the 2015 Forum page.

23 Alarm Risk Awards Dinner 2015‘Recognising excellence in public services and our communities’Tickets included FREE with a full Forum delegate place or just £85 +VAT each

Venue: Conference Aston, Aston University, Birmingham For more information, visit the Risk Awards page.

MEMBER AREA

Get access to all these benefits from

only £160 +VAT for 12 months individual full

membership.

Join us now and benefit from the unique opportunities we offer to further enhance your professional development and expand your knowledge and skills in managing risk, including:

Free Attendance at workshops and seminars on topics relevant to you, and delivered at venues in your region.Free Access to fellow members willing to share ideas and experiences.Free Downloads of Alarm best practice guidance documents.Free Access to the Alarm website & membership database. Free Membership to Alarm Country, Regional and Sector Groups.Free Copies of Alarm’s quarterly journal, Public RM.Free Copies of StrategicRISK and CIR magazines.Free Fortnightly e-newsletter containing up-to-date information, reports, consultations, jobs and event information.

Take out membership now and:• Join the UK’s only membership organisation exclusively for professionals managing risk, serving public services and our communities.• Benefit from the wealth of networking and knowledge sharing opportunities – including national, regional and sector events, online forums, regular updates and surveys.• Receive discounted training opportunities including the Management of Risk (M_o_R®) course, IRM risk management courses and various events from other professional associations.• Benefit from Alarm member delegate rates at national events.• Gain professional accreditation through the discounted Registered Risk Practitioner scheme.

Contact Us:

If you would like to discuss your membership requirements please contact us:t: 0333 123 0007 e: [email protected] w: www.alarm-uk.org

For more information and to book any of the above events, please visit: www.alarm-uk.org Alarm Members wishing to cancel their place at any FREE regional or sector day event must contact the Alarm Office 7 days before the event or they will incur a £50 cancellation fee. Only full corporate Members and sponsors of Alarm events can transfer their membership to another colleague, allowing them to attend an event in place of the named Member. Non-members (public sector only) can attend Alarm one day events for just £75 +VAT, payable in advance which is non-refundable.

http://www.alarm-uk.org/events/2015-forum-

http://www.alarm-uk.org/events/alarm-risk-awards-2015


Education & Training / Legal Services / Solving Disputes Browne JacobsonVictoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B2 4BUw: www.brownejacobson.com t: 0121 237 3900e: [email protected] Our team understands the issues, both legal

and practical, which impact local authorities today. We provide clear advice and drive the strategy to resolve claims whether by negotiation, alternative dispute resolution or trial. Our goal is to protect your finances and your reputation.

Insurance & Claims / Risk Management Arthur J. GallagherStation Square, One Gloucester Road, Swindon, Wiltshire SN1 1GWw: www.ajginternational.com t: 01793 468386e: [email protected] J. Gallagher (AJG) is a leading risk management

and insurance services provider. Expert advisors within the AJG Public Sector & Education practice have been providing specialist advice and support for over 30 years, developing risk management solutions to our clients’ individual needs. We are a dedicated team of specialists working with over 200 organisations providing comprehensive risk and insurance services across local and central government, blue light services, the NHS and Higher and Further Education.

Insurance & Claims / Risk ManagementAonw: www.public-sector.aon.co.uk t: 0161 687 2000e: [email protected] Aon’s Public Sector Practice Group has been providing risk and insurance advice to Public Sector organisations for over 40 years and we are proud

Gold sponsors of Alarm. Our regional offices provide dedicated local service with access to national expertise and resources. With pressures to do more with less, our risk consulting approach enables our clients to cost effectively identify, understand, control and mitigate total cost of risk. Number one insurance broker 2013, Aon is advisor to over 250 public sector bodies, and active participants on a number of frameworks.

Insurance & Claims / Risk Management / Software & ITAlphatecNorth Barn, Dodford Hill Farm, Brockhall Road, Dodford, Northamptonshire NN7 4GSw: www.alphatec.net t: 0845 680 1911 e: [email protected] Founded in 1995, Alphatec have developed an award

winning suite of incident, claims and insurance management software that is in use today across a wide variety of organisations in housing, local government, construction, insurance and banking. Talk to us today to see how ClaimControl can benefit you.

Insurance & Claims / Legal Services / Risk ManagementBLMSalisbury House, London Wall, London EC2M 5QNw: www.blmlaw.com t: 020 7638 2811e: [email protected] As the UK and Ireland’s leading risk and insurance law business, through our 12 offices we offer the public sector a national perspective with local delivery.

Pressure on the public sector has never been greater. Our dedicated public sector teams help protect your reputation and save you money.

Business Continuity & Emergency Planning / Risk Management / Insurance & Claims

Crawford & CompanyTrinity Court, 42 Trinity Square, London EC3N 4THw: www.crawfordandcompany.com t: 020 7265 4000e: [email protected] Crawford & Company has the professional experience and technical expertise to manage claims from start to

finish. We enhance our clients’ reputations alongside our own by providing transparency of performance and outstanding customer service. We are a strong, safe and regulated organisation with an experienced management team and you can feel confident that we will work with you in pursuit of service excellence.

When contacting any of the suppliers, please

mention that you saw them listed in the Alarm Supplier

Directory.

Alarm Supplier DirectoryProfessional services guide

MEMBER AREA

Insurance & Claims / Legal Services Dawson & Burgess3 South Parade, Hall Cross Hill, Doncaster, Yorkshire, DN1 2DZw: www.dawsonandburgess.co.uk t: 01302 349463e: [email protected] Dawson & Burgess is a six partner firm with two

offices. The firm has a wealth of knowledge and experience in dealing with Local Authority litigation. Advice is also given in areas of Law including Commercial and Residential Conveyancing, General Litigation, Personal Injury, Matrimonial and Childcare, Wills and Probate and Employment Law.


Insurance & Claims / Software & IT Equifax LimitedCapital House, 25 Chapel Street, London NW1 5DSw: www.equifax.co.uk t: 07833 091916 e: [email protected] Equifax is one of the world’s largest CRA’s with access to over 430 million credit agreements

and 32 million claims details. Equifax can offer the ability to validate a claimant’s full claims history via our web portal along with electronic CRU submission, to help with fraud prevention and claims handling.

Legal Services DWF1 Scott Place, 2 Hardman Street, Manchester M3 3AAw: www.dwf.co.uk t: 03333 202220e: [email protected] DWF is a national leader in local authority litigation,

we are uniquely placed to understand the key risks currently facing the sector. We deliver pro-active solutions to often challenging claims brought against local authorities. Working in partnership with our clients to promote best practice, identify key risk management issues and to identify ways to reduce future claims.

Health & Safety / Insurance & Claims / Legal ServicesHill DickinsonNo.1 St Paul’s Square, Liverpool, L3 9SJw: www.hilldickinson.comt: 0151 600 8961e: [email protected] Hill Dickinson LLP’s local authority team has a proven track record of delivering individually tailored

pragmatic legal advice and strategic guidance to public bodies across the UK. Our teams cover a full range of legal specialisms relevant to public bodies and can also offer in-house training and support.

Legal Services Forbes Solicitors13/14 South Parade, Leeds, Yorkshire LS1 5QSw: www.forbessolicitors.co.ukt: 01132 446688e: [email protected] Solicitors work in partnership with numerous public bodies to provide a full legal and litigation

service for clients on a national basis. We pride ourselves on providing solutions tailored specifically to our clients requirements and budgets. Our services are result driven, innovative and at all times cost-effective.

Insurance & Claims / Risk Management / Software & IT JC Applications Development LtdManor Barn, Hawkley Road, Liss, Hampshire GU33 6JSw: www.jcad.co.uk t: 01730 712020e: [email protected] in 1992, JC Applications Development Ltd has a client base of over 200 public and private sector

organisations in the UK, Europe and the USA. JCAD’s suite of applications has evolved over nearly 20 years to encompass claims handling, enterprise risk management and action tracking software.

Insurance & Claims / Risk ManagementGallagher Bassett International Ltd133 Houndsditch, London, EC3A 7AHw: www.gallagherbassett.co.uk t: 07764 659433e: [email protected] We provide claims handling, risk management, audit and consultancy services. We will work with you to

reduce what you spend on claims.With over 200 clients across local and central government, the emergency services and the commercial sector, a service being successfully delivered to others can be replicated for you.

Insurance & Claims / Risk ManagementJLT Specialty Ltd: Public Sector Risk PracticeThe St Botolph Building, 138 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7AWw: www.jltgroup.comt: 0207 558 3272e: [email protected] dedicated team providing innovative and cost-

effective solutions to the public sector. We offer a comprehensive range of risk management and insurance broking services from under one roof, working in close partnership with customers to deliver a programme tailored to individual needs.

Business Continuity & Emergency Planning / Insurance & Claims / Risk Management

Marsh Ltd16 Windsor Place, Cardiff CF10 3BYw: www.marsh.co.uk t: 0776 997 1454e: [email protected] Marsh is a global leader in insurance broking and risk management. We help clients succeed by defining,

designing, and delivering innovative industry-specific solutions that help them effectively manage risk. Our Public Sector Practice has developed an innovative strategy to help you optimise risk management and lower the total cost of risk.

Insurance & Claims / Legal Services / Risk ManagementLangleys SolicitorsQueens House, Micklegate, York, North Yorkshire YO1 6WGw: www.langleys.com t: 01904 610886e: [email protected] Our public sector team has a strong reputation

for providing a technical, quality service that represents best value for our clients. We work in partnership with our local authority clients to achieve the best possible outcomes at the least possible cost. We are enthusiastic and work hard to exceed expectations and we are willing to go the extra mile particularly to ensure each client’s reputation is safeguarded and protected.

Insurance & Claims / Legal Services / Solving DisputesKennedys25 Fenchurch Avenue, London EC3M 5ADw: www.kennedyslaw.com t: 020 7667 9667e: [email protected] is an international law firm with specialist expertise in litigation/dispute resolution and advisory

services. With a presence across Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America, its 11 UK offices are part of a growing network delivering straight forward legal solutions to the insurance, corporate and public sectors.


Insurance & Claims / Legal Services Weightmans LLP100 Old Hall St, Liverpool L3 9QJw: www.weightmans.comt: 01512 439898e: [email protected] are specialist advisors to the public sector for both litigation and advisory services. We act for over

300 public authorities across our seven offices (Birmingham, Crossways, Knutsford, Leicester, Liverpool, London and Manchester). We offer national knowledge on a local basis. We provide support, advice and defence litigation services. We also assist with risk management training while a fraud detection package is offered to clients recognising that this is an area of particular concern for public bodies. Weightmans understand the issues that are important to you and will work with you to achieve the results you need.

Insurance & Claims / Risk Management Risk Management Partners133 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7AH w: www.rmpartners.co.ukt: 020 7204 1800e: [email protected] Management Partners work in close partnership with brokers and public sector risk managers to

design, develop and implement solutions to risk related challenges. Our core services are risk transfer, claims handling, and risk control, applying our experise and innovative solutions to reduce the total cost of risk.

Insurance & Claims / Risk Management Zurich MunicipalZurich House, 2 Gladiator Way, Farnborough GU14 6GBw: www.zurich.co.uk/municipalt: 0870 241 8050e: [email protected] Zurich Municipal we appreciate that every

organisation has different needs and that’s why we use our experience and expertise to work with our customers to understand their specific risk requirements in an increasingly complex environment. As a leading provider of risk and insurance services for the public sector you can be confident that we offer expert guidance and support every step of the way.

Join the Alarm Supplier Directory

Benefits:• Bring your company to the attention of over 750 organisations. The Supplier Directory receives over 1200 views online each year.• Be where our members look for suppliers.• Raise your profile with engaged buyers and users of risk management services.

Entrants in the Alarm Supplier Directory receive:• An entry in the Supplier Directory on our website under the appropriate service link designations. To include: logo (Max 150 x150), name, address, telephone, email contact and website link.• 50 word summary about your company.• Link to the directory in our E-News sent to all Alarm Members.• Listing in Alarm’s quarterly journal ‘Public RM’.

For more information about how to add your organisation, please visit www.alarm-uk.org

Alarm Supplier Directorycontinued

MEMBER AREA

Insurance & Claims / Legal Services / Solving DisputesQualitySolicitors Burn & CompanyEbor House, Millfield Lane, Nether Poppleton, York Y026 6QYw: www.qualitysolicitors.com/burnco t: 01904 655442e: [email protected] The Insurance Litigation team at QualitySolicitors Burn

and Co are Local Authority Specialists and aim to be strong flexible and competitive at all times. From RTA’s to complex public and employer’s liability we have over 20 years‘ experience, and the knowledge and resources to assist you whatever the problem.

Health & Safety / Legal Services / Risk ManagementParabis Innovative SolutionsJosephs Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS3 1ABw: www.plexuslaw.co.ukt: 0844 245 4100e: [email protected] Law is one of the largest defendant litigation

practices in the country, and includes a leading public sector division based in Leeds, London, Manchester and Evesham.Partner - led specialists provide a full range of services to central government and local and police authorities across the UK.

Insurance & Claims / Risk Management Maven Public Sector 8 Devonshire Square, London EC2M 4PLw: www.mavenps.co.uk t: 0207 086 3366e: [email protected] Public Sector presents a new insurance, risk control and claims management solution for Councils,

Police & Fire and Rescue organisations in the UK. Our core products are Property, Combined Liability, FG and Motor.


Together we see the bigger pictureDelivering more for our Public Services customers

Local government is changing, public service delivery is becoming more challenging than ever and you are innovating and responding decisively. Our unique combination of risk management and insurance, delivered by our experts, helps you build better resilience across your communities.

Our four customer commitments:

Zurich Insurance plc is authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. Details about the extent of our regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority are available from us on request.

Made to measure insurance cover for your current and future needs1Outstanding personal service direct from our experts2Risk insight, management and control3Expert claims management and specialist knowledge4

For more information visit www.zurichmunicipal.co.uk

20274_MORE_A5_AD 15mm trim_v3.indd 2 19/08/2014 14:41


winner

SHORTLISTED

To join or to renew your membership for 2015 Benchmarking, please contact:t: 0333 123 0007e: [email protected]

Visit the Alarm website for more detailswww.alarm-uk.org

ALARM CIPFA 2015 RISK MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKING: PROVIDING GOVERNANCE, ASSURANCE AND PERFORMANCE

Join the ONLY public service focused Risk Management Benchmarking group in the UK!

• Assess your organisation against a recognised national standard

• Compare your organisation to a range of public service organisations

• Identify how successful organisations are facilitating risk management

• Access all the risk management information you need to inform your Annual Governance Statement.

Public RM Journal

Documents

Transcript of Public RM Journal