news & views - Feb 05

I am delighted to introduce the first edition of News & Views for 2005. With festive breaks now a dim and distant memory I trust that you are gearing up for another exciting and challenging year ahead.

As pioneers of risk management within the public sector, Zurich Municipal are committed to tackling issues that impact insurers and customers alike. Throughout 2005 we will increase the momentum behind our campaigns to overcome school arson and reduce fraudulent claims.

In addition we will continue to keep you well informed of any new issues and developments on the public sector horizon.

Even at this early stage in the year we are facing a number of changes emanating from the issue of new legislation and regulation. As you may be aware, with the Government's drive towards increasing accountability and transparency within the public sector, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has come into effect to increase the level of public access to information held by public bodies. This edition of News & Views considers the implications of the Act, whilst also addressing some of the key concerns voiced by public services organisations.

Remaining with the theme of regulation, I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that with effect from 14 January 2005 the Financial Services Authority (FSA) took over responsibility for regulating the activities of insurance intermediaries and insurers. Whilst the impact of this development has predominantly been felt by the insurance industry, there is also an obligation resting on non-exempt parties currently acting as insurance intermediaries. Further details are contained in this issue of News & Views, along with comments on the impact of the regulation requirements from an insurer's perspective.

The opening weeks of 2005 have witnessed further activity in Zurich Municipal's quest to embed sound risk management practices within schools. With pressure on local authorities to deliver the national curriculum using exciting and innovative approaches to education, the number of laptop computers in schools has risen to an all-time high.

Unfortunately, as the number and value of computer equipment escalates, so too does the risk of theft. With limited and often inadequate security measures in place, computer thieves are increasingly viewing schools as easy targets.

In particular, 'bulk' theft of laptops has been a growing problem in recent years, giving cause for concern amongst schools and local authorities alike. In this edition of News & Views we identify the common areas of security weaknesses in relation to the storage and protection of laptops. In addition we provide a number of recommendations to assist schools in minimising the risk of losses occurring.

Finally, going forward, Zurich Municipal will continue to develop innovative tools to assist you in effectively managing your business. For example, we have designed our online claims management systems to provide you with easy access to your data, allowing you to accurately analyse and record claims trends and information. For further details on these systems please visit our website at www.zurichmunicipal.com or email our Data Management Team at data.support@uk.zurich.com

back to top

Although the number of bullying claims in 2003 was less than 25% of the number in 2002 it's important for schools to remain vigilant.

Even with the number of claims for bullying in decline, it remains a problem in many schools. Alan Hunter, Technical Claims Manager at Zurich Municipal, said: "Despite the fact that many schools now have an anti-bullying policy in place, bullying remains consistently difficult to detect.

In some cases, the school's policy may have been successful, yet bullying still exists and may have been pushed out of the school and onto the streets or public transport."

Zurich Municipal is working closely with schools to manage risk in this area and has the following advice to help schools do their utmost to stamp out bullying:

• Continue to implement and update anti-bullying policies.
• Make sure the bullying policy is a live document that everyone is aware of.
• Be vigilant at all times. Because of the nature of bullying, individuals may be reluctant to come forward.
• Actively look out for any signs of bullying including any changes in behaviour or increased absenteeism.
• Look out for any signs of bullying that may be occurring during pupils' travel to and from school.

For more information please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

The Mobile Equipment National Database (MEND) is a quick and easy way to increase the chances of stolen mobile equipment being returned. It allows people to create a highly confidential and secure online account, which they can use to record the details of their families' mobile phones, laptops, PDAs, gaming devices, music players and cameras.

To find out more, visit www.menduk.org

The Government has published its response to the Better Regulation Task Force report 'Better Routes to Redress'. Among other things the response states the Government's objectives in this area and notes a number of new initiatives that the Government intends to undertake.

For more information please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

Coast & Country Housing Association is working with the construction industry in the Tees Valley to minimise risk when working on future projects. It has offered to help companies draw up health and safety, compliance and equal opportunities policies, and retrain local talent to the required standards set by industry regulators.

Coast & Country see this new initiative, a first for the Tees Valley area, as a way to work in partnership with communities and expand their role beyond simply providing housing.

Jack Hurst, Head of Asset Management at Coast & Country, says: "Social landlords in the region are looking to work with companies that can demonstrate a commitment to quality. Many contractors and sub-contractors are often too busy to put in place fundamental policies that will help them to minimise risk when working with future partners.

"Coast & Country has the expertise to help companies improve their operations and train staff up to the required standard. Our long-term aim is to work closely with the sector to improve the provision and quality of accommodation across the Tees Valley."

As part of its support for the public services Zurich Municipal will once again sponsor the Most Improved Council of the Year and Council of the Year awards at the Local Government Chronicle (LGC) Awards 2005. The winners will be announced in March.

You can find out more about the LGC Awards, which are now in their ninth year, by visiting www.lgcnet.com/awards

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has added an area to its website on health and safety in the waste management and recycling industries. It explains what the HSE is doing to tackle the key issues and includes a wide range of information about health and safety in this area.

You can find the new website area at www.hse.gov.uk/waste/index.htm

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has commissioned a new video and teachers' notes to raise awareness of the health and safety risks associated with those new to working situations, such as young people on their first work experience attachment from school.

The package, called 'Check it out: Risk assessment for young people on work placement', is for use by teachers in schools and is applicable in training and induction situations for new young workers aged between 14 and 18.

Please visit the HSE's website at www.hse.gov.uk for more information.

The Health & Safety Commission (HSC) has set up the Government Setting an Example (GSE) programme as part of its commitment to improving health and safety management in the public sector. It aims "to reduce the number of working days lost in the civil service and wider public sector, especially those caused by work related accidents and ill-health, by 30%, by 2010".

The programme is designed to engage central government, local government and public services in addressing health and safety challenges.

Results from the recent Chartered Institute of Personnel Development Employee Absence 2004 Survey has revealed the following:

• Sickness absence costs businesses almost £600 per employee per year - an increase of 3.7% on last year's survey.
• Public service organisations suffer the highest average level of sickness absence at 4.7%.
• The most common causes of absence are minor illness, stress among non-manual workers, and back pain for manual employees.
• 80% of employers claim they collect information on the causes of staff absence.
• Almost a third of employers believe that over 20% of absences are not genuine.
• 87% of employers have a written absence management policy with return-to-work interviews considered the most effective method of managing short-term absence.

Health & Safety Executive statistics have revealed a 4% increase in workplace deaths from 2003 to 2004, following a previous rise of 8%. Falls from height remain a major cause of fatal injuries, accounting for 29% of deaths, and the number of workers struck by moving vehicles rose from 39 to 44. Nine per cent of all fatalities occurred when 21 people drowned while harvesting cockles at Morecambe Bay in February. Trade unions are calling on the Government to introduce a new offence of 'corporate killing' while increasing powers for local authorities and the Health & Safety Commission to enforce safety.

back to top

Whether to defend a claim or settle can be a difficult decision. Mick Flannigan, Senior Claims Controller at Zurich Municipal, gives some pointers.

There is an obvious maxim on successfully defending highways claims - pick the right claims to defend. However, achieving this simple objective requires expert judgment and extensive experience. Any decision needs to be based on five factors: established principles of law, available evidence, philosophy to paying or defending claims, front-line experience and potential for fraud. Let's look at each in turn.

This isn't as straightforward as it may first appear. While there are guidelines from case law there are very few hard and fast rules that can be applied in all situations. For example, while footpath defects of up to one inch are generally defendable, cases have been lost where the defect has been less.

The vital factor in being able to defend highways claims is having a reliable system of inspection and maintenance. The inspections must be of sufficient frequency and diligence, with careful measurements taken and recorded regarding every defect. This includes tolerable defects that have the potential to develop into something more dangerous before the next scheduled inspection. The rigour of the system must be demonstrable to a court through clear and accurate documentary records and credible testimony from the highway inspectors - clear photographs of the alleged defect are also very useful.

Different public services organisations will take different approaches to claims, with some being more aggressive in their defence than others.

It's therefore important that you discuss your organisation's approach with your insurer to ensure there's a mutual understanding.

As already stated, what constitutes an 'actionable' defect is not categorically defined by case law or statute and will vary according to the facts in any given case. The location of the defect is particularly important - what might be acceptable in a quiet residential area may not be acceptable if it's outside a high street store. This uncertainty makes it tricky to select which cases to fight, but this selectivity is key - especially in these days of conditional fees and enormous success fees for claimants' lawyers in disputed cases. Only front-line experience can sharpen that selectivity.

While the previous factors take care of the fundamentals on deciding whether a claim can be defended, they don't cover the question of whether the claim is genuine. Unfortunately, a high percentage of trip and fall claims by pedestrians are fraudulent or fabricated, and both public services organisations and their insurers should be doing their utmost to root these out. This can be done in many ways including analysing claims for telltale signs such as:

• serial claimants

• any relationships between claimants

• claims arising from the same defect

• atypical tripping injuries.

Ultimately, deciding whether to settle or defend a claim is a matter of judgment. But considering the fundamentals, working closely with your insurer and being aware of the potential for fraud will increase the chances of making the correct decision.

While defending a claim or pursuing an appeal on a point of principle can be difficult and costly, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted where there is a strong case. Here are some examples of cases where the successful defence of a claim has established an important principle for public services organisations.

back to top

The latest CCTV systems could help your organisation to reduce unauthorised access and criminal activity. Jan Peake, risk management Surveyor at Zurich Municipal, focuses on their benefits.

The most common option for site security is probably the intruder alarm. However, most police forces quote false alarm rates as high as 90% - leading to the threat of a loss of police response and a knock-on effect on insurability. It's clear that in many cases a more effective solution is needed. But what are the alternatives?

Manned patrols do provide some protection from attacks including arson. However the very nature of patrolling means there are unavoidable and dangerous gaps as guards visit a number of sites. These gaps create windows of opportunity for criminals.

With manned guarding there is always someone on-site. Unfortunately there are a number of drawbacks. Probably the biggest of these is cost - this is likely to be at least £30,000 a year and has been added to considerably by lone worker and minimum wage legislation.

In addition poor quality staff, guards forced to work long hours, and the implications of limited attention spans means that incidents can still be missed.

Installing CCTV cameras avoids some of these problems and can have a deterrent effect for the opportunist. The most common method is to continuously record cameras' images to be viewed later. However, this means that if the intruder isn't deterred by the presence of the cameras, the system is really only helpful after an event to secure a conviction.

Of course the CCTV could be monitored on-site by a security guard, but this is just as expensive as manned guarding and there are still the problems of motivation and alertness.

There is one system that overcomes all of these problems - it can make false alarms a thing of the past, is always alert and its ongoing costs are lower than for manned guarding. This system is remotely monitored, detector-activated, digitally recorded CCTV.

Rather than being monitored off-site all of the time, images from the on-site cameras are only transmitted to a Remote Video Response Centre (RVRC) when detectors sense movement at the site. RVRC operators can then view the images and may only call for emergency response when they have evidence that there has been unauthorised access to the site and/or criminal activity.

An 'audio challenge' facility can also be built into the system, allowing RVRC operators to challenge intruders via on-site speakers. Including this option is recommended, as experience suggests this step alone is a sufficient deterrent in over 90% of incidents. And of course if the intruder is more determined, operators can easily alert the emergency services. This kind of system could be particularly effective for sites like schools, where children and teenagers hanging around buildings outside of normal hours could be warned away.

When applied correctly, intelligent remote monitoring can detect unauthorised intruders as soon as they attempt to gain access to a site. It can also be used to monitor critical internal areas where access is not permitted - this can reduce false alarm rates, prevent criminal damage, minimise disruption to business, lower security costs and maintain automatic police cover.

A new British Standard (BS 8418: 2003 - Installation and remote monitoring of detector- activated CCTV systems - Code of Practice) came into effect for this type of system in September 2003 and gives recommendations on design, installation, commissioning, operation and remote monitoring.

The average cost of monitoring a site is approximately £2,000 a year but this figure is based on the amount of activity monitored at the site - the more activity monitored the higher the cost. However, for cost comparison purposes, remotely monitored, detector-activated, digitally recorded CCTV systems should be compared with manned guarding rather than intruder alarm systems.

To find out more about the effective use of remotely monitored, detector-activated, digitally recorded CCTV systems please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top

The Health and Safety Executive has recently issued guidelines to clarify existing legislation on employees using vehicles as part of their job.

Under the HSE's recent guidelines, vehicles are now considered as a place of work and employers are required to ensure the roadworthiness of not only company vehicles but also vehicles owned by employees which are used for business purposes.

Employers must also check the competence of the driver as they will be ultimately responsible for any drug, drink, medical, fatigue and mobile phone issues while the employee is driving. Examples of the risks that employers now face under the new legislation include:

• employees using unroadworthy vehicles
• dangerous driving claims (drug and alcohol abuse)
• increased claims/litigation action
• potential prosecution
• not fulfilling obligations as an employer.

Ian Gammans of Risk Management, at Zurich Municipal, said: "It is vital for employers to have appropriate policies and procedures in place to effectively manage the potential risks brought about by these recent guidelines. If an accident occurs, employers failing to comply could face a Health and Safety Executive prosecution and/or civil case for damages."

For more information or to find out how Zurich Municipal's motor risk management service can help your organisation, please contact your Business Team Consultant or email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top

New research suggests drivers aren't getting the message on mobile phones.

According to research commissioned by the Government the number of motorists who drive while using a hand-held mobile phone has dropped by 25% since the introduction of a national ban in December 2003. However the Government has stated that this is not as good as expected. The figures suggest that drivers are either not getting the message or believe they can flout the law because the police do not have enough resources to enforce it.

The result of the study, carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory, has increased pressure on ministers to augment the penalties on those who break the law. At the end of November 2004, the Queen's speech announced that penalties will be increased from a £30 fine to a £60 fixed penalty fine with an additional three license endorsement points. As yet there are no timescales for this proposal.

In the meantime Andy Price, Zurich Risk Services Practice Leader - Fleet advises, "Employers should not only ensure that their employees are complying, and are allowed to comply, with the new legislation, but they should also ensure that they understand the risks that their employees face when using a hands-free phone whilst driving."

Andy also stated that management should certify that each employee has read and understood the guidelines. Once this has been successfully completed they should then regularly monitor that their policies and procedures are being adhered to. All of these checks should be well documented to provide an audit trail in case they face prosecution in the future.

For more information or advice please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was established by the Government (HM Treasury) in 1997 to provide a single 'super' regulatory body for the financial services sector, for example, banks, building societies, life and general insurers.

Until now the FSA has not regulated the activities of general insurance intermediaries or general insurers' conduct of business (although insurers have been subject to Government regulation

of their capital, solvency and fitness of senior management for many years). The trigger for the extension of the FSA's responsibility to include the general insurance business is the UK's adoption of the EU Insurance Mediation Directive (IMD). The Directive is intended to complete the single European Market in financial services by enabling insurance intermediaries to transact business across the EU if they wish to.

On 14 January 2005 the UK implemented the Insurance Mediation Directive and the FSA took over responsibility from the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) for regulating the activities of insurance intermediaries and insurers. The FSA has broad powers to make rules, conduct investigations and enforce both the law and its own decisions.

Insurance intermediaries, insurance companies, or anyone else engaged in insurance mediation activities must be registered with the FSA and must meet certain minimum requirements. They must::

possess appropriate knowledge and ability as set out in the regulations

• be of good repute
• hold professional indemnity insurance
• hold sufficient assets to protect customers against failure to pass premium to an insurer (or transmit monies paid by an insurer to a customer).

So why should this matter to you?

If you are a local authority or a housing association, registered under the Housing Act 1996 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and are therefore incorporated in the registers maintained by the Housing Corporation or Scottish Homes, you are specifically exempt from the Act. However, if you are not registered and you are engaged in assisting others, such as tenants, in the purchase of insurance, premium collection or claims handling, even if this is only done in a small way, then it is likely you will be affected by the regulation.

You will need to ensure you have clarified your status with the FSA, or registered with them direct, or have ceased any activities that fall under the terms of the Act by 14 January 2005. With effect from this date, Zurich Municipal is not permitted to trade with unregistered agents except where an exemption is granted by the FSA.

As an insurer, Zurich Municipal must be able to demonstrate to the FSA that we are managing all our agency relationships, regardless of the status of the organisations with which we are engaged. If you arrange insurance contracts between Zurich Municipal and other parties, such as lessees, shared owners or tenants, you are acting as an agent of Zurich Municipal.

In these circumstances we require a Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) to be introduced.

If you are 'exempt' from the FSA regulations, as an insurance company it is still important that we can identify those carrying out insurance mediation activities on our behalf, regardless of status. Therefore, you should have already received a 'Notice to Policyholder' which formalises your agency relationship with Zurich Municipal. This will form part of your policy documentation and took effect from 1 January 2005.

This enables us to consolidate our existing 'agency' relationship with you, which is explicit in terms of existing policy wording but also implied in terms of the insurance mediation activities you are already carrying out on our behalf.

It is important for your own protection that we should both be clear over the extent of our relationship and authority and that we can demonstrate this to the FSA. The terms and conditions of your policy are not affected by the 'Notice to Policyholder' as we are taking this action to consolidate and safeguard your interests.

We should already be aware of any insurance mediation activities your organisation conducts. The method for managing these activities will have been expressly agreed with you in the terms of your existing policy.

Any documentation issued by Zurich Municipal, including policy documents, must be clear, fair and must not mislead. While we keep all documentation under constant review, if you consider that any of our documentation fails to meet these criteria, please contact your usual Zurich Municipal representative.

Certain vital information required for providing or continuing cover may be requested in electronic format. If this causes any difficulty, we will work with you to achieve a result that works for both of our organisations.

While we always endeavour to deliver a high quality service we recognise that very occasionally things may go wrong. If you have any cause for complaint, please call or write to either your normal point of contact or the office that issued your policy, quoting the details of your policy (your policy number, your name, your organisation's name). If you are not satisfied with the way we resolve your complaint, you can take it further. The formal process for doing this (which does not affect your legal rights) is detailed in your policy document.

For more information please email info@zurichmunicipal.com or the FSA can be contacted on 0845 605 5525. Alternatively visit the FSA's website at www.fsa.gov.uk/mgi

back to top

As thefts of laptops from schools reach epidemic proportions, Robert Foggitt, Risk Management Surveyor at Zurich Municipal offers some valuable security advice.

Laptop theft is a major issue for schools and local authorities and it's one that needs to be urgently addressed. To give an example of the size of the problem, one local authority has seen the costs of thefts from schools almost treble in the space of two years, from £350,000 in 2002 to around £1,000,000 in 2004. Approximately 40% of the value of these losses related to laptops.

What is causing this rise? There are two main factors. The increasing use of laptops means there are more to steal. Unfortunately in many cases this increase has not been matched by improvements in security to make them harder to steal.

Broadly speaking, laptop thefts can be divided into two categories - bulk thefts and individual thefts.

• Bulk thefts are usually the result of a break in, although there have been cases where intruders have gained access to laptop storage areas during the day. These thefts will usually involve some element of planning by the thieves. It is common for 15/20 laptops to be taken in one incident.
• Individual thefts are usually opportunist thefts and tend to occur more often during the day - for example the most common time for thefts from schools is between 4pm and 6pm. However, thefts of individual laptops can also happen as the result of a break in, particularly if the laptop has been left in an area that's clearly visible to the intruder.

We have come across situations where laptops have been purchased and brought into a building without adequate security assessments being carried out. In some cases the person responsible for building security hasn't even been made aware of the purchase. All too often a risk assessment is only carried out after the first theft.

Although risks need to be assessed individually the main security weaknesses we have identified are set out below. There are a number of steps you can take to minimise these risks and the aim in all cases should be to provide as many layers of protection as practical to delay the intruder and make their task as difficult as possible.

Laptops are often stored in mobile metal cabinets with a charging facility, so the laptop batteries can be recharged overnight. Unfortunately, many of these units offer minimal resistance to physical attack. Common methods of attack are prising off the open shackle padlock used to secure them or peeling back the lightweight doors to create an opening large enough to remove the laptops.

It's not just the cabinet itself which needs to be secure - poor physical protection of the area used to store the laptop cabinet overnight is also a cause for concern. There have been examples of cabinets being stored on ground floor corridors with unprotected windows or glass panelled fire exit doors. The room or area used to store the laptops should be both physically secure and fitted with direct volumetric alarm detection - a magnetic door contact for a storeroom is inadequate.

Even the best physical security is useless if the intruder has a key. There have been cases of intruders knowing where keys are kept and using them to gain access to rooms used for bulk storage of laptops. Keeping keys secure should therefore be a priority.

If there is no fixed area for overnight storage this may result in the laptops being stored in some very insecure areas. Due to the need for overnight charging, inappropriate storage may also increase the potential fire risk if the charging unit (a potential source of ignition) is located in a poorly ventilated area or an area that also contains combustible materials.

Inadequate zoning of intruder alarm system can also cause problems, particularly outside normal hours when a small part of a large range of buildings may be in use. If the alarm for the entire building is unset, intruders can break into a part of the building that is not in use.

Intruder alarms can be vulnerable to attack by intruders. If intruders manage to disable the alarm, they can then spend many hours inside the building without being disturbed. In addition to the items stolen, there is often extensive damage to filing cabinets, doors, drawers, etc where the intruders have forced the locks. The following types of alarm are most vulnerable:

• Local audible warning only - intruders can destroy the external bell box and enter the building.
• Autodiallers - they usually phone a number of keyholders in rotation and rely on the keyholders being at home. It may be possible to 'jam' the autodialler by phoning the organisation, preventing the autodialler from phoning out. There is also a potential 'lone worker' risk if keyholders attend the site unaccompanied.

Alarm signalling using a digital communicator is potentially vulnerable because if thieves cut the phone wires this will prevent any alarm signal reaching the central monitoring station when an intruder enters the building.

The ideal security solution will combine physical and alarm protection - once the alarm (a cry for help) is triggered the intruders should still have to overcome a substantial physical barrier before they can remove the laptops.

The objective should be to create a secure storage area for the laptop security cabinet within the building. Laptop cabinets must always be kept in this store when the building is closed and every attempt must be made to use the store during the day when the laptops are not in use.

The following guidelines should be followed when creating a secure store:

• If practical, the store should be located on an upper floor with no external windows or roof lights.
• Use rooms with masonry/brick/concrete block walls. Avoid lightweight walls and partitions that can easily be overcome.
• The door to the secure store should be solid timber and secured by two 5-lever mortice deadlocks. Additional physical protection may be necessary in high-risk areas.
• The store and approaches to it should be alarmed in accordance with the 'Alarm protection' section.
• If a ground-floor room has to be used, the principles above should be applied where possible.

If a room with external doors, windows, or rooflights (including doors/windows accessible from a flat roof) has to be used, they should be protected with shutters (grilles are also acceptable for windows) approved by the Loss Prevention Council Certification Board to standard LPS 1175 Burglary Resistant Door, Window, and Grilles.

If no suitable room can be found, consider the use of a proprietary secure store for the laptops. Some proprietary stores have cable holes to allow the charging of laptops kept inside. If this is not practical, consider using a unit large enough to wheel the trolley in and out.

Some organisations have improved the security to the laptop cabinets by fitting a heavy metal bar across the entire frontage of the cabinet. The bar is secured by a heavy duty, close shackle padlock and fixed to brackets rawlbolted to the walls.

The objective should be for the alarm to be activated before the intruders start to attack the room containing the laptops. If sequential or audio verification is required to ensure a police response, the system should ideally be configured so that a confirmed alarm is achieved before the intruders attack the store room. As a minimum, a confirmed alarm should be achieved as soon as the intruders enter the area where the laptops are stored.

Intruder alarms should be installed by a National Security Inspectorate (NSI) approved installer and incorporate Redcare or Dualcom remote signalling to an NSI approved alarm receiving centre

Consider a separate alarm zone that will allow the alarm to be set in the room containing the laptops even when the rest of the building is still in use and the alarm is unset.

• Ensure keys to restricted areas are kept to a minimum number practical.
• Keys to vulnerable areas should be taken off site or kept in the safe overnight.
• Consider the use of registered keys in high security situations to prevent unauthorised copies being cut.

Individual thefts often highlight other security weaknesses. If laptops are left in non-secure areas, including unlocked offices, even for a short time, they are vulnerable to the opportunist thief.

Of course not all individual thefts are opportunist. Some are very carefully planned, with thieves gaining access to a building by deception, for instance at a school, by pretending to be a prospective parent (possibly even accompanied by a child). Once inside, the member of staff is distracted, allowing the thief to remove a portable item such as a laptop.

Poor access control arrangements, especially out of normal working hours can also leave laptops open to theft (this is also a potential 'lone worker' issue).

Here are a number of recommendations on steps you can take to minimise the risk of losses. The actual measures required will depend on individual circumstances, but again, aim to put as many layers of protection in place as is practical to deter potential thieves.

• Lock laptops in secure cupboards or storerooms overnight.
• Lock rooms when laptops left unattended during the day.
• Use access control systems to limit access from public areas such as reception and encourage staff to challenge unfamiliar visitors. A visitor badge system may help.
• Continue to use access control systems until the building is locked at night.
• Provide regular briefings on laptop security to maintain staff awareness.
• Encourage staff to take their laptops home (but make sure they are aware of the risks, for example mugging, theft from vehicles, theft from private dwellings).

In the unlikely event that laptops remain in the same place in open access areas at all times, consider installing security cables and individual computer alarms (but note this level of security will not be adequate if the laptops remain in the same location overnight).

• CCTV.
• Improve external lighting where necessary to improve the surveillance of the room containing the laptops.
• Security mark laptops using LPCB approved products.
• Consider anti-ram bollards if the room is potentially vulnerable to ram raid attack.
• Consider installation of external gates/ perimeter fencing to prevent vehicle access onto the site outside business hours. Poor quality open shackle padlocks on gates are vulnerable to attack by jemmy or bolt croppers and should be replaced with heavy-duty close shackle padlocks.

For further advice or information on this issue, please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top

If you have a question you'd like our experts to answer, please email info@zurichmunicipal.com. We'll obviously respond to you as quickly as we can, but we'll also print the most frequently asked ones in News & Views.

Q. Why are official school bank accounts not automatically covered under the Fidelity Guarantee policy for the Local Education Authority when we arrange cover for schools under our blanket arrangements?

A. The increased premiums are required as a result of delegated budgets to school.

It is more appropriate to rate such risks on a per pupil basis rather than on wages and salaries as for other fidelity risks not relating to schools.

Q. Why do we only allow 50% of the manufacturers' recommended cash limits for safes located within schools?

A.In view of the community nature of school premises, a large number of visitors are welcome in the building. Whilst this is not to be discouraged, the potential for a safe break is increased, leading to the lower limit.

Q. What limit of indemnity should the local authority be seeking from contractors?

A. So far as personal injury is concerned then a minimum limit of £5m for any one claim is usual. This is a reflection of the kind of levels of court awards now being seen. For property damage or pure financial loss, the limit depends very much on the nature of the contract being undertaken, but again a limit of £5m for public liability insurance is a reasonable starting point.

A major contract may require a significantly higher limit, particularly where there is significant potential for damage to surrounding property in a built-up area.

Q. Are pupils covered when on a work experience placement?

A. The public liability cover for the authority will not include legal liabilities arising from the negligent acts of the placing employers.

The authority will need written confirmation that all host employers have public and employers' liability insurance in force to include the placement. Requests for 'hold harmless' agreements should also be examined very carefully.

Q. Pupils aged 14-16 are now going to further education colleges. Do Zurich Municipal need to be informed?

A. No; cover will continue to apply without specific notification. However, colleges should be aware that they have a higher duty of care to students aged under 16 and ensure staff are reminded of the need for an increased level of supervision.

Q. Does the travel policy for Zurich Municipal cover staff going abroad, and to the United States and Canada in particular?

A. Yes, although premium rates are higher for travel outside the UK, and medical expenses outside the UK are only covered for up to 12 months following the incident. Along with other insurers, the legal liability section of our policy excludes claims made or brought in the United States or Canada, and judgments made under their laws.

All the above questions were answered by Zurich Municipal's Underwriting Department

Q. Do you need to be notified regarding lenders' interests in buildings? Does the policy need to be endorsed?

A. No - the policy automatically admits the interests of others.

Terry Crow - Zurich Municipal Community Insurance Centre

Q. When is professional negligence cover required?

A. Professional Negligence cover is arranged where you are providing fee based advice, design or specification work to outside parties. The cover is for the expenses you may become legally liable to pay as damages/costs/expenses arising from breach of professional duty (so a negligent act, accidental error/omission by an employee).

Selena Tye - Zurich Municipal Housing Consultant

back to top

Zurich Municipal's online tools can help you to manage your claims more effectively and efficiently.

Milestone Management allows you to see real-time information on all ongoing claims and any claims closed in the last six months.

For each claim Milestone Management includes current information on accident date, claimant details, type of claim, payments made and reserves. You can search for claims using any of these criteria.

If you have any questions on a claim you can use Milestone Management to send an email directly to the claims handler.

Milestone Management is a fast and efficient way to handle day-to-day claims management tasks. You can also print off screens to use in management information reports.

The Claims Data Download allows you to download your organisation's complete claims history in a format that's compatible with Microsoft Excel.

For each claim it includes information on the type of claim, claim no, customer reference, claim details, accident date, current status, payments made (both accidental damage and third party) and reserves.

The Claims Data Download is updated monthly.

With its comprehensive information and compatibility with Excel, the Claims Data Download is ideal for high level analysis, identifying trends and producing management information.

QLAS is claims recording and analysis software available from Zurich Municipal. The QLAS download allows organisations to download their latest claims information from Zurich Municipal for use with the software.

This contains detailed payment and reserve information and provides split payment details, for example third-party solicitors' costs.

Customers can use QLAS to add their own information to the database, for example background information on each claim and deductibles paid.

QLAS is an excellent tool for comprehensive and sophisticated claims analysis and can make a valuable contribution to an organisation's management of risk.

As well as the interactive tools above, you can access online and PDF versions of the Woolf Insurance Manual and Insurance Handbook.

These are excellent sources of general information on insurance.

If you'd like to find out more about any of these resources please visit the members'

area of the Zurich Municipal website at www.zurichmunicipal.com or email the Data Management Team at data.support@uk.zurich.com

back to top

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force on 1 January 2005. Henry Bermingham of Berrymans Lace Mawer solicitors examines what it will mean for claims.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 represents a fundamental shift away from what the Government perceived as a culture of secrecy among Britain's public authorities.

In its introduction, the background to the Act is set out:

"Accountability and transparency are a part of the Government's vision for modern and effective local authorities. The public's right of access to information held by local authorities is central to the framework in which councils achieve high standards of accountability and transparency.

The advent of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will provide the public with a general right of access to information held by a public authority. In its application to local authorities it is set to bring a step change in the way that councils relate to people and individual citizens."

In practical terms, therefore, the Act has increased the amount of information to which the public can gain access. The question is how this affects claims process?

The public's right to information is set out in Section 1 of the Act:

a) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled:

b) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description in the request; and

c) if that is the case, to have the information communicated to him.'

That is the starting point - the public has a right to information from public authorities. If this is not provided (or there is unreasonable delay/ obstruction in doing so) the Information Commissioner has enforcement powers.

That said, the Act is not all bad news as sections 21 to 44 contain numerous exemptions, including (notably) national security, data protection, litigation privilege, relations with other states and criminal investigations.

Concerns have been expressed that the Act could be misused to assist claimants in personal injury claims. The pre-action protocol gives a public authority three weeks to respond to a letter of claim and then three months to investigate and identify/disclose documents it will rely on.

The Act requires public authorities to respond to information requests within 20 days. This raises the question of why the claimants should wait three months and 21 days for documents when the Act appears to allow disclosure of information within 20 days. Fortunately, the Act does contain safeguards to avoid this abuse.

However it could be used by creative claimant solicitors for another purpose - that is, obtaining policy documents. Taking highway claims as an example, local authorities will have a section 58 defence if they took all reasonable steps to ensure the highway was safe. A creative solicitor can now obtain numerous authorities' policies and compare them. This comparative study would reveal which authorities adopted best practice, which authorities performed to an average standard and which authorities had substandard policies. Clearly, those authorities whose policies (usually frequency of inspection) fell below the average, would find it very difficult indeed to establish that they took all reasonable steps to ensure the highway was safe.

It should be emphasised that this is only an example. It does, however, show the potential dangers where claimant's solicitors can compare policies - other examples are supervision of school trips, care standards in social services establishments and even maintenance policies for public buildings.

Exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act

Exemptions are too numerous to cover here. However, for claims three are particularly important:

• Section 21 (Documents Already Accessible)
• Section 40 (Data Protection)
• Section 42 (Legal Privilege)
• Section 21

This states 'Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant, otherwise than under Section 1 is exempt information.' This means that where there is a reasonable route to obtain information, an applicant is not entitled to use the Act. In the context of personal injury claims, documents will be disclosed under the personal injury pre-action protocol. This makes them reasonably accessible to a potential claimant and the exemption applies.

This operates with the Data Protection Act to prevent claimants getting access to any information that would be prohibited under the Data Protection Act. This will be particularly important in school and social services claims. The Freedom of Information Act does not alter the duties of local authorities not to process data in contravention of the Act.

This section indicates that 'information in respect of which a claim to legal privilege... is exempt information'. This preserves the common law position on privilege. All documents created for or in contemplation of litigation are privileged from disclosure. This will prevent the claimant's solicitors from using the Act to obtain disclosure of communications with solicitors or insurers.

The Act has been a source of some concern and questions that we have encountered are:

Do we have to comply with the Act where the documents required relate to claims?

No, these documents will be disclosable to the claimant under the pre-action protocol (or subsequently during litigation). Accordingly they are reasonably accessible to the claimant (section 21). Those documents which are privileged are not disclosable (section 42).

What effect does the Act have on the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)?

Very little. The CPR makes numerous categories of documents reasonably accessible to the claimant (section 21) and the Rules preserve common law privilege (section 42). If, however, there was a conflict between the terms of the Act and the Civil Procedure Rules, the Act would take precedence.

Protocol disclosure can take up to three months, the Act requires disclosure of information in 20 days. Which take precedence?

The Civil Procedure Rules, reasonable accessibility (section 21).

Does the Act affect the Data Protection Act and its rules?

No - see section 40 on previous page.

What about disclosure of documents/ reports we have commissioned on a claim (for example an inspector's report)?

These are not disclosable under the Act. They are privileged documents and excluded from the Act by section 42.

How can we protect against fraud?

For example someone may 'fish' for documents which would allow them to spot weaknesses in systems from which a claim could be formulated?

The most likely area of attack here would be highways claims. Unless an exemption can be claimed there is no defence to a request for information under the Act. However, the nature of the request is likely to reveal what the real intent is.

Can we do anything to protect against 'fishing expeditions' where there are no clear allegations of negligence/breach of duty?

Unless the request can be brought within an exemption there is little that can be done to resist it unless revealing the information would be contrary to the 'public interest'. It should however be noted that public authorities are entitled to charge for the cost of providing this information and that (of itself) may be sufficient deterrent.

Whilst the categories of information disclosable under the Act are very wide, the categories of document/information that relate to claims

are comparatively narrow. Accordingly claim-related applications under the Act will be revealed in the following ways:

(a) Requests from solicitors on behalf of 'our client'.

(b) Any request relating to highway inspection records or policy. The same is true of almost any safety policy or schedule of inspections. The only reason a member of the public could want these documents would be for the purposes of a claim.

(c) In the context of employees, any requests for documentation relating to safety policy/work policy are likely to relate to accidents. They can be cross-referenced against accident book entries.

In theory, the Act could be a source of real danger to public authorities in claims. However, the exemptions cover virtually all of those documents we would have to disclose under the protocol or during the litigation. Further, privileged documents are also exempted. With claims we know about, there should be no actual danger from the Act.

Turning to claims we don't yet know about, the type of request made will soon reveal if it is claim related. For what non-claims purpose would documents related to highways inspections be required?

Accordingly, if requests under the Act are approached with a critical eye to the documents requested there should be little danger of inadvertent disclosure.

For more advice or information on how the Act could affect your organisation, please visit www.foi.gov.uk or email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council has won the Zurich Municipal-sponsored 'Service delivery, children's services' category in the first Guardian Public Services Awards.

The council's 'early years' excellence service was also named the overall winner in the Awards, with judges describing the project as "a clear winner, demonstrating joined-up government at its best, linking 12 different agencies to improve services for children."

Karen Bigwood, Senior Marketing Controller at Zurich Municipal, commented: "At Zurich Municipal we work with a wide range of public services organisations, and we feel it's important to highlight and support the superb work being done throughout the sector. We were delighted to sponsor this award and play a part in recognising, promoting and encouraging excellence in the public services.

"Congratulations to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and to all of the other winners and runners-up."

back to top

Local authorities can sign up to a new anti-fraud hotline service that enables members of the public to report suspicious claims.

A new 'name and shame' anti-fraud hotline, conceived and run by Cunningham Lindsey, an independent insurance claims management and loss adjusting services company, is helping local authorities to combat fraudulent claims.

Members of the public can call the hotline 24 hours a day, seven days a week to report suspected fraudulent claims, without even having to know the local authority involved. Details are then passed to the relevant local authority, Zurich Municipal or the police for consideration. If the report can be validated, further investigations are made.

This service is available to all local authorities and twenty have already subscribed. Zurich Municipal, which endorses the scheme, also has a number of other interested customers lining up to use the service. Steve Jackson, Zurich Municipal's new National Fraud Controller, said: "Fraud is a crime and spurious claims are a serious issue which affect everyone. We are calling on the community spirit of local people to report claims they know are dubious or fraudulent. At the end of the day it will save them money. Each time local authorities are forced to investigate and pay for a bogus claim, money is being diverted away from vital front-line services, affecting the whole community as a result. Local authorities are showing they are not soft targets."

Local authorities can promote the hotline by displaying the campaign posters in public buildings and distributing flyers throughout the local community. Geoff Pilmoor, Claims Manager at Wrexham County Borough Council which has already adopted the hotline, said: "Since we started using the fraud hotline three months ago, there has been a 25% drop in the number of public liability claims compared to this time last year. The initiative has been advertised extensively and these results indicate that it is a major contributor to acting as a deterrent to potential fraudsters."

To find out more about the anti-fraud hotline, including details of how to sign up, please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top

Further education establishments need to manage a wide range of health and safety risks. Sharon Bryant, risk management consultant, recommends a well co-ordinated approach.

Education facilities such as colleges of further education carry risks of injury to employees and members of the public. There are therefore many statutory requirements and codes of practice to comply with to ensure that the risk of injury to employees and members of the public is reduced as far as reasonably practicable.

One of these is HSG 65 'Successful Health & Safety Management', which was first published by the HSE in 1991. This is a practical guide for directors, managers and health and safety professionals who want to improve health and safety in their organisations. The message it conveys is a simple one; organisations need to manage health and safety with the same degree of expertise and to the same standards as other core business activities if they are to effectively control risks and prevent harm to people.

HSG 65 sets out five key elements for the effective management of health and safety:

• Formulating and adopting effective health and safety polices which set a clear direction for the organisation to follow.
• Having an effective management structure and arrangements in place for delivering the policies.
• Ensuring that there is a planned and systematic approach to implementing health and safety policies through an effective health and safety management system.
• Measuring performance against agreed standards to reveal where and when improvements are needed.
• Continually auditing and periodically reviewing performance to ensure that the organisation learns from all relevant experience and applies the lessons.

The key areas of target setting and measuring performance tend to be the main areas that are not adequately or formally addressed within colleges. Without this information it's difficult for colleges to know where they stand in terms of compliance and risk identification, or whether sufficient resource is set aside to take adequate precautions.

In our experience any health and safety documentation tends to be dominated by the safety of students. Whilst the safety of students is obviously paramount, colleges must also be able to demonstrate that they are doing all that is reasonably practicable to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of employees and other third parties.

We also find that a number of relevant and useful policies and procedures have been developed corporately but these are generally implemented inconsistently across and within the teaching and estates departments.

In fact effective co-ordination between corporate and departmental levels is key to the effective management of health and safety.

Colleges tend to devolve responsibility for completing risk assessments to departments conducting particular activities. Overall health and safety advice is generally provided by a nominated competent person who may be the college health and safety officer or adviser, or by someone in another role which includes health and safety management, for example the Director of Resources.

This approach is logical as the practical expertise and knowledge of activities should be held within the departments. However, it can mean that general risks, including those posed by young persons, lone working, manual handling, work at height, pregnant workers, workplace transport and slips, trips and falls, which may fall outside the scope of departmental risk assessments, are not addressed. Additionally, without adequate training and supervision or effective co-ordination, risk assessments may not be suitable and sufficient.

Also, without a co-ordinated approach, risks that are typically identified and addressed within one department might not be addressed elsewhere where the risk is also present. An example is noise at work. This is generally examined in departments concerned with engineering or craft, design and technology but not in less obvious areas such as music studios.

We therefore recommend that colleges consider devising general corporate risk assessments that can be applied to several departments and customised where appropriate. Risk areas where this approach may be appropriate include lone working, use of minibuses, manual handling and pregnant workers.

Often we find that a corporate risk assessment template has been devised but that departments responsible for carrying out their own risk assessments prefer to use a different template. This can cause problems with standardising the protection provided. By forming a policy on what risk assessment templates are acceptable and unacceptable, colleges can go some way to ensuring that all risk assessments are suitable and sufficient.

We also find that either specific risk assessments have not been carried out at all or that significant risks have not been assessed. Usually the reason we are given for this is the lack of time given to staff to carry out this important function. As a result, risk assessments are often completed at home when all other work is completed and this can lead to the risk assessment being rushed and subsequently inadequate. Generally, however, this situation comes down to a lack of driving and monitoring of the risk assessment process as well as the lack of appropriate training.

We would recommend that the resource implications of health and safety risk management are reviewed. Each department should create a schedule of all activities carried out and then timetable risk assessments to be completed. An ongoing, formal programme of risk assessment reviews should be in place. By working to the strengths of their corporate and departmental management, and co-ordinating their efforts, colleges can manage health and safety risks effectively and efficiently. A well co-ordinated approach based on a standard like HSG 65 (or BS8800/OHSAS 18001) that is driven from a corporate level and implemented consistently by every department, will reduce risks and liabilities and make colleges safer for students, employees and the public.

For more information please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top

Zurich Municipal has produced a new booklet to share risk management insights.

At last year's LGC summit which brought together leading figures in central and local government to discuss the key policy issues of the day, Zurich Municipal had the opportunity to discuss with delegates why they feel local authorities don't make the most of strategic risk management.

It's probably no surprise to learn that barriers exist in many guises. Time constraints, the inherently political nature of local government, and the tendency to dwell on the past gives the perception that local government is naturally risk averse. However in reality managers in local government are frequently as entrepreneurial as their counterparts in the private sector.

Having worked with over 200 local authorities, Zurich Municipal has gathered together some shining examples of the successful application of risk management and identified recurring themes of risk including:

• initiative overload
• major projects that face a real chance of failure or disappointment
• the disengagement of local communities
• managing the expectations of partnerships.

Are these issues recognisable in your authority? How many of your strategic risks do you share with other authorities?

"These days there is perhaps no greater challenge, or source of stress, than being at the top of the local government mountain. You have a vision of what you want to achieve, a variety of ways to go about it, but all sorts if hazards in your path," says John Robinson, Head of Risk Management at Zurich Municipal.

To help you deal with these hazards, Zurich Municipal has collected its risk management insights in a booklet called 'Expecting the unexpected'. If you'd like a copy, please email info@zurichmunicipal.com

back to top