BIBA rebuttal

I read again with interest Richard Wynn's letter (Professional Broking, May 2005) and am delighted to respond to his rather mischievous comments.

I am sure that Mr Wynn is well aware that the two issues to which he is referring are completely unrelated and I am surprised that he chose to question the probity of BIBA and Towergate in this way.

Firstly, it would be inappropriate for BIBA to attempt to influence any scheme provider's business model. What companies like Towergate include in their business plan is no concern of ours and, within reason, has no bearing on our professional links.

We look for organisations that are able to offer the best deal to our members and, with regard to our professional indemnity scheme, we offer the choice of a panel comprising Alexander Forbes, First City and Towergate. Many insurers and brokers alike are utilising the capabilities of call centres and, in an open and competitive market, those who fail to service their clients and demonstrate added value will lose out.

I can assure Mr Wynn that BIBA agrees with him that trust and impartiality are of paramount importance when seeking insurance cover and that we cannot see any way in which this is compromised in the way he is suggesting.

It is true that there are other schemes in addition to the BIBA PI scheme and our members are welcome to go to the open market. It would take a far more cynical professional than myself to wonder whether this is an attack on BIBA in an attempt to promote his own products, perhaps after realising the strength of the BIBA schemes proposition?

We are proud of the range of BIBA schemes we offer to our members and we will continue to be so with confidence in all our providers.

Peter Staddon, Head of technical services, BIBA.