Insurance Strategy Renewals 2017

Reference code: 
PCD 253
Date signed: 
29 August 2017
Authorisation name: 
Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor, Policing and Crime

Executive summary

A three year Insurance Strategy was agreed by the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime in July 2016. As part of the approval process the MPS are required to annually review the insurance strategy to ensure it remains fit for purpose.


The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is asked to approve the existing Insurance Strategy.

Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)

1.    Introduction and background

1.1.    The MPS’s insurance strategy was approved in July 2016. This is a three year strategy with the MPS     currently in year one. As part of the approval process the MPS is required to review the insurance     strategy on an annual basis to ensure it is still fit for purpose. The Scheme of Delegation and     Consent requires the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime to review the insurance strategy on an     annual basis.
1.2.    The use of insurance enables the MPS to transfer the financial risk of uninsured damage to property     and uninsured legal claims for general liability to an insurance company, thus avoiding the need to     fund this cost from the MPS’s own resources.         

2.    Issues for consideration

2.1.    The MPS is exposed to certain insurable financial risks that are large enough to be prejudicial to the execution of the Police and Crime Plan. An example would be the risk of destruction of a major building within the Estate through fire.

2.2.    See the Part 2 for details.

3.    Financial Comments

3.1    The cost of the insurance renewals is proved for within existing resources.

3.2    Further details are contained in the Part 2.

4.    Legal Comments

4.1.    Procurement activity arising from approving the application of the existing Insurance Strategy will be conducted in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations 2015, EU law and MOPAC Scheme of Consent and Delegation.

5.    Equality Comments

5.1.    There are no direct equality or diversity implications arising from this report

6.    Background/supporting papers

6.1.    Briefing note.

Share this page