CLC consults on greater openness and transparency in regulation
25 April 2014
- Presumption in favour of publication of regulatory information
- Greater openness in the interests of the regulated community as well as consumers
- Licensed Conveyancers and stakeholders invited to comment on plans
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has today launched a six week consultation asking for views on its proposals for publishing data about the disciplinary history of the individuals and firms it regulates.
The council is seeking views on the possibility of publishing:
- Notice of hearings of it Adjudication Panel, including details of the allegations and the identity of the respondent
- Findings of the Adjudication Panel and details of all sanctions imposed
- Details of regulatory actions taken by staff
- Summary reports of monitoring and inspection work
The Council proposes to abolish the £5,000 fine threshold below which details of disciplinary determinations are not currently published. Information relating to interventions is already published.
The consultation is part of the Council’s general review of its publication policy which is aimed at ensuring that the CLC is achieving best practice and providing the regulated community, stakeholders and consumers with the information they need.
The consultation runs for six weeks and will close on Friday, 6th June. The consultation document is available online here.
Sheila Kumar, Chief Executive of the CLC said: “Openness and transparency in regulation are important not just for consumers but also for the regulated community as a useful aid to compliance, addressing recurring issues and spreading good practice. In reviewing our publication policy we started from a presumption in favour of publication of information that we hold for policy and regulatory purposes. We are now seeking the views of the regulated community and other stakeholders about regulatory information that we believe should be published because it will be of use to consumers and other stakeholders unless there are strong reasons not to do so. We want to be sure that the information which is published is appropriate and genuinely helpful.”