I read with interest, and a degree of optimism, Charles Fuchter’s article entitled The SRA must amend the Code of Conduct or law firms will close on the Gazette website.

Mr Fuchter’s comment that ‘mortgage lenders would be required, in effect, to contribute to the cost of the provision of a comprehensive form of insurance of which they are major beneficiaries, which is just and equitable’, struck a particular chord with me.

However, I think the question goes beyond determining how we should pay for existing professional indemnity cover.

For me, the issue is how do we fix the underlying system? And I believe we should use the current situation to challenge the status quo.

Does the profession want to ‘make do and mend’ the established operating principles, and see an inevitable and steady increase in premiums? Or is it prepared to look at itself and undertake radical improvements in the best interests of its consumer and lender clients; and by doing so, put conveyancing back on a sustainable and profitable footing?

To put it another way, why are so many significant risks such as boundary disputes and seller fraud or misrepresentation uninsured? Why is the largest financial commitment that most house-buying clients are ever likely to make the only one that they do not have the option to insure?

It is time that consumers in the UK were given the opportunity to protect themselves when they buy a property. They can do so elsewhere. Canada took the initiative after the last financial crisis in 1995 and introduced clients’ own insurance. The result was that PII rates halved and have remained stable ever since. In addition, clients became more aware of their rights and felt more empowered during the purchase process.

We should learn from this experience. Conveyancing professionals should embrace new ways of putting clients’ interests first in a way that enhances their business and improves their risk profile.

Phillip Oldcorn, director, First Title plc, London