After the public continues to be irate over the PPI scandal, many politicians, citizens and advocacy groups are calling for regulation. Although the prospect of regulation sounds welcoming to many people, others see potential problems.

One of the critics of regulation is Steve Devine. Devine is the chairman of Protect, a trade organization dedicated to looking after the interests of competition and industry standards. Devine urges against regulating the PPI market, arguing that doing so will pose a number of challenges to the protection market.

Devine insisted that people in the industry don’t know how bad the scope of the problem is. He said that the government argues that regulation is directed towards PPI products after the scandals recently faced. However, the regulation could also be directed towards a number of other problems.

Devine warns other industry professionals that the problem may also effect other insurance companies. He is concerned that these other professionals will expect that the PPI regulation isn’t going to have any impact on them. He urges everyone in the protection markets to speak up against any form of PPI regulation, regardless of what their sentiments are towards PPI products themselves.

Devine says that any products associated with personal, accidental and sickness are at risk of being monitored. If he is correct, the PPI regulation could raise costs for consumers on these products as well. A similar trend may be transpiring with European banks, as they start implementing new fees to make up for lost profits.

Devine’s biggest concern is that any bills regulating the industry are likely to be very subjective and open to interpretation. This is going to leave insurers and other industries providing protection services concerned as to whether or not their products will be covered.

The Financial Services Authority has stated that it is reviewing and potentially revising the bill. They will inform everyone in the protection markets which products are and are not covered. Devine feels the current wording of the document is left too ambiguous and open to interpretation.