The reprimand comes after eight of the firm’s laptops, two of which contained details of 2,135 people who had sought pension scheme illustrations, were stolen from the company’s Edinburgh offices.

The data were password protected but unencrypted.

An internal report established that the company was uncertain about the precise location of the laptops at any given time and that physical security measures were inadequate, in part because managers were not aware that personal information was stored on any of the laptops.

Royal London’s group chief executive, Michael Yardley, has promised that the company will mend it ways and signed an official undertaking to that effect.

The ICO’s head of enforcement, Mick Gorrill, drives his message home with the following statement: “It is crucially important that portable devices such as laptops containing personal information are properly protected.”

Adding: “All staff members should be fully aware of the policies and procedures in place to safeguard personal information and should be appropriately trained.”

Last month, reports emerged that Royal London was in talks with rival mutual, Royal Liver, regarding a merger.

A search for a partner could have been prompted by the Financial Services Authority’s concerns over mutuals’ balance sheets, particularly with regard to their with-profits funds.

Concerns that dogs are being bred solely for the purpose of intimidating others have led ministers to review the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and a week ago, Home Secretary Alan Johnson announced that plans were under consideration for legislation demanding that every dog owner in England and Wales carries third-party insurance against their dog causing injury to a person.

However, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn announced yesterday that the proposal was being dropped as ministers did not want to penalise responsible owners.

According to the BBC, the insurance industry had already raised the issue of who would compensate the victims of uninsured dogs, should the proposed legislation to ahead.

Common sense dictates that owners of dangerous dogs kept to intimidate others could be among those who don’t bother with car insurance, let alone dog insurance.

In 2008, Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham recommended the establishment of a scheme that would consider individual claims for compensation from those who lost money when the failed mutual came close to collapse ten years ago.

In a controversial act, the Government rejected Ms Abraham’s findings and proposed that only policyholders who had been “disproportionately affected” should receive compensation.

Last year, the Equitable Members’ Action Group (EMAG), which represents around 21,000 policyholders, was successful in securing a High Court ruling against the limitations imposed by ministers.

However, Government adviser and retired judge, Sir John Chadwick, has now published his third and final interim report on the Equitable saga, which EMAG has described as a “treasury stitch up”.

EMAG’s general secretary, Paul Braithwaite, told the BBC: “The latest interim report from Sir John Chadwick shows that the Treasury is attempting to retry the case, using actuarial sophistry to distort the figures, instead of accepting the recommendations of compensation found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and upheld by the High Court.”

He added: “The logical conclusion of this sham process is that the government will deny all obligation to compensate policyholders for the damage done by serial maladministration and only paltry discretionary payments will be made on the basis of charity, not justice.”

Concerns that dogs are being bred solely for the purpose of intimidating others have led ministers to review the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

According to Home Secretary Alan Johnson: “The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the soul purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon.”

He adds: “It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop.”

The pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros are already banned in public places but can be a menace to postal workers, telecoms engineers and other people who enter private property in the course of their work.

An outright ban on certain breeds, together with compulsory third-party insurance is now reported to be under consideration.

The new rules are due to come into force in 2012 and EMB warns that they could “seriously damage” the business models of several firms.

It is therefore advising insurers to undertake “specific parameter reviews” and build internal models tailored to each company.

Given these will be subject to regulatory approval, EMB warns: “The clock is already ticking and the results of our study should add further impetus to firms’ Solvency II implementation plans.”

The report sums up: “The cost of failure just became much higher.”

Responding to the study and the Solvency II directive, Michael Wainwright, partner at international law firm Eversheds says: “Weighing in at 312 articles, the directive is a substantial piece of legislation in its own right, but it is set to be dwarfed by massive amounts of subsidiary legislation which is only now being drafted.”

He adds: “As always, the devil will be in the detail, with real opportunities to gain competitive advantage for those insurers who can correctly predict how the negotiations on key technical issues will play out and adapt their operations and market positioning accordingly.”

The High Court case relates to a major criminal ring involving 57 fraudsters in the Greater Manchester area, who used ordinary members of the public to stage their accidents.

Last week, Mr Justice Holman awarded the insurers £300,000 in damages, the total taking into account their losses, the cost of investigating the claims and of bringing the case.

Unusually, an exemplary charge of £92,000 was included to reflect the extent of wrongdoing by the fraudsters.

Commenting on the outcome, LV spokeswoman, Ursula Coulibaly, said: “This is an excellent example of insurers working together for the benefit of both the industry and consumers.”

She added: “LV is delighted the judge has seen fit to award these damages and we hope this will give insurers the confidence to bring civil action for similar cases in the future.”

The Act includes pleural plaques as a condition for which compensation is payable in Scotland, but insurers have argued that the plaques, which are areas of fibrosis present on the inner surface of the ribcage and the diaphragm, do not impact on health or lead to asbestos-related diseases.

Aviva, AXA, RSA and Zurich mounted a legal challenge in the form of a judicial review in April 2009, but last week the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled in favour of the Scottish Parliament.

The ABI has responded by saying that insurers are now seriously considering the grounds for an appeal.

However, the Association also reassured that the judgment, and any further appeal, in no way affects insurers continued commitment to pay compensation to people with asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, which impact on their health.

Director general, Nick Starling, said: “Insurers brought the review on the grounds that The Damages Act is fundamentally flawed as it ignores overwhelming medical evidence that plaques are symptomless, and the well-established legal principle that compensation is payable only when there are physical symptoms.”

He adds: “We are pleased that the judgment recognises the fundamental right of insurers to challenge legislation made by the Scottish Parliament, although we are disappointed that the judge did not feel able to overturn the law passed by the Scottish Parliament.”

UK firms that have relocated functions such as administration, customer contact, claims processing and accounting to lower cost counties could be facing tax increases of upwards of 25%.

According to TMF, any potential losses are the “unintended consequence” of attempts by Brussels to simplify VAT and prevent fraud.

From 1st January 2010, EU regulations on determining which country’s VAT rules apply have changed; the term “place of supply” now means the place where a service is consumed, rather than where it is located.

For example, in the case of off shored UK insurance services provided from India, the VAT territory will become the UK, meaning the insurer has to account for the VAT bill.

Since insurance and other financial services are exempt for VAT in Europe, this could leave the insurer with an irrecoverable VAT cost of 17.5%.

Some UK firms have already created “VAT Grouping” structures, whereby related companies can offset this type of irrecoverable VAT liability.

However, this process is also under threat from the EU and TMF managing director, Richard Asquith, warns that a new challenge to the VAT Grouping rules could undermine the efforts of insurers using this strategy.

Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the consumer has a duty of disclosure when completing an insurance proposal form.

However, the Law Commission is dissatisfied because policyholders are currently expected to answer the questions asked by their insurance company and in addition, disclose any other facts that may be relevant to the insurer.

Speaking to the BBC, Law Commissioner David Hertzell argues that consumers don’t necessarily know what factors the insurer will take into account when accepting a risk, and can therefore easily slip up on disclosure.

A draft bill of reform for England, Wales and Scotland is being presented to Parliament by the Law Commission next week, and according to the BBC, the Association of British Insurers is giving its full support.

The damages have been won by Cindy Naugle, who suffers from smoking-related emphysema, and is now wheelchair bound.

Philip Morris has indicated that it intends to mount an appeal; the group’s spokesman told the BBC that the punitive damages are “grossly excessive and a clear violation… of the law”.

However, the ruling could lead to a surge in similar claims as the case relates to a major class-action law suit in the Florida Supreme Court, which was thrown out in 2006.

According to reports, around 8,000 individual cases have subsequently been filed.

The judge awarded Ms Naugle $56.6 million for medical expenses and $244 million in punitive damages.