chrisjpainter Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yup, as with others, I wouldn't dream of shooting without it. My permission owner has never asked for it and probably never would. but that's not the point! better to have it and never need it, than need it and not have it. I'm with the NGO and have never once needed them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet boy Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Get insured is my advice-it's a peace of mind!Been a Full Member of BASC now these last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arko Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 There'll always be a few people that claim it's not for them and prefer to spend the money elsewhere. Given how cheap it can be (four packs of cartridges or a box of .243 ammo) the argument against cost is largely redundant. It primarily boils down to attitude and whether or not shooters think they can 'get away with it'. The whole 'how many people have claimed' stance doesn't wear well with me, I'm not considering insurance because of other's experiences - it's purely down to personal preference and whether I feel it represents value and peace of mind. Might sound a bit off topic but the amount of people I've come across in my career where they wish that had taken out life insurance or critical illness when they were offered it but adopted the stance that 'it'll never happen to me' is frightening. One simple accident that you couldn't foresee wipes can not only have a massive impact on your life, it can ruin the financial status for you and your whole family. I see shooting as a privilege and it can be as expensive or as cheap as I choose to make it but as I'm responsible for some pretty serious kit when compared to golfers or fishermen. I think it's only right to protect myself against external elements I can't control and would threaten my financial stability in the future. I'm more than happy for it not to be compulsory, much like life insurance when you take a mortgage....but as long as people know that they stand to have their pants pulled down if a claim arises then that's their risk These are my sentiments exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I have through my household covers and other orgs effectively 3 lots of liability (to £10m) covers plus cover for guns and I am insurers with a reputable insurer (I worked for them for 40 yrs) who are involved in shooting insurance but I still support BASc etc BUT many people are struggling to pay their bills but still like to shoot so I feel we should not hide the fact HH policies provide good liability cover and in some cases cover for guns too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 True enough that some home insurance policies will cover your liability for shooting and will often cover guns too (but do check if they are covered away from home too, some dont) and if it were just a matter of insurance, then I know some home polices will cover all you need. But of course home polices don't do anything to 'insure' the future of shooting, which is at least as important as insuring you in the event of an accident. After all what's the use of the best home insurance policy if you don't have anywhere to shoot, nothing to shoot at and nothing to shoot with? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Agreed but I know of several old guys who really cannot afford association fees and even the licence renewal is a big financial decision so we must not stop them having their bit of fun ie a pop at a few rabbits and that end of season cock day by frightening them over insurance. To an extent this is why many of us support too many associations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Agreed but I know of several old guys who really cannot afford association fees and even the licence renewal is a big financial decision so we must not stop them having their bit of fun ie a pop at a few rabbits and that end of season cock day by frightening them over insurance. To an extent this is why many of us support too many associations. So very true, we have several in exactly the same position here and I always think of them when I read on here people saying certificate fees are only x amount per year of membership fees are only the price of a few boxes of cartridges. To many retired estate workers such costs are almost unaffordable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 I used to shoot with someone who actually Refused to take out insurance because he reckoned it was "Another fiddle for the government" so he went around for years without any. He then wanted to join our syndicate and was politely told to "Bog-off" until he had sorted out some cover. He refused, and went crying to the shoot owner to see if he could get in on the side. Fortunately the shoot owner wasn't interested. And when he found out that the lad wasn't willing to be insured he let him know that if he couldn't be bothered to take out a £30 a year insurance policy, then he wasn't sure he would be bothered to look after the shoot. Came back a few weeks later claiming to have taken out insurance, but when he was asked for his policy number (for the shoot's records) he couldn't produce it, saying he must have misplaced it somewhere. Why oh why are some people so tight-fisted; it wasn't as though he was struggling to find the money because he was self employed and used to brag about how much he was getting from London contracts. Sorry, but if anyone wants to join our little shoot they have to get insurance......but it shouldn't be made compulsory before you apply for a FAC, because as I have already stated, once it became mandatory the cost would go through the roof, because the insurance companies would have us over a barrel. G.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Considering how expensive everything else is when it comes to shooting it makes the insurance look like the cheap bit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Although I fully understand Graham's concerns that if insurance were compulsory, the costs could rocket, all I can say is that as far as BASC;s underwriters are concerned that would not happen, Of course I cannot speak for other organisations, and I am led to believe that two are currently looking for another underwriter....but we have been with our underwriters for many years and our team look at the costs of the premium based mainly on the claims record, of course market forces will play a part to a cetian extent, but the big driver is claims. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamch Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Should be a compulsory requirement in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 How many people on here ask to see guests insurance on a shoot day? Or there own syndicate members every shoot day? (to make sure none have expired) When i took over our wee syndicate i run first thing i done was sign up as an affilated syndicate with BASC, and i would reccomend it to any small scale shoot/syndicate, means everyone on a shoot day is insured, and u don;'t have to ask guests and possibly turn someone away as he has forgot his insurance, esp if they had a long drive there. Dunno if i could do it. Before that we u used to could buy a days insurance in advance off the SGA for about £7.50 and u could phone it in that morning, used to keep a couple off 'days' in the shoot howf incase anyone turned up with no insurance and just phoned the number in. Everyone should defo have it (and i would have big doubts about anyone character/personality who refused to buy some) althou possibly compulsory may be a step too far, but only because some insurance types probaly can't be trusted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul223 Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Our syndicate is covered by sacs, sacs cover guests but do require an email to notify who the guests are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utectok Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Sac cover is the cheapest and best IMHO go for it http://www.sacs.org.uk/folder-3-insurance http://www.sacs.org.uk/folder-3-insurance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 (edited) You don't have to let BASC know if you have any guests if you are a BASC affiliated syndicate, just keep a record in your shoot log, that's all we need in case there is a claim. BASC insurance also covers your landlord too for no extra charge, this is becoming increasingly important, as landowners don't want to get caught out in any claim resulting from an accident caused by the shoot. BASC insurance also includes employer liability too, important if your shoot has beaters or pickers up, regardless of whether you pay them or not. If you have vehicles such as ATV's or an old landrover that you only use on the shoot and that does not go on the road (where it MUST be covered by a motor policy by law) the BASC package also covers third party liability for such vehicles. If you sell or give away any of the shot game, and there is a claim as a consequence of that, the BASC policy includes product liability to cover you for that too. If your shoot runs a fundraising and or charity clay shoot for example to help boost shoot funds or support a local charity, the BASC policy will cover that too. And then again there is all the free help and advice we an give you shoot to help you run it better, advice on holding birds, land management and so on. Our full insurance policy wording and Key Facts document, including a full policy summary all to the Financial Conduct Authority standards(we are registered with the FCA, as should any organisation that sells insurance by way of business really should be - ie the insurance is an important and main selling point of the package - see the FCA web site for details..) is on our web site, oddly enough, given insurance is such a key part of what shooters join an organisation for, this is rare. See for yourself, how many shooting orgnisations post up the full policy wording, Key Facts and formal policy summary on their web sites...surely all of the organisations have it so why not post it up? David Edited December 1, 2013 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Honestly can't fault the BASC syndicate ins and really would reccommend it to anyone (althou never needed it yet and hopefully never will ) Must admit i'm a big BASC fan and i think they do an awful lot more than just provide insurance, but i'm also a mmber off SGA and GWCT as they also do a lot off very good work and hopefully keep BASC on their toes and vice versa. Really wonder wot good work SACS do? often hear it quoted on sites but never ever came across it anywhere, in press tv etc (really not wanting to start a which org is best argument) and esp so for those members in england or wales, If u genuinely grudge paying BASC the 60 odd quid then NGO and CA both also do a lot off good work apart from insurance for similar money to SACS, really dunno why anyone outside off scotland would support SACS instead of the likes of NGO who lke the SGA do a massive ammount of work for shooting with politics and legislation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 (edited) Years ago, no one had any cover. I like you shot without cover for years. Never had or saw an accident. BUT for many years now I have had cover for the simple reason that if you were to be involved in any kind of accident it could totally ruin you for life. Consider the falling bird that could seriously injure a person or the bird that hits a vehicle roof and puts a serious dent in it. If you are on the receiving end of an insurance claim for whatever reason the insurance company that pays out WILL come knocking on your door for recompense. Consider this, Recently a delivery driver slightly skinned the end of his thumb on the bolt of the works yard gate. This was a very minor thing but the next thing the company hears of this is insurance claim is from a no win no fee solicitors outfit. It cost the companies insurers £10,000. CCC3 does cover for about £30 that covers almost all shooting situations. http://www.ccc3.org.uk/home?exref=V949 · 10million Public Liability Claims Cover · £10million Public Liability Defence Cover · £10,000 Personal Accident Cover (plus £300 Hospital Benefit & £1,000 Funeral Expenses) · £50,000 Legal Expenses Cover · 24-Hour Revocation of Licence and Legal Advice Helpline · FREE Personal Accident and Injury Solicitors Service Cover includes Shooting, Hunting, Fishing, Falconry, Ferreting, Archery, Re-enactment, Rambling, Conservation and much more Edited December 1, 2013 by fortune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 1, 2013 Report Share Posted December 1, 2013 Caveat emptor... I know the chap who runs CCC3 and he's a BASC member and a smashing chap, but I would respectfully point out that... The £10 million liability defence cover is the same as legal liability insurance, legal liability policies include your defence costs in the event of a claim its not a seapare cover. The legal expenses cover only covers you claiming for personal injury (not legal costs for revocation for example), this is available anyway if you go to a solicitor if you make a claim against another party, and all your costs are refunded if you make successful claim, and insurable with your solicitor anyway should you need it in the event of a claim...Without the full explanation on the CCC3 web , you may think you are covered for licencing claims, which this policy does not cover. The legal help line is not insured, its phone line to talk to a lawyer on the end of a phone for (probably , unless the CC3 guys say differently) FOC, for a short period of time, typically 30 mins,the same level of legal guidance or more is available to you in working hours if you are a member of an organisation with a full time firearms team of experts, and of course available to you in the police station if you request it. Many lawyers offer you 30 min free. I'm not knocking it , and I am pleased to say at least CCC3 put up a good and comprehensive description of their insurance cover, for all to see, unlike many others...and this is a great example of why all associations should follow suit and put up full details on their web site, not just a self written 'summary' in my view - otherwise how do you know exactly what you are buying? As always, I stand to be corrected on any of the above points. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjimlad Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I'd rather not shoot with people who don't bother getting insurance. It's all very well saying you are a safe shot, accidents do happen. If I get killed or injured so that I cannot work, my family need someone to sue for their loss of my income. Fat lot of use that is, if the negligent shooter is uninsured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therealchucknorris Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 If I get killed or injured so that I cannot work, my family need someone to sue for their loss of my income. Agree with your first two points but can't say I strictly agree with this point you make. It's not just about litigation and quite often you don't need to embark on that route in order to receive a settlement. If someone has insurance then you start a claims journey rather than going to a solicitor and instructing proceedings. Look at it this way, if you had the accident and blew your foot off causing you total and permanent disability would your family sue you for loss of earnings or would you look to make a claim on your insurance? Not a big fan of the ambulance chasing companies that make out it's an easy and risk free process to start this type of action against someone - far too american in my view and look what happens over there. If someone is uninsured then some kind of legal route might be the best option but it shouldn't be an automatic position to think "I need to sue someone over this". That can just lead to a world where insurance becomes compulsory. Just my two pennies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjimlad Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Agree with your first two points but can't say I strictly agree with this point you make. It's not just about litigation and quite often you don't need to embark on that route in order to receive a settlement. If someone has insurance then you start a claims journey rather than going to a solicitor and instructing proceedings. Look at it this way, if you had the accident and blew your foot off causing you total and permanent disability would your family sue you for loss of earnings or would you look to make a claim on your insurance? Not a big fan of the ambulance chasing companies that make out it's an easy and risk free process to start this type of action against someone - far too american in my view and look what happens over there. If someone is uninsured then some kind of legal route might be the best option but it shouldn't be an automatic position to think "I need to sue someone over this". That can just lead to a world where insurance becomes compulsory. Just my two pennies I know what you mean and quite agree. What I meant to say was that I would prefer, as the injured party, to be dealing with an insurer, rather than telling the chap who made a mistake that he would have to sell his home to pay the compensation because he was not insured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sishyplops Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 I know what you mean and quite agree. What I meant to say was that I would prefer, as the injured party, to be dealing with an insurer, rather than telling the chap who made a mistake that he would have to sell his home to pay the compensation because he was not insured. completely agree BASC all the way for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 I have it but if I'm honest I don't actually know what I'm covered for. If someone shot me for example and I couldn't work would I be able to use it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1steele Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 I have it but if I'm honest I don't actually know what I'm covered for. If someone shot me for example and I couldn't work would I be able to use it? No, you would use their insurance assuming they had it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Eugh...that is scarey! Seen a couple of things recently that is making me want to wear a full face helmet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.