BASC to launch £100,000 legal expenses cover for members

[David BASC]

Dear All,

 

BASC subs have been held since 2010 despite the fact that the costs of running a large association have increased year on year, so we have been fighting hard to cut costs so we can keep delivering our exclusive services to members and safeguarding our sport. So subs will be going up by £3 from 1st March, in part to pay for the additional insurance and in part to help increase our income to cover costs. This does not mean we will not be keeping a very tight control on our expenses, this will be a key priority for all budget holders.

 

As to how many members will befit directly from this, I don't know, ask me next year, but by increasing our pressure on licencing teams to deliver a fair and equitable service, which the legal expenses policy will greatly assist, will benefit everyone. Is that, together with having a well funded large shooting organisation covering your back worth about 6p a week - you tell me.

 

David

[Dekers]

Dear All,

 

BASC subs have been held since 2010 despite the fact that the costs of running a large association have increased year on year, so we have been fighting hard to cut costs so we can keep delivering our exclusive services to members and safeguarding our sport. So subs will be going up by £3 from 1st March, in part to pay for the additional insurance and in part to help increase our income to cover costs. This does not mean we will not be keeping a very tight control on our expenses, this will be a key priority for all budget holders.

 

As to how many members will befit directly from this, I don't know, ask me next year, but by increasing our pressure on licencing teams to deliver a fair and equitable service, which the legal expenses policy will greatly assist, will benefit everyone. Is that, together with having a well funded large shooting organisation covering your back worth about 6p a week - you tell me. I would if you tell me the odds of needing it!

 

David

 

With all due respect David you/your insurers do know that, and as an insurance the figures will have been decided on by the Insurance company to cover this additional risk, so they have a good idea, we do not need to wait until next year!

 

I live in the real world, insurance is mathematically calculated risk/event/likelihood/cost. I have no interest in paying anything extra for a marketing ploy the odds of which happening are so remote as to be a joke, frankly I don't know if that is the case, but the BASC Insurance company DOES KNOW the likelihood of the event, is it a con or marketing ploy or worthwhile, the answer is for the BASC to supply the information as they are promoting it as such a Benefit, not pretend nobody knows until the end of the year!

Edited January 3, 2014 by Dekers

[scobydog]

Supposedly it is costing nothing,but subs are going up £3 as they have not been raised since 2010,which is a bit of a coincidence.

 

So membership will now cost £73

 

And for David that is £66 +£3 split over 10 months +£4 for the privilege =£73, in effect making it more expensive for the poorest members.

If you are not happy don't pay it, join someone else

[David BASC]

I cannot possibly give a definitive number of people who will make a claim on the BASC legal expenses policy, nor can I give you a definitive number of claims that will be made agiasnt the members liability policy in 2014, yes we can estimate, but it would just be that.

 

Yes insurance is based on risk and quantum of risk, and I would suggest that the likelihood of needing to make a claim on the legal expenses policy is much lower than making a claim on the liability policy, but would you similarly say there is no point in having a liability policy because the risk of you injuring someone or damaging their property while shooting is small? I doubt it!

 

But as I say the important thing is that by increasing the pressure on licencing teams will be of great benefit to all, not just those, who make a claim, so what does it matter if its 10 or 50?

 

Some may not be bothered by the additional benefit, but I suspect far more people will see the real values of having this extra cover!

 

David

[welsh1]

If you are not happy don't pay it, join someone else

Sorry did i upset you?

I take it you are one of the lucky ones who can just pay in one go,some members are not so lucky and have to pay over the year to spread the cost, for this privilege they are charged £4,and now they have to find an extra £3. so the poorest members of the association are the most penalised.

 

It was said earlier that the increase was just because there had been no increase since 2010 it is now being said that part of that increase is to cover the cost of the insurance,the goal posts seem to be moving a bit.

 

I am in agreement with Dekers and would be interested to see the cost assessment and analysis of the cover.

[David BASC]

Where did I say the membership sub was only going up because there had been no subs rise since 2010?

 

As to the cover, we will be publishing full details very soon but is there anything in particular you would like to know?

 

Some may disagree, but I would far rather be in my position of telling members that their subs are going up by 6p a week BUT we are increasing their membership insurance benefits than telling my members their subs are staying the same and we are decreasing their membership insurance benefits, and adding a £250 excess to all liability claims that involve property damage ie the majority!

 

David

[welsh1]

It is good news that it has now been offered,but what is the cost?will it be included in the fee we already pay or will it be more money on top?

 

 

It will be included in the membership fee as part of the package from the 1st March 2014.

 

Membership subs have been held since 2010, thay may go up a bit but not much!

 

Best wishes

 

David

 

 

Where did I say the membership sub was only going up because there had been no subs rise since 2010?

 

As to the cover, we will be publishing full details very soon but is there anything in particular you would like to know?

 

Some may disagree, but I would far rather be in my position of telling members that their subs are going up by 6p a week BUT we are increasing their membership insurance benefits than telling my members their subs are staying the same and we are decreasing their membership insurance benefits, and adding a £250 excess to all liability claims that involve property damage ie the majority!

 

David

If i have misread the comments i apologise,but it reads as though you are increasing the fees because there has been no rise since 2010.

 

On another note, can you not look at removing the £4 penalty to members who pay by d/d,as these are usually the ones struggling the most,yet are the most penalised financially.

[David BASC]

No problem, yes subs have not gone up since 2010 and as I say, subs will be going up as I have said, partly for the extra membership benefits and partly to help cover our other costs.

 

Yes the DD cost is being looked at by a colleague.

 

David

[welsh1]

No problem, yes subs have not gone up since 2010 and as I say, subs will be going up as I have said, partly for the extra membership benefits and partly to help cover our other costs.

 

Yes the DD cost is being looked at by a colleague.

 

David

Thank you

[scobydog]

Sorry did i upset you?

I take it you are one of the lucky ones who can just pay in one go,some members are not so lucky and have to pay over the year to spread the cost, for this privilege they are charged £4,and now they have to find an extra £3. so the poorest members of the association are the most penalised.

 

It was said earlier that the increase was just because there had been no increase since 2010 it is now being said that part of that increase is to cover the cost of the insurance,the goal posts seem to be moving a bit.

 

I am in agreement with Dekers and would be interested to see the cost assessment and analysis of the cover.

No Welsh you did not upset me, I made a simple statement that if you are not happy join a different organisation, simple as.

[Dekers]

I cannot possibly give a definitive number of people who will make a claim on the BASC legal expenses policy, of course you can't, but the insurers have made a considered estimation, and that number is ? nor can I give you a definitive number of claims that will be made agiasnt the members liability policy in 2014, yes we can estimate, but it would just be that.

 

Yes insurance is based on risk and quantum of risk, and I would suggest that the likelihood of needing to make a claim on the legal expenses policy is much lower than making a claim on the liability policy, but would you similarly say there is no point in having a liability policy because the risk of you injuring someone or damaging their property while shooting is small? No David, the question is the level of that risk, how big or small is it?! I doubt it!

 

But as I say the important thing is that by increasing the pressure on licencing teams will be of great benefit to all, What is that based on, I fail to see it will make any difference, are you seriously suggesting a Firearms Dept will base their decision on whether a FAC holder is a member of the BASC (WILL THEY EVEN KNOW) and may have a £100,000 legal backup to fight their decision? not just those, who make a claim, so what does it matter if its 10 or 50?

 

Some may not be bothered by the additional benefit, but I suspect far more people will see the real values of having this extra cover! No they won't, not until someone gives them some figures, you may just as well charge them £3 extra a year for cover from a falling space ship, insurance is about odds, and carefully worked out by insurance companies to make them money, nobody can see the real value unless they now the likelihood of needing it, and I suggest in this instance the need will be remarkably slim!

 

David

 

David

 

I appreciate your comments but it is a politicians response, I am interested in the level of risk, I have asked questions and seen no answers.

 

My view is that this insurance is all but pointless, and a marketing ploy swallowed by a gullible few. That remains my opinion until the BASC can come up with the figures that exist at the Insurance company and show me I'm wrong!

 

Perhaps this is the time to ask Andy Hearn for some input and throw a load of figures at me showing I am wrong and should be eternally grateful for this major benefit (BASC quote).

 

If the membership fees need to go up then so be it, I'm not happy, I struggle to put my rates up, and my rifle club has held annual fees for the last 5 years, and Improved services whilst doing it, by becoming more efficient and attracting more members...seems that is what the BASC is attempting!!

 

I read about the insurance in Shooting and Conservation and was remarkably underwhelmed, promote is as an additional benefit by all means but keep it well away from any membership fee increase in my opinion!

Edited January 3, 2014 by Dekers

[welsh1]

No Welsh you did not upset me, I made a simple statement that if you are not happy join a different organisation, simple as.

Did i say i was not happy? in fact i have said in the past that i am not arguing what basc do for shooters but the overall cost for some,as prices increase some people out there will have to look hard at what they save,i am trying to help them, as you can see by my last few posts David has got someone looking at the DD for spreading the cost over 10 months,this will save someone £4,i know this is not a lot but if you are on a tight budget,and some people have to watch every penny,this could mean the difference between someone staying with BASC as they will in effect be £1 better off even with the price rise.

Little things matter in the bigger picture,and if you do not make points and raise questions nothing happens,a statement like yours is simple and not very well thought out.

At least i may have made a small difference to help someone today,and they may stay with BASC because of what i asked and David implemented.

 

As an aside,i may argue with David on occasions, but i would hope he knows that it is never personal,he is just the face of BASC and as such is the conduit to voice a grievance,and knowing David if he thinks your grievance is valid will raise it with the relevant people.

[David BASC]

The maximum level of cover is based on a worst case scenario of an extended case running over several days. I would expect to see a case like this on average every 5 years.

 

A 'typical' appeal will run for one day, sometimes less. Thankfully, with the relationship we have with the licencing teams and the resources we have, we are able to head off many revocations, probably a couple on average every month, however with the increase in the risk averse attitude of some licencing teams I expect the number of attempted revocations to rise in 2014 / 15, and the need to take some to court to increase.

 

On average, with a case you win, you are only liable for your own costs typically around £6000, but if you loose the police will almost always ask for costs and they are almost invariably granted - in that case you would be liable for around £30,000.

 

The level of risk of someone being revoked is increasing, especially in some constabulary areas and yes obviously licencing teams will start to think twice once they know the chance of being taken to and being defeated in court increases, why wouldn't they? They are accountable for their costs, especially with the PCC's in place.

 

Every member who has ever had an accident would have sworn blind the day before that the chances of them injuring someone or damaging their property was minute, and may have questioned the need for liability insurance, 24 hours later, and facing an average law suit of £10,000 and up to £1m they will think their BASC membership is well spent, similarly almost everyone who's been on the wrong end of an poor decision leading revocation etc would have sworn blind the day before that there was no way they would ever fall foul of the licencing system...yes its a small risk and yes most of us will never ever need it, but almost all of us will sleep better having the protection of the total BASC package than not.

 

If members are not impressed by the total package BASC delivers then membership will fall, but I doubt very much this will be the case, far more members will see the values of the protection we offer then those who think its not worth it, see for yourself if BASC membership grow (again) this year to see if I am right.

 

David

[Dekers]

The maximum level of cover is based on a worst case scenario of an extended case running over several days. I would expect to see a case like this on average every 5 years.

 

A 'typical' appeal will run for one day, sometimes less. Thankfully, with the relationship we have with the licencing teams and the resources we have, we are able to head off many revocations, probably a couple on average every month, however with the increase in the risk averse attitude of some licencing teams I expect the number of attempted revocations to rise in 2014 / 15, and the need to take some to court to increase.

 

On average, with a case you win, you are only liable for your own costs typically around £6000, but if you loose the police will almost always ask for costs and they are almost invariably granted - in that case you would be liable for around £30,000.

 

The level of risk of someone being revoked is increasing, especially in some constabulary areas and yes obviously licencing teams will start to think twice once they know the chance of being taken to and being defeated in court increases, why wouldn't they? It will not change at all, why should it, the vast majority of cases are resolved by the FAC holder or BASC intervention PRIOR to court anyway, if the police don't make concessions at that time why will they bother just because the FAC holder has BASC insurance, they don't care who pays the bills if they think they are right! They are accountable for their costs, especially with the PCC's in place.

 

 

Every member who has ever had an accident would have sworn blind the day before that the chances of them injuring someone or damaging their property was minute, and may have questioned the need for liability insurance, 24 hours later, and facing an average law suit of £10,000 and up to £1m they will think their BASC membership is well spent, similarly almost everyone who's been on the wrong end of an poor decision leading revocation etc would have sworn blind the day before that there was no way they would ever fall foul of the licencing system...yes its a small risk and yes most of us will never ever need it, but almost all of us will sleep better having the protection of the total BASC package than not. I am not talking about the general insurance offered as part of the BASC package, the chances of a claim on that are far higher and therefore potentially of much greater benefit to members than the legal cover insurance!

 

If members are not impressed by the total package You are deflecting the issue, the total package is not necessarily in dispute, the value of this part is in dispute! BASC delivers then membership will fall, but I doubt very much this will be the case, far more members will see the values of the protection we offer then those who think its not worth it, see for yourself if BASC membership grow (again) this year to see if I am right. Oh PLEASE David, if membership increases, both you and I know fully well it will be little and more likely NOTHING to do with BASC offering Legal cover.

 

David

 

 

 

David, I have a lot of time for you on this site but again that is a political answer and attempts to deflect the question, all be it actually conceding the risk is small in relation to membership numbers.

 

Put the fee up £3 more next year and cover us all for falling meteorites, yes, the risk is TINY but we will all sleep better!

 

The number of people leaving the BASC because of this will be very small, you don't need a Crystal ball to work that out, but that is not the point, honesty is important, and whilst there may have been some levels of misunderstanding here, promoting this as a MAJOR BENEFIT to members when it is only likely to be of benefit to a tiny minority is hardly honest or equitable.

 

You have conceded the risk/return on this additional insurance is SMALL, so how can it be a major benefit?

 

So 135000 people sleep easier for 5 years knowing that one of them may benefit in that time?

[David BASC]

I fully accept that there is nothing I can say to make you accept that this extra insurance is a significant benefit, but perhaps you will also graciously accept that you're in a minority. Firstly, members have been asking for this cover to be included for the last couple of years, indeed it delivered a large thread earlier this year on PW. Just look at the comments on this thread, but of course you then say that those who think the cover is a benefit are a 'gullible few' oh please....pretty insulting to those who choose to have a different and frankly in my opinion more realistic view than your good self

 

If you don't think the licencing teams will back down on weak cases because they know they will be taken to court and will loose you are very much mistaken, I wonder what you base your assertion on?

 

I also note that to try and defend your position you are cherry picking my comments by suggesting that I inferred only one member ever 5 years will benefit from this cover...anyone reading my post will see that I did not say this at all.

 

Judge the cover by what it delivers please.

 

But in closing may I ask you, in all honesty, what frequency of claim would you say makes the policy valuable?

 

David

[Dekers]

I fully accept that there is nothing I can say to make you accept that this extra insurance is a significant benefit, but perhaps you will also graciously accept that you're in a minority. Firstly, members have been asking for this cover to be included for the last couple of years, indeed it delivered a large thread earlier this year on PW. Just look at the comments on this thread, but of course you then say that those who think the cover is a benefit are a 'gullible few' oh please....pretty insulting to those who choose to have a different and frankly in my opinion more realistic view than your good self

 

If you don't think the licencing teams will back down on weak cases because they know they will be taken to court and will loose you are very much mistaken, I wonder what you base your assertion on?

 

I also note that to try and defend your position you are cherry picking my comments by suggesting that I inferred only one member ever 5 years will benefit from this cover...anyone reading my post will see that I did not say this at all.

 

Judge the cover by what it delivers please.

 

But in closing may I ask you, in all honesty, what frequency of claim would you say makes the policy valuable?

 

David

 

No David, I do not accept that I am in the minority and nobody in their right mind can accept/suggest this is a significant benefit unless you provide them with figures.

 

Anyone who blindly accepts the BASC promotion that this is a MAJOR BENEFIT (Direst BASC quote) is a gullible fool if they have only your word (BASC Marketing Dept) and nothing to back that up with. It seems to me there is more than a significant blurring of Marketing and fact.

 

Many of your comments above are speculation. Oh course it is a benefit, I have never suggested otherwise, somebody may well find it useful, but as I keep asking, what is the level of risk and the likely claim rate. Again and again, offer insurance for alien attack, I'm sure many would sleep easier but what is the point for the vast majority. Any insurance benefit to the individual must be tempered by the likelihood of needing that insurance, you can take out insurance for pretty much anything you want, but do we all lie awake a night worrying we should have taken out insurance for getting our toe stuck in the bath tap...no we don't, and why not, because the odds are incredibly slim, just like this MAJOR BENEFIT the BASC is apparently charging extra for!

 

My specific questions have not been answered...How much is the membership going up as a DIRECT result of this, and no expected claim figures have been supplied by your insurers, on that basis I feel like Jeremy Paxman talking to a former Home Secretary who patently obviously had something to hide.

 

If the membership has gone up Nothing or just a few pence for this then perhaps it is worthwhile, but as this has not been answered then how can I make an informed comment, most definitely if the lions share of the anticipated £3.00 increase in BASC membership rates is down to this then someone is taking the ****. It will be down to the individual to make their own mind up if it is worth it if you tell them how much it is costing them. That has been my response to this from the start..........

 

#38

"I would genuinely like to see some figures attached to this...like, just how many may benefit, (these figures are known/researched in order to quote an appropriate premium) and how much the BASC fees are going up for this!?"

 

Seems simple enough to me, not sure why this has developed in such a debate!

Edited January 4, 2014 by Dekers

[David BASC]

So 15 members on this thread seem to agree its a major benefit and you say its not, on other threads on this forum and similar threads on other forums members have repeatedly asked BASC to introduce this cover but you say you are in the majority?

 

You may be blissfully unaware of the number of problems shooters are having with several licencing authorities with their new 'risk averse' attitude, at BASC however we have been closely monitoring the issues that are arising from licencing teams all over the UK and its clear that the risk of cases having to go to court is significantly higher now than it has ever been, self insuring as we have been, is no longer viable.

 

The cover was introduced based not just on the whim of the BASC marketing department but based on market research including discussion on this and other forums and face to face meetings with members at shows and events and a formal presentation and discussion by the elected BASC members who make up BASC Council. If you bothered to do a bit of desk top research yourself you would see very clearly that BASC members have left BASC to join another association who offered legal expenses insurance (but no longer do) simply because they saw this as a major benefit, more important than liability insurance even. It would to totally daft for me to ignore this need expressed by members.

 

You seem willing to criticise me for 'speculating' in some of my posts above but then repeatedly ask me to speculate on the number of cases we will take to court in 2014? Yes of course we provided the underwriters and brokers with an estimation of the type and number of cases we are likely to see based on, in this case, the past 5 years of cases our firearms team have been involved with. I will see if any figures are available for publication.

 

As I have said, and perhaps you don't or cant accept, running successful cases WILL have a positive knock on effect, as they will help prevent further revocations and refusals based on the same criteria by that licencing team, consequently helping many others as a result.

 

I am not at liberty to disclose any income or expenditure figures over and above those that will be published in our written accounts.

 

Its a shame that you still say members of this forum and I assume you would lay the same accusation against all members of BASC who see this as a major benefit are gullible fools, I don't think many will thank you for that.

 

I see you are now resorting to profanity to try and underline your points by suggesting 'someone is taking the ****' But I agree ,it will be down to members and prospective members to make up their own minds if they think this new insurance is a major benefit.

 

I also note that you are refusing to answer my direct question of how many claims on the policy would you think would make the policy valuable...why? It a simple question.

 

David

Edited January 4, 2014 by David BASC

[mudpatten]

It would appear then, that I am a gullible fool because, like many others I see increased insurance cover as something worth having.

 

Dekers, answer the man. How many claims on the policy would you think would make the policy valuable?

 

Seems simple enough to me. Incidentally, why do you hate BASC so much?

[al4x]

I'm with Dekers, it will be very much like the current situation they won't take on the majority of cases you will really need to convince them to stand a chance of them paying out and it be a cut and dried case. But marketing wise I would imagine it is because SACS have been using it to gain members, generally very few of us would have cause to use but I'll bet even less actually find it pays out.

 

Its not a matter of hating BASC more being realistic

[sako751sg]

I'm with Dekers, it will be very much like the current situation they won't take on the majority of cases you will really need to convince them to stand a chance of them paying out and it be a cut and dried case. But marketing wise I would imagine it is because SACS have been using it to gain members, generally very few of us would have cause to use but I'll bet even less actually find it pays out.

 

Its not a matter of hating BASC more being realistic

 

Very good chance thats the reason fella.

[Scully]

I can't say whether this will be a good thing or not; wont its effectiveness depend on whether BASC think the case is winable?Or is the decision to persue a matter down to an individual? I know of one shooter who thought he would be refused a license due to his past history despite having turned himself around to the extent he is now a highly qualified practitioner of his chosen profession. I advised him to join BASC and seek their help which he duly did (before this latest scheme I grant you) and was advised to wait a year and apply again. As 10 years had already passed since his last conviction he failed to see how another year would make any difference and applied anyhow. With the aid of his GP and a FEO who was prepared to listen he now has his SGC. This was less than two months ago.

He doesn't resent the membership fee but feels somewhat let down, but not as much as I did for persuading him to join!

[David BASC]

Cases will be reviewed by lawyers experienced in firearms licencing law, it will be based on that legal opinion whether a case will run or not.

 

Why on earth would BASC or our insurers run a case to law that has no chance of winning , resulting in a member who is still revoked and having court decision simply supporting the original revocation / refusal and be left with a £30k+ bill to boot? That would benefit no one would it? Or do you disagree?

 

The vast majority of members will never make a claim on the Public Liability policy, do you honestly suggest that BASC should drop that?

 

Given that there was such strong evidence from shooters of their need for the security of a legal expenses policy, regardless of the fact they may never need to call on it , if I had ignored calls from members to introduce this cover I would have been very remiss indeed wouldn't I? Remember this was subject to a full and formal review by the elected members of BASC Council.

 

I wonder if the two of you who seem to not value this new cover would stand on your principles if you, in the opinion of a lone licencing manger, fall foul of the licencing system as applied by your constabulary and not make a claim but accept the revocation or pay the court costs yourself?

 

I agree, we are all perfectly entitled to our own view, but as I have said, judge the new benefit for what it delivers for your shooting association and its members.

 

David

Edited January 4, 2014 by David BASC

[Guest stevo]

Cases will be reviewed by lawyers experienced in firearms licencing law, it will be based on that legal opinion whether a case will run or not.

 

Why on earth would BASC or our insurers run a case to law that has no chance of winning , resulting in a member who is still revoked and having court decision simply supporting the original revocation / refusal and be left with a £30k+ bill to boot? That would benefit no one would it? Or do you disagree?

 

The vast majority of members will never make a claim on the Public Liability policy, do you honestly suggest that BASC should drop that?

 

Given that there was such strong evidence from shooters of their need for the security of a legal expenses policy, regardless of the fact they may never need to call on it , if I had ignored calls from members to introduce this cover I would have been very remiss indeed wouldn't I? Remember this was subject to a full and formal review by the elected members of BASC Council.

 

I wonder if the two of you who seem to not value this new cover would stand on your principles if you, in the opinion of a lone licencing manger, fall foul of the licencing system as applied by your constabulary and not make a claim but accept the revocation or pay the court costs yourself?

 

I agree, we are all perfectly entitled to our own view, but as I have said, judge the new benefit for what it delivers for your shooting association and its members.

 

David

well said !

[welsh1]

I am happy for the new cover as i asked why we didn't have it a while back, the cynic in me sees cover but at a price,and i would like to see a breakdown of the cost of running this cover and the increased costs of running basc,what portion of the £3 increase is cover and what portion administration costs for the running of basc?

[David BASC]

As I have said above, I have no authority to publish any finance figures over and above what's published in our annual accounts, these are sent to all members in the May issue of S&C.

 

David