BASC to cease legal expenses cover wef 31 July 2020

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, nic said:

30 went as far as the insurance last year out of about 150 that started towards it..... as with any insurance, they will only take it on when they think they have a good case, (insurance is there to make money for shareholders NOT to be your mate, so will not take on cases they think will lose)

And there you go , sounds to me like 120 members thought they were covered, until BASC told them they werent, I wonder if they are still members ? 😏

Its like your insurer telling you , that new Aston Martin you just drove into the back of , well you arent insured for that, so you need to pay for the damage yourself...
Might not be popular with our shareholders if we pay out on those sort of claims, MATE (not) 

[nic]

from the conversation that I had, that can cause issues with FCA and legal issues with being an underwriter etc

 

[Fatcatsplat]

Just now, udderlyoffroad said:

Could BASC realistically put the money saved towards a ringfenced 'war chest' for members that require legal aid?  Could they become their own underwriter?

Not with the way the losses are running at the moment - They already have a very large self insured retention to keep the premium down, but the cost of the claims that were made were just astronomical and burnt through this quite quickly and then went into the underwriters chest. If they were to become a captive they could very well go bankrupt. As Nic has said above, of 150 claims, only 30 were advanced. If you think as basic letter from a brief is going to be probably a couple of hundred, but in this instance, you are going to need a specialist in their field and suddenly the cost has tripled before it's even gone anywhere near a court. The markets they have used have lost a considerable amount of money every year to the point that they are uninsurable in any reasonable way.

[nic]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

And there you go , sounds to me like 120 members thought they were covered, until BASC told them they werent, I wonder if they are still members ? 😏

Its like your insurer telling you , that new Aston Martin you just drove into the back of , well you arent insured for that, so you need to pay for the damage yourself...
Might not be popular with our shareholders if we pay out on those sort of claims, MATE (not) 

I used to deal with insurance in my old role.... its more like you do not have a legal argument to counter it so we will not go to court and look like idiots..... to give a made up example like you.... what do you mean I cant have a section 1 FAC for a sawn off just because I have 5 convictions for bank robbery... I got out of the scrubs last week so I should have one!... certainly sir, we will spend a few hundred thousand quid going to court on your behalf!    Insurance is there to cover the cost ... WHEN you have a legal case.

[Rewulf]

33 minutes ago, nic said:

I used to deal with insurance in my old role.... its more like you do not have a legal argument to counter it so we will not go to court and look like idiots..... to give a made up example like you.... what do you mean I cant have a section 1 FAC for a sawn off just because I have 5 convictions for bank robbery... I got out of the scrubs last week so I should have one!... certainly sir, we will spend a few hundred thousand quid going to court on your behalf!    Insurance is there to cover the cost ... WHEN you have a legal case.

Interesting , so what youre saying is , by those figures 80% of 'claimants' never stood a chance, because they were criminals, OR BASC decided the cases were not 100 % going to win ?

Perhaps the nice lady at BASC would supply you with the stats on who was unreasonably asking for the earth to be moved for them, and whos case wasnt 100% a  guaranteed win, that wouldnt incur too many legal costs?

[Rewulf]

BASC acts in the best interests of its members and shooting. With regards to the firearms licensing legal expense’s insurance policy, only around 150 (1 in 1000) members a year make a claim, and of those only around a half (1 in 2000 members) have their cases taken up. Yet the  policy costs almost £1 million. The cost of this insurance continues to rise rapidly each year, whilst at the same time stricter conditions and exclusions are being added to the policy.

Despite the fact that half of 150 usually equals 75 , not 30, the way I read this passage the first time, made it sound like there was so little take up on the legal protection side , that it wasnt worth doing ?
Not because it cost too much of the saved assets of BASC , but because it wasnt benefitting the wider membership?
But 0.1 % isnt the true figure, as most will be put off 'making a claim' at first point of contact with BASC , unless their claim has some merit ?

I would like to know the average cost , per case of the 30 who actually advanced to court/or settled .
No doubt an organisation as transparent as BASC would have no issue with revealing the detailed figures ?

[Farmboy91]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

No doubt an organisation as transparent as BASC would have no issue with revealing the detailed figures ?

😂

That's a good one, you should put it in the jokes section.

[nic]

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

BASC acts in the best interests of its members and shooting. With regards to the firearms licensing legal expense’s insurance policy, only around 150 (1 in 1000) members a year make a claim, and of those only around a half (1 in 2000 members) have their cases taken up. Yet the  policy costs almost £1 million. The cost of this insurance continues to rise rapidly each year, whilst at the same time stricter conditions and exclusions are being added to the policy.

Despite the fact that half of 150 usually equals 75 , not 30, the way I read this passage the first time, made it sound like there was so little take up on the legal protection side , that it wasnt worth doing ?
Not because it cost too much of the saved assets of BASC , but because it wasnt benefitting the wider membership?
But 0.1 % isnt the true figure, as most will be put off 'making a claim' at first point of contact with BASC , unless their claim has some merit ?

I would like to know the average cost , per case of the 30 who actually advanced to court/or settled .
No doubt an organisation as transparent as BASC would have no issue with revealing the detailed figures ?

The figure of 30 was that given by the person at BASC that I spoke with.  As to the example I gave i was being sarcastic in case you had not realised. I do not know of the details of the cases  that had insufficient merit in the eyes of the solicitors acting for the insurance (normal way it works).   If you want the info, why not write to them or email... probably more chance of an answer than by posting it on here 🙂

IMHO too many want to rant rather than find anything out.  if they did they would ask questions in the relevant place.  where you want to spend your money or go to for insurance or advice is a personal choice.  I have only ever had help and questions answered quickly when asked.

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by nic

[Rewulf]

Just now, nic said:

The figure of 30 was that given by the person at BASC that I spoke with.  

Which is at odds with the info on BASCs own website.

1 minute ago, nic said:

As to the example I gave i was being sarcastic in case you had not realised.

I was returning the favour.

2 minutes ago, nic said:

If you want the info, why not write to them or email... probably more chance of an answer than by posting it on here

I wouldnt waste my time, I will vote with my feet, as Im sure many others will .
I thought maybe , just maybe , someone from BASC would raise their head above the parapet and try and defend the decision, maybe clarify what it actually costs (net) rather than just saying 'it costs a million quid'
But all they have done is save themselves ' a million quid' and given nothing in return,  a few more pages in the magazine for some more adverts perhaps ...?

[Scully]

3 hours ago, Teal said:

 

Honestly I'm amazed people are giving them more time to get things in order. You are a lot more tolerant than I am!! Time and time again I've been disappointed. I can't stomach paying/rewarding it anymore.

Exactly this. After many years of what seemed to me, total indifference, or of being incapable of acting, and after attending a meeting chaired by a rather smug and aloof Swift, I was rapidly losing patience. The final straw was when I phoned them with a query regarding GP's letters, and had my call returned by Mike Eveleigh who quite bluntly asked me 'What would you like us to do about it?' I replied that I'd expect you to fight it, given that BASC ( back then) regarded the move as illegal. After a spell he informed me 'there's nothing we can do about it '. When I asked 'then whats the point of me being a member?' , he asked if I would 'give up shooting now if he told me shooting would be banned within ten years ' no doubt meaning I should continue to fund them to continue the fight....what fight? He told me shooters would receive ten yearly life span ticket renewals 'as a compromise'. That went well! 😂

Anyhow, I am just so glad I'm no longer subsidising that organisation any more, and haven't done so for years now. The only way to get the reaction you want is to vote with your feet. 

[Fatcatsplat]

14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Which is at odds with the info on BASCs own website.

I was returning the favour.

I wouldnt waste my time, I will vote with my feet, as Im sure many others will .
I thought maybe , just maybe , someone from BASC would raise their head above the parapet and try and defend the decision, maybe clarify what it actually costs (net) rather than just saying 'it costs a million quid'
But all they have done is save themselves ' a million quid' and given nothing in return,  a few more pages in the magazine for some more adverts perhaps ...?

Rather than giving it all the beans on a Non BASC forum, give em a ring and ask - They're very nice people in the main

 

Edited to say - Would you rather they go bankrupt fighting cases with no chance of success? 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Fatcatsplat

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, Fatcatsplat said:

Rather than giving it all the beans on a Non BASC forum, give em a ring and ask - They're very nice people in the main

Im sure they are , and so they should be, Im a customer/member.

13 minutes ago, Fatcatsplat said:

Edited to say - Would you rather they go bankrupt fighting cases with no chance of success? 

I dont believe anyone has said that have they ?
The PROBLEM is , they are now not fighting ANY cases, so if you do have a legal problem, as I once did, they will give you a few minutes on the phone and tell you to 'wait it out' 
In effect, they didnt do a lot before, now they will do even less, but still keep taking your money, selling advertising slots, making money from training days....

Its all very jolly and proper, if you consider it as a business .

Is that what it is  BASC ?  (Voice echos into emptiness....)

[McSpredder]

1 hour ago, nic said:

IMHO too many want to rant rather than find anything out.  if they did they would ask questions in the relevant place.  where you want to spend your money or go to for insurance or advice is a personal choice.

Would the relevant place be on the BASC website?     Look at this screenshot from the FAQ page, taken today (7 July 2020) at 16:30, and you can see it still claims that BASC insurance includes up £250k legal expenses for firearms appeals.     Do the staff managing BASC insurance ever speak to the ones running the website?  

Does the organisation employ anybody who understands anything about communications?

[strimmer_13]

Just now, McSpredder said:

Would the relevant place be on the BASC website?     Look at this screenshot from the FAQ page, taken today (7 July 2020) at 16:30, and you can see it still claims that BASC insurance includes up £250k legal expenses for firearms appeals.     Do the staff managing BASC insurance ever speak to the ones running the website?  

Does the organisation employ anybody who understands anything about communications?

Yes but its valid until the 31st of July. Plenty of time to hook more members before they take it away (along with your cash). 

[Rewulf]

Just cancelled my BASC DD.
Looking at Gunplan and C3 , any recommendations ?

[bottletopbill]

What are you all going to 

[mossy835]

i will go with C3.

Edited July 7, 2020 by mossy835

[bottletopbill]

C3 looks good thanks

[Christopher Graffius]

On 06/07/2020 at 12:10, mick miller said:

Not one question in parliament about the medicals fiasco, not one single word questioning the sense in allowing Chief Constables to dictate 'law' for applicants as they see fit. Nothing about protecting law-abiding citizens from engaging in lawful activities without threat from masked 'vigilantes' and thugs. Zero work on firearms legislation reform, simplification and on and on... Money well spent?

EDIT: Sorry, we did get to keep the .50cal. For now. Yay (said virtually nobody, ever)!

On what facts do you base this post?

Hansard records 45 parliamentary questions in the last year about medical involvement in firearms licensing covering both Lords and Commons. There are more in previous years. I have been consulted on the drafting of the majority of them. There has also been widespread coverage in the shooting magazines and online of BASC involvement in meetings at Westminster and Whitehall, not to mention evidence sessions, correspondence and consultation responses on firearms legislation reform and simplification.

Rants are all very well - but the truth should not be forgotten.

 

  

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Christopher Graffius said:

Rants are all very well - but the truth should not be forgotten.

The TRUTH is , despite all the noise, BASC achieved very little.
The thread is about the removal of the legal cover, what are your thoughts on that ?

[Christopher Graffius]

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The TRUTH is , despite all the noise, BASC achieved very little.
The thread is about the removal of the legal cover, what are your thoughts on that ?

An explanation of Council's decision has already been given on this thread, the magazine and the website. If you have further questions please send them in to BASC and they will be answered.

By the way, I know nobody at BASC who drives a Range Rover. My cars as an Executive Director have been Skodas and Toyotas.

 

[enfieldspares]

57 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The TRUTH is , despite all the noise, BASC achieved very little.
The thread is about the removal of the legal cover, what are your thoughts on that ?

+1. So, in truth, yes, as another said "Rants are all very well - but the truth should not be forgotten."

AND THE TRUTH IS THAT BASC HAS ACHIEVED NOTHING IN STOPPING CHIEF CONSTABLES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL MEDICAL INPUT THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATED IN THE HOME OFFICE GUIDELINES. 

So what does that "C" really stand for? Given the above it stands for "Canute". Which for those who don't know the story is of a King's futile attempt to command the tide from coming in.

But as the poster has been involved in drafting "the majority" of these forty-five question might he please cut and paste them and the relevant Minusters' responses here on PW? 

Edited July 8, 2020 by enfieldspares

[mick miller]

1 hour ago, Christopher Graffius said:

Hansard records 45 parliamentary questions in the last year about medical involvement in firearms licensing covering both Lords and Commons.  

Apologies, I used the word 'questions' when I should have used the words 'useful debates'.

1 hour ago, Christopher Graffius said:

Rants are all very well..

I'm sure Mr. Glenser would agree.

Edited July 8, 2020 by mick miller

[Rewulf]

51 minutes ago, Christopher Graffius said:

An explanation of Council's decision has already been given on this thread, the magazine and the website. If you have further questions please send them in to BASC and they will be answered.

Why is it that of the 3 people from BASC who have visited this thread , (David looked but didnt comment) no one wants to add to the vague explanation of 'It costs too much'

Is it some kind of contempt for the membership ? Is the matter not up for discussion ? Does no one at BASC care that its going to cost them members..income ?

Arrogance comes to mind in your retort.

14 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

But as the poster has been involved in drafting "the majority" of these forty-five question might he please cut and paste them and the relevant Minusters' responses here on PW? 

Id be interested in hearing those, also the outcomes and NET costs of the 30 members who used the legal insurance.

Instead of arrogance , try some clarity and transparency, it might save you a few quid in the long run.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Christopher Graffius said:

An explanation of Council's decision has already been given on this thread, the magazine and the website. If you have further questions please send them in to BASC and they will be answered.

By the way, I know nobody at BASC who drives a Range Rover. My cars as an Executive Director have been Skodas and Toyotas.

Might be a pushbike soon!