Mag just landed, ears must be burnin' 
BASC to remove "Legal Expenses Cover" wef 31 July 2020
- Thread starter enfieldspares
- Start date
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
I knew there’d be at least one ....
N1mr0d
Well-Known Member
I think that BASC have broken the contract under which I joined and as part of an affiliated syndicate. It is very disappointing that I have had no notification that the insurance was being stopped as a syndicate organiser nor of a refund for the premium that we have paid for legal cover. I just tried to ring BASC, first of all I had to wait as all lines were busy and then I was put through to an answerphone. We will be asking the owners of the ground today whether in light of BASC removing essential cover they will lift the restriction previously in place that we had to insure with BASC.
I just wanted to add what many will be thinking - they should have given 1 years notice and that on renewal LEC would not be included - BASC could also have simply asked the insurers for a quote for a price as an add on - which is the option you have with almost all car policies and which we are all used to making a decision on.
I agree with BASC that continuing to pay an inflated price for an insurance product that may not be suitable and which in their experience has become difficult to claim on is not what they should be doing. There are ways of doing things that do not make you look like uncaring idiots though.
I just wanted to add what many will be thinking - they should have given 1 years notice and that on renewal LEC would not be included - BASC could also have simply asked the insurers for a quote for a price as an add on - which is the option you have with almost all car policies and which we are all used to making a decision on.
I agree with BASC that continuing to pay an inflated price for an insurance product that may not be suitable and which in their experience has become difficult to claim on is not what they should be doing. There are ways of doing things that do not make you look like uncaring idiots though.
Last edited:
I think you will find that BASC members fall into disticnt groups, those that have plenty of money and just let the membership fees keep on going out without thinking about it, those that have to be members because of syndicate rules or wildfowling clubs etc, those that are new to the sport who join out of enthusiasum without considering details or history and lastly those that actually think about what they want and who they want to support. I suspect that it is this last group that will be voting with their feet. There are probably enough in the first threee groups to make BASC not care about the forth.
cancel at any time I believe
Mick9abf
Well-Known Member
I cancelled mine and emailed them my reasons, never heard anything back - job jobbed.
Mud Stuffin
Well-Known Member
Do you think that in the month we have left we can use the legal cover to challenge their decision?
Donnachaidh
Well-Known Member
Odd that there is still no announcement on the BASC Facebook page about this....
landkeeper
Well-Known Member
Surely that should have been an agm issue all members to be notified of
landkeeper
Well-Known Member
Doh
Last edited:
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
OK matey just got back home so sorry for the late reply.Aren’t basc and dmq pretty much one and the same ? So yes , both useless then glad we can agree , I find it funny that many ( like yourself ) have long Moaned about” basc bashing “ yet now are seeing what the more astute of us have seen for years ...... as for the sga they didn’t roll over on the lead ban so that’s a plus in my book and have been campaigning hard on the mountain hare issue , As for other orgs I’ve quit both the ngo and gwct over the lead betrayal Which was a shame particularly as I rated highly the research the gwct does ....but the “ voice “ is by far the worst of the lot
I’d actually respect you more if you stuck with basc now , all the betrayals in the past were just fine and dandy but when it comes to member benefits that’s a real issue ? Certainly shows what people’s priorities are
You state SGA didn't roll over for the lead ban....
Just because they didn't sign a letter to support it doesn't mean that they are fighting it, I've looked all over to see if they're actually actively fighting it and I can't find any evidence but I'm more that happy for you to point me to some.
Mountain hares ban.... OK but they're interest in that is because it affects Scotland, I'd put a pound to a pinch of dogger that if Westminster was banning it but the Scottish government weren't they'd be silent as a mouse.
Sorry matey but you need to take ya blinkers off..
On another point you quoted me regarding you having more respect for me if I stayed with BASC now, well everyone has a break point and I'm at mine because yes all I trust any of these organisations for is my insurance the rest is just business/politics/profit.
Just had a quote from gunplan and it looks interesting..
In that case I'm glad I didn't disappoint
You don't like BASC? Fine. I'm not too keen on it either but I'm prepared to accept that there are some good people working there.
Perhaps, just like politicians, we get the shooting organisations we collectively deserve?
Apologies for not reading through all of this but is the issue money?
Guessing BASC are seeing their revenue dip due to COVID 19 plus feelings/posts here?
BASC published accounts don't appear to have a reserve - seems they spend what they earn?
Usually our sense of fair play isn't in small print and if I'd paid for membership product that's less now than what I'd paid for - well I know we know it's wrong
Seems it would have been better to announce those who've paid will get what they paid for and those to pay after July will buy knowing there's a bit less
Cheers
Guessing BASC are seeing their revenue dip due to COVID 19 plus feelings/posts here?
BASC published accounts don't appear to have a reserve - seems they spend what they earn?
Usually our sense of fair play isn't in small print and if I'd paid for membership product that's less now than what I'd paid for - well I know we know it's wrong
Seems it would have been better to announce those who've paid will get what they paid for and those to pay after July will buy knowing there's a bit less
Cheers
Knowing there's a bit less.
There are many views being aired but I am sure BASC's 'normal insurance' will remain in place - here the message is about legal cover which was introduced about 1/2 years ago .
The other question which pops into my mind is- why take up an extremely expensive insurance 'extra' - no doubt with extensive research of the products and costs and then within 2 years drop it?
Poor analysis ? Wrong insurance companies ?
Truly massive increases in premiums ? Might have been obvious as part of a trend earlier than this.
Not quite exactly what it says it is - more a cost cut and direct financial reward from a difficult assessment of cost per member ?
With such a fundamental change, why not make this at the AGM, given costs for the insurance must be covered by the membership?
Does anyone think they did this out of the kindness of their hearts ? No, it was to compete with other 'memberships'/insurances.
For anyone who wishes to know, I do not indulge in 'BASC bashing', it is just obvious that BASC think they alone represent shooting - and are arrogant enough to emblazen all they do with "The Voice of Shooting" - that they are my first and biggest target.
They seem, as do many orgs, to live in a bubble which the real world rarely enters but as the pace of change has accelerated this one org has gifted more against shooting IMHO than it has saved for shooting. What they do which is good is submerged beneath personnel costs (insured against apparently), bluff and bluster about lead, general licences and failure to find a way to interdict on medicals and so forth.
Was their support for wildfowling/stalking altruistic or a means to guarantee membership - I wouldn't know but I don't trusts the messages.
If they all joined together and a new way of developing an agenda/startegy for the future was trialled, we all would try to help.
I am not the cause of the possible demise of BASC, they are.
People who disagree with the government are not 'government bashers' unless of course unless its in Russia.
The other question which pops into my mind is- why take up an extremely expensive insurance 'extra' - no doubt with extensive research of the products and costs and then within 2 years drop it?
Poor analysis ? Wrong insurance companies ?
Truly massive increases in premiums ? Might have been obvious as part of a trend earlier than this.
Not quite exactly what it says it is - more a cost cut and direct financial reward from a difficult assessment of cost per member ?
With such a fundamental change, why not make this at the AGM, given costs for the insurance must be covered by the membership?
Does anyone think they did this out of the kindness of their hearts ? No, it was to compete with other 'memberships'/insurances.
For anyone who wishes to know, I do not indulge in 'BASC bashing', it is just obvious that BASC think they alone represent shooting - and are arrogant enough to emblazen all they do with "The Voice of Shooting" - that they are my first and biggest target.
They seem, as do many orgs, to live in a bubble which the real world rarely enters but as the pace of change has accelerated this one org has gifted more against shooting IMHO than it has saved for shooting. What they do which is good is submerged beneath personnel costs (insured against apparently), bluff and bluster about lead, general licences and failure to find a way to interdict on medicals and so forth.
Was their support for wildfowling/stalking altruistic or a means to guarantee membership - I wouldn't know but I don't trusts the messages.
If they all joined together and a new way of developing an agenda/startegy for the future was trialled, we all would try to help.
I am not the cause of the possible demise of BASC, they are.
People who disagree with the government are not 'government bashers' unless of course unless its in Russia.
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
Worse - this might leave some expeosed, thinking that they are insured, but finding they are not - I would not have known of the change, if I hadn't read it on SD. A membership communication would have been more professional. I get that it cost £1m - so make it an optional extra. Even more disappointing that I've paid the full whack for the year and have no recourse to a refund now that the product I thought I bought, is different. I want to support a shooting pressure group, so I subscribe to Fieldsports Channel. I feel short-changed and its a pity, because I've had good advice from time to time, from the BASC team. Still, you pays your money and takes your choice. Except they made it for me. So, I'll be looking around.
long_range_rob
Well-Known Member
Response from my gripe to BASC
“
Thank you for your message received on social media on 2nd July 2020, which has passed to me for investigation. I am sorry to hear you are unhappy about the withdrawal of the Legal Expenses Insurance as part of the membership from the 31st July 2020.
I understand your concerns and can confirm this decision was not taken lightly by the elected Council Members. I can see that you have been a member for over 20 years and we value your support and loyalty.
We have given members as much notice as possible and have followed guidance published by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Legal Expenses Insurance policy runs from 1stAugust 2019 to 31st July 2020.
The Legal Expenses Insurance was added to the membership package in 2014. It was brought in to provide members with legal assistance when appealing against unfair refusals & revocations of their firearms certificates. This initially worked well for those few members claiming. However, with police forces becoming risk adverse and legal cost escalating year on year, it meant that the total cost of the claims was significantly more that the premium paid to the underwriter. Unfortunately, this trend continued causing premiums to almost double each year. During 2019/20 the premium was almost £1m. This has put financial strain the Association and our ability to continue to offer the other more beneficial work to protect shooting, conservation, and services to our members, like yourself.
In addition over the past two year it has been extremely difficult for the Association to find an underwriter who was willing to take this risk and provide a policy for members without adding more and more restrictions and exclusions to the policy. This has resulted in less and less of our members claims being accepted by the insurance provider.
After only 5 years of offering this additional benefit, due to the insurance and legal market we find we are in a position, where the policy and its costs are not providing value or are in the best interests of our members. Therefore, it no longer viable to continue to provide such cover.
It may seem that we are just walking away. However, unlike other organisation of our kind, BASC is regulated and authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, which means we have a duty to make sure that the insurance products we offer, as part of membership package, provide a real benefit to our member and value for money.
The decision to remove the legal expense insurance cover does not affect the other insurance benefits that BASC has provided, as part of the membership package for many years. Over years these products have been constantly reviewed and where possible, we have worked with the underwriter to include additional cover to benefit out members. Examples include cover for gundog when they are working on affiliated shoots, humane despatch liability cover and product liability cover for members putting their recreation shooting game in the meat industry for processing.
In addition, your memberships fee also covers the cost of producing the bi-monthly magazine, providing support and advice services to all our member; and the cost of protecting shooting and conservation for the future.
The firearms team was increased a couple of years ago and they will continue to support and provide advice, assistance and guidance to members who are dealing with revocation and refusal issues, as well as being there to answer any firearms queries members have.
Please be assured that we continue to review the membership package and add new benefits and services for our member on a regular basis. Over the last few years some of these have included removing the admin fee for paying by direct debit, added new discounted products, developed new training courses and material; and as a result of our partnership with the game fair, the offer our members free entry to their annual game fair.
If, you would like to find out more about what BASC has been doing on behalf of our member and to protect shooting and conversation I would recommend you read our 2019 BASC annual review, which will shortly be published on our website.
Yours sincerely
Anya Walker”
so as I read it the underwriters were taking a sh*t load of money for cover and the rejected any claim attempts as too complex/expensive/likely to fail. That said, it makes more sense to me now.
The upshot of this is only the very rich can afford legal redress.
“
Thank you for your message received on social media on 2nd July 2020, which has passed to me for investigation. I am sorry to hear you are unhappy about the withdrawal of the Legal Expenses Insurance as part of the membership from the 31st July 2020.
I understand your concerns and can confirm this decision was not taken lightly by the elected Council Members. I can see that you have been a member for over 20 years and we value your support and loyalty.
We have given members as much notice as possible and have followed guidance published by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Legal Expenses Insurance policy runs from 1stAugust 2019 to 31st July 2020.
The Legal Expenses Insurance was added to the membership package in 2014. It was brought in to provide members with legal assistance when appealing against unfair refusals & revocations of their firearms certificates. This initially worked well for those few members claiming. However, with police forces becoming risk adverse and legal cost escalating year on year, it meant that the total cost of the claims was significantly more that the premium paid to the underwriter. Unfortunately, this trend continued causing premiums to almost double each year. During 2019/20 the premium was almost £1m. This has put financial strain the Association and our ability to continue to offer the other more beneficial work to protect shooting, conservation, and services to our members, like yourself.
In addition over the past two year it has been extremely difficult for the Association to find an underwriter who was willing to take this risk and provide a policy for members without adding more and more restrictions and exclusions to the policy. This has resulted in less and less of our members claims being accepted by the insurance provider.
After only 5 years of offering this additional benefit, due to the insurance and legal market we find we are in a position, where the policy and its costs are not providing value or are in the best interests of our members. Therefore, it no longer viable to continue to provide such cover.
It may seem that we are just walking away. However, unlike other organisation of our kind, BASC is regulated and authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, which means we have a duty to make sure that the insurance products we offer, as part of membership package, provide a real benefit to our member and value for money.
The decision to remove the legal expense insurance cover does not affect the other insurance benefits that BASC has provided, as part of the membership package for many years. Over years these products have been constantly reviewed and where possible, we have worked with the underwriter to include additional cover to benefit out members. Examples include cover for gundog when they are working on affiliated shoots, humane despatch liability cover and product liability cover for members putting their recreation shooting game in the meat industry for processing.
In addition, your memberships fee also covers the cost of producing the bi-monthly magazine, providing support and advice services to all our member; and the cost of protecting shooting and conservation for the future.
The firearms team was increased a couple of years ago and they will continue to support and provide advice, assistance and guidance to members who are dealing with revocation and refusal issues, as well as being there to answer any firearms queries members have.
Please be assured that we continue to review the membership package and add new benefits and services for our member on a regular basis. Over the last few years some of these have included removing the admin fee for paying by direct debit, added new discounted products, developed new training courses and material; and as a result of our partnership with the game fair, the offer our members free entry to their annual game fair.
If, you would like to find out more about what BASC has been doing on behalf of our member and to protect shooting and conversation I would recommend you read our 2019 BASC annual review, which will shortly be published on our website.
Yours sincerely
Anya Walker”
so as I read it the underwriters were taking a sh*t load of money for cover and the rejected any claim attempts as too complex/expensive/likely to fail. That said, it makes more sense to me now.
The upshot of this is only the very rich can afford legal redress.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
This is hugely good news for those members seeking a part refund. The FCA has rules on how a complaint is handled.
I have worked in an industry also governed by the FCA. If aggrieved you will need to make a complaint to BASC and ask for "redress" not only for any actual loss of what you though your contract was for but also for inconvenience. Ask BASC to make you a cash offer. If they refuse then ask that your complaint be escalated. For...this is key...regardless of whether your complaint is upheld internally by the company this...if a company that is governed by the FCA fails to resolve a complaint that you "accept the resolution" it must then allow you to refer it to the FCA. At which point the company (not you) has to pay the FCA a £500 fee for the FCA having to intervene. This is why so many companies in fact settle as it is cheaper for them to do so rather than pay that £500.
I used to be a huge believer in BASC. It is disappointing to now have turned against them. But then who is that the fault of?
Here are some links. The topmost may be a useful starting point. The other is in more general terms:
Report an unfair contract term
Financial businesses can't enforce unfair or unclear terms in their contracts with you. If you think that a contract term is unfair or unclear, please report it to us by completing the form below.
How to complain
If you're unhappy with a financial product or service, find out how to complain and when you should get in touch with the Financial Ombudsman Service. First published: 17/04/2016 Last updated: 20/05/2025 See all updates
What shows out for me is, the bi monthly mag “Is covered by membership”, so where is all the ad money going?
Similar threads
