BASC to remove "Legal Expenses Cover" wef 31 July 2020
- Thread starter enfieldspares
- Start date
Was that not already?
As one of the 75 per year who have used the legal policy (went to full hearing with successful outcome), removing the policy will be one of the biggest mistakes BASC will have made. We all know there is no consistency regarding firearms licensing between constabularies, plus there have been a myriad of actions and policies applied by the Police, which are outside the remit of the Firearms Act and subsequent associated legislations.
By removing this policy BASC, are throwing away the biggest tool in the box. The threat of a cases being defended in court at no cost to the appellant made the police think twice about some of their actions. They know that as soon as an appeal is laid in court, its going to cost the police a lot of money to try and defend a bad decision.
Take my own experience, I applied for a variation, had good reason for the firearm and it is legal for me to possess for the reasons quote (ticked all the legal boxes), but the officer in charge did not want me to have what I had applied for and flatly refused to entertain the idea. When I said I would appeal I was told "oh yeah, it will cost you thousands"
The outcome was 16 months of legal work, a day in court and a bill of £40k for the Police (would have been more if we had claimed our costs back from them, which the judge offered).
How on earth can anyone throw away the biggest weapon in their defence?. The threat of court action made police stick to the law, now they can basically do as they want as there is no threat of accountability.
It doesn't matter how many members used the policy, a single victory was a victory for everyone who shoots. The threat of action did help keep some forces "in check" and stopped them pressing on with more un legislated restrictions.
I deal with FEO's and licensing departments from all over the UK, the one consistent was they paid attention, when legal insurance was mentioned. Now, there is no recourse to take. If I was a Licensing manager who was being pushed by BASC, I'd simply tell them to go away, or ignore them because. other than Talk, WHAT CAN THEY DO?????????????????????????????????? completely toothless.
As many have mentioned, the only reason I have remained a trade member was for the legal cover, now is there any reason to remain a member? Combining this with the lead debacle and med records farce it appears to me, that BASC is being primed to fail and accelerate the demise of shooting in the UK
Collusion?
I could be wrong but BASC only introduced legal expenses a few years ago? And you are all now leaving it in droves because they are now withdrawing a provision which many members did not have for a long time anyway? Maybe after a few years they decided that the legal expenses cover was just not value for money? I believe SD members were joining SACS a few years ago because their main selling point was they provided LEI whereas BASC did’nt. then SACS quielty dropped LEI, now BASC are doing the same. Did you all leave SACS when they ditched LEI. this post could be complete bollox if my memory serves me wrong, but I just cannot be bothered to trawl back through SD and use google etc. Anyway I,m sticking with BASC.
Any particular reason they didn't claim costs?
Have I got this right?.....So Basc members are currently paying for this area of insurance which apparently is very rarely used by most members. Basc think it is unfair for the majority of members to be paying for something that is very rarely used, So now, Basc in its wisdom, has decided to cancel this part of our Basc insurance, but NOT decrease the subscription charge accordingly???....so in effect,
we will all still be paying for it anyway!
BASC, you have openly admitted to just pocketing this part of our subscription money! You are charging exactly the same amount for subscriptions and offering absolutely NOTHING to compensate for this reduced level of insurance cover, you are offering LESS for the same amount of money, did you think your members would actually be pleased with this???
What a fantastic business model you now seem to have, charge the same and offer less!.... do you actually think the members are stupid?..... how on earth will this benefit any of your members??? ..... which IDIOT came up with this idea?
we will all still be paying for it anyway!
BASC, you have openly admitted to just pocketing this part of our subscription money! You are charging exactly the same amount for subscriptions and offering absolutely NOTHING to compensate for this reduced level of insurance cover, you are offering LESS for the same amount of money, did you think your members would actually be pleased with this???
What a fantastic business model you now seem to have, charge the same and offer less!.... do you actually think the members are stupid?..... how on earth will this benefit any of your members??? ..... which IDIOT came up with this idea?
Last edited:
Less is more 
Jono 4
Well-Known Member
The easiest way to resolve the fact that the members have bought a policy for the year when they renewed and are loosing this benefit after subscription is for BASC to purchase a run off legal expenses plan so at renewal members lose the policy, then its up to them to decide if they renew, the underwriters see a reducing risk so cover can at least be provided for those who bought it etc.
I‘ve had issues with the way the BASC insurance policy is dealt with for years and challenged them on it and asked David Ilsley some questions he did not like about commissions and close relationships to the broker, at the time they had always been with the same broker and never shopped around as an example, not sure if that has changed since then, but I was politely told it was nothing to do with me and mind my own business.
I‘ve had issues with the way the BASC insurance policy is dealt with for years and challenged them on it and asked David Ilsley some questions he did not like about commissions and close relationships to the broker, at the time they had always been with the same broker and never shopped around as an example, not sure if that has changed since then, but I was politely told it was nothing to do with me and mind my own business.
Swedish
Well-Known Member
SACS insurance includes full legal costs for accepted relevant activity claims, or am I missing something?
Probably because BASC wanted to keep as they perceived it good relationships with the police, however by not accepting the cost award they are in effect robbing the membership of cash and exacerbating the insurance affordability issue. In how many other cases have BASC done the same.
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
It’s the cost of the Insurance premium now exceeding GBP 1 million a year. That means £1,000,000 being paid out of Basc’s bank account on one day, every year just for Legal Expenses cover not for Legal Liability cover and and other coverage. The force is the shift in world economics based upon risk.
Other “suppliers” of such risk insurance (including House, Car and Travel) have declined Legal cover on renewals.
I would assume that SGA et al. will follow soon When their premium payment goes up.
Other “suppliers” of such risk insurance (including House, Car and Travel) have declined Legal cover on renewals.
I would assume that SGA et al. will follow soon When their premium payment goes up.
Last edited:
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
Combined with the reluctance to challenge and lack of robust action, I find this decision incredible. As a member of many years standing, I take no pleasure in feeling vindicated that I have not renewed my membership. Sad situation, possibly disastrous.
I have never heard of an insurance company not accepting a cost award they always claim any cost award.
I don't think it's just the fact that the cover is being removed, but that they say it's in the interest of the members, whilst stating there will be no refund of the estimated £13.50 per person premium, no mention that the cost will be reduced for new members, when at the same time, BASC will be benefiting by some £2,000,000.00 in the future, with zero being offered to the members !
I don't care one jot about the £13.50, or proportion of, but I do care that I feel like I'm being taken for a (xxxx) insert bad word !
This is arrogance in the extreme, expecting all the members to just accept it, and if they get away with it, it's our own fault !
I only renewed in May, and I have never looked at an alternative, but if BASC don't make some offer to it's current members, I think it's going to cost them a lot more than they bargained for !
It's a bloody disgrace !
I don't care one jot about the £13.50, or proportion of, but I do care that I feel like I'm being taken for a (xxxx) insert bad word !
This is arrogance in the extreme, expecting all the members to just accept it, and if they get away with it, it's our own fault !
I only renewed in May, and I have never looked at an alternative, but if BASC don't make some offer to it's current members, I think it's going to cost them a lot more than they bargained for !
It's a bloody disgrace !
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
It’s not bascs account is it? It’s ours!!!!!!
3 generations of members in my family now leaving Basc !
Not at all, just seemed wasteful. BSS' story has convinced me otherwise.
Similar threads
