Had a call the other day - unusual but from The Police

[CharlieT]

A farm business does have to have public liability insurance. It covers all sorts of eventualities, such as injury to people using public footpaths that run through the land, people using the land with permission, people using the land without permission (trespassers), delivery drivers entering the property, etc etc.
Maybe this is what was being referred to?

I beg to differ. Farms are not legally required to have PL insurance. Employers liability yes but not Public Liability.

 

[Tf223]

You cannot be conditioned to to have public liability insurance for discharging a firearm. Since it is an annual policy - do the Police also specify you must surrender your certificate if you fail to provide PL Insurance ?
Forgive me but that condition is not a legal requirement and you have willingly accepted it because you think its a good idea?

A condition for annual insurance can still be enforceable on a licence despite the licence lasting for 5 years. It is incumbent on the licensee to comply with any conditions.

 

[kes]

A condition for annual insurance can still be enforceable on a licence despite the licence lasting for 5 years. It is incumbent on the licensee to comply with any conditions.

I take your point on enforceability, however, I have never heard of and would not accept a condition of that type - since I cannot find any reference to it on the HO Guidelines . It would appear to be a 'rogue' condition, thought up by some (not many currently ) feo's. Equally having insurance for shooting is a good idea but when you are required to have it its a step too far and not anything to do with Chief Constables who would be stretching the Public Safety principle to destruction. A similar and unenforceable condition is for a DSC1/2, Wild boar shooting certficate WBSC 1 or whatever.

 

[muddy42]

Here we go: "The grassroots membership (of shooting organistaions) has been told to keep quiet in public because comment would merely fuel prejudice against guns in the wake of Dunblane. They are urged by BSSC secretary Patrick Johnson to maintain ``a dignified silence'' for the time being."

How did that work out?

The old adage is true. It is this: SILENCE GIVES CONSENT.

? But OP’s experience isnt a Dunblane crack down, just some overzealous FEO saying stuff that isn’t the law. Happens all the time. Smile and nod, be civil and get the renewal paperwork in.

 

[JTO]

You would think that the medical stuff that's forced on us is enough to cover plod's backside, should they cock up.

 

[Jon P]

? But OP’s experience isnt a Dunblane crack down, just some overzealous FEO saying stuff that isn’t the law. Happens all the time. Smile and nod, be civil and get the renewal paperwork in.

I had dealing with an FEO in the past who would say something on the phone then say completely the opposite on the next conversation, I requested all correspondence by email after that stating theses reasons. Life was a lot simpler after that.

 

[nic531]

the chances of the person you were speaking to being a 'warranted Police Officer' is actually very small. higher chance of being a retired one, now employed as a civilian ( or support staff or 'member of the extended police family' depending on how woke you are). mostly, FEO's are civilians with training in firearms legislation. not a lot of training, but some. hence they have no training in other parts of the law and we get issues like section 1 shotguns with magazines of more than 2 capacity being authorised for wildfowling - unlawful under different legislation (W&CA 81) we also get advised that it is law or guidance to do XY or Z.... when i moved to where i am now, there seemed to be lots of local policies that I had to challenge to get what i wanted/needed.

I regards to

I have experience of two insurance companies arguing over whose company will foot the bill after finding out the same cover was in place from two companies.

like BASC or not, that is the beauty of their insurance over some other policies which are cheaper - it is a first case policy, ie regardless of how many insurances you may have which may cover your claim or part of it, if you claim under it, it will pay out if you are found to be liable. (eg i may have cover from NRA, NRSA, BASC, House Insurance, an insurance cover still running as part of a group package when working - all have elements of public liability)

 

[Irish Bob]

I believe the only compulsory insurance in the uk is employers and motor vehicle (where applicable).

You may be contractually required to carry other types of insurance in certain situations but it is not mandatory.

Nearly all land owners will have third party liability insurance but I do not believe there is any legal requirement that they do.

I am under no requirement to check that someone shooting on my land has insurance, although it would be wise to require BASC or equivalent level of cover (I believe they are all similar).

I would ask plod to refer you to the relevant legislation where what they are contending is set out.

 

[Pedro]

Anyone who shoots should have appropriate insurance and anyone who lets anyone shoot on their land should both have insurance and ensure the shooter does too. It just makes sense. I certainly won't shoot anywhere without having insurance.

But as far as I know, there's no legal requirement for it. And there's no reason the police need to get involved with that. If they want to check your vehicle insurance when you are on the road, that's one thing. Whatever next, checking your house insurance in case your guns get nicked?

I can't understand why they would ask a landowner really. It's patently obvious that in the great majority of places, they've got more work than they can handle in a timely manner anyway.

 

[BenBhoy]

get some hooting insurance

I'd recommend these guys for that...

Owl Financial

www.owlfinancial.co.uk

I'll get my coat....!

 

[Greenmist]

I had dealing with an FEO in the past who would say something on the phone then say completely the opposite on the next conversation, I requested all correspondence by email after that stating theses reasons. Life was a lot simpler after that.

I always ask for everything in writing, people tend to get their facts right when they have to put their name to it

 

[NullMac]

Details of all people who live in the house MUST be given, despite it not being on the renewal forms yet (and without their consent) - watch this space . How this may affect my certificate after 40 years without any challenge is questionable but clearly a degree of 'stricture' is being observed.

To check there are no undesirables who could get access to your guns. I can't remember not being asked that. Easy to argue public safety on that one so it's not going away. If you are suggesting their consent should be sought then I would suspect your certs would not be renewed if consent was withheld. Personally I don't have an issue with that, seems consistent with the general aim of preventing firearms getting into the hands of crooks or nutters.

Finally some details of my firearms were incorrect in minor, almost irrelevant detail - the details were copied from the original certificates but the 'implication' was that I had submitted incorrect information.

Seems overly pedantic. Administrative cock ups happen. A good opportunity to correct them.

 

[NullMac]

A condition for annual insurance can still be enforceable on a licence despite the licence lasting for 5 years. It is incumbent on the licensee to comply with any conditions.

The point of HO Guidelines is to stop forces just making things up to suit themselves. My view is that the individual should be resisting anything that is not in HO Guidelines but stop whinging about things that are.

 

[timbrayford]

This is odd, my FAC implies an insurance requirement (adequate financial provision for accident etc.) for target shooting on ranges but makes no such requirement for using exactly the same rifles for deer & vermin shooting.

 

[Free range rob]

I have experience of two insurance companies arguing over whose company will foot the bill after finding out the same cover was in place from two companies.

I have also experienced this

 

[Greenmist]

To check there are no undesirables who could get access to your guns. I can't remember not being asked that. Easy to argue public safety on that one so it's not going away. If you are suggesting their consent should be sought then I would suspect your certs would not be renewed if consent was withheld. Personally I don't have an issue with that, seems consistent with the general aim of preventing firearms getting into the hands of crooks or nutters.

Seems a perfectly valid question to me as well, which I've always been asked, but usually at the home visit or phone call stage. I know of two people, one a keeper who had guns removed after a problematic family member moved back into the home where firearms were kept

 

[John Doe]

First thing I would do is ask for all that to be confirmed in writing please.

 

[ChesterP]

I can find nothing whatsoever within the FA Act nor HO guidance that says an applicant or cert holder MUST have PLI in place for a condition of grant. It may well be good practice but it doesn't appear to be law and until it becomes law, it's unenforceable. It's up to the landowner who he invites onto his land and if you're not shooting as a professional vermin controller or otherwise in the paid service of the land controller, how can you be acting as an agent (ie acting on behalf of the land owner)?

I'd at the very least be questioning this. That can be civil and non confrontational and is not a negative strike on reasonable behaviour, it's an honest question. I would not bow to the argument it's a local force condition of grant as that's not what the law currently says. If it becomes so, then fair enough. I don't think any of us would object to it but if this person was genuine then doesn't it seem like yet another example of a wedge being driven in as an excuse to withhold grant or renewal?

 

[David63]

Worth looking at the cover you have with your chosen shooting org, some will have a clause called 'Indemnity to Principal' this clause covers the landlord under your policy too for any claims that are made against them due to your negligence which causes a third party loss, injury etc.

 

[kieran222]

It has been a condition for years on my certificate to have public liability insurance.

One of the areas I shoot has a written lease agreement absolving owners of all liability.

Since Im a member of three organisations that offer PL insurance it isnt really an issue for me. Accidents happen-Id rather be insured.

I bet that would be an interesting and protracted three way bun fight if you needed to make a claim.