Similar situation elsewhere. The eastern region is still suffering from the toxic legacy of William Heal, the dolittleifanything approach for the members is still evident despite East Anglia being one of the biggest regions in the country. But so what, there are far more benefits of being a member than not and I am more than happy to support BASC nationally
Back to BASC
- Thread starter Shropshire Lad
- Start date
Similar situation elsewhere. The eastern region is still suffering from the toxic legacy of William Heal, the dolittleifanything approach for the members is still evident despite East Anglia being one of the biggest regions in the country. But so what, there are far more benefits of being a member than not and I am more than happy to support BASC nationally
6pointer
Well-Known Member
Yes there is Pedro between being on here all day or no contact whatsoever after many many deer stalkers on here voted for him and got him on the council. There is a middle ground and even some information as to how he was getting on with his fight for deer stalkers/managers over the last few years might not seem to unreasonable don't you think.
Morning Monkey Spanker
The reason why we don’t go for a limit at the moment is this – if we set a limit of £5k, what happens if the member sells a ‘heavier’ than normal carcass at the end of his season and went just over £5000..? We need to maintain flexibility.
We are not at the mercy of the underwriters, and they cannot refuse to pay out a valid claim, legislation prevents sharp practice, we are also very lucky that our underwriters have been working with us for decades and know the market well.
Nor are we miss selling insurance, it would be illegal for us to do so, and as we are registered with the FCA, doing anything illegal would damage us enormously.
I do take your point about income tax and it was a poor example by me I concede, beaters for example who get paid £20 a day are still liable to pay tax potentially, but this is not a business or commercial activity and BASC members are certainly covered for it.
Not does keeping proper records as required by law of game taken to a dealer make the practice commercial.
Yes I accept more guidance would be a great help and I will take it up again with our insurers.
Thank you
David
The reason why we don’t go for a limit at the moment is this – if we set a limit of £5k, what happens if the member sells a ‘heavier’ than normal carcass at the end of his season and went just over £5000..? We need to maintain flexibility.
We are not at the mercy of the underwriters, and they cannot refuse to pay out a valid claim, legislation prevents sharp practice, we are also very lucky that our underwriters have been working with us for decades and know the market well.
Nor are we miss selling insurance, it would be illegal for us to do so, and as we are registered with the FCA, doing anything illegal would damage us enormously.
I do take your point about income tax and it was a poor example by me I concede, beaters for example who get paid £20 a day are still liable to pay tax potentially, but this is not a business or commercial activity and BASC members are certainly covered for it.
Not does keeping proper records as required by law of game taken to a dealer make the practice commercial.
Yes I accept more guidance would be a great help and I will take it up again with our insurers.
Thank you
David
Lewis is the guy that assessed my DSC1 simulated stalk and the shooting test and is a proper nice lad. We had a good chat in between tests and he was happy to answer many questions we all had for him about all aspects of stalking.
Any time I've needed basic advice from BASC it's been given and I am happy being a member and the cost per annum!
Stratts
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
David,
I was told that you HAVE effectively set a limit in that you can't be earning ANY money which was why I left you. Are you now saying that I could, but you can't say how much?
I can't see how you can have any 'flexibility' with regard to insurance or the law. It must be laid down in black and white or your customer has now idea what he is actually covered for, or indeed whether or not their cover is void!
I have just paid out £169 for professional level cover. There is a clear gap in the market for some kind of 'stepped' insurance which can be adapted to suit the different levels of activity and income amongst stalkers. Maybe this is the direction you should take? I would gladly come back to you if you could specify a policy which covers my requirements. Your current one clearly doesn't - or does it?
I am no longer sure!MS
Anyone who trusts bankers and insurance companies can't have been living in the UK for the past 10 years. We have mortgage protection mis-selling, endowment,life assurance, pensions mis-selling. The whole shebang. Insurance companies will try every trick in the book to avoid paying out. I would not rely on a casual throwaway comment such as "one or two carcases" etc. If there was a limit say £5000 in gross revenue from selling carcases then that last of the season carcass would be sold at whatever price was necessary to keep below the limit. Moreover, it is the stalking and shooting activity which is the greater insured risk, so if a catastrophe happened during the shooting, necessitating a claim, the last thing on my mind would be selling the carcase.
I have a lot of time for David and the advice given on here but this particular reference to insurance cover is surely beyond his remit, and when you are in court suing the insurance company for a pay out, having been abandoned by the BASC, David's comment is not going to help in any way. My suggestion would be for the insurance company to write in black and white the financial limit placed on "recreational stalking". Otherwise buy proper cover elsewhere. You need certainty in what you are paying for.
Get a written statement from BASC on what the limit is otherwise assume you are not insured...
I have a lot of time for David and the advice given on here but this particular reference to insurance cover is surely beyond his remit, and when you are in court suing the insurance company for a pay out, having been abandoned by the BASC, David's comment is not going to help in any way. My suggestion would be for the insurance company to write in black and white the financial limit placed on "recreational stalking". Otherwise buy proper cover elsewhere. You need certainty in what you are paying for.
Get a written statement from BASC on what the limit is otherwise assume you are not insured...
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
My sentiments exactly!
It is only too easy to shift the responsibility to the insurance company, none of which I have ever encountered are reknowned for a willingness to pay out any money!
MS
Insurance companies cannot 'try every tick in the book' to stop a payment being made. Under UK law admission / denial of liability has to be made within a matter of days, its then a matter of quantum once liability is admitted.
My point about flexibility is this, it’s important to cover our members for their recreational stalking activity without imposing a limit in effect, as to how many deer they can shoot in a year based on the price of venison at the dealers.
As to giving further and more exact clarification, in writing, that’s exactly what I am working on.
David
My point about flexibility is this, it’s important to cover our members for their recreational stalking activity without imposing a limit in effect, as to how many deer they can shoot in a year based on the price of venison at the dealers.
As to giving further and more exact clarification, in writing, that’s exactly what I am working on.
David
They avoid payment by denying liability on the basis of some alleged defect in original disclosure.
As there are no disclosures required up front with the BASC cover you are implying that strict liability has been accepted a priori and it is just a matter of quantum for "recreational stalking".
So quantum will be based on averaging? Based on the price of venison? If the stalker is at £5263 at the time of claim, then quantum is £5000/5263 i.e. 95% of the loss/damages etc?
Why does the BASC restrict to "recreational stalking" without having a cast iron definition of what this is?
As there are no disclosures required up front with the BASC cover you are implying that strict liability has been accepted a priori and it is just a matter of quantum for "recreational stalking".
So quantum will be based on averaging? Based on the price of venison? If the stalker is at £5263 at the time of claim, then quantum is £5000/5263 i.e. 95% of the loss/damages etc?
Why does the BASC restrict to "recreational stalking" without having a cast iron definition of what this is?
Yes true enough, if when taking out a policy you fail to disclose a material fact, or if you give a false declaration on the values of something you are insuring that will invalidate in part or total the cover I agree.
In the past almost 18 years that I have been looking after the policy, I have seen just over 1000 claims and I can think of only a few where the claim has been contested.
One was an injury claim from a third party where there was clear evidence that the injury had been caused in a skiing accident not on the shoot as they had claimed.
One was where someone claimed their shotgun was damaged by a member, but it was blatantly obvious that it had not been.
The only other one was when a non-member had done something wrong and caused an injury to a third party and a BASC member (the father) attempted to try and take the blame.
It’s not possible for liability to be accepted without question that just does not happen otherwise the policy would be open to spurious claims of course.
I did not say nor did I try to imply that quantum would be averaged on venison process – sorry if I was not clear. Quantum in the context of a claim is how much the claim will cost once liability is accepted.
It is my intention to define recreational in the context of the policy wording so we can be clear, and it will not depend on how much you may have sold your venison for.
Its my view that is you are stalking spare time for leisure / enjoyment than that’s recreational regardless of what you do with the venison and that the point I am taking up with the underwriters and their lawyers, but thoughts from others welcome…
However, if you are being paid to control deer or acting as a professional stalker and offering your services as such , or taking out paying clients stalking, then this is certainly commercial and would not be covered
David
In the past almost 18 years that I have been looking after the policy, I have seen just over 1000 claims and I can think of only a few where the claim has been contested.
One was an injury claim from a third party where there was clear evidence that the injury had been caused in a skiing accident not on the shoot as they had claimed.
One was where someone claimed their shotgun was damaged by a member, but it was blatantly obvious that it had not been.
The only other one was when a non-member had done something wrong and caused an injury to a third party and a BASC member (the father) attempted to try and take the blame.
It’s not possible for liability to be accepted without question that just does not happen otherwise the policy would be open to spurious claims of course.
I did not say nor did I try to imply that quantum would be averaged on venison process – sorry if I was not clear. Quantum in the context of a claim is how much the claim will cost once liability is accepted.
It is my intention to define recreational in the context of the policy wording so we can be clear, and it will not depend on how much you may have sold your venison for.
Its my view that is you are stalking spare time for leisure / enjoyment than that’s recreational regardless of what you do with the venison and that the point I am taking up with the underwriters and their lawyers, but thoughts from others welcome…
However, if you are being paid to control deer or acting as a professional stalker and offering your services as such , or taking out paying clients stalking, then this is certainly commercial and would not be covered
David
The tramp
Well-Known Member
Hhhmmm, sure about the 'food business' part MS ?
Im not registered as one, but I can sell to a game dealer, that's what the 'trained hunter number' (dsc no) comes in.
Iirc, once you supply over 300 carcasses per annum you need to be registered.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
This thread was going really well, people praising basc for once, till (as usual) somebody had to throw a spanner in the worx (no pun intended)
the tramp
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you are breaking the law mate. See the govenment wild game guide, table on page 4 here:
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/wildgameguide0611.pdf
You still need the large game handling certificate as well to be able to sign the trained hunter declaration.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings!
As for BASC, I have always been a supporter and still am. I am currently discussing with David what my insurance requirements are and he is looking into ways of clarifying and improving on the service that BASC offer for stalkers. I suspect that much good will come of this thread.
MS
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
It does now, but it didn't always!
But........You still need to be a registered food business to legally sell game to a game dealer even if you have a large game handling certificate. It is not open to interpretation!
MS
The tramp
Well-Known Member
So, I'm expected to register with the local authority for the one or two a year I sell ? Sod that, I'll just eat more venison then
MS
Are you confusing Point 1 on the Flow Chart with Point 3?
If your primary purpose is recreational with occasional sales to game dealers no problem. (The numbers are open to interpretation but if you keep a lot more than you sell.......). If as a recreational stalker you average 10 deer a month, keep six and sell four, then that four deer sold to a game dealer are occasional.
If your primary purpose is to sell to game dealers then of course you are required to register.
Now, it would appear that you are the only person on here who will not sell to a Game Dealer with only the permission of a DSC1.
Stan
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
No mate, I'm not confusing anything and have fairly extensive knowledge on this matter which you would do well to listen to. You can sell game in fur or feather to the final consumer (ie family and friends) or a local retailer who then sells direct to a final consumer without being registered as a food business. The numbers were originally set at 'small quantities' which was originally set at less than 300 carcasses for deer!
This limit has now been given a fairly grey area quantity as 'self defining'?An AGHE (game dealer) is not a final consumer and does not sell direct to a final consumer. You cannot therefore legally sell a single deer to a AGHE unless you are a registered food business! I'm sure it happens all the time, but it is not the AGHE that is breaking the law as long as the carcass has a signed declaration and the seller has a Large game certificate. It is YOU, the supplier that is breaking the law if you are not registered as a food business! I also very much doubt that I am the only person on here selling deer to a game dealer within the law!
MS
Similar threads
