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

[308tikka]

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

Up to them to sort out. Ive done my bit.

 

[kes]

I would rather someone did something about these creeping rule changes than try to sell membership and associated insurance

 

[David63]

Insurers are well versed in sorting things out when there at two or more policies in play, but much depends on who you are with, some will take the lead and deal with the claim and then sort out the contributions from the others while managing the claim, others may ask you to go an sort out which policy will pay up....

 

[kes]

Hello David - good to see you back but what are BASC doing about 'rogue' conditions which require insurance to shoot - we arent there yet and I would expect BASC would intervene for its memberships sake ?

 

[David63]

To be honest this is the first I have head of this,

 

[kes]

To be honest this is the first I have head of this,

Well, also in fairness, it did not appear on my renewed cert but in conversation prior to that. we will have to see if the suggestion is renewed at inspection time but anyway, if its not on your cert its not a 'condition of use'.
Hope all is well with you.

 

[David63]

Thanks Kes
Yes all well with me thanks and I hope the same with you too.

 

[Bowland blades]

Can anyone tell me whether it is in HO guidance that landowners MUST have more than £2 million personal liability insurance if they allow someone to shoot on their land, as the shooter is acting as their 'agent' ?
I had always believed that if anyone shoots on your land, however large, with permission and as a holder of an open cert, they could use what calibre they chose with your input - the implication of my phone call was that this is not so and is confined to the approved police calibre for the land, obviously this is not so either.
This MAY be a pre-cursor to changes to the status of 'open' certs. Equally, when did the Police start to insist as a legal requirement that anyone on a restricted cert must have £10m TP Liability insurance ?
Security of storage MUST be updated at each renewal and anyway after 5 years, to check if changes have been made which may not be considered safe, room changes etc - no personal problem with this but again - this MUST happen.
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.
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.
Interestingly, the theoretical officer did not give his number at the start of the questioning merely that he was dealing with an application - not good practice on phone interviews.


I wonder is any orgs are picking up this kind of detail from their members - perhaps they know because the Police also stressed the absolute need (not yet a formal requirement ?) for a shooter to have third party insurance up to £10M - what is e.g. BASC's limit of liability - £10m. I dont know of any 'best practice' guidance that specifies this exact amount - does anyone?

you cannot insure someone against liability who is not an employee i think ? actual contractors can be added but if your not being paid you are not a contactor . It is then your responibilty , firearms are not the police do not have such an authority i think in any way . You need to contact your shooting org and the commisioner of police in your area ! Being fair i suspect the owners are perhaps incorrect of telling porkies. I wouldn't knowingly let someone shoot who held no membership of an org that they held insurance through but i would tell them staight

 

[David63]

I think a key issue is the fact the landowner, as an occupier of the land,(Occupiers liability Acts 1957 and 1984) could get caught in a claim if someone who they allowed onto their land to take part in an activity caused a third party loss, and if that person had no insurance then the claim could well land back on the landowner.

 

[kes]

It would be helpful to know if what David suggests is a potential legal interpretation - it could precipitate a re-examination by many of their insurance cover.

 

[David63]

Its why we ensure we have the 'Indemnity to Principal' clause on our policy, so the landowner is protected to, quite a few landowners are looking for that these days, and yes we have dealt with several claims where both the shooter and the landowner, and indeed in one case, the agent letting the sporting rights were all caught up in the claim, but its certainly not a matter for the police, third party liability claims are Civil Law of course.

 

[nic531]

Was it by phone, or a message in a bottle?