UKC

following on from the Blue Scar and Chudleigh access changes/updates:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=467804
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=63156

Why are they [landowners] increasingly insistent on people being BMC members?
Surely they can't believe my BMC Civil Liability insurance extends to cover them too?
Although I can see that it makes sense to have BMC membership (I am a full member i'll have you know), surely the BMC itself should fight for access on behalf of ALL Climbers and not just those who pay the bills and request that it shouldn't be a pre-requisite to use the LL crag?
Unleeesss, of course, it's a sneaky way to increase membership (though this cynical assumption would only increase membership by a small amount if at all)?

Would it not make sense for the BMC to introduce some kind of non-compulsory Civil liability insurance for the landowners should they be worrying too much about litigation?

Penny for your thoughts...

Thanks

Anthony

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

In reality, your insurance will protect them. Lawyers (and for that matter the law) will chase the money, so even if it's not your fault, you'll get sued as you're the one with the means to compensate someone.

In reply to Ander:

you can't get sued if there is no fault on my behalf. someone might attempt to but without fault or negligence surely any claim will fail.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

and if it comes down to a choice between no access for anyone, and access just for those with insurance, would you rather see everyone denied?

In reply to Toreador:

Not at all but I feel the LL are putting too much emphasis on insurance and I think the BMC are just bowing to their request that people be members rather than fighting more for the greater climbing population.

Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate the BMC's hands-on approach to maintaining access to some of the more sensitive areas but, if left undefended, it might come to a point where all the crags where there is a third party owner, BMC membership is compulsory

In reply to higherclimbingwales: I can completely understand the landowners beeing twitchy, and can only comment that despite their worries, they are allowing access for a relatively dangerous sport.......... so many thanks to them.

In reply to higherclimbingwales: Is there a reason that if I choose to take part in a dangerous sport on someone's land and get killed as a result of it there should even be a possibility of the landowner being liable? As in, is there a vaguely similar situation where it would be reasonable for someone to sue the landowner?

Arguably one thing that the BMC could be working at (maybe they are and I don't know...) is campaigning to get the legal situation cleared up so that provided the landowner hasn't been personally greasing the holds they don't have to worry about it...

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

On what evidence do you base that assumption?

The BMC's access efforts and negotiations, many by volunteers, benefit all climbers and hill walkers, whether they are members or not.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


This is the point i'm getting at exactly.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

As I understand it, it's 3rd party insurance they are insisting on. If you injure someone by dropping things/yourself on their head, then they may want to sue someone. If you're not insured then it's probably not worth pursuing you, so they may sue the landowner instead for permitting you to be there and place the victim at risk.

I don't believe it's ever happened, and doubt there's much chance it would, but I can understand their being concerned.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

assumptions don't require evidence hence the name!

i'm not denying that the BMC work for all those who partake in the activities they support, what I am saying is that I don't think the Landowners fully understand the legal situation fully, like most people in these instances and it should be clarified rather than just saying 'ok, we'll request people have our membership to climb on your land'

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Are you a BMC member?

In reply to Offwidth: yes, why?

In reply to Offwidth:

This part of the OP goes some way to answering this :- " (I am a full member i'll have you know),"

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
from the BMC website:
The BMC provides compulsory Civil Liability protection for Clubs and Individual members and Personal Accident disability cover for Individual members (but does NOT extend to those resident outside the UK).

So these crags are out of bounds for non-UK residents it seems. I can understand that the BMC has tried to solve the problem, but I do not think they have sloved it in the correct way. What would UK clombers think if it was a crag in Europe they couldn't climb on as they were non-residents?

BMC, I suggest you keep working at this to get a better solution. This one doesn't fit with what I think the BMC stands for.

In reply to higherclimbingwales: I think in general the access arrangements are a better option than no access.

Hopefully after a short time of careful climbing the BMC can approach the landowners again to review the situation and get the insurance requirement removed.

We have to be thankfull for small mercies when it comes to access.

In reply to Kipper: Oop's, missed that!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Because I misread your post and thought you didn't say. If you're a member it helps the argument. If not it detracts.

I'd expect from seeing this with other sports that it's partly because of the risk of a 3rd party being injured by a climber and the landowner being partially blamed as they've given permission for the climbers to be there (without precautions that may be claimed 'necessary' by a lawyer) and also the same sort of thing if a climber kills themselves and the family in their grief and anger attempt to sue the landowner for poor maintenance of the area. Sounds silly, sounds illogical, but claims have got through and cost a fortune plenty of times in the past.
(skydiving has had these problems, even if you've signed the forms, had the training, got the insurance, the DZs have been sued despite no fault by angry family)

Also why are people complaining about the BMC here? If the BMC have a choice between no access, and a compromise that allows some, isnt' the latter better? How do you know they didn't ask for full access but were denied and so worked at the compromise? Seriously - think for a moment or at least go and ask the BMC for full details rather than complaining about them and suggesting they're just after more membership fees.

In reply to Scarab9:

Examples please?



Who is complaining about the BMC? I have said the bmc do a very good job at keeping the peace in regards to access, there are plenty of examples. My thoughts on this is that the Landowner is being overly paranoid about litigation when there are no examples of sucessful claims that I have seen but if you can provide those examples i'd be grateful

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Agree!

I guess I was wondering whether the BMC could help matters by offering the landowners in cases like this some sort of 'free liability insurance' or having a fund (which they don't actually anticipate having to use) to help pay legal costs if a landowner does get on the wrong end of a stupid lawsuit. Not really a criticism, just a thought (or a 'please explain why this is a bad idea').

In reply to Ramblin dave: C+P from the other thread, but it needs restating. This is a phantom risk -

It isn't the landowners the BMC should be talking to, it's the scaremongering by the big public liability insurers that needs facing up to head on

In reply to toad:
If it's a phantom risk then it shouldn't be too expensive to give them legal backing, then!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

You can get sued regardless and the court will ultimately decide whether there is fault. It is however rare for cases to get that far and in most cases insurance company loss adjusters will agree fault between them as it is cheaper than going to court. Therefore it is landowners interest that you have insurance anyway, since it avoids their potentially being drawn into costly litigation. Quite apart from which, as others have said, can you really guarantee you aren't going to fall off and land on a dog-walker? Drop a piece of gear onto a rambler's head? Gravity will sometimes have its way.

In reply to toad:

Good luck with that. Biggest beneficiaries of no-fee-no-win are lawyers. Most common profession for MPs = lawyers.

In reply to ex lion tamer: The law is about to change very substatially in the next few months in respect of no win no fee and who can offer such services. Biggest beneficiaries = Tesco (et al)

In reply to toad: Hope you are right. Ambulance-chasing lawyers renting office space in hospital A&E departments is a sickening development IMO.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
You should try climbing in belgium. If you go to Freyer then you have to be a member of a Belgium club or something similar with recipricol rights/insurance.

To behonest I am surprised it's not more prevelant in the UK.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Copied from another thread on this subject;

Since starting climbing and mountaineering 30 years ago, I have always been a keen supporter of the BMC because it represent climbers, mountaineers, hillwalkers interests etc. etc.

However, I totally disagree with this move by the BMC to support the interests of land owners. It seems that this move is supported by those who are more interested in access to Blue Scar than the wider implications of such policies.

And yes, I have climbed extensively at Blue Scar (and Yew Cogar) in the past and always adhered to any fair and reasonable restrictions that protect the land owners interests, wildlife, other road users etc.

Regards,

Rich.

In reply to ex lion tamer: which firm is doing that, and which NHS trust?

In reply to neilh:

it's certainly heading that way with landowners requesting it more and more

In reply to Richard White:

Do you really think that this is the result of the BMC actively setting out to support landowners interests over those of climbers (whether members of the BMC or not)?

Or is it actually the result of the BMC seeking to preserve access, even if it does come with restrictions which are unlikely to be enforced in practice - I can't imagine Mr Landowner is going to stand there all day every day checking BMC membership cards....

In reply to ex lion tamer:

evidence please!

In reply to Owen Meany:

I don't believe the BMC is supporting the Landowner over the people they're representing.

>... I can't imagine Mr Landowner is going to stand there all day every day checking BMC membership cards....

It's irrelevant if they are willing to check people or not, it could potentially put people off starting out because their local crag has stringent access protocols compared to other areas. in the case of Blue Scar, you have to write ahead with proof of membership which I think is excessive although it's much better than Hoghton, for example!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

The best way for the landowner to reduce their liability and accomodate access would be for them to dedicate the land as open access under the CROW act

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/crow/dedicate.htm

In reply to Bulls Crack: surely that would decrease the value of their land? I can;t imagine any landowner in their right mind would want to decrease the value of their estate unless the land is worthless anyway, in which case it would make sense to dedicate it under CRoW

In reply to Bulls Crack:


For those who don't want to read the entire document here is the most pertinent point:

In addition, broadly speaking, dedicating your land limits your duty of care to members of the public under occupiers’ liability legislation to the level normally owed to trespassers.

In reply to Owen Meany:

No, I don't think the BMC are trying to represent landowners overs climbers etc. They are, however, dealing with this situation in completely the wrong way.

This is not the way to go about dealing with this. If we are not careful, the BMC will be inadvertently representing landowners in the short term goal of acccess today, this weekend over the longer term situation.

Rich.

In reply to Richard White:


Just suppose a landowner says to the BMC that he is willing to allow access but only to people having third-party liability insurance. What do you propose the BMC do, specifically what should they put on RAD about access to that crag?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


exactly what the land owner has specified but they should give them the relevant information on what the insurance covers and ,more importantly, what it doesn't. they should also give them the information regarding CRoW and dedicating their land as such.

In reply to Richard White: It's a very interesting situation. As the BMC are representing their members interests, there isn't really an incentive to go beyond negotiating an arrangement that allows members access to a crag, and towards addressing the wider issue of liability and landowners perception of risk which is going to leech staff time and not yield any immediate benefits.

A membership organisation negotiates access for its members. On the face of it, job done, just like the Caravan Club does. But it does move membership of the BMC beyond being a good thing to support towards, well, something else.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The BMC should make those requirements available to all via their website RAD.

However, they should also make it clear that they do not support such a situation and will work with the relevant organisations to remove the need for any such restrictions. That could be working with legal and land experts to clarify the situation regarding liability.

The BMC should not accept this situation so willingly which it appears, to me anyway, that they have.

Regards,

Rich.

In reply to Richard White:


It seems to me that the BMC are actually doing what you want them to, namely passing on the information about the landowners' requirements. I'm sure that those doing the negotiating are indeed pushing for the minimum restrictions they can, and are trying to get the best deal they can for all climbers (do you have indications otherwise?). It doesn't seem to me that they are overly willing to "accept" such restrictions.

Note also that public and vocal criticism of landowners (or their requests) by those doing the negotiating or by BMC officials would likely be counterproductive. These things are usually best done by establishing amicable interaction between those involved.

In reply to Owen Meany:
The landowners in belgium do not enforce it, the local clubs do, by asking when you climb for evidence- membership card.It's a simple system.

IfI am correct on this, access is withdrawn if climbers do not enforce it. So its self interest that makes sure everybody sticks by the requirement.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Do you really believe that the BMC haven't mentioned any of these things during their lengthy negotiations?