shooting insurance

[webber 2]

Ask winchester what he thinks about the legal cover provided by SACS.

 

webber

[sauer 2]

sounds like a story we may learn from there?????????

 

can you comment winchester????

 

 

 

sauer

[cyclonebri1 8]

sounds like a story we may learn from there?????????

 

can you comment winchester????

 

 

 

sauer

 

 

Problems winchester? The nice people on the phone seemed just that, the mag gives the right blurb, what went wrong for you?

[markbivvy 6]

of course if you have an accident and want to make a claim it will be made on your house or life insurance and not on your shooting organisations.

providing you have house and life insurance.

 

 

Please explain?????????????????

 

easy .

if you have house or life insurance and you have a accident while shooting your shooting organisation will tell you to claim from that.

as you cant have to claims for the same thing.

 

 

Ask winchester what he thinks about the legal cover provided by SACS.

 

webber

 

 

he may tell you he got no help from basc when he first needed it although he had been a member for 5 years.

then he tried sacs who told him to claim of his car insurance.

i think thats correct.

but we will see.

[lone wolf 0]

i too am with sacs,although ive only just joined from the countryside alliance.

[webber 2]

winchester may not bother to reply. He's doing his best to move on, and enjoy another passion. His fight however to clear his name goes on.

 

From the experience encountered by winchester, I would advise SACS members to place little faith in the legal protection cover tendered as part of their package.

 

Much mileage was made by what were then passionate SACS members with the regards to the legal support winchester was receiving via the SACS policy. The claims were made on THL and PW, possibly on other forums, which I dont frequent.

 

The bottom line was that winchester lost his appeal, the insurance appointed barrister had only 2 years experience, non of which was firearms related.

 

winchester does state that in the final analysis it was his car insurance which paid for the representation, and so in that respect markbivvy makes a valid point. It was however way of beam, as to what winchester had been led to believe he would receive from SACS.

 

In recent weeks SACS does appear to have been in a state of turmoil and flux. It has been reported that its chief executive has been failing to answer questions and emails from valid SACS members, a visit to foxguntoms forum may put more meat on some of the bones.

 

I'm with BASC, not the cheapest, but in my opinion the best by far.

 

webber

[markbivvy 6]

winchester may not bother to reply. He's doing his best to move on, and enjoy another passion. His fight however to clear his name goes on.

 

From the experience encountered by winchester, I would advise SACS members to place little faith in the legal protection cover tendered as part of their package.

 

Much mileage was made by what were then passionate SACS members with the regards to the legal support winchester was receiving via the SACS policy. The claims were made on THL and PW, possibly on other forums, which I dont frequent.

 

The bottom line was that winchester lost his appeal, the insurance appointed barrister had only 2 years experience, non of which was firearms related.

 

winchester does state that in the final analysis it was his car insurance which paid for the representation, and so in that respect markbivvy makes a valid point. It was however way of beam, as to what winchester had been led to believe he would receive from SACS.

 

In recent weeks SACS does appear to have been in a state of turmoil and flux. It has been reported that its chief executive has been failing to answer questions and emails from valid SACS members, a visit to foxguntoms forum may put more meat on some of the bones.

 

I'm with BASC, not the cheapest, but in my opinion the best by far.

 

webber

good post webber.

but you have left out the bit about him being a basc member for 5 years and getting no help at the time from them.

if they are to help him now it is because of the threads on pw that made basc feel a little left out and thought they may get a bit of mileage out of any rescue attempt.

its a fact now that basc are thinking of changing there insurance policies and are hoping to charge members a bit more for the privilege.

[webber 2]

winchester may not bother to reply. He's doing his best to move on, and enjoy another passion. His fight however to clear his name goes on.

 

From the experience encountered by winchester, I would advise SACS members to place little faith in the legal protection cover tendered as part of their package.

 

Much mileage was made by what were then passionate SACS members with the regards to the legal support winchester was receiving via the SACS policy. The claims were made on THL and PW, possibly on other forums, which I dont frequent.

 

The bottom line was that winchester lost his appeal, the insurance appointed barrister had only 2 years experience, non of which was firearms related.

 

winchester does state that in the final analysis it was his car insurance which paid for the representation, and so in that respect markbivvy makes a valid point. It was however way of beam, as to what winchester had been led to believe he would receive from SACS.

 

In recent weeks SACS does appear to have been in a state of turmoil and flux. It has been reported that its chief executive has been failing to answer questions and emails from valid SACS members, a visit to foxguntoms forum may put more meat on some of the bones.

 

I'm with BASC, not the cheapest, but in my opinion the best by far.

 

webber

good post webber.

but you have left out the bit about him being a basc member for 5 years and getting no help at the time from them.

if they are to help him now it is because of the threads on pw that made basc feel a little left out and thought they may get a bit of mileage out of any rescue attempt.

its a fact now that basc are thinking of changing there insurance policies and are hoping to charge members a bit more for the privilege.

 

 

Mark

 

I cant comment on how long winchester had been a BASC member, as I dont know. However the length of membership term is irrelevant. I do know that he had paid a 5 year membership.

 

winchester was looking for an instant response from BASC, whom needed to refer the matter to a committee. Understandably to some degree winchester sought advise from SACS whom held out a helping hand subject to his joining up.

 

I am aware that BASC are looking into their procedures with relation to such matters in the future, but cant comment as to any possible policy or fee changes. I don't work work BASC, I'm just a satisfied member who does his best to promote the organisation which I consider does its best to protect and promote the shooting and way of life that I passionately enjoy.

 

Happy New Year to all THL members

 

webber

[The Sporting Agent 0]

As others have said, there are lots of choices; BASC, SACS, NGO, CA etc etc

 

For me it is BASC all the way. The policy is clearer, there is more back-up, the guys in their specialist depts are very very helpfull, especially on the firearms front, and as has been said they have more teeth and clout than the others when it comes to arguing your corner.

 

There have been cases of then not helping in some cases. But its worth noting they are a Members organisation, they help their members, not those who are not members. In legal cases, they will offer advice, the best advice, but (I believe) will only help funding cases in extreme situations, as one would expect.

 

They have their faults, but the overall package represents good value in my opinion.

[cyclonebri1 8]

Hmmm, all a bit worrying then when I suspect the major reason for most people taking out membership of any of these organisations is for the insurance protection. The advice received "claim of your house/life insurance "escapes me in context of most of the things that can go wrong in shooting but I don't wish to pry into that one.

 

Happy New Year

[speedystu 0]

Thanks all for your replys, I have decided to go for SGCA so lets hope i never need it!! Again thanks every one and a good new year to you all......

[webber 2]

Thanks all for your replys, I have decided to go for SGCA so lets hope i never need it!! Again thanks every one and a good new year to you all......

 

Hi

 

I noticed that you had chosen to go with SGCA, and wondered why you had chosen an association based in Scotland?

They will do nothing to protect and support shooting in England, which NGO for example will.

I also would be interested to learn if you had any specific reasons, other than cost, for not going with BASC?

 

Regards

webber

[speedystu 0]

Went with the SGCA as i read alot of comments about basc and how they never helped when needed and if you go on to the SGCA it is for the uk and not just scotland.

[Geoff.C 0]

I am a CPSA clubman member. They cover me for any kind of shooting. Two years subs is about £50 or so. Check the website for details. Works for me.

[webber 2]

I am a CPSA clubman member. They cover me for any kind of shooting. Two years subs is about £50 or so. Check the website for details. Works for me.

 

That's nice and cheap, but CPSA will do nothing to protect live quarry shooting. Don'T forget that a short while ago they even tried to change their name to Clay Target Shooting Association, in an attempt to disassociate their type of shooting from live quarry shooting.

 

webber