BAA fine for volunteer fatality.

[mikench]

I'm quite certain that many clubs could rationalise their waters by giving up those that are rarely used, offer poor fishing and are difficult to maintain. The money saved could then be spent on the remaining waters, improving stocks, accessibility and aesthetics. If a club has too many members for the reduced numbers of waters, increase fees thus enabling better waters to be acquired to replace those given up. I'm also certain that many old waters that fall into the category above cost relatively little . I can think of several waters I have visited once but never again.

If a beat on a river can cost £1500 then club memberships are a bargain. I would happily pay more for better.

 

[GT56]

I'd suggest having a read of the AT best practise guide regarding volunteers.

Volunteering-Best-Practice-Guide-v4-2.pdf (goodformtest.co.uk)

 

[steve2]

When I think back to work parties I would say most of the work was carried out by retired and OAP's. We were not the most agile and more likely to hurt ourselves. The younger members sat back and moaned about the state of the fishery.

 

[sam vimes]

When I think back to work parties I would say most of the work was carried out by retired and OAP's. We were not the most agile and more likely to hurt ourselves. The younger members sat back and moaned about the state of the fishery.

Perhaps it was ever thus, but it often seems that the concept of a co-operative organization is lost on many of the younger generations. Most clubs (and real syndicates) that I know of are run by folks of at least fifty, perhaps at least sixty. I won't be in my forties much longer, but committee meetings make me feel like a kid again. Perhaps that feeling is exacerbated by me having known several of those involved as being adults since I was about ten. Most folks I talk to on club waters seem to believe that their bare minimum subscriptions are buying them a service that should not involve them doing a thing beyond handing over some cash. I find thirtysomethings complaining that a bunch of volunteer septuagenarians haven't cleared pegs and paths for them to be somewhat frustrating.

 

[John Aston]

Cases like this also highlight how important it is for clubs to be legal entities in their own right . Most clubs are 'unincorporated associations ' , having no legal identity in their own right and thus exposing officers (especially ) to personal liability . Making a club a company limited by guarantee removes a great deal(but not all ) of risk , as if the company doesn't have assets to meet a debt (for example ) it can go bust without the Hon Sec also losing his or her shirt.

I'm involved in running three clubs which are , or are about to be Cos ltd by gtee and I wouldn't dream of being involved if that were not the case. Many years ago I lost a lot of money when members of a shooting syndicate I helped run left , leaving me and my chum to pay the rent for the next two years' rent . Won't get fooled again ...

 

[nottskev]

I read the article, and thought, maybe my impatience to read something clear and pithy -work party volunteers are "peripatetic workers"; what, like knife grinders or people offering to tarmac your drive? - the key statements were full of foggy verbiage. It would be sad if an accident stemming from a particularly disorganised work party should have the far-reaching consequences some are predicting. I like the cooperative model of fishing-water ownership. I don't agree that everyone needs to be paid for everything (cue debate about the going rate for housework, looking after children etc), and I certainly don't go for the idea that this speaks to the superiority of commercial fisheries, which often, believe me I've seen enough, have no features needing gardening, and where anglers have no more ownership than customers in Tesco. I've been on work parties where no "forestry activities" involving chain saws and trees, are involved, and all concerned , even those geriatrics, I'm probably one in health if not age terms, could manage quite safely a bit of path-clearing, peg strimming, and rustic platform carpentry. It may be a forlorn hope, but I think we need to be allowed to chip in, subject to common sense and basic organisation, to do work on our fisheries without prohibitive cost or prohibitive bureaucracy. I'm all for H+S at work, where we are, in effect, told what to do and often can't control the conditions, but I think voluntarily joining in to help maintain a fishing place, needs a slightly different frame of reference.

 

[ian g]

I have always enjoyed participating and helping to run work parties. I think the club take H&S seriously , I've had training in spraying and safe use of a brush cutter . Just waiting to do Health and Safety course . Work parties have been a great way to meet like minded anglers and keep waters open .

 

[rob48]

I'm quite certain that many clubs could rationalise their waters by giving up those that are rarely used, offer poor fishing and are difficult to maintain. The money saved could then be spent on the remaining waters, improving stocks, accessibility and aesthetics. If a club has too many members for the reduced numbers of waters, increase fees thus enabling better waters to be acquired to replace those given up. I'm also certain that many old waters that fall into the category above cost relatively little . I can think of several waters I have visited once but never again.

If a beat on a river can cost £1500 then club memberships are a bargain. I would happily pay more for better.

Fully agree with this. I have three association/club tickets per year with miles of river fishing between them. I only fish about half a dozen of their venues regularly because of access, security, parking difficulties etc. It's obvious that a lot of the stretches are rarely fished becasue they are literally like mini jungles and whenever I've had a look it's been too much effort to try and even get near the water.
I'm paying for more waters that I can't fish than those that I can, so I'd rather pay extra for ones that I can actually visit.

 

[ian g]

Most stretches of the Severn are a fraction of the price of still waters . I enjoy fishing rivers but I can see others have different needs and requirements . That's the beauty of joining a decent club offering a bit of something for everyone.

 

[terry m]

Some interesting responses.

The whole point of undertaking a risk assessment for this sort of circumstance is to determine the risk levels faced ( clearing scrub vs chopping trees), and then put suitable control measures in place to mitigate those risks down to an acceptable level. This is nothing new, it has been a legal requirement since the 1970’s. As has been pointed out, undertaking a RA is not difficult.

Insurance is not the answer. It may cover the club if an injured party sues them for compensation in a civil action. It will be of nil benefit when it comes to criminal action, and penalties such as the 66k fine on the BAA would not be covered.

 

[sam vimes]

The part I'm dubious about is what does or does not constitute a proper work environment. There's little doubt that risk assessments aren't especially difficult to do. However, if the person doing them is a) an idiot, b) lazy, c) incompetent, d) lacking in situational awareness, or e) not suitably experienced at the task in hand, they aren't worth the paper they are printed/written on. I accept entirely that in a genuine workplace H&S legislation applies fully. However, I'm less convinced that most that take part in minor bankside maintenance tasks believe that they are in a genuine work environment. It appears that this ruling puts that to bed. There's no doubt as to what the authorities now believe.

However, there is one small fly in the ointment that still gives me pause for thought. If this kind of situation is now deemed to be a work environment, will the authorities be coming down hard on those that have DIY accidents in their homes and gardens? Does everyone carry out a formal risk assessment when they change a lightbulb, mow their lawn, cut a hedge, climb a ladder, put bleach down their toilet? If not, why not? What exactly is the difference? I'm sure everyone must have COSHH assessments for all the nasty chemicals that they keep under the kitchen sink, in their garage and in their sheds. I'll bet we all have secure lockers for the flammable stuff like paints and thinners. Now I'll be fascinated if someone says yes to having COSSH and Risk assessments, but I'm fairly sure that the overwhelming majority don't. After all, it's not a workplace. and it's still not a workplace if a few mates come round to help you cut down a tree or clear some scrub. You or your helpers don't even need to be qualified to do the job. You can nip to B&Q and buy a chainsaw or strimmer and start using it within minutes of getting it out of the box.

I absolutely agree that being safe and sensible is pretty damned important. It's terrible that this accident took place at all. However, I'm still not entirely convinced that the full Health & Safety At Work Act should have been applied to such circumstances. Obviously, the courts have deemed it does, but I'm still not convinced it really should.

 

[no-one in particular]

The lawyers and aliens among us would understand this better than me but it appears the council decided this was an out of work leisure activity and then the magistrate decided it was not, I find it a bit at odds but then that's the law. I would have thought there was a case for appeal if it came down to is this work or leisure. And does this mean all volunteers are now classed at work IE, poppy collectors and such like. quote:-

Aside from the tragic nature of the case, the status of the working party, activity undertaken and location meant it was not straightforward to identify which agency – the local authority or the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – was responsible for enforcement.

'It was a slightly unusual investigation in that there was some uncertainty as to the volunteer or employee status of Mr Taylor. It was important to establish that to inform the legislation that we needed to work to. The company [BAA] pleaded guilty to a section 3(1) offences – in other words, Mr Taylor was eventually classed as a non-employee,' Nick said.

'The other thing that slightly complicated things was that the volunteers were peripatetic workers on what was ostensibly farmland. In terms of enforcing authority remit and not operating ultra vires, there was a bit of a question mark about whether it was us or HSE that was responsible,' he told IOSH magazine.

'In the end it was decided by main activity and the fact that the group was affiliated to a recreational leisure activity. This despite the fact that they were carrying out work including forestry activities, which in many scenarios would come under the HSE’s remit. Therefore the subsequent insight provided by our specialist arboricultural consultant was invaluable.'

'So it took a bit of head scratching to get right. If it did go to a prosecution, we didn’t want the case compromised or thrown out because of questions raised as to jurisdiction.'

At a hearing On April 28 2021 at Worcester Magistrates’ Court, BAA admitted breaching the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, for failing to ensure the safety of those not in its employment. The organisation was fined £66,000, and ordered to pay costs of £17,500 plus a victim surcharge of £181.

 

[John Aston]

It is a bit of a ******'s muddle I agree. But the bigger financial risk in any such case isn't a H & S prosecution , serious though that can be, but a civil claim for damages by the injured person. In the case of catastrophic injuries , damages can run into many millions and that highlights how incredibly important it is for clubs to take out adequate public liability insurance . Don't assume every club has done so - I can think of one local club , now defunct , whose secretary/treasurer could not run a bath . let alone pay bills on time , or at all ....

 

[mikench]

Await the appeal.

 

[no-one in particular]

Yep, thought so, aliens.

Its a joke.

 

[no-one in particular]

I always liked this story, my brother ran a tyro company and one day he interviewed a black fellow for a job, he noticed he was hard of hearing in the notes and didn't give him the job on health and safety grounds. The next day he came back in with his mother. She said he was refused the job on racists grounds and she was going to sue my brother. So, he said come with me, they went into a busy warehouse with noisy fork lifts going up and down, he stood the black fella 40 yds. away with his back turned and shouted "look out there's a fork lift behind you"; the boy didn't move. They then both walked out and my brother never heard from them again.

 

[no-one in particular]

It is a bit of a ******'s muddle I agree. But the bigger financial risk in any such case isn't a H & S prosecution

Even so, £85,000 near total with costs would be a lot of money for a lot of clubs..

 

[sam vimes]

It is a bit of a ******'s muddle I agree. But the bigger financial risk in any such case isn't a H & S prosecution , serious though that can be, but a civil claim for damages by the injured person. In the case of catastrophic injuries , damages can run into many millions and that highlights how incredibly important it is for clubs to take out adequate public liability insurance . Don't assume every club has done so - I can think of one local club , now defunct , whose secretary/treasurer could not run a bath . let alone pay bills on time , or at all ....

Absolutely, but that has no relevance to the £66,000 (plus costs) fine levied on BAA under H&S legislation. Of course, if BAA faces further claims from the family of the victim, and they have no liability cover (or the cover isn't adequate), they are probably right up the proverbial creek.

 

[steve2]

Absolutely, but that has no relevance to the £66,000 (plus costs) fine levied on BAA under H&S legislation. Of course, if BAA faces further claims from the family of the victim, and they have no liability cover (or the cover isn't adequate), they are probably right up the proverbial creek.

If I were part of the family of the deceased and with BAA having been found guilty I would be chasing a civil claim. I am sure some claims company would help for a nice fee.

 

[sam vimes]

If I were part of the family of the deceased and with BAA having been found guilty I would be chasing a civil claim. I am sure some claims company would help for a nice fee.

Quite probably. Hopefully, BAA have adequate public liability insurance. However, I suspect that they won't have suitable insurance cover now that they've been deemed to be an employer subject to H&S legislation. The alternative hope would be that the family of a gentleman that saw fit to work voluntarily, for an organisation he paid to be a member of, might choose not to destroy that organisation.