Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 60 of 188 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270110160 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 1872
  1. #591
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    834
    Likes (Given)
    743
    Likes (Received)
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by Barrygoss View Post
    So, some more information turned up from Bob, but that only leads to more questions, and contradictions from the "BSAC investigation".
    "They are right about the premium being more than they budgeted for that year, so yes they are correct on that score.

    The method we use to calculate the premium for any membership block is membership numbers and demographics, exposure of the risk, and claims history.

    The problem with any long tail account like this is in the 8th year of cover if the account has pretty punchy liability claims to deal with, that can be a major factor in affecting premium.

    These are what we call "long tail" claims and can take years to conclude. So the longer we are on an account like this the more claims aggregation there is.

    In the UK we look at 5 year cycles. So we were half way through the second cycle.

    We do offer clients in these situations a premium clawback agreement based on some future improvement in claims whereby a percentage of the premium is then returned at the end of the year. This is usual practice in long established accounts.

    You would have to ask them but I don't think they took that option up.

    As to the final part of your question, yes we were asked by HQ how removing some benefits would affect the premium calculation.

    For the detail of that request you would have to access the correspondence for that renewal and as I have indicated elsewhere appears to be embargoed.

    I hope this helps"

    There are some discombobulations in the "official" HQ generated report.

    Maybe more information will come.

    B
    The reply from Divemaster doesn't sit well beside BSAC's internal review "reports".

    Here are links to the internal review for those who wish to read it. Since only a tiny percentage of BSAC members vote in elections putting the review documents on the voting paper as opposed to the members area of the website was a bizarre way of informing the membership. Or perhaps they hoped people wouldn't read them? Once you vote you lose access to the review documents unless you have already saved them elsewhere.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0dcqdoxcop...cover.pdf?dl=0
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/6cj6joigyk...ident.pdf?dl=0

    This is Council's response to the motion in case any one missed it.
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/v5ubi1ee3f...otion.jpg?dl=0

    Compare that with their other motion and you'll see a lot less red and a lot less pleading and urging. It is meant to be a democratic process and we have a party political broadcast included on the ballot paper. BSAC aren't even just "recommending" members to vote against the motion which is what they have previously done. They've gone much further and told members "Why you need to vote AGAINST this Special Resolution 2" - "NEED"

  2. #592
    Established TDF Member Barrygoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Diving
    Posts
    3,055
    Likes (Given)
    986
    Likes (Received)
    1848

    Candidates for BSAC Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Woz View Post
    Not really. All the info is in the pdf- Dive Master whacked the insurance up so BSAC had to go to market.
    On a like for like, before criminal insurance quote removed basis (I.e. What we had already)
    Or a like for like, after criminal insurance quote removed basis? After the BSAC comms that didn't happen basis.......

    And on a multi agency, three quote, best value for BSAC.
    Or single agency, negotiation with Perkins Slade only?

    B

    Bsac just held an internal enquiry, these are easy answers just read off the paperwork that the membership mustn't see.
    Last edited by Barrygoss; 20-03-2016 at 09:47 PM.
    Rebreathers are like women; they pretend to love you, whilst taking all your money and trying to kill you.

  3. #593
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    834
    Likes (Given)
    743
    Likes (Received)
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by Woz View Post
    Not really. All the info is in the pdf- Dive Master whacked the insurance up so BSAC had to go to market.
    The info is not in the pdf. DiveMaster are saying they were asked to quote with some aspects of cover removed. I'm going to bet that that included the removal of the criminal defence cover.

    The internal review pdf is evasive in the extreme and is no more than spin which a government spin doctor would produce. Here are some questions that haven't been addressed by the "internal review".

    1. Did BSAC ask DiveMaster to quote specifically removing criminal liability cover?

    2. How can BSAC on the one hand say they were unaware that criminal liability cover was removed while at the same time saying they notified members in 2007 that the cover had been removed? How could they notify members of something they allege they didn't know themselves?

    3. Last August BSAC released the following in a statement "Council has taken legal advice as to whether BSAC is liable to fund Stephen’s legal costs and has been advised that it is not". If BSAC are now saying they understood from their then broker that the cover was being provided to their members and told members that they had the cover how could legal advice be that they did not have a legal "duty of care" to Stephen when they discovered the information they provided to members on the insurance was wrong?

    4. If the internal review is to believed and the broker "missold" the policy to BSAC (intentionally or unintentionally) why are BSAC only considering legal action at this late stage? Insurance is a field highly regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and a complaint is easily made. If BSAC allege negligence of the brokers involved they can engage their own Professional Indemnity insurance which typically carries a £5k excess - a very small cost.

    5. There is no information in the pdf to explain where the in excess of £100k to conduct the review has come from which is a key reason BSAC give for people "NEEDING" to vote against it. Management consultancy firms say the figure is wildly excessive. Why hasn't BSAC given a breakdown of the cost they place such importance on?

  4. #594
    BSAC Council Candidate 2017 TrevorB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    769
    Likes (Given)
    54
    Likes (Received)
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Woz View Post
    Not really. All the info is in the pdf- Dive Master whacked the insurance up so BSAC had to go to market.
    Understand that Woz but "As to the final part of your question, yes we were asked by HQ how removing some benefits would affect the premium calculation"

    So we were never looking for Like for Like then, we instigated a search for a lesser product and it looks like we found it ?

    Sorry Scuba our postings crossed, must learn to type quicker
    Last edited by TrevorB; 20-03-2016 at 09:58 PM.
    Diving Officer BSAC 9137
    Leeds Beckett University Branch

  5. #595
    All hail ZOM Woz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5,150
    Likes (Given)
    114
    Likes (Received)
    2338
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorB View Post
    Understand that Woz but "As to the final part of your question, yes we were asked by HQ how removing some benefits would affect the premium calculation" So we were never looking for Like for Like then, we instigated a search for a lesser product and it looks like we found it ?
    Read the pdf. It's quite specific about BSAC being unaware of the removal of cover.
    Views expressed here are my own and are not representative of any organisation. If you would like an official reply, I suggest you ask the question on a website the organisation is responsible for, or contact them directly using the phone.
    https://www.facebook.com/BSACChairmanWoz/

  6. #596
    Established TDF Member Barrygoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Diving
    Posts
    3,055
    Likes (Given)
    986
    Likes (Received)
    1848

    Candidates for BSAC Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Woz View Post
    Read the pdf. It's quite specific about BSAC being unaware of the removal of cover.
    Honestly?

    B

    And my Q's still stand....
    Last edited by Barrygoss; 20-03-2016 at 10:10 PM.
    Rebreathers are like women; they pretend to love you, whilst taking all your money and trying to kill you.

  7. #597
    BSAC Council Candidate 2017 TrevorB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    769
    Likes (Given)
    54
    Likes (Received)
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Woz View Post
    Read the pdf. It's quite specific about BSAC being unaware of the removal of cover.
    I did but then I read the info from Bob hence the quote "As to the final part of your question, yes we were asked by HQ how removing some benefits would affect the premium calculation"

    HQ were looking for reduced cover did Council know ?
    Diving Officer BSAC 9137
    Leeds Beckett University Branch

  8. #598
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    834
    Likes (Given)
    743
    Likes (Received)
    535
    Quote Originally Posted by Woz View Post
    Read the pdf. It's quite specific about BSAC being unaware of the removal of cover.
    I did (and have posted them here) but they have not answered the following critical issues.

    1. Did BSAC ask DiveMaster to quote specifically removing criminal liability cover?

    2. How can BSAC on the one hand say they were unaware that criminal liability cover was removed while at the same time saying they notified members in 2007 that the cover had been removed? How could they notify members of something they allege they didn't know themselves?

    3. Last August BSAC released the following in a statement "Council has taken legal advice as to whether BSAC is liable to fund Stephen’s legal costs and has been advised that it is not". If BSAC are now saying they understood from their then broker that the cover was being provided to their members and told members that they had the cover how could legal advice be that they did not have a legal "duty of care" to Stephen when they discovered the information they provided to members on the insurance was wrong?

    4. If the internal review is to believed and the broker "missold" the policy to BSAC (intentionally or unintentionally) why are BSAC only considering legal action at this late stage? Insurance is a field highly regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and a complaint is easily made. If BSAC allege negligence of the brokers involved they can engage their own Professional Indemnity insurance which typically carries a £5k excess - a very small cost.

    5. There is no information in the pdf to explain where the in excess of £100k to conduct the review has come from which is a key reason BSAC give for people "NEEDING" to vote against it. Management consultancy firms say the figure is wildly excessive. Why hasn't BSAC given a breakdown of the cost they place such importance on?

  9. #599
    feckface von clownstick BTS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Torbaydos
    Posts
    10,000
    Likes (Given)
    5921
    Likes (Received)
    5571
    Quote Originally Posted by Woz View Post
    Not really. All the info is in the pdf- Dive Master whacked the insurance up so BSAC had to go to market.
    So no comment on the false claims in the pdf?

    Who conducted the review?
    What to do? I only have three bullets and there are four of motley crew...

  10. #600
    Moderator GLOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Near Malmesbury, Wiltshire
    Posts
    3,068
    Likes (Given)
    3083
    Likes (Received)
    2177
    With my 'Just culture' head on, these continued 'attacks' on Woz are not too helpful.

    I understand that BSAC HQ may have made some significant mistakes in the past, and that looking at the recent discussions posted regarding the ballot information, they aren't as open as they could be.

    Woz is the face of BSAC on here, like it or not. However, he is NOT BSAC HQ and therefore to tar him with decisions made in 2007 isn't helpful and likely to close discussions down.

    From my own perspective and experience, once an organisation has gone into a defensive position, then the continual prodding is unlikely to make a difference to their attitude, it is not in their interest to be truly open and bare all (which doesn't appear to have been done so far). However, if you consider the bigger picture and what can be achieved, there is everything to be gained, not just because of this, but because it engenders a culture of openness within the organisation.

    I spend quite a bit of time and effort trying to get people to talk about their diving incidents, which are invariably down to the variability in human nature and the constant battle between efficiency (doing things using the limited resource we have, be that time, money, people and equipment) and thoroughness (doing things at the best quality, whatever that metric is). A business is no different. The problem is we often don't understand or recognise the outcomes of what we are doing until sometime in the future by which time we may have gone too far down the track and we are unable to turn around. Indeed, the further you go down that track, mentally it is much harder to turn around.

    So, please give Woz (as a person) a break, but rather try to engage with BSAC HQ and get them to open up. Unless of course Woz is happy to bear the brunt of the feedback as a prospective Chairman and current Vice Chair?

    Regards
    Gareth

    www.imagesoflife.co.uk - Underwater Print Sales, Teaching and Stock Library
    www.cognitas.org.uk - Improving Safety by Challenging Current Practices
    www.divingincidents.org - Diving Incident and Safety Management System (DISMS)
    - 2014 Report here

    “Set your expectations high; find men and women whose integrity and values you respect; get their agreement on a course of action; and give them your ultimate trust.”

    “It is far better to be trusted and respected than it is to be liked.”


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •