Hidden away on the Scottish Athletics website is a letter from Helen Jacobs, Director of Operations at UK:Athletics, regarding Permits and Insurance.
This may have interesting reprecussions for all fell races that are not directly organised by individuals from Clubs affiliated to UK:Athletics.
It may imply that races organised at local events e.g. country fairs, may not be eligible for UK:Athletics insurance cover.
Originally Posted by UK Athletics
Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker
Trying hard not to get a bit cross here......surely one of the perceived advantages of a applying for a permit(presumably with accompanying fee) from a UKA organisation is to benefit from UKA sourced insurance. If UKA are not going to provide this then what is the point of the whole exercise. Do we really need their permission to run?
Oh, and, why am I not terribly surprised
This is very old news.
If you look at the Jacobs letter, you'll see it's dated 2004.
As has been well documented in another thread by Margaret Chippendale, this was when the new Government legislation came in which made it an offence for non-FSA organisations to flog insurance. Consequently, UKA insurance became a benefit of membership and, for example, all FRA race organisers had to join.
I wrote a whole article on this in the Fellrunner but, as it probably wasn't as exciting as Graham's exposees of superstars, I suppose it never got read.
The answer is race organisers either don't insure OR they buy your own insurance OR they join a club (FRA, WFRA, SHR or any UKA-affiliated AC) to get their insurance as a benefit of membership. It's been that way for three years now.
Alan Brentnall
This is an old letter relating to the changes made by UKA in 2004. This is the reason that all organisers of fell races in England applying for UKA Permits through the FRA have to be members of the FRA. All the Permits are therefore issued to the FRA as the affiliated organisation for races organised by their members.
The same FSA regulations will apply to SHR and WFRA permits.Trying hard not to get a bit cross here......surely one of the perceived advantages of a applying for a permit(presumably with accompanying fee) from a UKA organisation is to benefit from UKA sourced insurance. If UKA are not going to provide this then what is the point of the whole exercise. Do we really need their permission to run?
Oh, and, why am I not terribly surprised
Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker
I don't think the SHR issue permits and I'm quite sure they wouldn't want to.The same FSA regulations will apply to SHR and WFRA permits.
To the best of my knowledge neither SHR nor WFRA provide Permits. Permits are an invention of UKA and neither SHR nor WFRA are affiliated to UKA!
However, both organisations are able to provide insurance for races organised by their members.
Permits were actually introduced by the AAA during its formative years in the 1880's as a means of preventing other associations from organising athletic meetings. Athletes who participated in events that did not have an AAA permit could be banned from future AAA events.
Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker
I should have said insurance.
Neither SHR or WFRA can provide insurance cover to event organisers who are not members of their associations.
It does raise the interesing subject that the cheapest way of obtaining insurance cover is to become a member of one of these associations.
Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote