What should happen if an event goes ahead and the event has not been submitted for authorisation.
There was a sector BoB parade and the author of the PIPE did not submit to the CO who did not submit to WHQ for authorisation. End result a staff member attended and a car full of cadets and cadets ataff from 6 other sqns attended an unauthorised event.
I have two questions regarding this.
Does RAFAC insurance still cover unauthorised events?
What sort of insurance? The MoD certainly couldn’t avoid their liability in the event of an incident, although they could potentially avoid paying out on the death/accident policy for the person responsible for organising it.
CoC - can’t see that it’s anything to do with the TSA.
We went to laser tag last year and it turned into a nightmare trip sorting out transport and money to go and it literally slipped my mind to put an app in.
I held my hands up and emailed the Wexo and wing co with my upmost apologies the next day when I funnily enough went to mark the activity as complete
Not my finest hour.
Kids has fun though.
But I have been to many many wing/region activities where a year on they still haven’t been authorised or have a single risk assessment in so I didn’t feel too bad as it seems if your at wing level or above it really doesn’t matter.
I guess question number one is why wasn’t the PIPE submitted as it should have been? If it was last minute, poor planning, someone forgot, work got in the way etc, then in my book at least it should be dealt with as a chat and reminder about procedure, assuming this hasn’t gone on before and the event didn’t have any issues.
If there is something more afoot, then larger investigation and action by Wing Staff is required.
I guess the dilemma faced is if it is reported, will it be dealt with sensibly by the CoC? However, actions of the next link in the chain should never prevent anyone from reporting. There could well be something gone on here that we all could learn from, and this opportunity should not be missed.
I noticed this one when I was handed the Accts 4 form to reclaim the use of SOV for the same parade. There was no reference number so I went to look and found the activity was not authorised at Region level.
I raised the finding via my sector commander and I know its gone up the chain. This is not about hitting someone with a stick but more about highlighting the process gap to avoid it happening again.
Responsibility is two way, yes we all suffer with rejected applications through insufficient information and there is an expectation to have an activity your Squadron has been invited to authorised however, the staff at a Squadron level do have a duty to check things are authorised before sending cadets. At the very least, if checked, you then have the opportunity to raise concerns before going or make the decision not to go. This has never happened to me before and I wasn’t checking these things but certainly will now.
They self-indemnify but only if “involved in authorised Cadet Force (ATC) activities. This
includes activities abroad, provided that the following conditions are met: [of which] a. The activity is recorded and authorised as part of the syllabus or within the ethos of the Cadet Forces…” and has a 9-page annex of listed activities which are or are nor covered by the indemnity.
We used to do a lot of “private activities”, (before this flexibility was removed) parents signed to say they accepted no comeback on the ATC, cadets had a lot of fun times and they still remember them and speak about them, when you see them.
There was a time when parades got a mass permission to prevent admin overload.
But it was what happened for years and worked well.
People forget as parents you sign all manner of disclaimers for activities. I bet if the ATC ran car parks they’d have a sign up saying park here at your own risk, as to not would be financial suicide. A private arrangement is no different.
Consent forms are a difficult thing, do you send the parents/guardian a copy of the intended exercie/activity and the risk assesments so that they can make an ‘informed choice’ whether little Johnny/Jenny can take part.
Imagine something going wrong and their is injury or death and the comment coming back, ‘you never told us the risks when signing the form’.
People sign all sorts of things - that doesn’t mean they are worth anything.
The law is clear - It says that you cannot get someone to sign away your liability for death or personal injury through negligence.
This isn’t something new - a reflection of the modern world and the influence of American litigation culture… It’s been ratified in law this way for the past 42 years.
So parent signs your “no comeback on the ATC” waiver and sends Little Johnny off on your unauthorised event.
You don’t really know what you’re doing and little Johhny breaks himself. You are negligent… and that “waiver” isn’t worth the paper it was written on.
The very best it might be worth is to remove liability from the ATC and place it squarely on the individual who foolishly ran the event without top cover.
The idea that one can get parents to sign a waiver is still scarily prevalent.
It doesn’t work like that. We still owe them a duty of care and the parent, and indeed the cadet themself, still has a legitimate expectation that we are going to look after them.
Anyone who runs an unauthorised activity, especially one of increased risk (which is where these “waivers” were/are routeinly employed) is a total fool! They are personally liable if anything goes wrong.
Not even individuals who run their own outdoor activities take personal liability - they have insurance.
As a CFAV who just didn’t bother to follow the rules you’d have absolutely NOTHING. No top cover, no insurance… You’d be in the dock facing prison, compensation, and very hefty fines.
The reason we aren’t permitted to “do our own thing” is two fold:
To protect our CFAVs - if it’s properly authorised and run in accordance with that authorisation then they are protected from personal liability.
But primarily it’s to protect our cadets! By requiring proper authorisation we can reasonably ensure that the event will be run properly and safely by people who know what they’re doing and thus we are doing our best to keep our cadets safe.
You really might want to think about all of that Instead of grumbling about “the good old days”.
Does anyone offer ATC personnel the sort of insurance scheme that CCFA offers for CCF? It is explicitly designed to fill the gap where the MOD disowns liability as the activity wasn’t properly authorised, and school insurance disowns liability because it was a CCF activity not on school premises (e.g. training areas or ranges). It’s pretty broad:
when on CCF duty or commuting to or from CCF duty, training, games, and related social activities whilst on duty, or business connected with the Combined Cadet Force
which would cover the classic bowling trip, for example.
Nothing quite like that.
We have no cover at all where an activity isn’t properly authorised.
There is an optional personal insurance scheme offered. Three additional tiers of cover (beyond the basic which everyone gets as a member of the Corps) which CFAVs, CivCom members, and 16+ cadets can take out personally. Or indeed they are free to choose their own cover.
But it’s intended for personal injury rather than liability.
The list of authorised activities in ACP 300 is two-part.
Part 1 - covered by MOD Indemnity (for liability) and ATC Insurance for personal injury;
and Part 2 - where participants are covered by ATC insurance for personal injury but where there is no MOD indemnity. In this case the activity provider must have public liability cover.
Ten Pin Bowling is included in part 2. So, provided that the Sqn has the appropriate SMS event in place, it will all be authorised. Cadets and staff will be covered for personal injury under the ATC insurance but the staff will have to confirm that the bowling alley has public liability insurance in place.