DofE Case Study – Lessons Learned

/in /by

The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award (DofE) is the world’s leading achievement award for young people.  Its ethos is to enable every young person of every background to take part and succeed, regardless of any barriers.

Many of our Members will be familiar with the programme, in which young people aged between 14 and 24 progress through three levels to achieve a Bronze Silver or Gold award.

It requires persistence, commitment and has a lasting impact on the attitudes and outlook of all young people who do their DofE, building confidence and self-esteem. Awards are delivered under special licence by over 400 partners, many being members of AIM, supporting nearly 11,000 DofE centres including youth clubs, voluntary organisations, schools, colleges, young offenders institutions and businesses.

As with any worthwhile award, there is no guarantee that all participants will achieve the required standard. As well as successes there will be disappointments and occasionally a disappointed parent may look for someone to blame for their child’s unexpected set-back, be it a DofE Award or an elusive A* grade. There may be an element of this in two claims for personal injury compensation arising from DofE activities.

Claim 1 –

The first claim involves a high achieving schoolgirl, Emma, participating in a Gold practice expedition managed by the school with the help of qualified instructors hired to assist in specific elements. Emma developed a strain, which may have been an exacerbation of a previous shoulder injury, from stoically carrying her rucksack through the expedition, despite suffering discomfort. Offers were made by staff to take her rucksack, which she consistently turned down, wanting to continue to the end. By the end of the expedition, the discomfort had developed into a strained shoulder which required attention and physio treatment follow up. Although she withdrew from the actual Gold award expedition, we are told that she was soon back playing netball in the school team. Her disappointed parents decided to sue both the school and the instructors, alleging that their negligence causing Emma’s injury.

Claim 2 –

The second claim involves a schoolgirl, Coral, in a group of seemingly less than enthusiastic or uncooperative participants in a Silver award expedition. In deteriorating misty and drizzly conditions, the specialist provider managing the expedition, decided to call the groups off the hillside shortly after midday. This instruction was acknowledged by Coral, who had been appointed as the nominated point of contact in her group. However, shortly after the call, Coral went “off air”; her phone had been turned off and the group was no longer in contact. An hour later, communication with the group was re established (briefly), as they had met up with another group with a working phone and once again they were instructed to come down off the hill. It soon became clear that this instruction too was not complied with and they were off air again, so the leaders set out themselves to search for the group. Later, some 45 minutes later, the leaders received a phone call from the group; they were now situated even further up the hill, cold and wet. This time they were told to put up a tent for shelter in an area that is visible to rescuers and have some hot food to keep warm. However, they decided to settle inside a wooded area out of vision and telephone Mountain Rescue. A while later they were helicoptered out, colder and wetter.

Coral’s parents blame the expedition provider and have lodged a claim for compensation alleging that a “non-freezing cold injury” to their daughter’s feet was caused by their negligence. Who actually is deemed to have been at fault for this non serious injury will be decided in court.

Lessons learned

In both cases the injuries are minor and the claims detract from the work that the schools and instructors put in to provide the real benefits to their charges that the DofE programme offers to young people and society as a whole. Both cases have cost the schools and providers a great deal in terms of potential cost and management time and, in Emma’s case, school has decided not to manage any more DofE programmes in the future.

In the first case, admirable though Emma’s determination to carry on was, had she accepted the help with her rucksack that she was offered, it is likely she would have continued and achieved her Gold Award. So for teachers and providers, it is important that individual participants and their attitudes are monitored closely. Where a school is managing the programme and hiring instructors for specific elements, it’s important that the division or delegation of responsibilities is made crystal clear and documented at the outset.

In the second case, a lack of commitment of some of the participants seems apparent. It’s important that the expedition programme manager, as well as constantly monitoring the commitment of participants, ensures that the parents too actually “buy in” to the programme. They can contribute by supporting their kids jointly with the teachers at school, so that all parties are committed and fully aware of the responsibilities and rewards involved in the challenge.

The names of the participants have been changed to preserve anonymity. 

AALA Licensing – AIM Member Survey Results

/in /by

What our members said

We recently sent out a member survey to gauge members views on the AALA Licensing review and we had an excellent response rate with members submitting their views to the three options posed by the HSE.  For those of you not familiar with this, the HSE have set up a review to the current AALA licensing scheme and were asking all providers to respond.

  • Option 1 – Retain the AALA regulations and current licensing scheme underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and increase fees
  • Option 2 – Retain the AALA regulations and current licensing scheme underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, extend the activities in-scope and increase fees.
  • Option 3 – Removal of the AALA regulations and move to an industry-led; not-for-profit accreditation scheme underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to provide assurance to users of outdoor activities

The HSE survey is now closed and the HSE have advised that all responses will be analysed and will engage further with stakeholders to further develop the preferred option. http://www.hse.gov.uk/aala/

As AIM is a membership community providing Public and Employers liability cover to activity providers we have also submitted our own response. Responses from the members can be viewed here.  If you require further information about the survey please do not hesitate to contact me on [email protected]

Data_All_180418

Sense & Defensibility – Recent Legal Cases and what you need to know

/in /by

Our Mutual Manager Sophia Reed presented an update at our member event on some legal cases which provide valuable lessons learned on claims.  A copy of her slides can be viewed here.

SR-AIM-Presentation-09-03-18

 

 

 

 

 

Data file

GDPR – Love it or Loathe it

/in /by

At our member event recently in Plas Y Brenin we heard from Ron Ruston at Kennedy’s Law who gave us a light hearted talk on GDPR and what organisations need to know about the new regulations.

There were some excellent points which came out of the discussions and many members asked us to share the slides so they could use these when they got back to their place of work.

In brief what you need to know is:-

GDPR comes in to force on 25th May 2018 and will build on the current Data Protection Regulations 1998

What does it mean?

It means you have to manage and protect personal data that you hold

Why do we need to comply?

  1. To avoid potentially heavy fines from the Data Commissioner
  2. To reduce risk of legal action from the individuals in the event of unauthorised use
GDPR-Presentation-March-2018

If you are interested in finding out more about our member events, either to present or to attend, please email [email protected]

 

AIM Surveys Members – AALA Licensing

/in /by

AALA Licensing Member Survey

The HSE has been reviewing the AALA licensing regulations to consider the future of these and the form and scope of the regulations going forward. They have now produced three options for the future.  These are:-

  • Option 1 – Retain the AALA regulations and current licensing scheme underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and increase fees
  • Option 2 – Retain the AALA regulations and current licensing scheme underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, extend the activities in-scope and increase fees.
  • Option 3 – Removal of the AALA regulations and move to an industry-led; not-for-profit accreditation scheme underpinned by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to provide assurance to users of outdoor activities

All interested parties are requested to respond to the HSE survey and the deadline date for the response is the 9th March.

AIM wishes to gauge its Members’ views in advance of this deadline date and has emailed all members requesting they complete a survey so we can assess these views.

Please check your inboxes for this email and click the link within to commence the survey.  Please will you complete the survey by the 21st February so we can review the results in advance of the deadline.

As directly involved in  the industry we strongly encourage you to respond to the HSE direct as well using the link here.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd286.htm

The HSE have advised that after the discussion document is closed, the responses to the questions will be analysed.  They will engage further with stakeholders to further develop the preferred option.

 

Legal Update from BLM Law

/in /by

Sports injuries: thrills carry risks

Sophia Reed of BLM reviews Hood v Forestry Commission [2017] Preston County Court (District Judge Burrow)

The facts

The claimant was injured whilst using a mountain bike trail at Grisedale Forest which was operated by the defendant. At the time of the accident the claimant was leaning on his bike and was turning to his right in order to leave the boardwalk when he alleged that the rear wheel of his bike slipped off the boardwalk, causing him to fall from his bike and to suffer serious leg injuries.

The claimant argued that the boardwalk was unsafe and that the cross-hatching or grove scoring to prevent slippage had worn. Also he alleged that the boardwalk had not been properly maintained and no other safety measures had been carried out to prevent cyclists from coming off the trail.

Liability was denied on the basis that the boards were anti-slip and the cross-hatch scoring was an additional, but not necessary, safety measure that had been added at a much later stage. Also the defendant argued that mountain biking carries with it an inherent risks and dangers, which the claimant had voluntarily accepted when using the trail.

Findings

The court unsurprisingly concluded that the defendant clearly owed a duty to the claimant under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (“OLA 1957”) to take such care, as in all the circumstances, was reasonable to see that they were reasonably safe whilst on the bike trail.

It was held that on the balance of probabilities it was more likely than not that the accident was caused due to the claimant misjudging his route of exit from the boardwalk and not due to any failure on the part of the defendant. The court reached this finding on the basis that that the mountain bike trail was described as a “red trail” and signage was in place notifying people that it was difficult and suitable for proficient mountain bikers with good off-road riding skills. The court also focussed on the fact that the signage warned that the trail had “challenging climbs, tricky descents and technical features…” and that the claimant had read this signage.

As a result, it was held that the claimant was fully aware and accepted the risk of riding along the trail. Also the claimant had described the trail as being “good” and was on it for a considerable period of time prior to the accident. Further, other riders had used the trail that day with no problems and it was seen that there had been no real deterioration to the route.

Further, the court reiterated the fundamental principle that the duty placed on occupiers is not absolute and is instead to “take reasonable care in all the circumstances”. On the facts, it was held that the cross-hatching was visible and although it was worn it was not the only mechanism that was in place to provide protection from slipping. It was also noted that the trail had operated without the cross-hatching for a period of six years and the boardwalk was to be completely removed just a few days after the accident for other unrelated reasons.

The court concluded that the defendant’s duty under section 2 of the OLA 1957 did not require the installation of the cross-hatching or grooving. It was held that this was an additional, non-compulsory, safety measure to prevent slipping but the defendant did not have to guard against the risk of slipping at all costs.

It was stated that these types of courses are there to provide a thrill to participants and to impose such a high burden on an occupier to protect against every risk would be too great, would take the thrill away and would result in these activities being considered too dangerous to operate. As a result, the claim was dismissed.

What this means for you

This is a welcome judgment where the court made clear that occupiers do not have an absolute duty to protect visitors against every risk of injury. In this case, it was seen that use of the boardwalk trail carried with it inherent risks that the claimant was fully aware of. Also there was signage in place that advised of the type of terrain, warned the claimant that the course was difficult and noted that the course was designed for more proficient and experienced riders.

It should be noted that the court took into account that the claimant had read the signage and had negotiated the rest of the course without incident. Also, it was seen that the grooving or cross-hatching was an additional safety feature, which the defendant had not been under an obligation to install.

This case applied some of the principles in the recent High Court case of Maylin v Dacorum Sports Trust t/a XC Sportspace [2017] EWHC 387 (QB), where it was held that participants accepted the risks when carrying out sporting activities, which posed obvious and inherent dangers.

In this case, the court took a common sense approach by not wanting to place too onerous obligations on sports and activity providers to carry out every possible step to protect participants against every possible risk, especially in circumstances where these risks could be considered obvious.

This case may have been dealt with differently, had the defendant failed to use signage or provide warnings to riders in respect of the nature and difficulty level of the trail. Also, it should be noted that the trail was not seen to be in a state of disrepair but had there been a specific defect that had caused the accident, then liability could have possibly attached, if the defendant had or ought to have been on notice of the defect but failed to repair it.

It is recommended that sports and leisure operators have records of maintenance and inspection in relation to the facilities, equipment, courses etc. that are used by members of the public. Also suitable supervision, guidance and signage should be put in place to assist with minimising the number of accidents and to assist with defending these types of claims.

AHOEC – Association Heads Outdoor Education Centres Conference

/in /by

The AIM team will be at the AHOEC Conference on 23-24th November at Brathay Hall, Ambleside and we look forward to seeing many of members and industry colleagues.

The theme this year is “Resilience” – your own, your business, your clients

Who are the speakers?

Doug Strycharczyk (AQR) – ‘Mental Toughness’

Chris Ford (Lancaster University) – Disruptive Innovation – part 2

Dr Tom Harrison (the Jubilee Centre) – Developing character

Nigel Vardy – ‘Mr Frostbite’ – will be the after dinner speaker

What workshops are there?

There will be a range of different workshops covering all aspects of the resilience theme.  Confirmed so far:

Mindfulness, Customer Care, Business continuity, Dealing with the media, mental toughness, developing character, wellbeing in the workplace, generating new business, equipment for accessible activities.

Our own James Willis will be presenting a workshop on avoiding and defending claims.

There will be plenty of networking time and also opportunities to make the most of the Lake District.  Early morning bike rides (mountain and road) are possible, and there will be guided bike opportunities on Friday afternoon.

Outdoor Learning Roundup

/in , /by

Andy Robinson CEO of the IOL reflects on some potential areas of common interest and developments in the past 6 months.

The Institute for Outdoor Learning works closely with AIM sharing our understanding of the developing adventurous activity sector and seeking to promote participation and standards. Though as a broader outdoor learning sector we have many different specialist groups, we have much more in common than that which differentiates us.

HSE’s review of the Adventurous Activity Licensing Scheme.

Back in the 1990’s there was some frustration when the sector had a legislation backed inspection regime and associated licensing thrust upon it. Two decades later I am clear that the sector has benefited hugely through the development of an intelligent approach to risk management and legislation compliance. As the HSE explores the future of AALA it is important we don’t lose the culture that it has brought to the sector and any new regime needs to continue to bring the same rigour and developmental benefits to the sector……on a UK wide basis !

At the moment one of the potential options for the future is a HSE endorsed and sector led inspection regime that encompasses and possibly goes beyond the scope of ALAA. If the HSE is to adopt a regime with a wider remit than AALA then there is a need for providers to have an opportunity to consider their options and understand the pros and cons of any potential change. Though a relatively small population of folk have already started on this journey I am clear that the majority of UK based providers have not. HSE’s review of AALA that started in 2016 was not a big surprise. A number of us have been working for a while to enable the UK wide sector to ‘pick up the pieces’ if the AALA were to be withdrawn. This sector wide group has become known as the UK Adventure Industry Group and is seeking to ensure that any new regime reflects the changing nature of adventurous activities and can be applied consistently across the UK.

I’m aware that there is some nervousness about expanding the reach of the current legislation or even withdrawing/changing the legislation and moving to a sector led inspection regime that is endorsed by the HSE. Whilst it is not possible to predict the outcome of the current review, I draw comfort from a number of factors. Firstly, the HSE has yet to bring a prosecution under the adventurous activity licensing legislation.

Instead any prosecutions involving adventurous activity provision have been brought under the Health &  Safety at Work Act, something that remains in force regardless of any changes to Licensing. Secondly, should we move from the legal requirement to hold a licence to a HSE endorsed licence that the sector expects a provider to hold, the legal implications of failure to comply should an incident occur remain prosecution under the HSWA. If that happens the  HSE will refer to the sector led scheme that they have formally endorsed.

Finally, I remain convinced that the majority of providers value the feedback provided by a regular external inspection; a source of objective management information.

We should know more about the HSE’s review by  the end of the year and if you wish to contribute to planning for a sector led regime you can contact me direct.

Developing new apprenticeships for The Outdoor sector

As described last year the Institute is working with the Department for Education to develop new apprenticeships for the sector in England. There have been wide levels of support for this work with a very healthy cross section of employers joining the group helping to produce new standards, a new approach to assessment as well as a new governance structure. The project has reached the stage of agreeing funding levels with DfE and expects to announce

the new ‘Outdoor Session Deliverer’, the first level apprenticeship standard, later this year. Further details of the standards can be found on the IOL website

or through contacting the Institute’s Professional Standards Manager, neal.anderson@outdoor- learning.org or the Employer’s Group chair [email protected]

Joining up Research, Policy & Practice

Any of you who have spent any time looking for research evidence to support the value proposition for what you do, will probably have experienced a degree of frustration in the level of co-ordination and clarity in research findings across the outdoor sector. Working with the Blagrave Trust the Institute commissioned a report in 2015, highlighting the need for better join- up between academics and practitioners and better co-ordination of research activity in the sector. As a result the Institute is supporting the establishment of regional research hubs through 2017 and funding a research co-ordinator role.

The regional hubs will draw together research that has been carried out to date and is ongoing, as well as identifying the current and future research needs of practitioners in Outdoor Learning. In addition to enabling more information to flow between academics and providers, the hubs will provide guidance to policy bodies such as Natural England and they are already working closely with NE’s Strategic Research Group and the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom.

Building a Chartered Body for outdoor learning

Finally in my round up of the past 6 month’s developments in the sector I should mention the movement towards the creation of a Chartered Body for the Outdoor Learning profession. I’m sure many of you recognise the under valuing of many aspects of outdoor learning and hopefully also recognise the increasing cohesion in the sector with activity such as the AALA review, new apprenticeships and co-ordinated research.

In 2016 at the Institute’s annual conference a commitment was made to set up a Chartered Body for the sector. In addition to the activity outlined in this article a range of bodies across the sector are planning to develop a campaign aimed at increasing every child’s access to a progression of outdoor learning experiences through their school years. If you’re interested in the campaign or influencing the establishment of a Chartered Body contact me [email protected]

 

 

Celebrating 10 Years of AIM

/in , /by

It is now 10 years since the Activities Industry Mutual (AIM) first opened its doors for
business as a specialist provider of liability cover for the outdoor activity sector. It has grown from small beginnings to become one of the market leading providers in the sector with over 750 clients (or members) and an annual income in excess of £2.3M. Owned by its Members, it provides cover for both organisations and individuals providing activities, ranging from water sports and cycling to climbing and coasteering.

How It All Began

James Willis initially became involved with the outdoor activity sector as an insurance broker in 2004. Tasked with finding insurance for a residential activities operator that had been refused renewal terms by their regular insurance company and offered no alternative by their broker, James was surprised by the difficulties he faced in finding cover for them, due mainly to the fallout from an economic downturn and a world-wide insurance squeeze. The outdoors was being penalised by insurers for being, in their eyes, a “non-mainstream” economic activity and on the basis of perceived risk rather than actual risk.

“This is very common in the insurance industry at the end of a negative economic cycle. Insurers who, following worldwide losses, were under-capitalised in 2002-3, focussed on their “core business and moved to abandon their more specialist sectors such as the outdoor activity industry.”

So what was the real sector risk? Marcus Bailie of the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) said that while he had a record of fatal accidents, he didn’t have more wide-ranging accident statistics. He would be prepared to assist in promoting an initiative to get more information: so arose an industry-wide risk assessment survey of over 800 AALA licensed providers. Over 400 responses provided evidence showing a relatively low level of overall accidents and claims, which indicated that the sector was a long way from the “perceived high risk view” held by insurers.

The survey result suggested that adventure activities was a potentially sustainable and profitable sector
for insurers and it formed the basis of a report that James presented to a number of London market liability underwriters, including a mutuality specialist, Paul Koronka. Mutuals have an impressive record of bringing value and stability to specialist and difficult insurance market sectors and it was considered that mutuality could provide the most appropriate solution for the outdoor sector. The AIM Project had the green light.

Later that year James presented both the survey findings and the AIM initiative at both the IOL and BAPA annual conferences and his talks sparked an interest in a number of providers, none more so than AIM’s current Chairman, Andrew Gardiner, at the BAPA conference. Andrew remembered being so inspired that he attended the talk twice in the same day:
“Being responsible for a number of centres, and therefore carrying personal and corporate risk for a variety of outdoor activities I was always interested in insurance. But I had never really understood precisely how liability insurance cover was provided by the numerous layers of insurance providers. I didn’t actually know who was standing behind our business and even less was I convinced that they understood the risks and realities of the outdoor sector! So what James proposed was just what I wanted to hear. He explained how we, as an industry,
could work towards forming a mutual which would provide the cover we needed and at premiums which would reflect more accurately the risks attaching. ”

A steering committee was formed and included Andrew and other interested operators, including current
AIM directors, Bob Edwards of Stubbers Adventure Centre and Tricia Rawlingson-Plant of the Mill On The Brue Activity Centre. Chris Bayliss, finance director of The Field Studies Council also made a very valuable contribution in the early years. The steering group evolved to become the Activities Industry Mutual board, and member enthusiasm and support enabled “critical mass” to be achieved and the AIM scheme became a mutual in 2007, with Andrew Gardiner becoming Chairman, a role he is still enjoying 10 years on:

“The growth of AIM has exceeded my expectations, indeed, I think it has surprised everyone. Working with my fellow board members and the team of very able executives has been very rewarding. We have replaced, for most members, the previous roller-coaster experience of insuring with unknown organisations often for the short term, and with consistent cover. Mutuality has proven to be ideal for the outdoor sector and has resulted in stable costs and cover backed by people and organisations who know the sector and their members’ businesses”

It was probably not coincidental that once the survey results and the mutual initiative became known, there was a sudden new interest in the sector. Commercial insurers that had previously abandoned it or imposed punitive premium increases, showed interest again, but a mutual is different from a conventional commercial insurer, and AIM has usually been able to offer providers better cover for less. As a company whose members pool risks of a similar nature to achieve long term and stable insurance protection at cost, the key distinguishing feature is the alignment of its interests with those of its members. Surpluses (i.e. profits) are utilised for the benefit of its members, either as increased retained reserves or distributions returned back to members, and the mutual has no outside shareholders requiring dividends, nor does it pay commissions to third party brokers or “business introducers”.

The Changing Face of the Outdoors

The last 10 years has seen a period of structural change for the outdoor sector and the role of AIM has evolved within this changing environment. James has witnessed significant changes in both the scope of providers and their approach to safety management:
“Following government cuts, the last decade has been marked by a decline in local authority outdoor education provision, but it has been encouraging to see the emergence of new independent operators, many of whom have taken on former local education authority centres. There is now a wider range of organisations within the outdoors arena, ranging from large and small commercial operators to “not for profit” charitable trusts and community interest companies (CICs).”

AIM has also seen a number of new areas of development beyond traditional outdoor centres. There has been a growth in indoor climbing all over the UK, a growth in non-residential provision and a growth in members providing newer outdoor activities such as canyoning, coasteering and downhill mountain biking.

Schools have become increasingly risk averse during this period but Andrew feels that AIM has helped operators face these challenges by supporting a professional approach to safety management amongst its members:
“By being part of the AIM community our members have access to best practice in risk management. AIM actively supports training programmes and industry-wide developments that enhance standards of professional practice.”

James feels that over the period the industry has continued to develop in its approach to risk and safety management.
“There has been an increasing recognition by operators that the risk assessment process is far more than a paper exercise; it is all about developing a culture of safety throughout an organisation. Despite legal reforms and a desire for change, the volume of unmeritorious personal injury claims continues, as does AIM’s pledge to work with members to evidence a strong defence.”

Membership of AIM isn’t just about “getting a quote”:

“We have always been selective in terms of the members that we accept, as the quality of delivery has a direct effect on both the volume of claims and our ability to deal with them and, of course, the mutual’s surpluses available to members. Independent inspection frameworks help enormously and are an important tool in making these decisions.”

James has also experienced something of a personal journey through his involvement with the sector over
the past 10 years:
“I have really enjoyed getting to know people within the sector, both board members and operator
members, and really do recognise the importance to society in introducing and enthusing young people in managing risks and responsibilities in the outdoors environment; and also the unique opportunities it
can bring to young people.”

Going Forwards Together

Andrew Gardiner sees AIM providing an increasingly valued service for the industry going forward:
“Operators cannot provide activities without solid reliable cover in place. As a member organisation, we can act in the interests of the sector as a whole and take a long term practical view. The sharing of technical knowledge and expertise makes sense and the community approach of AIM provides a platform that makes this possible for
organisations of all sizes. We will continue to support members through our programme of seminars and conferences – something that we have been doing since we started.

In addition to this there is a more obvious financial benefit for long term members in terms of the potential for rebates. Having been established for over 10 years AIM is now able to look back at previous years and, where possible, provides a distribution of surplus on contributions paid. This is unique to a mutual and a reflection on the good safety and claims record of AIM members.”

James Willis has a clear vision for AIM as it faces the opportunities and challenges of the next 10 years:
“We expect to see growth in the outdoor sector in terms of both new members and revenue, but we recognise that there may be some volatility in levels of provision as a function of economic cycles, particularly for independent operators who rely on external funding to support their operations. AIM has, from the outset, taken a long term view and providing the outdoor sector with a stable and reliable service will remain its top priority.”

From Sparks To Inferno

/in /by

In the same way that some of the most serious fires and explosions begin life as a mere spark if left unchecked, the same can be true with major incidents and organisational crises, write Julian Penney and Chris Gallant of Pharos Response.

Seemingly minor incidents or complicated customer complaints can develop into serious situations if they are not dealt with swiftly by a senior member of staff. Such situations can be highly costly not just financially but in terms of personal welfare, reputation or brand damage, and management time involved in dealing with the response.

All this points to the fact that quick and decisive action is needed to deal with low-level incidents or complaints to defuse the situation and extinguish the flames. For activity providers, health and safety is a major part of what they do day-in, day-out. This is why they are good at handling incidents on the ground. However, some may be less strong at dealing with the aftermath and handling the sensitive communications with parents and schools who may go to the press, vent their frustrations on social media or pursue a legal claim if they feel their situation is not being well handled. So what tools are available to activity providers to help you respond quickly? Fortunately, there is a whole range of ‘fire extinguishers’ available and the good news is that most are straightforward and easy to implement internally.

1. Incident reporting systems.

It is important that those who are ‘in the field’ or ‘on the ground’ have a simple and effective way of informing management when a potentially complex incident has occurred or when a complaint is likely. Activity instructors may not always make a suitable assessment of the organisational impact of a situation so it is important that information is escalated quickly to someone who can do so. Instructors and leaders should be confident that they will have management support and, importantly, that they are available, including out of hours.

2. Complaints and incident handling procedures.

Most activity providers will have some form of emergency plan and it is important that this is communicated to all those involved in the process. Plans are best when they are kept simple and use checklists and flowcharts rather than prescriptive paragraphs of text and bullet points. These should be kept up-to-date and cover the full range of scenarios and incident severity – not just be reserved for a crisis event which is unlikely to happen.

3. Communication plans.

Whilst most activity providers have a reasonable incident plan, many are weaker when it comes to external communications. Such a plan should be written to identify the stakeholders specific to your own organisation and set out who will communicate with them and how. Clearly the media is a major concern to most, but social media, customers, families and staff are equally important.

4. Training.

Fire & Rescue Services frequently train their staff and so too should activity providers give incident handling training to their own staff. Such training can be very simple, involving scenario discussions and ‘tool box talks’, or it can involve realistic role play. Lessons learned from training exercises and simulations are invaluable when it comes to dealing with real situations and are usually more useful than any written procedure you will see! We often run scenario-based incident training for clients to test their response in a very realistic but safe environment, identifying areas for improvement.

5. Ethos and culture.

Your organisation no doubt values itself for being open and honest and doing the right thing by its customers, and this is likely to help prevent complaints and incidents from escalating into crises. Fear of litigation may prompt a defensive tone but this is more likely to make a situation worse. Similarly, delaying replies to customers or the failure by frontline staff to answer their phones will certainly add fuel to the fire.

6. Professional assistance.

Even with the best laid plans a little extra help can go a long way, as one AIM Member discovered after a customer’s tragic death from natural causes whilst at their premisies. AIM’s tailored arrangement with Pharos ensured that the Member had access to professional advice exactly when it was needed. A number of AIM Members have benefitted from Pharos’ services over the past year for “minor” situations which had the potential to conflagrate, such as minor climbing falls, a child accessing dangerous chemicals, or an allergic reaction to food provided on the premises.

So in summary our advice is simple: to help prevent the sparks of an incident from developing into an inferno, we advise activity providers to assess what tools they have at their disposal and prepare in advance for a speedy and effective response.