Public Liability Insurance

Please could someone explain the rational behind asking camps to have their own public liability insurance? I'm not aware of any other burns that have this requirement.

yes, I haven't seen anything mentioned and I do read the comms :-p

Please see my reply below. There’s been a lot of misunderstanding here. I’ve apologised for poor comms below.

There is however a rational reason I didn’t just decide on a whim that this seemed like a good idea.

The below is taken from the theme camp FAQ, which Edge of Chaos supplied. It is essentially to make sure our arses are totally covered, as far as I understand. If the below answer isn't satisfactory or detailed enough I would suggest getting touch with EOC directly - [email protected]

'"Of course we would like for everything to be fun, happy and smooth. We also need to be prepared. The terms of Burning Nest’s insurance requires ‘external contractors/stall holders’ to hold their own Public Liability Insurance (PLI). While theme camps are neither contracted by nest or technically ‘stall holders’, in order to ensure our insurance covers us indisputably, all camps are required to acquire independent PLI cover."

By requiring theme camps and artists to have their own insurance, you are implying that they are external contractors. As such, why do they have to buy memberships?If the inland revenue saw that these participants were treated as external contractors, they could challenge the Nest is actually a mutually trading members' only organisation.
Has professional tax advice been taken before going down this route?

I have replied below about this x

Hi guys,

Sam here, EOC link.
I apologise I’ve just been made aware of this thread or I would have replied much sooner. Let me clear up this confusion/reasoning behind this policy. Once it’s clear what this is about, happy to take feedback or alternative solutions.

First of all Artist’s 100% DO NOT need to hold their own PLI. That is all covered by Nest’s public liability insurance. As are most activities on site. No one bringing art to Nest has any reason to be concerned about this additional cost. It simply isn’t about you guys.

Theme camp’s bringing THEIR OWN structures do need to hold their own PLI. I realise this isn’t ideal but our insurer is refusing to insure for any structures which are not directly owned by Nest and any structures on site which don’t have insurance invalidate our entire insurance policy for the event. Hence why I have asked camp’s to cover themselves for a small additional cost.

As you mentioned Hilda is they are treating camps as external contractors. No amount of me explaining to them that this is not the case has changed their position on this. It is not easy to insure an event like Nest because insurers just don’t understand the nuance of what a Burn is.

I’m sorry this could have been communicated more clearly and I will send out a clarification in comms. Sometimes with volunteer organisations doing lots of things wires get crossed or I rush my comms! I hope this clears up the questions above. Happy to reply to further inquiries

Thanks Sam, I've edited the subject text to reflect your message.

Cool maybe make clear that it didn’t say that before. Just so people know it’s edited

Thank you Sam for the detailed response. You won't be surprised that it raises more questions.

You say "any structures which are not directly owned by Nest" should be insured.

What is the definition of a structure?
Why isn't art deemed to be a 'structure' (not all art installations receive art grants after all so not all art is owned by Nest)?
How will a theme camp know if what it is bringing is a structure?
What about free campers bringing 'structures'?

In summary, how are theme camps and others supposed to find out if they require insurance?

And note, the website currently says that artists DO require insurance but there's nothing on the theme camps page about it.