Access Re Caves on Longleat Land ( ie Reservoir Hole )

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
This is an ongoing issue at the moment. Cheddar Caves Management ( Longleat Estates ) have been reviewing the way their " assets " are used and controlled. They have also had an introductory tour of Reservoir Hole. They are currently asking for a long waiver form to be signed by all visitors to caves they own in Cheddar Gorge. As far as visitors are concerned this primarily affects Reservoir Hole.

The long form contains all of the usual waiver stuff but insists on other things. ie -

You are fit and experienced enough to do the trip.
You have adequate equipment for the trip.
You are over the age of 18.

More importantly you must have insurance. BCA is accepted but every visitor must be carrying the green card. So do not turn up without one as your warden is supposed to check. The Company will also be doing it's own monitoring.
Some local cavers have said they will not sign the form but there is little point in that when the company have the whip hand. They consider Reservoir Hole to be a Company asset and want full control of it. Personally I will think us lucky if we escape an exorbitant trip fee.

As I said ongoing at the moment but you had better bring your green card and expect to sign the form.
 

pete h

New member
As far as visitors are concerned this primarily affects Reservoir Hole.

This is incorrect it affects ALL caves on there side of the gorge.  :read:
 

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
Well I meant that most visitors will be going to Reservoir Hole on booked trips. The headline to the thread did say " Caves on Longleat Land " which I thought to be inclusive enough. ::)
 

David Rose

Active member
Why do they require cavers to be over 18? This requirement applies to St Cuthberts, all the Longwood/Velvet Bottom caves, too, and various caves in Wales such as Aggie.

My son Daniel is now 13 and a half and is a remarkably competent young caver. Earlier this week we did Meregill Hole with Badlad and Frank Pearson and a Simpson Pot - Valley Entrance trip with just the two of us. He's responsible and keen - a representative of the next generation of cavers. Yet because we happen to live in the south, we can't do many interesting trips nearby. We have to drive for hours.

He would find Reservoir Hole easy. He would be careful in respecting the tapes protecting formations.

Can anyone suggest a single reason why he shouldn't be able to go down St Cuthberts, Agen Allwedd, Longwood Swallet, GB, Chaterhouse Cave, Dan yr Ogof etc etc? 
 

nickwilliams

Well-known member
The reason is because at age 18 you are an adult and are able to sign a legally binding contract. In this case the 'contract' is a liability waiver.

Under the age of 18 you may still be able to sign a legally binding contract, but it's less watertight, so a lawyer would always advise their client to impose an age 18 requirement.

BCA's PL scheme has no lower age limit and some places (Peak Cavern being an example) will accept a waiver signed by a parent or guardian on behalf of a minor.
 
Does anyone on here have a legal background and want to explain how binding these waivers are? I know you can't sign away claims for negligence, but what could negligence be stretched to in the examples of a cave? Loose boulders - does the owner of the property, knowing that cavers are entering, have a DoC to secure these? I honestly don't know. 

Obviously no sensible caver (who wasn't a complete c**t) would dream of trying to claim if they got hurt in a cave owned by someone else but the world is staffed by 90% muppets.
 

David Rose

Active member
So would it be fairly simple to change the terms of these agreements so that a parent could sign on behalf of a child at these other caves too, as with Peak Cavern? I happen to know that RFDCC, which controls access to Otter Hole, does not impose an age limit. Obviously this is both a tough trip and a site where conservation is of high importance, but if it works for them there, why not at Reservoir Hole, Aggie, St Cuthberts, etc?
 

shortscotsman

New member
David Rose said:
So would it be fairly simple to change the terms of these agreements so that a parent could sign on behalf of a child at these other caves too, as with Peak Cavern? I happen to know that RFDCC, which controls access to Otter Hole, does not impose an age limit. Obviously this is both a tough trip and a site where conservation is of high importance, but if it works for them there, why not at Reservoir Hole, Aggie, St Cuthberts, etc?

For Aggy it is the Leader who must be over 18.  Although the access rules say The cave is not recommended for children  a recommendation is not binding..
 

Andy Sparrow

Active member
David Rose said:
Why do they require cavers to be over 18? This requirement applies to St Cuthberts, all the Longwood/Velvet Bottom caves, too, and various caves in Wales such as Aggie.

My son Daniel is now 13 and a half and is a remarkably competent young caver. Earlier this week we did Meregill Hole with Badlad and Frank Pearson and a Simpson Pot - Valley Entrance trip with just the two of us. He's responsible and keen - a representative of the next generation of cavers. Yet because we happen to live in the south, we can't do many interesting trips nearby. We have to drive for hours.

He would find Reservoir Hole easy. He would be careful in respecting the tapes protecting formations.

Can anyone suggest a single reason why he shouldn't be able to go down St Cuthberts, Agen Allwedd, Longwood Swallet, GB, Chaterhouse Cave, Dan yr Ogof etc etc?

You could include in that list Sludge Pit, an excellent novice cave devoid of vulnerable formations, where under 18s and novices are now banned. 
 

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
I was passed a copy of the document over a month ago and gave some views but it may have changed.  My thoughts then were:

a) Conditions 1 & 2 almost certainly fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and related regulations.

b) Seeking a signature switches cavers from possibly being a trespasser under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 to that of being a visitor under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.  I note that as a visitor, section 2 of the 1957 act (subject to the limitations of the unfair terms legislation) would place Longleat under a heightened level of a duty of care compared with a trespasser, as per sub section 1(3) of the 1984 act.

c) The waiver would appear to cover a caver going into the show cave on a show cave trip.

d) Condition 6 possibly grants Longleat the rights to all photographs, surveys and the alike.  I would not sign this condition without clarification from Longleat if I were intent on publishing any photos.

All in all, I would not recommend any other land owner to consider using a waiver like this.  And I would suggest cavers read it carefully (including Condition 4) before considering whether to sign it.

BCA's Broker expressed no significant concern over the waiver.

I would add to Nick's contribution that I doubt if a waiver signed by a parent would have much value under the Human Rights legislation.

Bob Mehew
BCA Legal & Insurance Officer
 

fredthedog

New member
Bob's comment: "I would add to Nick's contribution that I doubt if a waiver signed by a parent would have much value under the Human Rights legislation."

Speaking as someone who advised a lot of landowners in a 25 year legal career, including several regarding caves, I always advised a 'belt and braces' approach, as that is generally what a client is paying for. I wholly agree Bob's comment regarding parental waivers. I would always have advised a landowner not to go down that route because of the risks.

The Longleat waiver is the product of giving the issue to a lawyer and requesting a 'belt and braces' approach. If this was a negotiation between lawyers there are doubtless several clauses put in their specifically to be 'given away' in the ensuing debate. The ones Bob mentions are examples of that. This is a normal tactic when drafting contracts. To look reasonable, you always have to have several clauses you are quite happy to see taken out, and several others that you are prepared to see heavily modified. But as Longleat are not expecting to have to deal with lawyers, the document will almost certainly end up being accepted 'as is'. The perils of one side having legal representation while the other hasn't.

The fact that BCA's insurers have taken the view that it doesn't appear to materially affect the position of the insured is about the only thing in favour of signing the document. But as Bob says, there are points that need clarifying, particularly for photographers and surveyors.
 

Burt

New member
I know the new activities manager at the caves, and he's "one of us" - an active climber and occasional caver. So play it by the rules, keep a friendly approach and all will be sweetness. Going at it like a bull at a gate will eventually lead to less access and bad feelings toward cavers.
 

pete h

New member
Going at it like a bull at a gate,  more like they have gone at it like a bull in a china shop, they could have adopted the same scheme as DYO show caves, which has worked well for a good few years now.
 

wormster

Active member
The Old Ruminator said:
More importantly you must have insurance. BCA is accepted but every visitor must be carrying the green card.

What If I have a red one?? does this stipulation mean that the cave is only open to "Club Members" rather than "Bone Fide Cavers"??

ie: anyone can contact the leaders to apply for a trip but supposing my "group" of cavers didn't belong to a club, BUT all had adequate B.C.A. D.I.M. public liability insurance, would we turned down???

Just asking!
 
Top