London More London - Public liability insurance

J

J.D.

Suspended / Banned
Messages
572
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
I was planning to take the opportunity for some photography whilst Im in London next month, and thought that I'd put in an application for a permit to More London to avoid any hassle from security (see link below)

http://www.morelondon.com/media/filming-photography-request/

Now, their guidelines state that they support amateur photography, so I filled in the application accordingly. However, I got an email back asking for a copy of my public liability insurance. Surely this isn't something an amateur photographer would normally have, so they seem to be contradicting their guidelines somewhat.

I've had a look through my home and travel policies, but don't seem to be covered under these (travel insurance does include personal liability, but only outside the UK, and below the £5m limit that More London requests anyway), and some googling only brings up public liability policies for businesses.

Anybody got any experience of dealing with More London as a private individual, or with personal liability policies?

Thanks,
James
 
boliston said:
I think this is aimed more at commercial shoots which often have a team of helping staff, props, models, tripods, equipment boxes etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I assumed - but I've been asked to provide evidence of cover even though they are aware I'm not a professional (and will be there by myself, with just an SLR and tripod).

Doesn't sound much like "support[ing] amateur and student photography taking photographs for a private portfolio, educational coursework or other non-commercial use" to me. They must realise that virtually no amateurs are going to have £5m public liability insurance, so its pretty much in direct conflict with the above quote from their guidelines.
 
Even though they spout some feelgood phrases about supportng amateurs, students etc they do not seem to exclude those from having a public liability policy.
 
Last edited:
A tripod is like a red rag to a bull for a security guard so might be a problem without a permit - there is a video on youtube called "stand your ground" where photographers use tripods on public pavements and are still challenged by security guards even though the guards have not got a leg to stand on - one guard even called the police who simply told the photographer there was nothing the guard could do!
 
sphexx said:
Even though they spout some feelgood phrases about supportng amateurs, students etc they do not seem to exclude those from having a public liability policy.
Click to expand...

No they don't, but unless there are public liability policies for individuals rather than businesses then they have two statements that contradict each other, which isn't particularly supportive.
 
boliston said:
A tripod is like a red rag to a bull for a security guard so might be a problem without a permit - there is a video on youtube called "stand your ground" where photographers use tripods on public pavements and are still challenged by security guards even though the guards have not got a leg to stand on - one guard even called the police who simply told the photographer there was nothing the guard could do!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately More London is private land, so there's nothing stopping their security from asking photographers to leave if they don't have a permit.

I don't object to having to apply for a pass, and I'd rather comply with their requirements to avoid any hassle with security, but they're not making it particularly easy for amateurs, despite what they claim.
 
Have replied to ask for clarification regarding amateurs.

If anyone's got any experience of getting a permit from More London I'd be interested to hear your views
 
anyone can get by the day P/L - it should cost no more than a tenner for £5M P/L for one day , so if you really want to shoot there you might be better off just getting some. That said yes it is silly , but its their land their rules
 
It's hard to imagine how someone with a hand held camera could cause £5,000,000 of damage!


Steve.
 
Indeed but its murrican litigation ('king lawyers) - suppose someone puts their camera bag down and someonelse trips over it and whangs their head on the pavement

Trippee can then sue for lost earning, emotional distress , who knows what else with a hefty chunk going to the ambulance chasing shyster who put them up to it " have you had an accident in the last 12 months ? are you an amoral f***wit with no sense of personal responsibilty ? , then call 0800 .... "

And the reason the landowners insists on the user having PL is that if he doesnt chances are at least some of the claim will wind up wit the landowner (or his insurer)
 
Recently I was questioned by two different security guards while photographing early evening on More London property. The first was while I was tucked away in the Scoop. I was asked if I was a professional photographer, then when I said no he said he didn't want me shooting closeups of the properties there. He left me to get on with it after I showed him how close up the images were taken with an 8mm fisheye.

The next was 30 minutes later when I was in the middle of the road/pathway between buildings looking towards the Shard. The conversation went the same way as the earlier one. When I indicated where my lens was pointing, high towards the tip of the Shard, he left me alone.

It was quiet and cold, not many people about. I must admit, on each occasion I thought here we go again, but it was a pleasant surprise. Getting a permit was never mentioned. I wouldn't be over concerned re obtaining a permit.
 
big soft moose said:
anyone can get by the day P/L - it should cost no more than a tenner for £5M P/L for one day , so if you really want to shoot there you might be better off just getting some. That said yes it is silly , but its their land their rules
Click to expand...

Any idea where? The policies I've found are annual and ask for business details. Found some short term ones but they seem to be for holding an event
 
steveb said:
Recently I was questioned by two different security guards while photographing early evening on More London property. The first was while I was tucked away in the Scoop. I was asked if I was a professional photographer, then when I said no he said he didn't want me shooting closeups of the properties there. He left me to get on with it after I showed him how close up the images were taken with an 8mm fisheye.

The next was 30 minutes later when I was in the middle of the road/pathway between buildings looking towards the Shard. The conversation went the same way as the earlier one. When I indicated where my lens was pointing, high towards the tip of the Shard, he left me alone.

It was quiet and cold, not many people about. I must admit, on each occasion I thought here we go again, but it was a pleasant surprise. Getting a permit was never mentioned. I wouldn't be over concerned re obtaining a permit.
Click to expand...


Thanks, good to know. It shouldn't be particularly busy when I'm planning to go either
 
J.D. said:
Any idea where? The policies I've found are annual and ask for business details. Found some short term ones but they seem to be for holding an event
Click to expand...

I used to use Aon (when i was starting out doing weddings and only needed PL and PI occasionally) but any decent broker ought to be able to sort you out... also may be worth checking with your house insurer or your photo kit insurer as they may offer PL options
 
big soft moose said:
Indeed but its murrican litigation ('king lawyers) - suppose someone puts their camera bag down and someonelse trips over it and whangs their head on the pavement
Click to expand...

Same as someone who puts their non-camera bag down and trips over it. It's just an accident.

big soft moose said:
And the reason the landowners insists on the user having PL is that if he doesnt chances are at least some of the claim will wind up wit the landowner (or his insurer)
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's the land owner's responsibility and his insurance should cover it in the first instance.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Exactly. It's the land owner's responsibility and his insurance should cover it in the first instance.


Steve.
Click to expand...

yes but the landowner is expected to take 'all reasonable steps' to reduce the risk , and as they have absolute control on what people can do in the land you can expect that to include restrictions and permit systems.

that said expecting an amateur to have PL is a bit OTT , but its perfectly reasonable for any commercial work
 
Understand why they want it for commercial work, but thankfully they've now said I can just get in touch with when I'm there sand security will be told, so looks like theres no need after all
 
I've photographed City Hall (late afternoon & evening long exposures) from the Scoop on at least 5 seperate occasions. I've never realised MoreLondon want you to have a permit, and I've never had one. Never had any hassle or second glances from any security, despite being stood there with a tripod for at least an hour at a time, even when it's mega busy. I've got PLI anyway, but have never been asked for it.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I never realised that you would need to get permits for taking pictures around there. I was there a couple of days before New Year. It was busy when I went and I was never questioned about what I was doing or taking pictures of. That said, I was only using my monopod and didn't have a lot of kit with me. Glad I read this though as I am planning a trip to London again and probably will take my tripod with me.
 
I have been questioned by a security guard at More, London. I was using a tripod at the time which didn't bother him. He was concerned I was filming rather than shooting stills (I dont even know if that feature on my camera works as its never been used!) Once I explained it was stills only he was fine and walked off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top