UKH

If you are in more than one climbing club you can claim back £13.25 per extra club or upgrade to full membership.
I am just about to recieve my refund

How?

It's in the BMC website club FAQ's, or use a direct page link here: www.thebmc.co.uk/claiming-multiple-membership-refunds

Thanks - also about to become £13.25 richer

Always surprised how emotive a subject this is.

I am in two clubs but take the view that if can afford both memberships why not just let the BMC have the dosh. I wonder how much the refunds system costs in administration.

The BMC emailed me this morning to tell me I will receive a refund from my multiple subscriptions.  Obviously because I am important ....

I pay a full individual membership and was forced by an inflexible university club to pay the club member fee despite already having the former. I'm paying 1.3 times what I really should be (c. £47/year) - I'm claiming back the club element! (Hopefully). FWIW my individual membership is over double that of a club member - but that's a can of worms for another time...

That time being 2003...

Who is getting emotional, well after 4 pints on saturday night at the ODG with my £13.25 I suppose I may get a little silly, but hardly emotional.

Actually the club BBC affiliation fee went up to £14.25 this year, so I can only assume the email sent out this morning is an error left over from last year, and the sum landing in our accounts will actually be £14.25.

Drinks all round eh

Isn't that exactly the way the system's designed to work? Everybody pays the standard membership fee to the club and then those who have multiple memberships tell the BMC and get their money back. Moaning at the club for running their BMC memberships the way the BMC designed it seems a little unfair.

Maybe that is something that should be considered as part of phase 2 of the current review process?

It seems absurd to land the BMC with the admin costs of making these refunds when it would be far simpler if the clubs didn't collect fees off those who are already mebers either through other clubs or as individuals.

I think the BMC would have to be involved with admin either way. Each year that somebody joined the club, they'd have to confirm to the club whether that person was still an individual member of the BMC. I think the current system is probably simplest overall. Especially for people who are members of multiple clubs who, according to the website, get to contact the BMC once and receive their refunds automatically each year. The BMC can't possibly escape the admin of their own membership system, and probably wouldn't want to even if someone came up with a method.

Exactly - another time. Although I was 13 then and had little to contribute.

Yes, in the sense that I have got my money back so I'm not really complaining, rather trying to point out why I've got two memberships in the first place. To add to your point about admin costs, the Uni club (rightly or wrongly) used to waive the BMC element of the joining fee and not add you to the membership list sent to the BMC - reducing the faff with refunds for the BMC.

I'm not surprised they stopped doing that. It's pretty easy to imagine scenarios where having club members who the BMC isn't aware of could cause hassle or even serious trouble for the club.

Not very easy is it ? when I renew my local club and CC membership at the beginning of each year, which of those clubs has to absorb the administrative overhead ?  What about my partner who is a member of 3 clubs ? how is it decided ? club volunteers trying to keep track of membership is a right pain as it is.

At least this way the BMC stand to gain more contributions rather than fewer.  With your way and two or three clubs involved its very possible that none of the clubs charge BMC membership - assuming the other clubs involved have done so.

I upgraded my two clubs memberships to full BMC membership for the princely sum of 95p!

It shouldn't be that hard to operate a system at club level where you can't join a club or renew your membership without either paying the BMC element or proving that you have paid it elsewhere.

I bet that there are clubs with undeclared members

Clubs are run by volunteers, so it's very important that any service we provide results in a minimal admin burden for them. At our end, we are also working hard to update our systems so there's less admin to do ourselves. One of the benefits of a  members area on the website, which is currently being worked on, will be that you can update your contact details directly, and do stuff like manage your membership by ticking some boxes. 

I bet those admin costs will be significantly less than the extra income the BMC will get from all those people who are in multiple clubs but don't bother to reclaim.

It really is a pain.  Our caving section (for the purposes of this thankfully far fewer members) runs it.  I bet the CC don't want the burden.  We certainly don't.  And I've not even started on half year memberships.

Any club that does that, then has an accident during a club activity needing to make a Third Party Insurance Claim, will be a very long way up shit creek, with no paddle

You're indeed correct. The BMC provides protection to committee members and club volunteers with regards the provision of advice to inexperienced members, the climbing insurance and legal protection. Personally I would be VERY unhappy with the idea of sitting on a club committee or providing advice to novices without that protection.

I've seen various people questioning why they need to be members of the BMC through their club on here, the nice simple answer is that it protects the people who make your club work.

How does the current system work without placing the burdensome requirement of reporting names and contacts details of all club members to the BMC?

Thanks for making me feel old...

You report all the names of club members to the BMC. To reply to the commenters above in one place - it was only ever people with existing BMC memberships who were waived the fee by the club and not included on this list - so all had third party insurance of their own. As I’m sure you can guess,  numbers where <5 per year. 

Burdensome in the same way that paying your car insurance is such a pain?

Not likely

I find it interesting how many dislike the OP and approve of Rick Grahams post.

Utility Companies, Insurance companies and Banks profit from peoples lack of knowledge and apathy. To avoid this the BMC has put in place a simple system for refunds which I have brought attention to. 
If people want to double pay, for 95p apparently if Mr Kemball is to be believed, people can become full members.
What I cannot get my head around is how many people seem to think the BMC getting extra money from peoples ignorance or laziness is a good thing.

If you support the BMC, why wouldn't extra money into its coffers be a good thing? I totally respect your right to claim your double payment back and don't begrudge you doing it at all. Money's pretty tight for me at the moment and I'd do the same in your position. If I was feeling a bit more flush, I'd probably take Rick Graham's attitude and let them keep the money. I don't see why it has to be just ignorance or laziness, we've got two examples on this thread already who are happy for the BMC to keep their money.

Ignorance, no, but laziness or through choice ? that seems perfectly reasonable to me.  I'm not sure what its like now, but it always used to be pretty clear that you could claim double membership so the number of non lazy people who didn't know must have been pretty small.

My car insurance doesn't have to be collected by a volunteer only to be refunded later because I had already paid it elsewhere.

You have greater faith in human nature than I do.

What checks are in place to prevent it happening?

I was unaware of it until I saw this post - almost certainly a lot of ignorance regarding this.

Only the names?

How do they reliably match up different people with the same names?

Its worth speaking to your club committee. Its something we always mention or is mentioned at our AGM when approving the new subs each year (although that's probably as much to do with the over-complicated caving subs as anything).

Why would there need to be checks? If I was running a club, why would I put myself on the line to save somebody else a few quid? Or, if I was unconcerned about liability issues and didn't care about membership of the BMC, why keep the club affiliated?

I must have, based on the humans in my climbing club (you clearly know some pretty dubious ones)

None of them seem to want to go to prison for fraud.

A good check is receiving our BMC magazine and card.

The volunteer should instead consult a data base they don't have access to and check your photo ID and other documents to prove you've paid before charging you less. Also which of the two clubs is going to be the one who takes less money off you.

More generally, is it right to be thinking of the BMC in the same terms as purely commercial organisations? If it was a charity donation you found you were paying twice (by not having been alerted to or heeded the info freely available) would you begrudge it as much?

Quite right.

Realistically what % of club or BMC members hold multiple club memberships or club membership and BMC membership at the same time?

Surely this is a _small_ problem and there is a danger (already) of spending more time arguing about the "problem" than actually administering it.

I'd be happy to be corrected but if this affect more than 1% of club / BMC members I'd be surprised.

No, that is my point.

Supposedly the BMC is our club. It should not seek to profit by peoples inertia. I do not think it does, but it does worry me that some people think it fine if it does. If people chose to donate great, but it should be their choice.

On this issue I think it does a good job of dealing with the issue, in no way am I criticising the BMC office.
 

In our club its at least 5%, probably more (some in two clubs, me included, and one I know in three clubs) - not counting the cavers who tend to be in multiple clubs much more

People will join national clubs like the CC as well as their local clubs, or remain affiliated to old clubs when they move into the area.

It's changed now anyway, and I'm leaving too. Being a uni club committee changes each year, and members often have little knowledge of the workings of the BMC membership system.

DOB and postcode

Thousands of people have given very significant amounts of time to the BMC for free and/or have done huge amounts of BMC work without claiming travel or other expenses (esp in guidebook and access work). Same applies for clubs. They must all be bonkers by the same argument

The right to reclaim the multiple BMC contributions through club subs money and the mechanisms to do so are legally important.  That people use this route and don't follow Mark Kemball's route I find rather weird but not unexpected given how parsimonious climbers can be and how a small minority of club members seem to really resent the BMC for no obvious logical reason. Even from an economics perspective if you fully costed the time you spend doing so and the BMC process costs, it will be more than the amount involved, so you need to be really poor or effectively vindictive.

I think the BMC should maybe look into a right of full membership for those in two affiliated clubs as the 95p payment seems daft from a principle or economic perspective.

Edit: The BMC also contains subsiduary charities. Eg The Access Trust, The Land Management Trust (10 crags most recent purchase Crookrise) and links work with various other major charities (eg NT and RSPB)

You give the BMC your details once, and it happens automatically for ever.

If can't trust one another to be honest about your identity then the status of your BMC membership is probably the least of your problems

The whole setup seems unduly clumsy if club insurance is somehow linked to BMC membership but you can still get a refund if you're a member of another club

So says someone who has clearly never fully costed admin processes and assumes membership remains fixed for ever. I always found it useful cost my own free time at £20 an hour when considering how worthwhile it is doing or chasing stuff myself... unless I enjoy it, when I do it anyway, or I'm annoyed when justice means I'll chase at a loss for a while.

I don't see it as weird at all.  Why should you expect anyone to pay two or three times for the same thing ?  it should be viewed as a charitable donation, not as an expectation.

It doesn't seem that clumsy to me.  It seems to be by far and away the most pragmatic way of dealing with the <10% of the membership that fall into this multiple category - and if by laziness or good will people chose to not claim, the BMC gains.

I agree. So long as people know about it, its up to them.

There may be some logic in that thinking if you're a member of 2 clubs, but it still seems absurd if you have already paid £57 for a full BMC family membership and have the membership cards to prove it.

It just creates unnecessary work for the member, the club secretary and the BMC admin staff.

I don't think it does. The member fills in the form once in their life and then gets any rebates they're due automatically each year.

The club secretary doesn't have to worry about it. They treat all members exactly the same and charge them the same price, without having to do any extra admin around confirming existing memberships.

The BMC are the only ones that have any multiple-membership-related admin to worry about. Given that they designed the system this way and haven't chosen to change it, it's probably not too onerous for them. They're arguably the ones in the best position to run things, it's their organisation.

The system you seem to be arguing for would see people having to prove their existing membership every year to every club. That's surely more hassle for the individual and the clubs than a one-time refund application to the BMC. It would presumably also mean that your membership to the club couldn't be confirmed for each new year until the BMC post out membership cards each December.

It seems logical to me. Joining two clubs doesn't double most of the BMC membership benefits in any way. Presumably, with only so many hours in the week, you don't climb twice as much and need liability insurance for twice the time. There's a good argument for individuals choosing to let the BMC keep both lots of subs but I think it's fair that they offer the rebate option too.

The current system also has the potential to incur 3 sets of unecessary bank charges?

Is it hard to put a BMC membership number on the return rather than a DoB and postcode for those who are already members?

This is correct (this year), the only downside is that I can't, at the moment, set this up to upgrade automatically (so I was told) as the individual  and club memberships change from year to year. To upgrade, I phoned the BMC office and gave them my credit card details for 95p!

I had previously been aware that I could get a refund, but had decided to let the BMC keep my extra subscription as a donation. Of course, if you are a member of 3 or more clubs, you could become an individual member and get a refund!

But the BMC still incurs the admin costs required to enter and validate this information

Why don't you just upgrade your club membership to individual membership???

The only scenario that wouldn't work is if you're already an individual member, and you join the club mid-year.  But you could change to a upgrade when your individual membership comes due for renewal.

No it doesn't - a member still has to pay some subs to the club even without the  BMC part of it.  The refund from the BMC to the member (or the club they've nominated) is paid in a lump sum. 

Some clubs do ask for your BMC membership number if you already have one.  I introduced it in our club when I was secretary.  DOB was also helpful - I remember spotting that someone had changed address on the quarterly return, when actually it was a genuine error at the BMC end trying to match up multiple people with the same name in the same city.