Joint provision of adventure activities
AALS Inspector Guidance Note - IGN 1.06
- Version No & date: 1: 04/02/2010
- Review date: 02/2013
Issue: There are cases where the lines are unclear as to which of two providers is actually providing an activity.
Examples of joint provision
- Two or more companies work together to run an event;
- A school uses both an outdoor centre’s facilities and backup support to take groups hill walking using the school’s own staff;
- Some sub-contracting arrangements – e.g. freelance instruction where sometimes ambiguity exists as to who is actually the provider.
- In principle - Each party in the provision needs either a licence or to fall into one of the categories of provider exempted from licensing.
- In practice - Consider each party in terms of needing a licence unless they can demonstrate that they are exempt. Examples where a licence may not be required - (a) they do not have any significant control over the activity taking place, (b) it is a school providing for its own pupils, (c) the activities which the particular party in question is running are not in scope of licensing.
- Providers should set the boundaries first and then discuss the requirements for a licence with the Adventure Activities Licensing Service, where applicable. Experience shows that in many cases there seems to be no formal demarcation of who is responsible for what in joint provision arrangements as is required under general health and safety legislation. This lack of communication may only come to light and become an issue if something goes wrong.
