HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

The 2004 Great White Coat Robbery!

How's That? no.296, December 2004, reprinted an article by Harry Pearson of the Guardian headlined "Beware the men in white coats - 3,000 of them."

HT editor, Della Rebours, wrote an amusing lead-in. "When a three-ton lorry arrrived outside Merchandise Officer Hilary Allen's house loaded with thousands of umpires' coats, she suddenly had a major storage problem! She partly solved this by locking a large number of them in her mother's empty garage. When she checked them later - they had disappeared! But who would want all those white coats, complete with their ACU&S and Post Office badges? That was the background to this hilarious column.." According to the 2004 Annual Report, the loss happened in September 2004.

The article was long on humour but had useful facts. Pearson wrote: "...I read that thieves had broken into a garage in Rainham and made off with 3,000 umpire's jackets. " (Our italics) "According to Kent Police, a member of the Association of Cricket Umpires and Scorers had been storing the coats - embroidered with the ACU&S badge and the red logo of the sponsors, the Post Office - in her garage and had returned on Monday to find them gone." And: "The distinctive jackets - estimated street value £45,000 - have gone and so far nobody has any idea who took them or, more worrying still, why they took them. Questioned about the case Kent Police remained stonyfaced."

Was Pearson right or was Rebours? Were they in her mother's garage (HT) or were they "in her garage" - Hilary Allen's (Guardian). Or is this just careless writing by one or other? How many coats were delivered? 3,000 were stolen, value £45,000 according to Pearson, but Rebours tells us that this was part of the consignment. Just how many were delivered in all? And why was her storage problem sudden and unforeseen? Delivery people usually give some advance notice of their arrival, albeit that it may be later than they specify. Why were so many coats being delivered so long after they were originally produced? The cover of "How's That? " for as long ago as August 2002 showed an umpire with just such a coat but here, over two years later, coats for practically half the membership were being suddenly delivered. The Post Office's records showed their last payment to the supplier as being in May 2003. Why would they turn up sixteen months afterwards?

It is odd that there has been no follow-up article. £45,000-worth of coats went missing less than two months before the Assistant Treasurer (Accounts) e-mailed (3.11.2004) to Barrie Stuart-King "I thought that you ought to know that we are showing a loss on the year of about £51,500. This does not include the cheque for £2875.55 to Weatherby's (which, I think, only you and I are privy to)..." yet nothing more was said about the matter. The money would have been handy.

Of course, it may have been embarrassing to admit that our insurers refused to pay up. BS-K was unamused. He e-mailed Colin Mico, the MD of PCM Risk Solutions, our brokers and former NRCC joint-venture partner on 25th January 2005:

"Subject: Knowles Loss Adjusters and 2,800 Umpire/Coats
Importance: High
Colin - Can you please advise the current status of our claim against QBE and Knowles Loss Adjusters? Did you manage to get hold of - and pass on - the information they requested (stalling tactics)? It struck me afterwards that QBE must have a copy of the Policy themselves.
I am forwarding you a copy of my original letter upon which now, in the light of the delay and their manifest procrastination, I intend to pusue (sic) . UNLESS you have had any positive feedback or contact from Mr Dorling?
We want money in our account asap."

Mr Mico's reply next day said copy proposal forms were passed on and the "reason for the initial rejection of the claim appears to be on the basis that the location at which the loss occurred was never advised to insurers." Clearly, qualifying rejection of our claim with the word initial, he expected acceptance by insurers of the claim but, nearly eighteen months later, no progress has been reported.

Although the loss took place in 2004, had it been paid, that payment would have been made in the year to 31.10.2005. It goes without saying the claim was valid and legitimate, so why have our insurers not paid up? The sum involved, £42,000, is of such proportion that we simply cannot afford to allow the matter to rest without doing our utmost to see that it is paid, particularly in the financial state ACU&S has reached. What action is the Secretary taking?