Traveller

So we agree it is all rather wooly and even Ministers see it differently, and say it differently. I certainly agree re the self preservation angle.

Where in my post did I say I needed help with common sense? Not sure how you could do that anyway. Can you help someone's "common sense" - surely you can just feed them information to which they then apply their common sense.

Neither do I, not now. There has, of course, been the added benefit of much debate in various forums and most people's ability to use common sense improves immensely on the back of that. Think that is about it.

How can common sense be applied safely to what has oft been very wooly information. Even Ministers have had problems interpreting it correctly at times. Easy to say you got that wrong, where is your common sense. Typical get-out clause in my books.

We can agree to disagree on that. Common sense is always based in the information before us and it has been muddled.

Excellent post. I question whether the Gvt thought process would ever have got that granular but, MP, there is a warning there to heed. Thank you.

I do find that hard to argue with in these circumstances.

I just put it up as a comparison (and for info) not as a judgement call. In any event Crt are also open from today I believe, but you cannot use the locks - that will work well for those with lock free runs.

To be expected perhaps?

By comparison the Broads have announced they are open as from today. Broads Authority statement 13 May: Government confirms that private boats can use Broads waterways The Broads Authority has today received confirmation from Defra that privately owned powered boats can be used on the Broads for day trips as long as other guidance on social distancing is followed. This follows guidance issued earlier this week that allowed sailing and paddle boating (including canoes, kayaks and paddle boards) to resume. Whilst other inland waterways face a delay in the return of powered private boats, the Broads is able to welcome boaters back because maintenance of the waterways has continued throughout the COVID-19 lockdown. Whilst the public are advised to stay at home as much as possible, from today (13 May) you are now able to leave your home and travel to exercise or spend time outdoors from today. As well as the relaxation of boating restrictions, owners may also visit their boats for leisure or to do maintenance but are not able to stay overnight away from their usual residence (so day trips only). The Authority urges people to take care to follow guidelines and respect social distancing and to bear in mind that many businesses associated with boating may not yet be able to open. It is also essential that boaters contact marinas where their vessels are moored directly to see if they are able to access them as some businesses may not be open or able to facilitate safe access. The revised guidance on returning to work (if you are not able to do so from home) may also mean that some businesses may be able to re-open whilst others cannot. As well as restrictions business owners will have to judge whether it is safe to re-open and if they can apply social distancing/precautionary measures to protect staff and customers. Whilst we are all pleased that we can access the Broads again, the threat of Coronavirus is still very real. It is up to all of us to ensure the guidelines are followed to help save lives and protect our NHS. Read the full statement on our website: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/n…/coronavirus-covid-19/

Just seems a very odd line to me. I wonder what the justification is - what makes driving miles to a picnic less risky than running up and down a waterway for the day? If it is because the Govt have handed the decision off to Crt then I can understand their reticence. I see no self-righteous personalised exceptions here, not unless you take view that giving drivers that freedom is a mass personalised exception and a much more dangerous one if you believe the groans coming from our coastal villages and beauty spots.

I understand all that - I do not understand why you can not go out in a boat for the day but you can in a car. Getting to the boat is clearly not an issue.

I understand and agree with that. Where I see the imbalance is that one can go for miles on a day trip in the car but cannot have a run out on the boat during that day trip. It would not help me anyway as getting to and from the boat would take most of the day out anyway - but some live close to their pride and joys. I understand the decision rests with Crt. This being the case I can understand why they are cautious.

Fair enough, but the way this is panning out at the moment some appear to have a longer inch than others. Why is there a ban on day travel on a boat but not in a car. Is it just Crt being cautious in their interpretation of the guidelines? I came to this thread late and was unaware a further update is expected from Crt. Hopefully the imbalance will be put right soon.

You would not necessarily be staying all night if you took your boat for a run down the canal either.

Yet you can drive your car for miles and go for a picnic. It certainly seems to lack cohesion.

As I read it boat movement has not changed - essential movement for the residential community only. The added bit was we can visit our leisure boats but not cruise them. It is still clouded though as it has been reported that this afternoon friend Boris said no visiting holiday or second homes. So where does that leave us?

That is absolutely fine. You had choice. I am not talking about boat hire specifically but holiday/travel businesses in general and the way deposits are handled/held.

So you think it is fine to use money taken in for a future event to fund the start up costs of a business. And the last time I hired I did not get away for about 3 hours - honest ? The alternative is for the hire company to be open and publish a health warning explaining that in the event of a cancellation, one that provides for a refund, monies might not be available to meet that refund. If people want to live with that then fine. I stand by what I said, a deposit is to secure a future event and is paid in good faith. It is not at that stage part of the businesses income, although they might benefit from any interest earned on that cash (well not these days).

But I have seen painted bilges where the water has got below the paint and lifted it. I am not giving Waxoyl a plus or minus vote as I use a competitor product but I know some who swear by it.

But is not that true of any covering?

Run my own business no. Controlled/carried out oversight of regulated businesses yes. The expenses to which you refer are the ongoing expenses of the business and have nothing to do with a booked holiday, which is the result of the marketing effort. The fact that the boat cannot be rented to anyone else is relevant if the cancellation is down to the purchaser pulling out. Even then the boat might still be let out with a bit of good luck and therefore the business is making money out of someone else's misfortune.

That still does not detract from my belief that deposit monies should not be absorbed into the company in advance of the holiday. Don't quite get the expenses argument - what expenses are there that are associated with a holiday that has been cancelled for whatever reason, other than perhaps small admin costs to register the booking.

Have you got a link, rusty?

This thread like most has been all over the place and even airlines have been mentioned. Either way a company should be obliged to return the deposit where a holiday does not take place due to no fault of the purchaser. Which loops back to my belief that customer deposits should be ring fenced until the holiday materialises. In this particular case the company undoubtably has an argument - whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant as regards the general concept of ring fencing.