Traveller
-
Posts
1,185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Traveller
-
-
Have never used it but know some who have and remain quite happy with it. Dimitrol has always been my preferred product. Where I have used that in the boat's bilges is standing up pretty well it would seem.
-
3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:
Well ok, but let’s remember that In this case, they cannot deliver the product for reasons not of their making either. I draw a similarity with the EU airline laws - the airline is only required to pay for a delayed flight if the delay was caused by something under their control.
But the reality is that in most cases, neither the customer nor the business cancelled delivery of the product. It was the uk government that did that.
Yes but at the end of the day they have not delivered and therefore the deposit monies should still be available for return. Even if less an admin charge given the circumstances. That is why I believe deposit monies should be ring fenced.
-
1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:
But the Contract says that if YOU cancel you are entitled to nothing back, which is exactly what the OP did. If he had waited a short time for the company to cancel he would have got all his money back.
As it is the company have gone beyond their Contract with the OP and offered him a voucher for a future holiday.This is all apparently just a timing thing then and leaves a bad taste. But some companies are not refunding when they instigated the cancellation.
2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:If the COMPANY cancel then they will repay the deposit. If the customer cancels, as in this case, they do not have to.
Tell that to the airlines.
-
But Waxoyl is designed for cavities too. Have not used it personally but would recommend Dimitrol.
-
1 hour ago, nicknorman said:
But what is the point of a deposit if you can just ask for it back? When you book something (which precludes someone else from booking the same thing) surely the point is that, if you decide to back out at the last minute, the operator, who probably can’t now offer the service to someone else at short notice, gets to keep the deposit by way of recompense.
The point is a company paying it back when they cancel or cannot deliver the product for reasons not of the customer’s making.
-
9 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:
The firms would be more likely to borrow the funds from the bank than keep separate capital tied up, so we are probably talking about a quarter to a third more expensive for the hire to pay finance charges.
Your £1000 for the week would be more like £1300.
Personally, I would prefer to pay a "proper" rate but of course that might force the hirers out of business because there is a high probability a lot of punters would not be prepared to pay. But, if that is how it is the risks should be clearly marked on the contract. I wonder how many would buy a holiday if the terms were basically - your deposit has been paid into the business and is non-refundable.
-
No what I am saying they should not be using cash taken as a deposit for a future holiday to finance current operations/past debts. Thus said cash should be there should a refund event arise - like the holiday is cancelled due to no fault of the purchaser.
-
It does exist in some heavily regulated businesses but clearly not the holiday industry. So clearly the holiday industry, like some others, needs sorting out or at least in needs a regulator with teeth. It is ok saying deposits will be paid back (subject to certain exceptions) but if there is no mechanism to ensure that deposit is there the entire thing is a charade.
-
11 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:
The obvious answer to your first question is because they have to finance the purchase/build of a fleet of boats. I suspect a hire company will have spent way more than the combined deposit of every single holiday they can sell in a year simply to be able to offer customers the chance to hire in the first place.
Building a fleet of boats on the back of customer deposits has the potential to equate to selling holidays on boats that do not exist. In any event is not a deposit paid to hire a specific boat as per brochure! Yet another reason deposits can be lost then - holiday booked, not enough deposits taken and boats not built. I very much doubt if that is the way most firms work and some of those fleets have been around for years anyway. I can believe that some get into difficulty and cannot service their bank loans and therefore use the deposits.
-
4 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:
Perhaps not garden centres but if the government says you can go out as often as you want what then?
I suppose the crucial thing is going to be any rules around second homes. There is still a need to not overstretch scarce rural NHS resources so we've got a while to wait I think.
I live in hope but fear you have found the nails head. I would be happy if I could just visit my boat to check it over but I am not filled with optimism. I could do that trip in a day but many can't.
-
1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:
Depends on the business. In many cases the costs of providing the service (holiday) are actually incurred before the start of the holiday. In one sense, the cash flow is funding the provision of the holiday. In sectors that are very price sensitive then the alternative of not using the liquidity would be extra borrowing/investment that would add to the cost of the holiday.
One of the possible outcomes of this pandemic will be a re-awakening of the risk assessment trade-off - infrequent risks with high costs do sometimes happen. We have all 'benefited' - and the electorate has endorsed - the reduced cost of public service (via lower taxes) and are now finding out about the high cost of that choice.
Fair point but is this the case the re a narrowboat holiday for instance? I wonder what the books of these companies really look like, they must effectively be bust - trading on the income earned from something that has not yet happened and might not happen (through no fault of the purchaser) is hardly sound business practice. But I agree - we have all wanted something for as close to nothing as possible and have not seen the risks attached to that. Maybe audit practices need looking at too.
-
18 hours ago, nicknorman said:
The problem is that these companies (with a few exceptions like Ryanair and BA) don’t have enough funds to refund everyone.
So there are 2 scenarios,
1: they refund as many people as they can until they go bust, those not refunded by the time the company goes bust -tough.
2. they offer vouchers, rebooking etc etc and eventually, everyone that booked gets a holiday, flight or whatever. Well, those that haven’t died in the meantime anyway.
Martin Lewis is right, but equally you can’t get blood out of a stone as they say!
I suspect the cash has been used but it does rather raise the question (to me anyway) of why they might be using deposits to help with the daily cash flow. My view is that a deposit is a show of faith by the purchaser and should be ring-fenced until the holiday takes place. I accept it might be used to cover "admin costs" should the purchaser cancel but outside of that it should be protected and refundable.
-
1 hour ago, NewCanalBoy said:
I've found one of the Dinitrol products particular useful before. It comes in an aerosol and is a rust treatment. With a tube/straw attachment it will spray quite far and is not thick so easily sprays into crevices. I'll try and find the one I"be used......
That was my experience too - I believe I used the cavity wax.
-
4 hours ago, Richard10002 said:
If you can get a hoover in, can you get a scraper in. Scrape all the loose stuff and hoover it out. Then, would it be too difficult to get some Vactan in there with an angled brush, in an attempt to convert the rust, before doing anything else.
My concern with Waxoyl is that it coats a surface to prevent rust starting, and you will be coating the rust - I'm no expert, so may not matter.
I always understood that Waxoyl does both - protects steel and kills existing rust. The Hammerite website seems to confirm this
https://www.hammerite.co.uk/product/waxoyl/
I have used DInatrol and found that it works well.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lady C said:
This may sound a bit cynical but I wonder if the slight change in stance from CRT is associated with boat insurance. In normal times, insurers sometimes decline a claim if they believe lack of maintenance was a contributory factor.
'My boat sank because CRT banned me from checking it' may not be a good basis for a successful insurance claim and could even result in the boatowner taking CRT to court.
Could be. I doubt that CRT have ever really been in a position to police boat visits but this certainly leaves the door open to those making visits that comply with the lockdown rules. And that is the crux of it - any journey must comply with the Govt lockdown. Absolutely nothing has changed and marinas that are closed are still closed.
-
11 minutes ago, robtheplod said:
Hopefully this tied in with what Boris might be saying next week may mean people can return to their boats......
I do think there is stuff going on behind the scenes and my guess is that we will see restrictions part lifted by the end of May. But the above CRT advice is poor and seems to be saying no more than, well if you want to come down we won't stop you accessing your boat (because we cannot police it anyway) but its your shout and if you get nicked on the way that's tough. In other words nothing has changed. Wonder if the EA are saying anything similar?
Will be good to get back on board though but I won't do it on the back of this advice, not as it stands anyway ? -
But this just muddies the water. And are the Police/HMG onside with it? Most of us need to drive a distance to get to our boat - hour and a half for me. What happens if you get stopped by the men in blue and sent back? I am certain they will not give a damn what crt say! Crt may have jurisdiction on the canals but nowhere else so I do question their authority when it comes to travel on the roads.. Then of course many marinas have blocked leisure boaters anyway so there is no access even if you get there.
I am certain there are good reasons why many of us would like to visit our boats but this is a strange way to deal with it. On the one hand you have RYA saying you cannot but they will try and get access and crt saying you can, well maybe! That said, the crt advice is just passing the buck by saying it's your judgement call. At the end of the day the rules of the road have not changed and crt are not the ultimate arbiter. -
47 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:
Thing is we will probably all get it anyway. it looks like it kills less than one percent of those that get it so far. Talk about glass half empty living. I am not hoping to catch it but in reality would rather get it and deal with it one way or the other than spend my life living like a rabbit in the headlights.
I suspect the vast majority do not feel that way though so we are where we are. Personally I am happy to live with the headlights, understand the counter argument but feel we must support the rules as laid down by HMG.
-
12 minutes ago, Detling said:
I understand that there are no staff in my marina they are furloughed, There are a few 'volunteer habour masters' keeping an eye out and they can call for assistance if required. I doubt they are patrolling but hopefully would spot a boat in trouble before it sank. As mentioned we do have a duty to ensure our boat does not present a danger to anyone else, not easy from 200 miles away, I try not to wonder if I turned this or that off.
I know what you mean Detling. Our marina is the same re staff, although sufficient are around to monitor the boats daily. Thankfully, for a change, I can remember turning the gas off but I have had £1500 of work done that I have paid for but not seen ?
Re the health and safety thing - I would have thought that was the marinas responsibility given that you cannot access the place and they are carrying out patrols? But I am no lawyer. If I were I'd be rich ?
-
5 minutes ago, Higgs said:
Seemingly, it would be the operative word.
As I implied, it is good that you, and it seems also Traveller, are happy with the level of care that you are both fortunate to have at your respective marinas. It doesn't mean it is also necessary for you to dismiss the anxieties people have. Ok, you're sitting pretty in you own situation, others may be concerned with theirs. In time, you are going to have to come to terms with more people be allowed to ease up on lock-down. The onus will always be on the individual to pay the most attention to their own safety. We could all touch the wrong surface, or forget one vital wash of the hands.
I do not think we ever claimed that the anxiety is not justified, it is just that helping to save lives comes first. The fact however is that all people cannot be trusted and it only takes a small number to pass the virus around. To that extent the anxiety is inflicted by those who do not care or think they know better (or both). If we could all be trusted to follow the rules the lockdown might well have been less draconian. I, like everybody else, hope the restrictions ease, but only when it is safe to do so. I want to go play boats too.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:
We're back to the whole 'rights come with attendant responsiblities' thing here, aren't we?
At least some of us care (the great majority, seemingly).
Indeed we are.
-
2 minutes ago, Higgs said:
The government will be thinking of ways to judge the level at which normality can be introduced. I don't reckon the need to ask for boat checking should be on a request basis. It ought to be obvious that this needs to be done. No reason why it can't be done. It can be done. It's responsible support for the absent boater - under the circumstances.
As I said it is done daily at my marina. They will also do more intrusive checks if asked. I also know it is being done at other Marinas on the system.
-
31 minutes ago, Higgs said:
As boaters are not able to take care of their boats, and leave it in the hand of the insurance companies to make good, I see no reason not to expect the marina to take responsibility, to do at least a daily check on conditions and keep an eye on the boats.
I mix with people in the supermarket, I don't think a short visit from a leisure moorer would be any worse. I can't control how the residential moorers come and go, either.
Our marina is doing daily checks and will do more on an "as asked" basis. I have always left a key with them as that seems a sensible thing to do anyway. But we are talking about lives here and the isolation rules are there for a very good reason. You know as well as I do that many will go to their boats not just for an hour, they will interpret the exception to achieve their own ends. They will next be running the boat up and down the waterways claiming they are just checking the engine is ok. The fact is a significant number of visits will not be short visits, people are not going to undertake long journeys just to spend an hour at the boat and there are many just looking for ways to break out - they are all over FB. As has been said before - laws like these will always be made with an eye on controlling the irresponsible amongst us. Personally I work hard at not being irresponsible.
As for residential boaters, are they not governed by the same rules as the rest of us? -
4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:
I wonder how many of them are in fact being lived in at the moment?
You can safely bet that some are as there will always be those who break the rules; as an aside, there is a second home in this village that is now permanently occupied! The numbers in Southwold have greatly reduced I am told. The banners that the Southwold locals put up have now gone so some sort of normality appears to have returned.
Can we cruise again?
in General Boating
Posted
Just found this for what it is worth:
https://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/return-to-boating-update.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0-yzLk6NsloW8hDEMHKLq_-BmhGfXuHvOYHH4pLK1RW26uMLMv9uhuhAQ