Ex- Member
-
Posts
6,516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Ex- Member
-
-
I don't think I have ever called anybody the t word.
Sorry but reported.
Is it worse than being called Dickhead then LOL
Is it worse than being called Dickhead then LOL
Tommys chosen insult in a previous post.
-
What an arrogant person you are Julynian, who the hell do you think you are?
There have been characters in history who had your attitude and by golly did they get their commupance
I am ready to be put right but I don't think you own this forum even though you seem to have set yourself up as the Grand Master, Members have made well meaning comments on this post and the best you can come up with is "where is your proof" , or "back it up"
I have been a member for 9 years which I believe is about 4 years longer than you and I have had a great amount of help from members and have joined in on discussions where I have had an opinion or think that I may be able to help, with some 30 years of boating experience behind me both inland and offshore .
I have found members both helpful and friendly with a bit of lighthearted banter thrown in here and there, I have met up with several members and have always found them to be generous in their help and hospitallity which I have always tried to reciprocate.
Your attitude goes against the general friendliness on this forum, please chill out and remember what boating is all about and accept that not everybody who contradicts your opinion is a fool.
_
-
1
-
-
Julyian you once gave me a right rollicking on here for persisting with something when a number of other members felt I was in the wrong.
In the end I decided that actually you all might have a point and gave up, I also got a warning from a mod. for persisting as they read it as I was deliberately winding folk up.
I honestly think you are doing exactly the same and should just quietly withdraw from this one. We have also met briefly as you will remember and I can't say I recognise the same person who I met in your posts in this thread.
Your call though.......
Hi Martain
I think I recall the thread, My annoyance was with regard to your antics with regard to misquoting another's post and what I considered demeaning to a specific female poster. My annoyance was not so much with the point you were trying to making which was an opinion you were perfectly entitled to view. I might not be correct with regard to the actual thread, but it's what I recall. I certainly didn't complain to any mod either.
With regard to this thread, I have maintained consistently that if your hit by a hire boat, your claim is against the hire company. People seem to believe different. However as I's already pointed out, not only have I taken legal advice on this issue having been hit by a hire boat ourselves which is documented on here somewhere. But clearly there are 6 other instances of other boaters claiming from the hire boat company.
In addition I have posted terms and conditions from hire boat companies that clearly state that the hirer indemnifies the Hire Boat Company in the event of any claim made against the company. We also have including the thread which I recall Starcoaster posted in 2013 7 instances of boats being hit by a hire boat the 3rd parties claiming against the hire boat company, that including today.
When the hirers returned their boat they reported the collision and confirmed that they were at fault.AW will be paying for the damage caused.Now being in business as I have been for 30 years + I can assure you that if I wasn't liable for something I certainly wouldn't be paying up as no responsible company would. Yet we see 7 instances of hire boat companies accepting liability and paying up according to members postings.
Now you and others can question what I have stated as much as you please, however no one has offered up anything credible to counteract my position other than nonsense and opinion. And there's 7 instances of claims from Hire boat companies, and terms & conditions of a hire company that clearly contradict any belief any claim is against the hirer.
Like as has happened to yourself previously Martin I suspect that people are jumping on band wagons as they do, and I freely admit that I did the same regarding some of your previous postings going back a year or so, and have mostly chosen to ignore you over the past year. Recently though IMO your what I considered your awful tone and manner back then have been much softened over the past several months, and even felt the need to back you up with regard to some of the really idiot posters on here, some new some older.
People can disagree with me as much as they wish, If they choose to not believe what I'm saying, then fine, but I will continue to defend the position I know to be correct. Been there done that!
I generally post on this forum to offer help and ideas/experiences to other boaters. I don't bull sh1te and I don't lie. If people don't believe my fine. But I would suggest though to take legal advise if hit by a hire boat, they do try to fob claimants off as attested by members postings and I have experienced the same myself, hence legal advice.
I have to say recently on this forum there have been some right idiots posting complete and utter crap and trying to rile long term members. Over the past 6 months or so this forum IMO has degraded enormously and many good and interesting members have sadly disappeared. The reason why is clearly obvious from reading postings this thread.
I will add though Martin I have more respect for you than most members currently on here, and have to agree you'r a much nicer bloke than sometimes comes over on this forum.
I do expect this comment to be thrown back in my face though
Anyway I'm off, to many Twonks LOL
To put it simply you are confusing who pays the money with who is liable. I really don't understand why you can't see that. As I already pointed out if the insurance company found a get out in the small print the hirer would have to pay because they are liable.
Please try to separate who pays the bill from who is liable in law. It really isn't a difficult concept.
The person liable pays. Look up the word liable or liability.
-
1
-
-
. Well in that case are you July ?
Think outside the box, probably an impossibility in your case though
-
Day four in the big brother house and still Ian is making a right arse of himself ,even with over six and a half thousand posts under his belt there are relative newbies with less than five hundred posts that are starting to look good ,is this the shape of things to come , have the forum hierarchy come to the end of there reign ,don't miss tomorrow,s instalment ,will the knob on Ian's head get so big he trips over? Will a relative newcomer be allowed an opinion ? And did the hire company just give over some wedge , don't miss tomorrow's final episode for all the answers
Who's Ian
More twaddle LOL
-
Exactly - it is your liability but you have a contract with the insurance company to cover it. In the hirers position, they have a contract with the hiring company that the hiring company provide insurance cover; but the original liability is still with the steerer.
So the liability is passed on, thank you!
-
It is quite breathtaking that you seem to believe that sprinkling the odd infantile "LOL" gives you carte blanche to fling abuse around.
NOBODY has suggested that seeking compensation direct from the hire company won't work. As a matter of administrative convenience, it will usually suit them to deal direct, because doing so allows them to manage the issue.
However, the thread has been considering a "claim" in the legal sense. The question is "what happens if the hire company says go away".
In that case, the owner of the damaged boat cannot claim in court against the hire company, because they are not liable for the damage. The hirer is.
If you win against the hirer in court, then the hirer can take the hire company to court, for breach of contract.
It is quite breathtaking that you seem to believe that sprinkling the odd infantile "LOL" gives you carte blanche to fling abuse around.It's quite breath taking that someone can't understand simple terms and conditions of a hire company. And completely disregards the fact, that there now 7 instances of boaters claiming, Correctly from the HIRE BOAT COMPANY in the event of a collision.
Wood for the trees.
NOBODY has suggested that seeking compensation direct from the hire company won't work.Really, maybe you should read through the thread again.
However, the thread has been considering a "claim" in the legal sense. The question is "what happens if the hire company says go away".Already answered, you really should pay attention
is that better?In that case, the owner of the damaged boat cannot claim in court against the hire company, because they are not liable for the damage. The hirer is.Again nonsense, you can claim against you believe is liable which the hire company clearly is. I'm stunned again you cant understand the terms and conditions. THE HIRER WILL INDEMNIFY THE COMPANY
If you win against the hirer in court, then the hirer can take the hire company to court, for breach of contract.Only an idiot would take the hirer to court. His defense would be that his contract with regard to insurance was with the hire company, and fulfilled his/her liability by paying a deposit or waver, end of.
I note the latest claimant is claiming from the boat company and Anglo Welsh are paying for the damage caused. I now make that 7 claims against hire boat companies, and, well do I really need to keep repeating myself. LOL just for you.
Delighted to hear it. The term 'compensation' used here includes money paid to puts things back as they were before the incident, ie your repair costs. We weren't on about compo culture (at least, I wasn't!) and no criticism was intended of your actions or motivation.
Dave, you're a gent for taking your turn to explain the concept to Julynian. However, I suspect your words will fall on the same stony ground as did mine and Jerra's, to mention just two.Probably as you're talking the same nonsense as others.
Well, another claim from a HIRE BOAT COMPANY who have agreed to settle, and you still don't get it
-
Laughing at things that aren't funny is an indication of something, I just can't remember what...
MtB
A superior sense of humour possibly
-
He must be a very jolly fellow the amount of LOL's that have appeared in his posts
Happy as Larry
-
have come to the conclusion that Julyninny is a complete and utter dickhead and thank goodness I don't work for him, or have to sit in a the same room or I think my layed back and mellow outlook on life would take on a different appearance.
Just admit you are wrong and and let us get on with our lives
Don't bother to reply because I will not take on board your totally inane and insulting comments
I'm not wrong LOL
What a shame you have to resort to that, says more about you me thinks.
Please do the courtesy of supplying some kind of evidence I'm wrong as I have done for you.
It seems this was debated last year.
As well as myself, I recall that not only Starcoaster successfully claimed from the HIRE Company, but an accompanying boat in the same incident did also.
Also reading through that thread it appears a couple of other boaters made claims from HIRE companies following similar impacts. So five successful claims from hire boaters.
Not heard yet of any claim against a hirer. Surprise Surprise.
It's not my fault people can't see the wood for the trees and post complete and utter bollox based on nothing what so ever.
I would suggest that anyone having an issue with a hire boat collision get information from a solicitor. Hire boat companies will be laughing their socks off at the ignorance shown on here by certain posters, and easily fob people off based on some of the crap posted, Include yourself in that Tommy.
-
I don't need to. You can't change fundamental legal liability principles with terms and conditions in a contract.
MtB
P.S. Is it my turn yet to be insulted and called names for not agreeing with you?
Clearly you do Muppet LOL
Only joking t&c
Just a couple of very significant points before my bed time A ....if your last to post does,nt mean your right and B ....putting lol on the end of a sentence does,nt make it funny instead of rude . If anyone requires evidence to verify these two points please just read the last 10 pages
I'm laughing LOL
Nite!
-
Julynian, why do you not understand this? (see below)
How can the hire company possibly be liable for something over which it has no control? If the hirer has purchased some sort of indemnity from them, how could you, as the third party, possibly know about it? Your claim is against the person steering the boat that hit you. In practice any compensation you get may come from somewhere else, but that isn't the point.
The same argument applies to motor insurance. If that were not so, all those claims management companies who sue for uninsured losses would very quickly go out of business.
How can the hire company possibly be liable for something over which it has no control?Because they undertake to do so by being required to have insurance. The hire company has an agreement with the hirer, as you can see in the terms and conditions allowing the the right for the hire company to claim back from the hirer any claims they may receive from a 3rd party. Again the hirer liability is to the company and why the hire companies require a deposit from them.
If the hirer has purchased some sort of indemnity from them, how could you, as the third party, possibly know about it?I neither know or care, my claim is against the hire company not the hirer.
Your claim is against the person steering the boat that hit you. In practice any compensation you get may come from somewhere else, but that isn't the point.No it isn't The hirer of the boat has either paid a deposit or waver for deposit, the hirers agreement is with the hire company, the company either have the deposit or accepted a waver fee to cover the deposit. The hirer has passed on his liability in doing so in exactly the same way as you do with your car insurance.
The same argument applies to motor insurance. If that were not so, all those claims management companies who sue for uninsured losses would very quickly go out of business.Blimey the claims are made against the owner of the vehicle, his liability is taken on by the insurance company except for any excess he/she agreed to pay.
. How about if you spend your whole weekend being rude to people and making yourself look a complete tool does that not eventually shift legal liability ?
Clearly you are completely clueless LOL As usual it seems
-
There's an even more simple and basic point that Julynian seems unable to grasp.
If the person steering the boat (or driving the car) is not liable, why would they want/need/be forced to have insurance in the first place?
MtB
Their not forced to have insurance, their required either to pay the required insurance excess the hire boat company requires or a waver to cover the same. The hirer is not insuring the boat, the hire company is, the hirers contract with the hire company is to cover the company's excess.
Insurance diverts liability from the driver to the insurance company except for any excess requirement. Quite simple really LOL
I don't need to. You can't change fundamental legal liability principles with terms and conditions in a contract.
MtB
P.S. Is it my turn yet to be insulted and called names for not agreeing with you?
And if you look at the hire company's contract you'll see the company requires indemnity from the hirer against any claim from a third party.
-
There's an even more simple and basic point that Julynian seems unable to grasp.
If the person steering the boat (or driving the car) is not liable, why would they want/need/be forced to have insurance in the first place?
MtB
They are liable to the hire boat company, not the 3rd party claimant. Read the terms & cons.
. This is great even though I,m a bit new and know nothing in comparison to you and Martin the forum gods ,every time i look on here your still trying to drive every one into submission with your constant rambling thinking you have some massive point to prove but in reality you are just looking like a bigger and bigger ass the whole time and quite a rude ass at that. I,ll just get my popcorn and be back in 10.
I really don't give a toss what you believe. As I said to another member, good luck claiming from a hirer if you get hit by a hire boat.
-
The terms and conditions CANNOT change the liability.
They merely form a contractual framework for indemnifying people.
You can, of course, sue whoever you like. It doesn't mean that you will actually WIN.
If you try to sue a hire company because they don't pay out for their hirer's negligence, you will fail, because you are not a party to the contractual arrangement.
Is this you refraining from name calling?
The terms and conditions CANNOT change the liability.Who said they could?
They merely form a contractual framework for indemnifying people.You mean the Hirer surely
You can, of course, sue whoever you like. It doesn't mean that you will actually WIN.Well that's different than you posted earlier in the thread LOL, you're getting there though!
Stating the obvious LOL
If you try to sue a hire company because they don't pay out for their hirer's negligence, you will fail, because you are not a party to the contractual arrangement.I don't need to be, as the hire company is liable being the the owner of the boat and hopefully the insured.
-
If we take this discussion away from purely financial liability .... lets say the hirer negligently causes an accident where someone is seriously injured (thankfully its rare in boating for this to happen) and the police decide that someone should be prosecuted for the crime: would we expect the hire company to be in the dock or the person in charge of the vessel at the time? Clearly it's the person in charge of the vessel at the time.
Parallel to the criminal action (or maybe afterwards) there would probably be a civil case to determine compensation payable to the victim - in that case the insurer would liable for payment.
Simples?
Responsibility and liability are 2 different things. If I have an accident in my car through wreckless driving, I could be prosecuted, however my insurers will be the people paying out to any third party, as I have paid for a policy agreement for them to cover my Liability in such an event.
-
You have called people names many times.
A person may need to do this, because that is the way that contract law works. I have insurance on my boat. I am obliged to have that insurance, but that insurance is a contract between me and my insurer.
You are not a party to that contract. If I hit your boat, your claim is against me. The fact that I have contractually arranged that somebody else will indemnify me does not shift the liability.
A person may need to do this, because that is the way that contract law works. I have insurance on my boat. I am obliged to have that insurance, but that insurance is a contract between me and my insurer.Thank you
Exactly as a hire boat company has to also, and the people you should claim from if they cause damage to your boat. They are liable either with or without insurance.
You can, of course, sue whoever you like. It doesn't mean that you will actually WIN.
If you try to sue a hire company because they don't pay out for their hirer's negligence,
you will fail, because you are not a party to the contractual arrangement.Again complete and utter nonsense. You don't need to be in any kind of agreement being a 3rd party claimant. And please explain how that would come about. A hire boat hit's you and damages your boat, you claim against the company. Where does this mythical arrangement arise
Again I'm stunned you can't comprehend the terms and conditions of a hire boat company.
The company insures the boat and its equipment and inventory against public liability risks. The company’s insurance does not cover personal accidents or loss or damage to personal effects. Hirers and their crews are advised to take out their own personal insurance cover. The price does not include a compulsory accidental damage waiver per booking. Accidental damage waiver excludes damage arising from speeding, contact with a lock sill causing damage to the rudder, skeg or stern gear, TV aerials, chimneys, malicious or intentional damage to the boat. Also excluded is malicious or intentional damage to other boats and property and the late return of the boat and return of the boat in unclean condition. The Hirer will indemnify the Company against all costs, damage, expenses, liability and claims howsoever arising from the negligence, neglect or default of the Hirer to the extent that they are not covered by the company’s policy.
-
Julynian,
You are looking very much like one of those JTMIR newbies that is referred to in another thread.
As several of us have told you before, if you are the victim of damage, the legal liabilty to remedy that damage lies with the person who caused it. In the case in question that is the hirer, not the hire boat company or the insurer.
We all agree that there will (or should) be insurance in place which (subject to the circumstances being covered by the terms of the insurance) will pay out, and if it does, everybody is (relatively) happy. And if you dispute the company or insurer's version of events or the level of compensation offered, you would be expected to go through their dispute resolution processes first, before launching legal action.
But you cannot be bound by a contract of insurance (which is between the boat owner and the insurance company) or by a boat hire contract (between the boat owner and the hirer, which may also bind the hirer into the terms of the insurance contract) as you are not a party to either of those contracts. A contract can only be enforced by one party to the contract against another party to that contract. A third party (such as the innocent victim) has no ability in contract law to enforce anything in relation to that contract.
The fact that the law and CRT's Terms and Conditions require a hire company to have insurance in place, makes no difference. That requirement is simply there to make sure that anyone suffering damage has a means of recourse. Same as for car insurance, and other areas where parliament has decided that there should be mandatory insurance.
The requirement in the hire boat conditions you quote, for a hirer to indemnify the company for claims not covered by the insurance is simply a "for the avoidance of doubt" provision, which restates the underlying legal position. It is no doubt inserted by the hire companies just to make clear to the hirer their ability to claim from him/her any cost which they incur as a result of the incident and which is not reimbursed by the insurance, and also as a reminder that the insurance covers reasonable circumstances, not the results of negligence, neglect or default on the part of the hirer.
And if the insurance doesn't pay out, for whatever reason, then your only recourse is to sue the responsible person.
As several of us have told you before, if you are the victim of damage, the legal liabilty to remedy that damage lies with the person who caused it. In the case in question that is the hirer, not the hire boat company or the insurer.
Hire company Terms & cons suggest the opposit LOL
We all agree that there will (or should) be insurance in place which (subject to the circumstances being covered by the terms of the insurance) will pay out, and if it does, everybody is (relatively) happy. And if you dispute the company or insurer's version of events or the level of compensation offered, you would be expected to go through their dispute resolution processes first, before launching legal action.3rd party Insurance is a requirement for boat hire companies. If they dispute you could go through arbitration if you wished, it's not compulsory though so you can sue.
But you cannot be bound by a contract of insurance (which is between the boat owner and the insurance company) or by a boat hire contract (between the boat owner and the hirer, which may also bind the hirer into the terms of the insurance contract) as you are not a party to either of those contracts. A contract can only be enforced by one party to the contract against another party to that contract. A third party (such as the innocent victim) has no ability in contract law to enforce anything in relation to that contract.
More gobbledegook
What contract, how could a 3rd party victim have any kind of contract with the offending boat LOL
A third party claims from the boat hire company, you clearly haven't read the terms & cons of a boat hire company, or you you simply can't understand them.
The fact that the law and CRT's Terms and Conditions require a hire company to have insurance in place, makes no difference. That requirement is simply there to make sure that anyone suffering damage has a means of recourse. Same as for car insurance, and other areas where parliament has decided that there should be mandatory insurance.
So then you agree, the boat hire company has to insure at minimum against 3rd party claims. So who in their right mind would try to claim from the hirer. If the hirer is liable, then why does the hire company require such redress from the hirer in it's terms and conditions, and why does the hirer require a deposit of waver? Try to apply some common sense LOL
The requirement in the hire boat conditions you quote, for a hirer to indemnify the company for claims not covered by the insurance is simply a "for the avoidance of doubt" provision, which restates the underlying legal position.
It is no doubt inserted by the hire companies just to make clear to the hirer their ability to claim from him/her any cost which they incur as a result of the incident and which is not reimbursed by the insurance,and also as a reminder that the insurance covers reasonable circumstances, not the results of negligence, neglect or default on the part of the hirer.
Again you are agreeing with my position that the boat hire company are the insured. they are saying that any 3rd party claim their insurance won't cover due to the hirers negligence, gives the right for the hire company to claim those costs from the hirer. Nowhere does it suggest the hirer is liable to the 3rd party only to THE COMPANY
And if the insurance doesn't pay out, for whatever reason, then your only recourse is to sue the responsible person. It's not the only recourse, you could take the insurance company to arbitration or sue them.Incorrect again. If the Boat hire companies insurance doesn't pay up, then you have an option of arbitration or indeed taking the insurance to court. The hirer's liability is to the hire company not the third party as the terms and conditions clearly state.
I will state again if you're hit b a hire boat you claim is against the company hiring or owning it. The hirer's liability is to the company.
Thank you again for propping up my assertion than any claim for damage is made against the boat hire company and not the hirer.
-
As I understand the discussion, there is a difference between 'liability' (a legal term) and 'the financial part of the liability' -- in other words, the risk. The insurance company in either case above (boat or car) is indemnifying you against your liability: the liability is unchanged by the existence of an insurance policy. The insurance policy takes on the financial risk.
If all else fails, read the post, every word of it.
And exactly the reason if you have an accident in a hire car and damage another car, the damaged cars owner claims from the hire companies insurance who are liable. It would be ridiculous to suggest that he pursues the driver, as it is ridiculous to suggest pursuing the hirer of a boat. Unless of course you agreed with the hire company to take full responsibility for the vehicles insurance.
Another analogy is if you own a car, it's insured for any driver over 25. You lend it to your 26 year old mate. He crashes in you your parked car. You'r claim is against the car owner, his is liable. The driver might be at fault and responsible, but it's up to the car owner if he wants to pursue his mate for any losses he incurred due to the 3rd party claim. That has nothing to do with the 3rd party though who claims from the owner/insured.
-
It has been explained to you on a number of occasions but you either can't understand or you are arguing for the sake of argument.
If you/he/she/they/them cause an accident you/he/she/they/them are liable. The perpetrator may be able to pass the financial part of the liability on to an insurance company but that does not take away your liability. But then you know this, don't you?
Nothing's been explained at all, no one has offered anything what so ever to back up their nonsensical claims.
The gist of the thread is who to claim from, clearly the hire boat company as they insure the boat.
The perpetrator may be able to pass the financial part of the liability on to an insurance company but that does not take away your liability.Blimey are you really that dense, what do you think insurance is for LOL
When you pay for your car insurance, except for any access you agree to pay, you are passing on liability to the insurance company. That's what your insurance premium pays for FFS
-
What says volumes about you is that you seem not to be content to disagree on this issue.
Anybody who disagree with you needs to be virtually screamed at and called names for daring to dispute your rightness.
I will say it again.
In law, liability for a wrong lies with the person who did that wrong. End of Story.
So, if a hire boater negligently damages your boat, HE IS LIABLE.
It may well be (indeed it is near certain) that the hire boater has contracted with others to indemnify him should he be liable. However that is a matter between him and the person who indemnifies him. The third party is (as the expression says) not a party to that arrangement.
So, in the case where a hire boater causes damage, but where the Hire Company won't play ball, the injured party has no rights in law agaist the Hire Company.
He cannot take the hire company to court to force it to fulfil a contract that he wasn't a party to. His recourse must be to the person who did him wrong. The person who damaged his boat.
It is, of course then possible that the Hirer can sue the hire company for not fulfilling its obligation to indemnify him.
You say that you have taken legal advice. If so, may I suggest that you have taken it from somebody who is ill qualified to dispense such advice, becasue it is advice that I would expect a 1st year law student to get right, let alone a qualified solicitor or barrister.
What says volumes about you is that you seem not to be content to disagree on this issue.
Anybody who disagree with you needs to be virtually screamed at and called names for daring to dispute your rightness.
Is that gobbledegook LOL
Where exactly have a called anyone names or screamed. And are you now conceding I'm right
In law, liability for a wrong lies with the person who did that wrong. End of Story.
So, if a hire boater negligently damages your boat, HE IS LIABLE.
It may well be (indeed it is near certain) that the hire boater has contracted with others to indemnify him should he be liable. However that is a matter between him and the person who indemnifies him. The third party is (as the expression says) not a party to that arrangement.
Why would a person need to do this when the boat by law has to be insured by the hire company or boat owner.
However that is a matter between him and the person who indemnifies him.Yes that being the boat hire company who require an excess deposit or waver for such deposit. You see, you're actually backing my claims now LOL
The third party is (as the expression says) not a party to that arrangement.Of course not, as I've stated, the 3rd party claims from the Boat hire company. Thanks again for backing my position.
In law, liability for a wrong lies with the person who did that wrong. End of Story.
The hirer is liable for either the required deposit or waver for such deposit. Beyond that insurance takes on the liability, exactly what it's there for.
I'm astonished you cant understand the terms & conditions that have been posted that the hire company insures the boat, and requires the hirer to indemnify then in the instance of a claim.
So, in the case where a hire boater causes damage, but where the Hire Company won't play ball, the injured party has no rights in law agaist the Hire Company.Completely wrong. If the hire company doesn't play ball they you can take action against the hire company.
He cannot take the hire company to court to force it to fulfil a contract that he wasn't a party to. His recourse must be to the person who did him wrong. The person who damaged his boat.Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone can take action against anyone else. The person liable is the company. It the terms posted it clearly states the hirer will indemnify the company for and claim made against them. Again your inability to understand simple terms & conditions is a shock.
It is, of course then possible that the Hirer can sue the hire company for not fulfilling its obligation to indemnify him.So now you shoot yourself in the foot by agreeing that the hire boat company BY regulation has to insure not only the boat but the person operating it, except for any deposit or CDW that is required by THE HIRE BOAT COMPANY
You say that you have taken legal advice. If so, may I suggest that you have taken it from somebody who is ill qualified to dispense such advice, becasue it is advice that I would expect a 1st year law student to get right, let alone a qualified solicitor or barrister.Indeed I did, which instead of a hire boat company trying to fob me off with the kind of bollox you are. The hire boat company agreed to paid up.I note you don't seem to back up your complete and utter nonsense with anything what so ever.At least when I accuse people of being wrong, I produce some credible evidence that they are.As I've stated numerous times.If you're hit by a hire boat, your claim is against the hire boat company.The Hirer will indemnify the Company and the Boat Owner against all costs, damage, expenses, liability and claims howsoever arising from the negligence, neglect or default of the Hirer to the extent that they are not covered by the Company’s policy.THE COMPANY -
Judging by your inability to understand who is responsible for damage caused by him/her/them I can't see your opinion counting for much.
Ok so please point out where exactly you perceive am I wrong ???????
-
I guess because the lorry gets tied up for the day anyway, and fuel cost is background noise.
Truck size required for a boat will burn 8 to 10 MPG At over 6.00 per gallon is ball park 60p per mile or more. A 200 mile trip would cost £120.00 let alone accounting or charging for wear & tear on the truck.
On a local job though the company will probably require a full day rate even if the truck is only used for a couple of hours. I had to pay this on a couple of occasions already.
-
A B Tuckey
Google Boat Transport, you'll get a multitude of companies. Logistically It's probably best to use a company either based in your collection area or the delivery area. Do shop around though prices vary a lot.
We have used AB Tuckey and were excellent and the best price for our required trip.
Claiming from hire company for damage
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by Julynian
AWWW Bless!
T&C