Honest Opinions Required

[StoneHenge]

Hi all,

 

Now I am going to put a question to you all, and I would like honest answers, no holds barred, gut honest answers please. I won't be offended any which way, so don't sugar the pill (I know you lot won't!).

 

Where I am, I have been hankering after a linear mooring for ages, only to be told there are no linear moorings, they are saving them for sale boats, then boats move in, so we ask again etc. Anyway, after yonks and yonks of asking, I finally approach the owner who says they are not going to offer a linear mooring because we have children and it is a health and safety issue.

 

OK, says I, but what about the children who live inside the marina, they are also at risk given there are walkways, water is deeper, etc, and the answer was that they are going to change policy next year so that their T&C's will strongly suggest supervision at all times of children. No problem there, because I know a few of them are let loose and can not only cause danger for themselves, but others on the walkways, perhaps walking their dog, or using that chain saw to cut up wood. So I am all for making sure parents keep a tight reign on the kids.

 

However, they also told me they intend to make it policy from the end of this year not to let any moorings to family with children under 12, again citing health and safety.

 

Of all the accidents that have happened with folks falling off the walkways, or off boats, not one has been child related, all have been adults, and some under the influence of rather a lot of alcohol.

 

I know in this particular case, there are a lot of folks there who don't want kids there full stop, no families, just couples, who are more mature and just want the quiet life, no bother from anyone.

 

So my question is, do you think they are right to discourage families from moving into boats, or more specifically onto their marina?

 

Also (more questions), what is your honest opinion of a family living aboard. Do you see them as a pest, a nuisance, wish they would go get a house somewhere, don't think it's right, they shouldn't be in marina's or on-line moorings?

[Yamanx]

Right or wrong, the owner reserves the right, I'd say.

 

Of course I dont advocate "no children" I have a young daughter of my own, but if its a private marina and the owner doesnt want kids around, he can do just about what he likes and use any excuse he feels like.

[saltysplash]

It sounds to me like there may be a grumpy element at your marina who dont wish to listen to children running up and down the pontoons playing whatever games children play these days and so they have probably (im only guessing) put pressure somehow on the owner. I personaly also get fed up with the sound of kids especially while shopping in morrisons and while eating in restaurants as the parents seem to think its fine for the little darlings to go running up and down annoying anyone except the parents themselves. That is why i try and go to these places while the little sprogs are at school or in bed. Being at home however is a different matter and living nearby other people is just a fact of life unless your wealthy enough to be able to buy any isolated plot of land you wish. So most grumpy people tend to put up with it. Others however go out of their way to cause life as difficult as possible and will never ever be truly happy unless they themselves are miserable.

 

I will be changing my ways come february (all being well) as my sprog will be forcing me to become a Grandad.

 

Families living on boats? Why not, when i was very young we lived backing onto the rochdale canal with no fence between garden and water. No difference as far as safety is concerned and these days we are so much more into closetting our little ones in bubble wrap so no harm comes to them.

 

I say live your life as you see fit. Always consider others, and hope that they will consider you.

[Dr Bradley]

Could it be that H&S is being used as an excuse. They simpy don't want families and it is time for you to look elsewhere. As Yamanx says, it's their marina and so can impose any rules they wish. Having said that, I don't like what they are doing. If H&S is the real reason they should give up interfereing with peoples lives and imposing their own views on others. If it's an excuse,they should be honest.

[Paul H]

The vast majority of liveaboards do so, in effect, illegally even within a marina. That is to say there is usually no planning permission for residential mooring. Now most marinas turn a blind eye to liveaboards and in fact benefit from the extra security they afford, but I am sure they would all much prefer the type of retired single person or couple who are barely noticeable for even being on board.

 

With the majority of liveaboards being older retired people I imagine haveing children around could be an irritation to them. Certainly a lot of mobile home sites expressly forbid children. The canals these days resemble a linear retirement village and whether you're a family with young children, working boat enthusiast or even a cruiser owner, it is easy to feel alienated.

 

Sometimes the planning authority do get very interested. I know of a marina owner who have had problems with the Council over the number of people registering at local schools and local doctors. Normally these liveaboards aren't on the electoral roll and local Councillors (who want to be voted back in ) will support the local NIMBYs who want thesee "water gypsies" moved on. And that's what eventually happened.

 

So whilst demand outstrips supply it is no surprise that marina owners will pick the "easy option" moorers. With the number of new moorings coming on stream I imagine they won't be able to be quite as fussy in the future.

 

Paul H

Edited September 11, 2007 by Paul H

[gilby]

Hi all, lurking newbie making first post. (another potential live aboard pending boat survey).

 

Is it possible that the marina owner is also getting a reduction in public liability insurance costs by refusing under twelves on his premises ?

[bottle]

SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

 

So my question is, do you think they are right to discourage families from moving into boats, or more specifically onto their marina?

 

There is no right or wrong, it is their marina and they can make as many rules as they like.

 

Whether you want to live by their rules is up to you

Also (more questions), what is your honest opinion of a family living aboard. Do you see them as a pest, a nuisance, wish they would go get a house somewhere, don't think it's right, they shouldn't be in marina's or on-line moorings?

 

I think it is a great idea that families liveaboard, subject to the normal standards of child care etc.

 

Other peoples children can be annoying but only because I compare them to the way I raised my daughter.

 

From your previous posts I suspect that your own children are well behaved but not all parents/children are the same.

 

One bad child parent reflets on all the others, it should not but it does.

[chris w]

If H&S is the real reason they should give up interfereing with peoples lives and imposing their own views on others. If it's an excuse,they should be honest.

 

Why do they have to be "honest" in their motives? It's their "football" and they can decide to play with it elsewhere if they wish and/or play with another team. They are not answerable to others on this issue.

 

Chris

Edited September 11, 2007 by chris w

[AlanH]

As others have said it is up to the marina. They may well have had some bad experiences in the past. Quoting health and safety is probably a way of attempting to justify their policy.

 

I don't have a problem with bringing up children on a boat provided that Council Tax and National Insurance is being paid by the family for their education, health care etc.

[zenataomm]

How the owners/management decide to run their business is totally up to them.

I used to be a publican, and decided to get out when market forces dictated that I needed to cater for families. I was spending more time asking irresponsible parents to keep their "darlings" under control and having to listen to complaints from the other punters than anything else. Strangely parents are not responsible for how their children behave, morally they might be, but they can cause an accident and then it's down to the manager to sort it out and settle up, whilst the parents concerned walk away.

My third party liability insurance made it quite clear that I would have a battle on my hands should I have a claim against me involving anything to do with a child (cause or affect). And let's be clear about this the nicest, friendliest of people will use litigation the moment they see an opportunity ( we live in the age of Claims Direct) it's seen as a right, and of course TV advertising encourages it. So an accident is caused by or to a child and it's the business' problem.

I doubt that many of us realise that an individual running a business is liable for most things that happen on the premises regardless of how many signs there are disclaiming responsibility or telling everyone what not to do.

How many of us remember the cute little child size trollies that supermarkets started introducing so kiddley-winkies could trail around after mummy with their own version? Didn't last long did they? Too many claims for damage and injuries levelled at the supermarket, not the parent.

A customer of mine was bitten by another customers' dog. I had a sign up saying no dogs allowed. I didn't know the dog was on the premises, it was my afternoon off. I was sued for allowing it to happen, I wasn't even there. Work that one out! It cost me £5K with costs, but it is the law.

 

So perhaps the marina owner is paranoid about all the worst things that could happen.

Perhaps he's aiming at the wealthy end of the market. There is a company in UK building retirement villages where anyone under the age of 16 is not allowed on site without prior permission from the management committee. Bit over the top I'd have thought, however it is doing well so maybe there is a gap in the market there. Business is business after all!!!!!!

 

Perhaps also it's all a load of bunkham and lies being used to weed out those scruffy boats whilst meeting BWB's quota for diminishing linear moorings.

I'm sure it's easier to run a quiet marina choc full of boats that only get visited a few times a year then one full of live-aboards, lots of cars, generators, bags of rubbish, friendly faces, laughing kids, community atmosphere, dogs running around.

In business you get the customers you deserve, you set your stall out accordingly ..........

 

zenataomm

[saltysplash]

How the owners/management decide to run their business is totally up to them.

I used to be a publican, and decided to get out when market forces dictated that I needed to cater for families. I was spending more time asking irresponsible parents to keep their "darlings" under control and having to listen to complaints from the other punters than anything else. Strangely parents are not responsible for how their children behave, morally they might be, but they can cause an accident and then it's down to the manager to sort it out and settle up, whilst the parents concerned walk away.

My third party liability insurance made it quite clear that I would have a battle on my hands should I have a claim against me involving anything to do with a child (cause or affect). And let's be clear about this the nicest, friendliest of people will use litigation the moment they see an opportunity ( we live in the age of Claims Direct) it's seen as a right, and of course TV advertising encourages it. So an accident is caused by or to a child and it's the business' problem.

I doubt that many of us realise that an individual running a business is liable for most things that happen on the premises regardless of how many signs there are disclaiming responsibility or telling everyone what not to do.

How many of us remember the cute little child size trollies that supermarkets started introducing so kiddley-winkies could trail around after mummy with their own version? Didn't last long did they? Too many claims for damage and injuries levelled at the supermarket, not the parent.

A customer of mine was bitten by another customers' dog. I had a sign up saying no dogs allowed. I didn't know the dog was on the premises, it was my afternoon off. I was sued for allowing it to happen, I wasn't even there. Work that one out! It cost me £5K with costs, but it is the law.

 

So perhaps the marina owner is paranoid about all the worst things that could happen.

Perhaps he's aiming at the wealthy end of the market. There is a company in UK building retirement villages where anyone under the age of 16 is not allowed on site without prior permission from the management committee. Bit over the top I'd have thought, however it is doing well so maybe there is a gap in the market there. Business is business after all!!!!!!

 

Perhaps also it's all a load of bunkham and lies being used to weed out those scruffy boats whilst meeting BWB's quota for diminishing linear moorings.

I'm sure it's easier to run a quiet marina choc full of boats that only get visited a few times a year then one full of live-aboards, lots of cars, generators, bags of rubbish, friendly faces, laughing kids, community atmosphere, dogs running around.

In business you get the customers you deserve, you set your stall out accordingly ..........

 

zenataomm

 

 

good points and well made

[Sir Nibble]

In this as everything, the welfare of the child must come first. Adults may well want to live aboard, but children need education and the disruption caused by sticking to cc rules will adversely effect that. Pretending to cc whilst living on the towpath is also playing roulette, which adults may take the decision to do, but it is not a responsible thing to do for anyone who puts their children's welfare first. A residential mooring is just that, a place to live, they are hard to come by but the only way forward for families with children. I am sure that many families manage successfully but a decision must be taken as to what extent anyone can ask their childrens well being to be compromised to support an "alternative" lifestyle.

Personally I deplore the way the waterways are turning into a housing estate with groups taking over ownership of lengths of towpath. In my opinion liveaboards fall into one of three categories,

1/ Those on residential moorings

2/ Those cruising the system.

3/ Obstructions to navigation.

Only the first category is suitable for children. There are plenty in the other two categories who would claim that it does not adversely effect their children, but they would wouldn't they.

[Chertsey]

In this as everything, the welfare of the child must come first. Adults may well want to live aboard, but children need education and the disruption caused by sticking to cc rules will adversely effect that.

 

Children need education, but that doesn't mean - either practically or legally - that they have to go to school.

[Sir Nibble]

Children need education, but that doesn't mean - either practically or legally - that they have to go to school.

Agreed. It is entirely possible to educate your child at home. I invite you to consider the difference between a couple choosing to educate their children themselves because they believe it is right for their family, and the same decision taken so's they get to live on a boat.

[chris w]

...............................A customer of mine was bitten by another customers' dog. I had a sign up saying no dogs allowed. I didn't know the dog was on the premises, it was my afternoon off. I was sued for allowing it to happen, I wasn't even there. Work that one out! It cost me £5K with costs, but it is the law........................

 

zenataomm

 

Although this may seem "unfair", in Law you owe your customers a "duty of care" when they enter upon your premises. If they can show that you breached that duty of care and, in so doing, they suffered loss as a result then they may sue you for damages.

 

Having a notice that states "No Dogs" will not, in itself, ensure that no dogs enter your premises. You (or your staff) actually have to ensure no dogs do in fact enter. Therefore, in the case you cite, the plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the breaching of your duty of care to them, viz: they were bitten by a dog on your premises.

 

In turn, you would have had a case for negligence against the dog owner who wilfully (ie: negligently)ignored a notice that stated "No Dogs" and in so doing caused a loss to occur.

 

Chris

[saltysplash]

Agreed. It is entirely possible to educate your child at home. I invite you to consider the difference between a couple choosing to educate their children themselves because they believe it is right for their family, and the same decision taken so's they get to live on a boat.

 

 

Go to Holland, Belgium or France and you will find many families living aboard boats. It seems to me to be a UK thing that the canals are a middle aged asset. I think its a pitty that there is a feeling that we should all conform to living like everybody else does. Harry H Corbet described them as "potty little houses" in the bargee.

 

In the UK i think we still consider the canals as a museum instead of using them to their max. Livaboards considered as water gypsies with no right to live on gods clean earth because they dont conform. On the continent car drivers wait patiently while bridges are raised for canal traffic to pass. In the UK dont dare try to open that bridge if there is anytraffic coming for fear of road rage.

 

I think its time BW and canalside landowners realised the potential for residential moorings. No different to any landlord or local council. Provide adequate moorings and the bridge hopping pretend cc'ers will reduce.

 

We dont have a problem with people who live in those 'Park home' type places which are only really glorified static caravans so why should we try and make it difficult for people who wish to live on a boat?

[grahoom]

i don't agree with what the marina is doing, but as it is a private business they have every right to create rules and conditions as they please, so in reality it is up to the people who use the marina to decide if they wish to follow the rules laid down by the marina, or to leave the marina and find alternative moorings.

 

i guess in an ideal world it would be nice to have a small plot of land that backs onto the canal / waterway which allows you to moor your boat, but that's a ) expensive, b ) requires planning permission from local authority (if you intend to live aboard).

 

my dad, up until recently, lived in a static home in a "village" which only allowed people over the age of 50 to live there, he only lived there for 2 years, and found it "nice" but made him feel old (he is 63) so has up and moved to Sowerby Bridge (only 20 miles from where he grew up).

 

- I guess if you don't like the rules the marina is going to be installing then it might be time you move on. not ideal, i know, especially when it's hard to find residential moorings - but then that's the nature of the life you've chosen.

 

you could always try and find (quite a few) people in similiar position and try and raise the funds to buy / set up your own marina and then the rules are for you to create - but then this is a hell of a task / challenge / and would cost - well i have no idea actually how much it would cost!!!! (you know any rich people with money to invest!!!)

[KenK]

Hi all,

 

 

So my question is, do you think they are right to discourage families from moving into boats, or more specifically onto their marina?

 

As it's their marina they can do as they wish. Personally I don't see anything wrong with a family living on a boat. However given their attitude I would not want to live there.

 

Also (more questions), what is your honest opinion of a family living aboard. Do you see them as a pest, a nuisance, wish they would go get a house somewhere, don't think it's right, they shouldn't be in marina's or on-line moorings?

 

I don't think any of us have a right to judge others, if it works for you and your family that's fine. I live in a house, I've had good neighbours and bad, it's not where you live it's how you like that counts. I hope you find what your looking for.

 

 

Ken

[Chertsey]

Agreed. It is entirely possible to educate your child at home. I invite you to consider the difference between a couple choosing to educate their children themselves because they believe it is right for their family, and the same decision taken so's they get to live on a boat.

 

I would think it likely that the two decisions often go together. There's certainly nothing about living on a boat that makes it a less appropriate decision and the educational opportunities are tremendous - better probably than when living in a house.

[Sir Nibble]

We dont have a problem with people who live in those 'Park home' type places which are only really glorified static caravans

We would if they lived on the road.

I would think it likely that the two decisions often go together

But they shouldn't. "We shall educate our own children so that we can live aboard" is putting the children second to the parents agenda.

Edited September 11, 2007 by snibble

[StoneHenge]

Some interesting replies here. I thank you for your honesty.

 

I know the marina can do as they please. They have slowly added to the T&C's over the years as different problems came up, and as I said, I am fine with that. But as they seem to be steering the type of ideal 'moorer' they would like, I am in a position where I would feel uncomfortable living in a place that doesn't want me there, all be it they can't just tell us to leave unless we breach the T&C's which will be brought in.

 

Of the 5 or 6 families that are there, there is a predominant family who I believe are causing the reasons for this. I won't go into details, but let's just say, you would not want to be moored near them.

 

My reasons for living on a boat are primarily to enjoy the waterways, but also for the health, well being and continuing educational needs of the children. It was no easy decision to move aboard, but considering what they came from, we did the right thing. We now have two children who are more laid back, water wise, wildlife wise and more conscious of their environment than they would ever have been in the old house, purely because it was not a nice place to be. I would give it up in a second if I thought they were suffering because of it, but they don't at all.

 

As some of you have said, finding another mooring is no easy task. We are looking believe me, and have missed a couple by cat's whisker which I was disappointed about as I don't feel able to live in a place which will inevitably make life uncomfortable because we won't conform to that ideal.

 

I hope I do find somewhere. I feel loathed paying for something I really can't enjoy the services of, and being made to feel like the 'odd one out'.

 

I would feel more inclined to 'get over it' if it were not for the fact I know many many people all from the same place who have left for varying reasons, so it seems I am not the only upset moorer there.

 

Thanks for your honesty though. I do understand that in terms of business, money and liability, the people inside don't matter all that much. Let's face it, money talks, I am just a person.

[chris w]

you could always try and find (quite a few) people in similiar position and try and raise the funds to buy / set up your own marina and then the rules are for you to create - but then this is a hell of a task / challenge / and would cost - well i have no idea actually how much it would cost!!!! (you know any rich people with money to invest!!!)

 

There's a marina close to me up for sale at £900K. However, if one does a "back of envelope" business analysis I can't see more than about £150K of annual cash flow, the business consisting of three entities, viz: about 25 moorings (say £50K), two "grockle boats" that (in season) take mainly kids and OAPs on a short afternoon trip (say £10K) and "engineering" services (blacking, sub-contracted painting, engine servicing etc), say £90K tops.

 

I can't see an approriate return on any investment close to the asking price.

 

Chris

 

Chris

[carlt]

In my opinion liveaboards fall into one of three categories,

1/ Those on residential moorings

2/ Those cruising the system.

3/ Obstructions to navigation.

Only the first category is suitable for children. There are plenty in the other two categories who would claim that it does not adversely effect their children, but they would wouldn't they.

 

4/those on arms or laybys with no res planning permission but with the approval of BW.

 

I'm not sure how you define "obstruction to navigation'. A boat with a family living on it, moored on a long term, linear mooring, without p.p. but with the approval of BW is no more of an 'obstruction' to navigation than the boat, legally, on the same moorings which is green with moss and algae through lack of occupation and use.

 

Now I'm no longer living aboard, but my boats remain on their moorings, in a lay-by, have they suddenly become less of an obstruction to navigation because I'm no longer breaking any planning regulations?

 

If I applied for, and got residential planning consent for my mooring, would my children suddenly be in an appropriate environment and would my boats miraculously become less of an obstruction?

 

Edited to say: but to answer Stoney's question. It is entirely up to the owner who he allows on his property but, like the marinas who have banned wood and grp, It demonstrates short-sightedness and snobbery.

 

I'm amazed at the number of 'adult only' campsites that have been struck off my list since having kids. I never even realised they didn't allow them before.

Edited September 11, 2007 by carlt

[zenataomm]

Although this may seem "unfair", in Law you owe your customers a "duty of care" when they enter upon your premises. If they can show that you breached that duty of care and, in so doing, they suffered loss as a result then they may sue you for damages.

 

Having a notice that states "No Dogs" will not, in itself, ensure that no dogs enter your premises. You (or your staff) actually have to ensure no dogs do in fact enter. Therefore, in the case you cite, the plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the breaching of your duty of care to them, viz: they were bitten by a dog on your premises.

 

In turn, you would have had a case for negligence against the dog owner who wilfully (ie: negligently)ignored a notice that stated "No Dogs" and in so doing caused a loss to occur.

 

Chris

 

Exactly right Chris. I agree with you totally. However no!

You're right in your first two sentences. But signs in themselves are meaningless, especially if they are written. Take Fire Exit signs, nowadays they have to have a picture of a running man and no words, because not everybody can read English.

Interestingly I was liable to replace any of my pubs' customers' coats even though I had a sign saying "The management wouldn't be held responsible for any losses", and all I was responsible for was a pub of a couple of thousand square feet with nothing more dangerous in it than a ruck in the carpet (or a dog that some bloody minded regular insisted on bringing in even though he'd been told not to)

So just imagine trying to sleep at night when you've got a marina of several hundred thousand feet and god alone knows how many cubic feet of water, bone crushing steel hulls, spilt diesel the list is endless and you are responsible for children who see danger in nothing??? ..............WOW! Not for me.

[StoneHenge]

So just imagine trying to sleep at night when you've got a marina of several hundred thousand feet and god alone knows how many cubic feet of water, bone crushing steel hulls, spilt diesel the list is endless and you are responsible for children who see danger in nothing??? ..............WOW! Not for me.

 

I understand your point totally. However, of all the accidents I have seen there, they have been by adults, who have slipped off the boat roof, off the gunnel, or on the walkway. One man we had to get several people to help get him out. He was a visitor to another boat and was beyond drunk. He was also in water which was quite deep, but the floating pontoons are quite high up, and the rope ladders provided by the marina are next to useless. It took ages to get this man out.

 

My point was at the towpath side, there is mroe chance of getting someone out in a reasonable amout of time, plus also that person being able to stand up in the water and almost being able to get themselves out. To me, that is safer, so whilst I understand the marina owner's worry about being liable for accidents etc involving children, there would a reduction in risk on a linear mooring.

 

And if they are going to catergorise the problems of unsupervised children, then maybe they should ensure they also include a clause which also ensures that visitors to the marina are also supervised, as in the case of the drunk man, he was in no fit state to be standing up, let alone navigating a pontoon in his inbriated state.

 

An exciteable dog could just as easily cause someone an accident, but I've yet to see any clauses about keeping dogs on leashes with in the pontoon areas. Something they should also think about.