Questions about renting your boat

[doomed1]

I'm really not sure which part of 'illegal' you can't understand.

 

 

 

I'll try to keep it simple then:

 

If you let someone use your boat,and you make a financial gain, or benefit in kind, you are subject to exactly the same legislation as any hire company. You need a Leisure business Licence, and holiday hire insurance.

 

 

Many thanks for keeping it simple.I like it simple.Some would say i am simple.

You need a leisure licence,and hol ins etc etc.Because you are a business,and you certainly dont want simple folk stepping on youre overpriced shoes.

Me, if i lend my boat to another, for a few quid who are well aware of all the issues.Maybe someone who had a boat,but cant afford to buy another.There is not a problem.As long as insurance bw, lis and bsc are all in order. ( not business lic/ins/bsc.That should be purly for you.)

[Chris Pink]

Ad Hominem comment ignored - can you please point to where I 'quote' APCO?

 

thankfully a condition of getting a LBL is going to be compliance with the Handover Audit (APCO) in future, and although by no means perfect, and certainly not a measure of real quality, does show an attempt to have some 'standards' within an otherwise totally unregulated industry..

[Guest .mother]

So the mere fact of money changing hands makes that person "less likely to care about safety, other boaters or the waterways".

 

Please define 'likely' with evidence.

 

I don't need to define what I have stated as my opinion. I said someone who knowingly engages in an illegal hire, the evidence, basically, is that those who knowlingly engage in illegal acts "engage in illegal acts", that's defacto evidence in its own right - it's not something I've made up for the sake of it.

 

Your petticoats (a financial interest in this discussion) are showing, dotmother.

 

Are you unable to engage in a debate in such a rational way as to avoid implying that my business interest is clouding my judgement? A few illegal hirers doesn't affect me in the slightest other than 'me' being a waterways user in general. Illegal hire is an issue for everyone - especially if something goes badly wrong and your boat gets damaged by someone engaged in an illegal, uninsured hire.

 

 

You need a leisure licence,and hol ins etc etc.Because you are a business,and you certainly dont want simple folk stepping on youre overpriced shoes.

 

Ah, I see.

 

Sour grapes make for the finest whine.

 

And? Where do I 'quote' APCO?

[Chris Pink]

I don't need to define what I have stated as my opinion. I said someone who knowingly engages in an illegal hire, the evidence, basically, is that those who knowlingly engage in illegal acts "engage in illegal acts", that's defacto evidence in its own right - it's not something I've made up for the sake of it.

 

Are you unable to engage in a debate in such a rational way as to avoid implying that my business interest is clouding my judgement? A few illegal hirers doesn't affect me in the slightest other than 'me' being a waterways user in general. Illegal hire is an issue for everyone - especially if something goes badly wrong and your boat gets damaged by someone engaged in an illegal, uninsured hire.

 

Not at all, i pointed you at an insurance policy that would cover a boater in exactly the circumstances you outline.

 

And you didn't say that someone engaging in 'illegal acts' engages in illegal acts although if you appended the word 'other' your statement with its implication would be far more contentious.

 

you said

 

I said that it was my opinion that someone knowlingly engaging in an illegal hire arrangement may be less likely to care about safety, other boaters or the waterways.

 

A statement that. like the earlier one about insurance, you cannot substantiate.

[carlt]

I don't need to define what I have stated as my opinion. I said someone who knowingly engages in an illegal hire, the evidence, basically, is that those who knowlingly engage in illegal acts "engage in illegal acts", that's defacto evidence in its own right - it's not something I've made up for the sake of it.

What evidence? First of all it is merely your opinion that an illegal act is taking place, secondly you offer no validation that a private individual, who allows someone else to use their boat, is more likely to be uninsured.

 

Could you cite the study proving this, or is it merely a spurious statement?

Are you unable to engage in a debate in such a rational way as to avoid implying that my business interest is clouding my judgement?

As your argument is based on unsubstantiated claims and patronising comments it would seem that your judgement is clouded.

Ah, I see.

 

Sour grapes make for the finest whine.

See what I mean?

Edited December 16, 2008 by carlt

[Chris Pink]

And? Where do I 'quote' APCO?

 

 

Your post #28 as quoted by me above.

 

You do seem to have a very selective way of reading posts.

[Guest .mother]

Your post #28 as quoted by me above.

 

You do seem to have a very selective way of reading posts.

 

But where do I 'quote' APCO?

 

I 'mention' that BW will require compliance with the Handover Audit (APCO) as a condition of obtaining a Leisure business Licence.

Nowhere do I 'quote' APCO - in exactly the same was as montioning DEFRA doesn't mean I'm 'quoting' them.

 

Try and twist it however much you like, it doesn't matter to me.

 

 

What evidence? First of all it is merely your opinion that an illegal act is taking place,

 

No it isn't. I clearly stated, notwithstanding your inability to read wot I rote, that it is an illegal hire if there is a financial gain or other benefit in kind. This isn't an opinion, it's the way it is. You may not like it, that's irrelevant to me, I didn't make the law.

 

secondly you offer no validation that a private individual, who allows someone else to use their boat, is more likely to be uninsured.

 

Someone who illegally hires a boat does not have insurance.

 

Could you cite the study proving this, or is it merely a spurious statement?

 

What would you like me to 'prove'? That an illegal act is "an illegal act"?

That not having insurance is "not having insurance"?

That water is wet?

 

As your argument is based on unsubstantiated claims and patronising comments it would seem that your judgement is clouded.

 

See what I mean?

 

Just because you are unable or unwilling to understand the law doesn't make you right.

[Chris Pink]

But where do I 'quote' APCO?

 

I 'mention' that BW will require compliance with the Handover Audit (APCO) as a condition of obtaining a Leisure business Licence.

Nowhere do I 'quote' APCO - in exactly the same was as montioning DEFRA doesn't mean I'm 'quoting' them.

 

Try and twist it however much you like, it doesn't matter to me.

 

Bit of a riven bunny that one.

 

And insurance?

[carlt]

No it isn't. I clearly stated, notwithstanding your inability to read wot I rote, that it is an illegal hire if there is a financial gain or other benefit in kind. This isn't an opinion, it's the way it is. You may not like it, that's irrelevant to me, I didn't make the law.

Once again, your attempt to patronise merely undermines your argument, not mine. You didn't make the law, you are right, and you also are merely offering one interpretation, of that law.

Someone who illegally hires a boat does not have insurance.

You are probably right but, in my opinion, your interpretation of the law is flawed, therefore, in my opinion, they may well be insured (especially under Basic Boat's T&C's).

What would you like me to 'prove'? That an illegal act is "an illegal act"?

That not having insurance is "not having insurance"?

Patronising comment ignored but, as I believe your interpretation of the law is flawed I would like you to provide evidence for your statement that a private boatowner letting another private individual use their boat is more likely to be uninsured.

Just because you are unable or unwilling to understand the law doesn't make you right.

I am quite capable of understanding, and interpreting, the law.

Just because you are unable to hold a reasonable debate, without resorting to patronising comments, doesn't make you right.

Edited December 16, 2008 by carlt

[Guest .mother]

Patronising comment ignored but, as I believe your interpretation of the law is flawed I would like you to provide evidence for your statement that a private boatowner letting another private individual use their boat is more likely to be uninsured.

 

I have not said this. Please re-read what I have actually said, not whatever interpretation you may attempt to spin.

 

"a private boatowner letting another private individual use their boat " is what you said, not me.

 

I said that if a financial transaction takes place leading to gain, or a benefit in kind, the law, (which you can go check for yourself, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest), classes this as a commercial hire. Once a commercial hire takes place, without commercial hire insurance, or a Leisure Business Licence, it becomes an illegal hire.

 

Don't take my word for it, if you are bothered in the slightest with 'the truth', rather than some ad hominem tirade, go ask BW

 

I do somehow suspect that should you, or your boat be damaged by an illegally hired boat, and you found you had absolutely no comeback other than to go through the Courts, you'd be here demanding to know why there aren't laws to prevent such irresponsible acts. The fact that there are existing laws is currently an inconvenience as it gets in the way of whatever vague point you're trying to make.

 

Like I said, it really doesn't matter to me in the slightest, but one day it may matter to me, or you.

[AlanH]

Just because you are unable to hold a reasonable debate, without resorting to patronising comments, doesn't make you right.

[carlt]

Don't take my word for it, if you are bothered in the slightest with 'the truth', rather than some ad hominem tirade, go ask BW

The only person employing an "ad hominem" patronising tirade is you.

 

Also, as BW are responsible for some of the most outrageous misinterpretations of the laws governing them, I hardly think they will be the authority I would seek a defining opinion, from.

 

Your argument is tainted with bias and merely dismisses everyone else's opinion with patronising comments.

 

Indeed I said "A private boatowner letting another private individual use their boat." because I do not believe either you, or I, have the authority to pass judgement on whether or not someone is breaking the law.

 

I believe I offer a reasoned argument to substantiate any comments I may make.

Edited December 16, 2008 by carlt

[Chris J W]

What would be considered benefit in kind, then? For instance, some friends wanted to borrow mine for a week or two but the only proviso was 'when you give her back make sure the water and fuel are full, and the crap-tanks empty' - would that have been benefit in kind? (It all fell through, so a bit of a moot point perhaps)

[AlanH]

I believe I offer a reasoned argument to substantiate any comments I may make.

I don't doubt that you believe it. Much as I believe that many of your posts become dismissive, patronising, aggressive and offensive as soon as anyone disagrees with you.

[Guest .mother]

What would be considered benefit in kind, then? For instance, some friends wanted to borrow mine for a week or two but the only proviso was 'when you give her back make sure the water and fuel are full, and the crap-tanks empty' - would that have been benefit in kind? (It all fell through, so a bit of a moot point perhaps)

 

My personal opinion, based upon my own interpretation of the law, and given to many people over the years with the caveat that it is only my opinion is simply that there is no issue whatsoever in letting friends / relatives use your boat, and no problem whatsoever if they replace the diesel used, gas used, pay for a pumpout, fill with water. This is a 'loan', we've probably all done it over the years, this is not a hire, illegal or otherwise, it's just what one ends up doing when one owns a boat.

 

The only time a problem may arise is when the owner of the boat, after the 'loan' ends up financially better off, or better off by having any other kind of benefit which they would not have had, should they not have made the 'loan'.

 

This is my opinion, that's all.

[johnthebridge]

The Basic Boat Liability Co. only issues third party insurance.

Their policy makes reference only to cover for the "Insured" and family, and pre-recorded co-owners.

In its' policy "Exclusions", (nos. 6 & 7) it states, "use of the insured craft other than for private pleasure purposes", and "while the insured craft is used for hire reward or charter or to carry fee paying passengers."

Edited December 16, 2008 by johnthebridge

[mayalld]

Well thats a lousy example.A taxi is a business.

 

Yes, so is boat hire.

 

In other words its a good example.

 

I can't decide that I need a couple of quid extra, and go plying for hire with my private car.

 

Neither can I do likewise with my private boat.

[grahoom]

Yes, so is boat hire.

 

In other words its a good example.

 

I can't decide that I need a couple of quid extra, and go plying for hire with my private car.

 

Neither can I do likewise with my private boat.

 

So, recently my girlfriends brother drove us from sussex to oxford, I gave him a portion of the petrol money, would that be deemed as a "taxi" service / private hire ??

[mayalld]

Listen to yourselves Who are you?the canal police. stolen car???

Im talking about two consenting adults making a private arrangement between themselves.

Not a hire business like yourself.

Narrowboats are not cars.No driving tests req etc.

 

No, you are talking about cowboys seeking to evade the stringent rules on hiring out boats.

[AlanH]

My personal opinion, based upon my own interpretation of the law, and given to many people over the years with the caveat that it is only my opinion is simply that there is no issue whatsoever in letting friends / relatives use your boat, and no problem whatsoever if they replace the diesel used, gas used, pay for a pumpout, fill with water. This is a 'loan', we've probably all done it over the years, this is not a hire, illegal or otherwise, it's just what one ends up doing when one owns a boat.

 

The only time a problem may arise is when the owner of the boat, after the 'loan' ends up financially better off, or better off by having any other kind of benefit which they would not have had, should they not have made the 'loan'.

 

This is my opinion, that's all.

This seems reasonable to me. As soon as you accept money for the use of your boat then you become a business and as such should pay all the necessary insurances, licences, income tax etc. If you don't then you lay yourself open to all kinds of problems.

[mayalld]

So, if a friend asks you if he can borrow your lawnmower, and there'll be a pint waiting in the pub, do you hand hih a Jewson's tool hire brochure?

 

The hiring of lawnmowers is not subject to licence issues.

 

To tackle the other point though "a pint" is not hire. Token gratuities that are orders of magnitude less than a commercial rate, don't count.

 

So, recently my girlfriends brother drove us from sussex to oxford, I gave him a portion of the petrol money, would that be deemed as a "taxi" service / private hire ??

 

No.

 

Paying petrol money is explicitly allowed.

 

Me, if i lend my boat to another, for a few quid who are well aware of all the issues.Maybe someone who had a boat,but cant afford to buy another.There is not a problem.As long as insurance bw, lis and bsc are all in order.

 

Your licence is NOT in order, because you don't have a licence that permits you to use the boat for hire or reward.

 

Your BSC may not be in order, because the requirements for hire or reward are different.

 

Your insurance is not in order, because it is insurance for private use.

 

You won't listen, so go ahead. Of course, when you get caught, and BW revoke your licence, and Section 8 your boat, you can come back to complain about the injustice of it all.

[Chris Pink]

No, you are talking about cowboys seeking to evade the stringent rules on hiring out boats.

 

no he's not, the term 'hiring out boats' is not an appropriate description of a private agreement between 2 individuals.

 

To take your analogy, there is a difference between lending your car and doing any kind of private hire work.

 

Besides the last lot I saw were native Americans.

[carlt]

I don't doubt that you believe it. Much as I believe that many of your posts become dismissive, patronising, aggressive and offensive as soon as anyone disagrees with you.

If you could point me to an offensive or agressive post then I will happily ask the moderators to issue me with a warning.

 

If I believe an argument to be downright silly, then I will say so.

 

Assertive debate is a bit different to merely dismissing someone's argument, without backing up your own.

[mayalld]

no he's not, the term 'hiring out boats' is not an appropriate description of a private agreement between 2 individuals.

 

To take your analogy, there is a difference between lending your car and doing any kind of private hire work.

 

Besides the last lot I saw were native Americans.

 

The critical point is whether money changes hands.

 

If it does, then it is a hire, no matter how the two try to dress it up.

[carlt]

The critical point is whether money changes hands.

 

If it does, then it is a hire, no matter how the two try to dress it up.

Therefore, if I lend someone my car/boat with an empty tank and it comes back with a full one....