Damage claims against Hire boat/Day boat operators

[dor]

I was hit by an Alvechurch boat at Barbridge which ripped my cratch cover. Rang up the Office at Wrenbury and they came out the next day to look at it and agreed payment in full. I didn't get precious about a scratch on the paintwork, but the cratch cover had only been fitted two days!

[mayalld]

Actually they do - we cannot pass the hirer's personal information on to anyone who asks for it, only to those parties who're mentioned in the hire agreement (which would be the Broads Authority or our insurers). Unless we're reporting a crime ourselves, we can't even give them to the police without a court order (though in practice the police know all they have to do is ask the BA).

 

So, what stops you disclosing isn't data protection issues, it is more a matter that your contract isn't properly worded.

 

Oh, and if you give details to the Broads Authority, knowing that they will disclose them to people that you couldn't disclose them to, how does that sit with your data protection issues?

[Teadaemon]

So, what stops you disclosing isn't data protection issues, it is more a matter that your contract isn't properly worded.

 

Oh, and if you give details to the Broads Authority, knowing that they will disclose them to people that you couldn't disclose them to, how does that sit with your data protection issues?

 

I somehow doubt we'd get many customers if our contract stated that their personal details were available to anyone who cared to ask.

 

The requirement to maintain records and disclose them to the Broads Authority on request is enshrined in law. AFAIK, they don't actually disclose such information to members of the public under normal circumstances, but they will pass on letters, including notice of legal proceedings.

[mayalld]

I somehow doubt we'd get many customers if our contract stated that their personal details were available to anyone who cared to ask.

 

The requirement to maintain records and disclose them to the Broads Authority on request is enshrined in law. AFAIK, they don't actually disclose such information to members of the public under normal circumstances, but they will pass on letters, including notice of legal proceedings.

 

OK, so tell me;

 

If you give out the name and address details of a customer, in response to a request from somebody who claims that said hirers have damaged his boat, what offence will you have committed.

 

Please be precise in terms of which section of the DPA you will have breached.

[suziq]

My boat got rammed by a hire boat a couple of weeks ago on the Leicester line - rammed as in full force into the side of the bow end making all the windows rattle and it felt as if someone was coming into the boat as it was hit that hard. The hirers said that they had "inadvertently" steered the wrong direction (they were on a straight bit of the canal, so how that happened is anyone's guess!!), but they were definitely going "hell for leather" as the boat actually ricochet off the side of our bow and ended up stuck in the shallow the other side of the canal.

 

My phoning the hire boat company on two occasions did not get much of a response until I mentioned that I worked for a firm of solicitors, and they have Emailed me since asking for photographs of damage and that their hirers denied the damage that was caused - though the hirers did not even bother to stop to survey the damage (though apparently in their report to the hire company they said that they had). One paragraph they wrote as follows:-

 

"As you will remember from your days as a novice it is very easy to make a mistake while steering a narrowboat that can end up with the boat heading off in any direction. This appears to be what happened in this case with a slight lapse in concentration leaving the boat heading for the side of yours. I have been told that the hire boat was already in reverse prior to impact with the side of your boat and that would be the reason for you to see that the boat ”ricocheted backwards toward the shallow”. The hirers tell me that a cursory inspection of both boats at the time of the incident showed no obvious damage to the impact areas with the exception of a little lost paint. You were offered an apology at the time of the incident and for most that would have been accepted and the incident closed"

 

So no offer was forthcoming of coming down to see what damage was done, just more work for us as the completely innocent party (our boat having been moored up at the time) as they want us to send in photographs of the damage to send to their insurers - we do not possess a camera or a camera mobile phone, nor have the facility to download pictures, so it is rather difficult for us to do this without incurring more costs.

 

Luckily the damage was not that extensive as only the side of the boat was badly scrapped of paint and the collar to our fire had split (the hire boat really rocked the boat causing this to split, even though we have door stops on the legs to stop the fire from moving about), but it is not really to point as in the end, it is more hassle than it is worth to continue with a claim

[David Mack]

I somehow doubt we'd get many customers if our contract stated that their personal details were available to anyone who cared to ask.

 

The requirement to maintain records and disclose them to the Broads Authority on request is enshrined in law. AFAIK, they don't actually disclose such information to members of the public under normal circumstances, but they will pass on letters, including notice of legal proceedings.

 

I would be surprised if the small print of your contract doesn't already include a provision that the hirer is responsible for any damage caused to the boat, to other boats or to third party property. Not much of a step from there to adding that where you have reasonable grounds for believing that the hirer may have caused such damage you may disclose his details to your insurer, the third party or the third party's insurer.

 

David

[Teadaemon]

OK, so tell me;

 

If you give out the name and address details of a customer, in response to a request from somebody who claims that said hirers have damaged his boat, what offence will you have committed.

 

Please be precise in terms of which section of the DPA you will have breached.

 

Dave, I really can't be bothered to have a pointless argument with you. I (along with everyone else who works at the yard) am an expert in boats, not the law. This is why we take advice from experts (they're called lawyers) on things like the Data Protection Act, and follow it.

 

Pete - the insurance covers the hirer for third party claims arising from accidents, but not from negligence. Just like car insurance, this does not mean that the insurance company can refuse to pay out for third party liabilities resulting from negligence, but does mean that if a hirer is negligent, then the insurance company (and us) can (and often will) attempt to recover their costs from the hirer.

[mayalld]

Dave, I really can't be bothered to have a pointless argument with you. I (along with everyone else who works at the yard) am an expert in boats, not the law. This is why we take advice from experts (they're called lawyers) on things like the Data Protection Act, and follow it.

 

Well, if you can't be bothered to have a pointless argument about it, fair enough.

 

The point is that there is NOTHING in the DPA which would prevent you giving that information out.

 

The suggestion that there is something in the DPA that does so hasn't come from any lawyers. It has come from a friend of a friend, who heard it used as an excuse somewhere else.

 

You certainly don't have to argue it, but neither can you expect such balderdash to go unchallenged, simply on the basis that you assert that "lawyers" said it was so.

[Teadaemon]

Actually, as our hirers all pay a non-refundable damage waiver to cover themselves against accidental damage (to our boats or other property) our contract (and handover) makes clear that they're responsible for damage caused by negligence, and for those things that aren't covered by the damage waiver (mainly deck gear).

 

Whilst I'm sure we could change our terms & conditions, since there exists a perfectly good mechanism for such information to be obtained by those who need it, why should we ignore it and offer our customers (who are after all the people who put food on our table and a roof over our heads) less protection that we're required to?

 

I also know from experience that not every private owner claiming to have been hit by a hire boat is telling the truth, and even if they are, some of them are incapable or unwilling to deal with matters in a mature fashion (a tip, this does not involve shouting and swearing, at hirers or boat yard staff). I can think of one incident last year where one of our boats was involved in a collision with a private cruiser moored opposite the yard (a genuine accident - the member of staff at the helm gave her a quick burst of forward to bring the stern around and a cable slipped, leaving the boat stuck in forward gear). We had no problem admitting that a collision had happened, or that we were responsible for fixing the damage, but we did object to the owners attempting to claim that a large amount of pre-existing damage to the bows of their boat was due to the collision. Fortunately my boss is into photography and had taken a lot of pictures of the yard, several of which showed the bows of their boat, with the very obvious damage that they were trying to claim was our fault. Sending those to their insurance company soon stopped most of the claim against us, but we were surprised to hear that their insurance company had paid out in full for all of the necessary work, when they had a very good case not to, and in fact would have had a very good case against those owners for fraud.

[Domino_2]

OK I believe I am familiar with the hire firm in question and to my knowledge they are "considerate and responsible" operators

 

However, put yourself in their shoes: As with motoring, insurers insist that the insured should never admit liability, and to forward all communications to the insurer. In this case, your e-mail would indicate that you were a witness for the third party and therefore, not to be communicated with directly.

 

Also, if I were them or their insurers I would do nothing until the owners of the damaged boat made a claim or/and if when the hire boat returned it was also damaged your e-mail would be used against the hirers to withold their deposit. Your e-mail will certainly be filed away somewhere.

 

Now, were the owners or crew of the other boat witness to this event? If not did you inform them? Are they going to make a claim? If not you probably will never hear anything further!

 

Edited to add: - On the other hand, you could be called as a witness for the hire firm against the hirers!!!!!

 

To be honest I didn't expect more than a simple acknowledgement at most.

 

The injured boat's owner was on the boat at the time and did come out to speak to the crew of the hire boat.

 

My main purpose of posting the details of this incident were just in case the owners of the moored boat happened to read this and wanted to get in touch with us as witnesses.

[RichardH]

Actually, as our hirers all pay a non-refundable damage waiver to cover themselves against accidental damage (to our boats or other property) our contract (and handover) makes clear that they're responsible for damage caused by negligence, and for those things that aren't covered by the damage waiver (mainly deck gear).

 

 

But when does 'accident' become 'negligence' ?

 

I personally loathe damage waivers. For careful guests it is a nasty taste on top of the hire fee. For those who couldn't care less it is seen as a 'we've paid the £50.....sod it'

 

I would be interested to see how many hire companies actually progress a claim against hirers for negligence if they have already paid a damage waiver.

[Teadaemon]

But when does 'accident' become 'negligence' ?

 

I personally loathe damage waivers. For careful guests it is a nasty taste on top of the hire fee. For those who couldn't care less it is seen as a 'we've paid the £50.....sod it'

 

I would be interested to see how many hire companies actually progress a claim against hirers for negligence if they have already paid a damage waiver.

 

To be honest, in most cases whether it's accident or negligence is likely to be decided in court, and depends a lot on the exact circumstances.

 

I know we have taken hirers to court over damage to our boats caused by negligence, and won our case.

[sueb]

Well, if you can't be bothered to have a pointless argument about it, fair enough.

 

The point is that there is NOTHING in the DPA which would prevent you giving that information out.

 

The suggestion that there is something in the DPA that does so hasn't come from any lawyers. It has come from a friend of a friend, who heard it used as an excuse somewhere else.

 

You certainly don't have to argue it, but neither can you expect such balderdash to go unchallenged, simply on the basis that you assert that "lawyers" said it was so.

Bw won't give information to an aggrieved party stating data protection but EA will.

Sue with more unsubstantiated comments.

[mayalld]

Bw won't give information to an aggrieved party stating data protection but EA will.

Sue with more unsubstantiated comments.

 

Sue, get over the whole unsubstantiated comments thing.

 

I have no direct knowledge of what BW or EA do, but I do know that there are MANY companies and organisations that play the Data Protection card, and that they are almost always using it as a figleaf to justify a decision not to give information out that has bugger all to do with DPA.

[barney]

Had a claim on middlewich narrowboats stag do hit us whilst cooking pan jumped from one ring on the stove to the next could of been accident eco fan nocked of fire clock of the wall scratch down gunwel . I got a new fan and boat painted after insurance Newtoncrum said they would take them to court . Having been hit many times before never claim I felt I had to this time this stag do where just wreckless I had plenty of witnesses

 

Regards

Edited September 1, 2011 by barney

[Pete of Ebor]

Sue, get over the whole unsubstantiated comments thing.

 

I have no direct knowledge of what BW or EA do, but I do know that there are MANY companies and organisations that play the Data Protection card, and that they are almost always using it as a figleaf to justify a decision not to give information out that has bugger all to do with DPA.

 

Don't you believe it - I work for a well know company which deals in financial products and it has been made abundantly clear to me that if I make an error in applying the varoius regulatons, then it's ME that gets prosecuted and ME that goes to jail - not the company. It's the old old story of a fear of litigation spawning the "protect my own arse" syndrome. The more lawyers we have chasing litigation the more prevelant it is becoming in all walks of life - including boating, sadly.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Pete of Ebor