Hit by a hireboat- what happens now?

[Guest]

You're not obliged to unless someone is claiming from you.

 

It's your choice weather to or not. It might be wise though anyway, as if you don't recover costs from the offending company then you might need to fall back on your own insurance and having logged the incident makes things easier to claim if you have to.

Thanks, I had an idea you were obliged to, but stand corrected. I agree it is a good idea to inform them.

[Starcoaster]

Ok. Must admit I have had a couple of pm's from people who have had prior experience of dealing with this kind of issue with Rose, none of which fill me with confidence.

But this is what I am going to do:

1. Contact Rose again on Tuesday and ask to speak to the owner/ director and see if they are amenable to resolving the issue.

2. If they are not, send a formal demand for monies owed

3. File the money claim online thing and go from there.

 

My BFF is a solicitor so she may be able to tell me more or write a letter for me.

[Ex- Member]

I disagree. This is not how I understand the law. AIUI you cannot sue a boat for your loss, only a 'legal entity' such as a person or a company.

 

I didnt say that I said the owner :wacko:

And similarly if you are hit by a car your claim is initially against the driver, whether or not it it a hire car.

 

It's not it's against the owner of the vehicle owner, who is generraly the Insured. That can be different if you borrow a car or arrange with a hirer to supply your own cover.

 

 

The driver will probably be indemnified by insurance (his own or the car hire company's)

 

As above

 

which then handles the claim, but initially your claim is against the person or company who caused you the loss. if you have comprehensive insurance your own ins co will handle your claim for you, which I think is what you are describing.

 

MtB

 

Then as i stated the claim is against the Company, that being the N/b Owner

Edited March 30, 2013 by Julynian

[Peter Reed]

I have emailed Rose, referring them to this post, asking them to explain about compensation and how they will prevent this happening again.

[Chris Pink]

 

 

Then as i stated the claim is against the Company, that being the N/b Owner

 

Exactly so. If i damage your tomatoes, you would ask me to pay for new ones, if I refuse you could then take me to court for the cost of new tomatoes plus all the costs of taking me to court.

 

You'll notice I've not mentioned the word 'insurance' yet.

 

if I am insured against damaging tomatoes I might want to go to my insurer and say "sort it out" but I may not, if it's easier/cheaper to buy you some new tomatoes. I might also, in my insurance policy be insured for the legal costs of fighting your court claim against me.

 

Insurance seems to lodge in everyone's mind as a way of abrogating responsibility, it's not, it's simply a way of offsetting (the term is 'underwriting') the possible financial loss of an action.

[MtB]

Then as i stated the claim is against the Company, that being the N/b Owner

 

Company only applies if a company has caused your loss, eg if you bought something from the company (eg Currys) and it didn't work.

 

In the case of a boat or a car crash, I maintain the driver who hit you is the entity you claim against initially. The claim may then be laid off to insurance but if the insurance company do not perform, or deny the claim, there is nothing stopping you persuing the driver in the courts for compensation.

 

MtB

[Ex- Member]

Exactly so. If i damage your tomatoes, you would ask me to pay for new ones, if I refuse you could then take me to court for the cost of new tomatoes plus all the costs of taking me to court.

 

You'll notice I've not mentioned the word 'insurance' yet.

 

if I am insured against damaging tomatoes I might want to go to my insurer and say "sort it out" but I may not, if it's easier/cheaper to buy you some new tomatoes. I might also, in my insurance policy be insured for the legal costs of fighting your court claim against me.

 

Insurance seems to lodge in everyone's mind as a way of abrogating responsibility, it's not, it's simply a way of offsetting (the term is 'underwriting') the possible financial loss of an action.

 

Couldnt have put i better, superb analogy

[lostnortherner]

We've hired from Rose a couple of times in the past, and found them really nice people and efficient at dealing with us. I agree that many hire companies probably get loads of calls about hirers from boaters, so they probably do try and brush these things off.

 

Maybe after the Bank Holiday is over you will be able to speak to the manager there and get everything sorted out OK. It's people like that that give hire boaters (and young boaters) a bad reputation.

[Starcoaster]

Ah, more tomatoes. That is hilarious on a lot of levels, not least because I now perfectly understand anything that is explained to me in terms of tomatoes, but also because the reason I was off the boat at all was because I was planting my tomato seeds in a seed tray.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Starcoaster

[Joshua]

Actually your claim is against the person or persons who’s action directly led to your loss, i.e. the helmsman of the boat that collided with the boat that ricocheted into you.

 

Strictly speaking, insurance companies have nothing to do with it.

 

Think of it this way, if you have to start an action, the name of the defendant on the writ will not be an insurance company but the name of the person steering the boat (or if a minor, the person with legal responsibility for the minor).

 

Or look at it another way, what if the helmsman was not insured, would you have no claim? Of course not.

 

That’s the legal bit.

 

Now the practical bit. Firstly, hopefully the helmsman was insured as it means there is a pot of money to cover losses. The helmsman might be a poor student with not a penny to his name; his legal culpability and liability wont alone pay for the damage.

 

Secondly, it is generally a lot easier to allow the insurance companies to carve it up between themselves (they have what used to be called ‘knock for knock’ arrangements between companies, in other words accounting wheezes).

 

But, you do not have to accept any charges or loss of no claims, if the insurance company try to impose them, tell them you will make a direct claim against the offender for ALL of your losses, they wont like that as it contravenes the in house agreements they have ( to be honest this is more a bluff as I am sure you have better things to do with your life).

 

 

[dmr]

There was in incident on the K&A a couple of years back when a boat was hit by another boat who's owner was obviously drunk. This was not a hire boater but the offender did display a similar rude attitude towards the boater he had hit. Police were called, man was arrested and prosecuted, so it can be done!

 

Maybe with the increasing number of hires to stag and hen parties this is something that boaters will have to do more often, though I hope only as a very last resort. However with hire companies "muttering" to CaRT about CC'ers using the visitor moorings it would be rather poetic if CC'ers started "muttering" to the police about drunk hire boaters!!!!

 

...........Dave

[Ex- Member]

Actually your claim is against the person or persons who's action directly led to your loss, i.e. the helmsman of the boat that collided with the boat that ricocheted into you.

 

Not so

 

Strictly speaking, insurance companies have nothing to do with it.

 

Incorrect

 

Think of it this way, if you have to start an action, the name of the defendant on the writ will not be an insurance company but the name of the person steering the boat (or if a minor, the person with legal responsibility for the minor).

 

It would be the hire company.

 

Or look at it another way, what if the helmsman was not insured, would you have no claim? Of course not.

 

The helmsman isn't insured the boat is.

 

That's the legal bit.

 

Clearly not.

 

Now the practical bit. Firstly, hopefully the helmsman was insured as it means there is a pot of money to cover losses. The helmsman might be a poor student with not a penny to his name; his legal culpability and liability wont alone pay for the damage.

 

Irrelevant

 

Why would the helmsman need insurance. The boat is insured and the crew insured to propel the boat as part and parcel of that insurance. Are you seriously suggesting that 5 adults hiring a boat each insure themselves individually so they can pilot the boat. Ridiculous

 

Secondly, it is generally a lot easier to allow the insurance companies to carve it up between themselves (they have what used to be called 'knock for knock' arrangements between companies, in other words accounting wheezes).

 

If you choose to claim, fault will be determined.

 

But, you do not have to accept any charges or loss of no claims, if the insurance company try to impose them, tell them you will make a direct claim against the offender for ALL of your losses, they wont like that as it contravenes the in house agreements they have ( to be honest this is more a bluff as I am sure you have better things to do with your life).

Utter nonsense

 

 

Edited March 30, 2013 by Julynian

[Arthur Marshall]

I got the name of the person who was in charge of the party/ the lead hirer, but that was so I could identify them to Rose narrowboats rather than cos I thought about it more deeply. I didn't get the name of the steerer, that seems stupid now but at the time it really didn't occur to me to do so; I assume you'd just phone the hire company and they would intervene and deal with their clients.

 

I can't see it's the responsibility of anyone except the hire company. Most private boats won't have anything oher than 3rd party insurance anyway, so I can't see how you can expect insurance companies to get involved as a norm. The hire company will have it in the contract with the hirer that the boats are used safely and it would therefore be their business to claim back any damages from the hirer. My first response would be to contact the hire company at the management level with full details of damage done, and then if there has been significant damage and you get no response, to go to the Small Claims Court. At which point they will pay up.

 

But once you start involving insurers, if all you've lost is a few cups and saucers, and the damage comes to less than the excess on your insurance, it's pointless anyway. Lucky we're mostly steel, really. Three boats on out mooring got cannoned into by a drunk day boat last summer, but I couldn't actually spot any damage done except to my temper.

[bigste]

Your gripe is with the person who the NB is hired to. He is the one you would sue. Same with a car you claim from the driver who then informs his insurance then they take over. Your claim is against the negligent person. You can only claim damages for negligence and in this case the person in charge. The hire company are not the negligent ones nor can the boat be negligent so you cannot claim from them. You can only claim damages from someone if they were at fault. Were the hire company at fault, I don't think so. If you did claim from them they would pass it to the insurers who had insured the hirer but it is not the hire company to blame though I would expect them to be helpful as it is their boat after all.

Edited March 30, 2013 by bigste

[MtB]

Incorrect

 

 

 

It would be the hire company.

 

 

 

The helmsman isn't insured the boat is.

 

 

 

Clearly not.

 

 

 

Irrelevant

 

Why would the helmsman need insurance. The boat is insured and the crew insured to propel the boat as part and parcel of that insurance. Are you seriously suggesting that 5 adults hiring a boat each insure themselves individually so they can pilot the boat. Ridiculous

 

 

 

If you choose to claim, fault will be determined.

 

 

Utter nonsense

 

 

 

 

Are you a qualified lawyer Julynian, or is this just your personal opinion?

 

MtB

[Ex- Member]

Are you a qualified lawyer Julynian, or is this just your personal opinion?

 

MtB

 

No but if you read several posts back I stated we werer hit by a hire boat company.

[Biggles]

Not knowing the area but my guess is they have to come back past you?

 

I would be inclined to use the towpath telegraph to alert you so you can stop them from proceeding back to base until Rose come out to get their boats back.

[Graham Davis]

There was in incident on the K&A a couple of years back when a boat was hit by another boat who's owner was obviously drunk. This was not a hire boater but the offender did display a similar rude attitude towards the boater he had hit. Police were called, man was arrested and prosecuted, so it can be done!

...........Dave

 

But prosecuted for what, Dave?

If he was being rude and aggressive it could just be "breach of the peace".

[Guest]

It's not a law as in on the roads DD

 

This if from The Broads Authoriy

 

Don’t drink and drive - it's essential to keep your wits about you while you’re on the water.

- We recommend that the helmsman doesn’t drink until the boat is moored up for the night.

- Please also remember that getting on and off the boat and moving around on the deck can be equally hazardous when you've had a few drinks.

- You can be fined for navigating while not being able to take proper control of your boat - either through drinking or drug use.

 

So not an offence in it's own right but prosecutable according to The Broads Authoriy

 

When I read ridiculous responses like this I realise I am correct not to interact with certain folk on here any longer.... What the heck has this got to do with the broads???

[Ex- Member]

When I read ridiculous responses like this I realise I am correct not to interact with certain folk on here any longer.... What the heck has this got to do with the broads???

 

 

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/boating/safety/boating-basics.html

 

Please yourself No Balls :lol::lol::lol:

 

Bye :lol:

Edited March 30, 2013 by Julynian

[luctor et emergo]

Popcorn...

 

Icecream...

 

Cold Beer...

[Ally]

My understanding has always been that the hire company are the insurance holders, including 3rd party, and that insurance is part of the cost of hiring, ie, the company are the folk to go after, not the hirers. Otherwise every hirer would need to have their own insurance.

we were hit side on by the bow of a private cruiser, high pulpit bow, which badly damaged our cabin side, surprisingly. Whilst we went directly to their insurance co, with pics, statement, repair estimates,

& witnesses, (we were on our home mooring at the time) our own insurance required we inform them also, incase of any need for their legal dept to be involved. We were lucky, he admitted liability & his insurer paid out, no quibbles. Check your own policy to see if you need to inform them. Our policy costs were not affected.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ally

[Ex- Member]

Popcorn...

 

Icecream...

 

Cold Beer...

 

Beer for me :lol:

 

Possibly the drinking rule applies to the Broads only, and it's some major issue for some :lol::lol:

Edited March 30, 2013 by Julynian

[Guest]

My understanding has always been that the hire company are the insurance holders, including 3rd party, and that insurance is part of the cost of hiring, ie, the company are the folk to go after, not the hirers. Otherwise every hirer would need to have their own insurance.

we were hit side on by the bow of a private cruiser, high pulpit bow, which badly damaged our cabin side, surprisingly. Whilst we went directly to their insurance co, with pics, statement, repair estimates,

& witnesses, (we were on our home mooring at the time) our own insurance required we inform them also, incase of any need for their legal dept to be involved. We were lucky, he admitted liability & his insurer paid out, no quibbles. Check your own policy to see if you need to inform them. Our policy costs were not affected.

The best bit of advice so far

[dmr]

But prosecuted for what, Dave?

If he was being rude and aggressive it could just be "breach of the peace".

 

Pretty sure it was for driving a boat whilst drunk! I think he was stopped by police at the next bridge and breathalysed

Bit silly really as the boat name and other signwriting on the boat did rather suggest that the owner liked a drink!.

It was reported in the local press but I can no longer find the article with Google.

 

.............Dave