boaters target boaters

[Guest]

They are no different and land dwellers have just as much opportunity to seek sympathetic handling of any precarious position they may find themselves in as boat dwellers.

and just as often doesn't have to be made, if you have a sympathetic landlord/building society/waterways authority.

 

Why shouldn't CRT choose to take a sympathetic view of someone "on their uppers" if they are able to?

I don't know you would have to ask them. I suspect they will be concerned about setting a precedent and are unsure about the consequences of effectively sanctioning the non conformence with their own t and c's and all that could entail.

[carlt]

I don't know you would have to ask them. I suspect they will be concerned about setting a precedent and are unsure about the consequences of effectively sanctioning the non conformence with their own t and c's and all that could entail.

There is no precedent.

 

As I have said earlier I often had help from BW in the form of leeway given whilst I got a boat in a fit state to get legal and pass on to a new owner.

 

Unlicensed boats are moving around all the time, with the authority's blessing, despite not "conforming" to their T&Cs.

 

BW/CRT are not always the ogres they are made out to be and when they do demonstrate their human side, no precedent is set, nor expected.

[PaddingtonBear]

god, this thread is almost a godsend to Carl, however the big issue re. no BSS is not the license but insurance, the lack of which threatens others greatly should a calamity occur.

Edited May 1, 2013 by PaddingtonBear

[carlt]

however the big issue re. no BSS is not the license but insurance, the lack of which threatens others greatly should a calamity occur.

Third party insurance is not necessarily dependent on having a BSS (though I would imagine you'd struggle to get comp cover) .

 

I checked with Basic Boat when I refloated my first wooden sinker and needed to move it to Charity and they said I was covered.

[Paul C]

Third party insurance is not necessarily dependent on having a BSS (though I would imagine you'd struggle to get comp cover) .

 

I checked with Basic Boat when I refloated my first wooden sinker and needed to move it to Charity and they said I was covered.

 

Sounds a bit of a specialist thing though. How many of the more widely used insurers, would continue to cover a boat if its BSS expired? They'd use it to wriggle out of a payment. If there's (a) firm(s) which do cover boats with no BSS, you'd need to re-arrange for this type of cover?

[carlt]

Sounds a bit of a specialist thing though

Specialist?

 

Basic Boat Liability are a budget no-nonsense company who only provide cheap Third Party and wreck salvage cover for £69.95.

[Paul C]

No worries, it never seems to be mentioned when people ask for boat insurance recommendations.

[carlt]

No worries, it never seems to be mentioned when people ask for boat insurance recommendations.

Usually because most enquiries are about contents or hull surveys.

 

With Basic Boat you don't even have to name the boat, never mind get a survey because it's only 3rd party.

 

If anyone asks for cheap insurance for an old boat that doesn't need fully comp I always recommend them.

 

I have a permanent policy with them even if I don't have a boat because it comes in handy if I suddenly get a wooden knacker foisted on me.

[nicknorman]

because it comes in handy if I suddenly get a wooden knacker foisted on me.

 

I was looking for a google image to visualise that, but for some reason couldn't find one.

[Guest]

god, this thread is almost a godsend to Carl, however the big issue re. no BSS is not the license but insurance, the lack of which threatens others greatly should a calamity occur.

 

This what I was alluding to earlier.

 

Whilst BBL may very well cover against basic third party risks I wonder if it would cover the situation where a fire starts on a boat in an appliance that has not been checked (the BSSC having expired) and then spreads to an adjacent boat.

 

Who do the owners of the the adjacent boat turn to? their own insurers? why should they and damage their claims record for something that was not their fault.

 

And do CRT, having sanctioned the boat not having a BSSC become implicated in the claim? - I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would see it like that in the current litigious times we live in, that could be why the Trust are holding back (if indeed they are because we don't actually know they are).

 

I for one wouldn't like to be moored next to him other than if I was I would like to think if I was I would offer what practical help I could (admittedly not much) to help him get his boat in order sufficiently enough for him to be able to get his BSSC as to me that remains the overall better solution.

[Naughty Cal]

I don`t think that this is necessarily a moral high ground issue, the guy with the ticket has started jumping through the required hoops and his hit a problem, i.e. a BSS fail, He can`t afford the work so he will be unlicenced until he gets the money to comply. CRT have placed him in an impossible situation, they should issue a licence. There is no SORN option on the canal, I have a car on the drive which is SORN quite legally, there are lots of people whose budget may not cover a big bill and issuing tickets is not helpful, Perhaps he should explain to CRT and perhaps CRT should take a flexible approach and the next pig I see flying past my window gets both barrels.

If the bloke cant afford a BSS then how can he afford a licence?

 

Sounds a bit of a specialist thing though. How many of the more widely used insurers, would continue to cover a boat if its BSS expired? They'd use it to wriggle out of a payment. If there's (a) firm(s) which do cover boats with no BSS, you'd need to re-arrange for this type of cover?

There is no mention of a need to have a BSS in our insurance documents.

[Leni]

Surely to 'SORN' (or should that be SOCN?) a boat it would need to be out of the water? And if he can't afford the work needed to get the BSS he won't be able to afford the added cost of a lift-out! Bit of a Catch 22

[Guest]

There is no mention of a need to have a BSS in our insurance documents.

 

Ours (craftinsure) however does, and a licence too.-

 

 

• You possess a current British Waterways or Environment Agency Licence, or the equivalent Licence from the local

Navigation Authority, and a current Boat Safety Certificate. In addition, if “The Dog House” is over 30 old years, you

possess a survey report not more than five years old from a qualified yacht surveyor with all recommendations complied

with.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Ours (craftinsure) however does, and a licence too.-

 

 

• You possess a current British Waterways or Environment Agency Licence, or the equivalent Licence from the local

Navigation Authority, and a current Boat Safety Certificate. In addition, if “The Dog House” is over 30 old years, you

possess a survey report not more than five years old from a qualified yacht surveyor with all recommendations complied

with.

We have a coastal policy

[Guest]

Surely to 'SORN' (or should that be SOCN?) a boat it would need to be out of the water? And if he can't afford the work needed to get the BSS he won't be able to afford the added cost of a lift-out! Bit of a Catch 22

 

Not necessarily it rather depends on who does the lift and how it's done compared with the amount of work required for the BSSC. There would though then likely be storage costs unless he could find a sympathetic yard/land owner.

[jelunga]

 

. Carl, although being a commendable approach, is it not somewhat idealogical? Having for my sins been a shop steward, shop keeper and manufacturer whilst on this earth, I have painstakenly endeavoured to follow your principles. As a shop steward I was once asked to represent a fellow worker who objected to maintaining a piece of equipment that was within his remit, simply because it was a night shift. When I repeatedly reminded him that unless he agreed to carry out the repair, he would be disciplined by management, he in turn, repeatedly reminded me that it was a night shift, as if because of this, he was exempt from his contractual duties. As a shop keeper and employer of 27 people, I set out to treat my staff as I would wish to be treated, with respect for them and their families. I lost count of how many of them that I had to sack because of theft. Even when replaying video footage of them actually in the act of stealing from me and my family,would they still deny any wrongdoing. As a manufacturer, I recruited people from poor areas to give them a chance to learn a trade and hopefully increase their chance to get off benefits and provide for their own families. I lost count of how many young men that I had to cast adrift, back to where they came from, to a life of serial benefit claims simply because they couldn't be arsed showing up on time, or at all and when they did grace me with their presence, they were less than useless. Dare I add, that on each occasion when I employed people, I paid above the standard rate in order to try and retain some sort of loyalty. In each of the above instances, I tried to be reasonable, treated the people as human beings and in return, was treated with utter contempt. I knew it and in truth they knew it too!

Amen to that.

[nicknorman]

 

Ours (craftinsure) however does, and a licence too.-

 

 

• You possess a current British Waterways or Environment Agency Licence, or the equivalent Licence from the local

Navigation Authority, and a current Boat Safety Certificate. In addition, if “The Dog House” is over 30 old years, you

possess a survey report not more than five years old from a qualified yacht surveyor with all recommendations complied

with.

Seems a good reason not to go with Craftinsure. ... Your BSS comes up for renewal, there is a trivial fail point which you can't fix in time, the boat suffers an unrelated disaster and you lose the boat and your money.

[Guest]

Seems a good reason not to go with Craftinsure. ... Your BSS comes up for renewal, there is a trivial fail point which you can't fix in time, the boat suffers an unrelated disaster and you lose the boat and your money.

 

I suspect if many people look closely enough at their policy wording they may find the same or something very similar.

 

Given you can get your BSSC well in advance of the actual expiry this seems reasonable to me.

[nicknorman]

 

I suspect if many people look closely enough at their policy wording they may find the same or something very similar.

 

Given you can get your BSSC well in advance of the actual expiry this seems reasonable to me.

You can, but sometimes circumstances and/or forgetfulness conspire against you. Our Navigators and General policy has this exception which is the only plasec BSS gets mentioned:

 

loss or damage or liability arising from or relating to gas unless:

the installation and tubing are to the approved British Standard and meet the Boat Safety Certificate recommendations

all gas containers are secured against movement in a purpose built locker which is properly ventilated to the exterior of your vessel

 

This seems fair enough - if the problem was caused by gas, and the boat has failed on a gas part of BSS, its not covered otherwise it is. There is also a generic seaworthiness requirement.

Edited May 2, 2013 by nicknorman

[dor]

 

There is also a generic seaworthiness requirement.

 

But who defines "seaworhiness"? At least with BSS (and yes I know it doesn't cover "seaworthiness") you have some support if something goes wrong. The insurance may take the view that if it doesn't have a current BSC it is not seaworthy.

[Guest]

Personally - even if it wasn't mentioned specifically I would prefer to assume it was covered by one of the more generic clauses.

 

Golden rule of having any insurance - don't give 'em wriggle room where you can avoid it.

But who defines "seaworhiness"? At least with BSS (and yes I know it doesn't cover "seaworthiness") you have some support if something goes wrong. The insurance may take the view that if it doesn't have a current BSC it is not seaworthy.

 

Precisely.

[nicknorman]

Seaworthy is a funny term for boats that are definitely not seaworthy, but I think it means in the context of the type of boat and its usage. The difference is that if there is no BSC, for your policy there is no cover. End Of. Whereas for my policy its up to the insurance co to show that the vessel is not seaworthy. Ie they have to supply the proof, not you. I suspect most policies have a seaworthy or equivalent clause, since the BSS is very limited in its remit - gas, leccy, ventilation etc and nothing about whether the engine is hanging off by 1 selftapper screw whilst you cruise the tidal Trent. There seems no scope for directly linking BSS with seaworthiness and insurance companies cant just "take a view" unless the policy wording allows it.

Edited May 2, 2013 by nicknorman

[carlt]

Not necessarily it rather depends on who does the lift and how it's done compared with the amount of work required for the BSSC. There would though then likely be storage costs unless he could find a sympathetic yard/land owner.

So you think it is okay for a private boatyard/landowner to be charitable but you don't see why a charity should be???

[Guest]

Seaworthy is a funny term for boats that are definitely not seaworthy, but I think it means in the context of the type of boat and its usage. The difference is that if there is no BSC, for your policy there is no cover. End Of. Whereas for my policy its up to the insurance co to show that the vessel is not seaworthy. Ie they have to supply the proof, not you. I suspect most policies have a seaworthy or equivalent clause, since the BSS is very limited in its remit - gas, leccy, ventilation etc and nothing about whether the engine is hanging off by 1 selftapper screw whilst you cruise the tidal Trent. There seems no scope for directly linking BSS with seaworthiness and insurance companies cant just "take a view" unless the policy wording allows it.

 

Similar to the wording in the Craftinsure policy (if you read it) they refer to a refer to a 'qualified yacht surveyor'.

[Guest]

So you think it is okay for a private boatyard/landowner to be charitable but you don't see why a charity should be???

 

The difference is it removes a potentially unsafe boat from the waters while it gets sorted.

 

It's up to CRT whether they allow the boat to remain on the waters not me so my opinion is hardly going to make a difference I'm just pointing out that there are some risks to it, both for other boaters and to CRT in doing so.

 

Additionally I remain concerned that in doing so it will escalate to a point where there are numerous boats on the system without a valid BSSC and by default a licence.

 

If the boater concerned can't afford it now another month is unlikely to make any sort of real difference, and what happens then in a months time? - he just ends up back where he is, how long do the Trust stretch it, another month?, two months?. It's delaying the inevitable when they have had 12 months to foresee this coming.

 

It's an issue of personal responsibility just as it was for my relly -