Legal applicability of International Regs on Canals

[Keeping Up]

Just an update. As expected we received formal notification from the legal firm saying that they regard my case as unwinnable so they will not be pursuing it.

 

My wife also had a letter stating that because they had established that I was 50% to blame for the accident (!!!!!) she stands a very good chance of succeeding in a claim for damages to be split in equal amounts between the other boat and myself. However the insurance dooesn't cover the cost of suing the skipper of her own boat, therefore she would have to risk her own money (ie mine) by instructing them independently. I of course would need to find a different legal team for my defence, and would therefore have to risk more of my money in doing so because my insurance wouldn't cover me for using a different legal firm as I would have to do. As a final note of lunacy, they suggest that she would herself be regarded as 20% to blame because she was a passenger inside the boat at a time when she should have been outside acting as bow lookout.

 

Luckily Debbie has no desire to sue me, and I don't think I have any sensible way of moving anything further forward.

[dave moore]

Amen

 

Dave

[Tam & Di]

 

Luckily Debbie has no desire to sue me, and I don't think I have any sensible way of moving anything further forward.

 

I must say it does seem to me that the solicitor is looking at your insurer as being his client rather than you, and doing everything he can to avoid them paying out on your claim. Any such case always carries a risk of failure, but yours does seem to have a better chance of success than many. It used to be possible to get legal advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau, but that was a long time ago and I don't know if it is still the case. If so that might at least give you some independent advice.

[David Mack]

So having paid for legal cover you don't actually get anyone to defend your case should Debbie decide to sue you? That doesn't sound right! Surely in such circumstances the policy should pay for 2 sets of lawyers if necessary.

[Giant]

I don't think I have any sensible way of moving anything further forward.

 

I feel like the most helpful thing you can do with these clowns at this point is to identify them, and the insurance company that retained them, so that we can all avoid them like the plague.

[ditchcrawler]

I'm surprised that the Admiralty Court would have jurisdiction given the location and vessel types.

Is that who CRT use for section 8 after nailing a writ to the mast?

[Keeping Up]

I feel like the most helpful thing you can do with these clowns at this point is to identify them, and the insurance company that retained them, so that we can all avoid them like the plague.

Agreed. Now that I've nothing to lose I feel I should share it.

 

The hire company was Star Line Narrow Boat's of Stourport on Severn. I have been told by a great many people including two hire companies and a boatyard that their hirers are often involved in collisions and that the victims rarely get adequate (if any) compensation. Of course I can't be certain whether all these people who say the same thing are telling the truth or not.

 

My insurers are Towergate Marden and I must say they have been helpful and professional throughout; they paid out fully (apart from my excess and uninsured losses) promptly and without question; they are equally frustrated because they similarly have failed to recover their losses from Star Line or their insurers.

 

Towergate use ARC Legal who are a sort of broker, they can only go by what their chosen legal firm say (although I will be speaking to them again) and that firm of legal "experts" go by the name of LA Legal (aka Lester Aldridge Marine). Clearly they are more used to seaways than canals; they didn't believe that I was so incompetent that I couldn't tell them the time of high tide in Birmingham or estimate the speed of the current on the canal at the time.

 

OK with that I suppose I've finally given up ant chance of taking it further, not that there was much hope left. But a warning to everyone, if you see a Star Line boat in time (ie with more than the 2 seconds we had before the impact) then get out of the way as quickly as you can. And when they hit you, don't let them get away afterwards.

[MtB]

Agreed. Now that I've nothing to lose I feel I should share it.

 

The hire company was Star Line Narrow Boat's of Stourport on Severn. I have been told by a great many people including two hire companies and a boatyard that their hirers are often involved in collisions and that the victims rarely get adequate (if any) compensation. Of course I can't be certain whether all these people who say the same thing are telling the truth or not.

 

My insurers are Towergate Marden and I must say they have been helpful and professional throughout; they paid out fully (apart from my excess and uninsured losses) promptly and without question; they are equally frustrated because they similarly have failed to recover their losses from Star Line or their insurers.

 

 

Do you know who their insurers are?

 

If so it would seem a shred move to switch your own insurance to them, given their obvious expertise at fending off claims (forgive the pun.)

 

In addition, next time a Star Line boat hits you they will find themselves in a very difficult position.

[Captain Pegg]

Oh dear. I seem to see their entire fleet go past my mooring every week. Good job I am partially offline!

 

It wouldn't seem logical that one hire company would have proportionately more incidents than any other but it raises an interesting question about how steerers may be conditioned by having to set off on a river navigation before reaching any canals.

 

JP

[Giant]

I'm a little unclear on how you ended up with this legal team and why you have to use them.

 

Towergate have paid out for your losses that were covered by your insurance with them. They may make their own efforts to sue the hire company to recover the costs of that, and your insurance contract may require you to assist their legal team with that, however incompetent they may be.

 

In such a situation, I suppose the insurer may try to help you recover your uninsured losses from the third party as part of the same action.

 

But if their legal team decide not to proceed with such action, surely it has no bearing on your ability to pursue your losses yourself.

 

You say that the hire company have ignored all contact over this. If so, all you may need to do is file a small claims suit against them. If they ignore the court papers like they do everything else, you will win by default, and can get a court order to have bailiffs take their stuff to pay for your losses.

[Phoenix_V]

I'm a little unclear on how you ended up with this legal team and why you have to use them.

 

Towergate have paid out for your losses that were covered by your insurance with them. They may make their own efforts to sue the hire company to recover the costs of that, and your insurance contract may require you to assist their legal team with that, however incompetent they may be.

 

In such a situation, I suppose the insurer may try to help you recover your uninsured losses from the third party as part of the same action.

 

But if their legal team decide not to proceed with such action, surely it has no bearing on your ability to pursue your losses yourself.

 

You say that the hire company have ignored all contact over this. If so, all you may need to do is file a small claims suit against them. If they ignore the court papers like they do everything else, you will win by default, and can get a court order to have bailiffs take their stuff to pay for your losses.

I think the op has legal expenses insurance to recover his uninsured losses this is a very cheap add on to most policies usually about £10 or so most of which probably goes in commision so clearly there is no incentive to do much if a claim comes in.

 

As others have said it would be quite cheap to take the claim to the county court representing yourself, maybe they would try to move it to the "admiralty court " but i doubt it.

[LEO]

Hi,

I think I would also involve the Insurance Ombudsman - you have been paying for something and been let down, it costs money for companies to prepare a case so that the Ombudsman's questions can be answered and often a payment is made to avoid this cost....

 

Perhaps Cart should be involved, they presumably licence the hire company and might provide insurance details or confirm whether the company have adequate cover.

 

Dreadful set of circumstances.

 

Good luck.

 

L.

[Giant]

From your point of view it doesn't matter who the hire company's insurers are or what cover they have.

You have damages which you can claim directly from the hire company. If they ignore you then that is what the courts are for.

 

If the hire company want to claim on their insurance to pay your damages, that's a matter for them.

[john6767]

From your point of view it doesn't matter who the hire company's insurers are or what cover they have.

 

You have damages which you can claim directly from the hire company. If they ignore you then that is what the courts are for.

 

If the hire company want to claim on their insurance to pay your damages, that's a matter for them.

If I am understanding the situation, Alan's insurance company have done their bit and payed out for the damage repairs, and what is now outstanding in uninsured costs, like travel expenses, insurance excess etc. So there is no insurance company issue there.

 

In trying to recover these additional costs, it seems that the legal the person involved is devoid of even the most basic common sense, so I would not hold their opinion in very high esteem. You have to question if this is really a proper solicitor of just a para legal monkey. Is it not possible to go to the small claims court directly yourself with a case against the hire company?

[bozlite]

From your point of view it doesn't matter who the hire company's insurers are or what cover they have.

 

You have damages which you can claim directly from the hire company. If they ignore you then that is what the courts are for.

 

If the hire company want to claim on their insurance to pay your damages, that's a matter for them.

 

But the hire comapny isn't liable - the steerer of the other boat is (and only partly so, if colregs come into play). You can't put a claim into the small claims court claiming that the hire company caused the damage, because they didn't. (A decent comapany would have sorted this all out, nonetheless).

[Paul C]

If I am understanding the situation, Alan's insurance company have done their bit and payed out for the damage repairs, and what is now outstanding in uninsured costs, like travel expenses, insurance excess etc. So there is no insurance company issue there.

 

In trying to recover these additional costs, it seems that the legal the person involved is devoid of even the most basic common sense, so I would not hold their opinion in very high esteem. You have to question if this is really a proper solicitor of just a para legal monkey. Is it not possible to go to the small claims court directly yourself with a case against the hire company?

 

As I understand it, he's paid for "legal cover" or "uninsured loss recovery" or however they descibe it, as an extra-cost component within the package of cover, one element of which is the basic insurance cover (which has paid out). What he's paid for is still covered under the ombudsman scheme (I think.....definitely worth checking). Their website is: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/They would expect a reasonable amount of dialogue/effort to have occurred to claim in the normal way. It may/may not be resolved via the ombudsman.

 

AIUI the legal process might then be:

 

1. Obtain court order against hire firm to release details of the responsible party at the time. This has a test for reasonableness, ie you can't just ask for someone's details without a good reason.

2. Sue the hirer revealed in 1 under the small claims court procedure

 

Its up to the hirer if they want to sue the hire firm if they find they're out of pocket and should have been covered by them. Then its up to the hire firm to sue their own insurance firm for not paying out what should have been paid out long ago (ie between insurers, or between the OP's legal cover firm and the hire firm's insurance company).

[bozlite]

 

AIUI the legal process might then be:

 

1. Obtain court order against hire firm to release details of the responsible party at the time. This has a test for reasonableness, ie you can't just ask for someone's details without a good reason.

2. Sue the hirer revealed in 1 under the small claims court procedure

 

Its up to the hirer if they want to sue the hire firm if they find they're out of pocket and should have been covered by them. Then its up to the hire firm to sue their own insurance firm for not paying out what should have been paid out long ago (ie between insurers, or between the OP's legal cover firm and the hire firm's insurance company).

That would be my understanding, too. There's no direct claim against the hire company.

 

ETA: It could get terribly involved if the hirer (on behalf of a group, say) claims he wasn't in control of the boat at the time of the accident (and can't remember who was ...).

Edited April 8, 2016 by bozlite

[Giant]

Getting well out of my armchair legal knowledge now, but it might be possible to name both the hire company and the hirer in the suit, with the hirer as a John Doe to be identified by the hire company. If the hire company then refuse to disclose the identity of the hirer, then that gives a reason to hold the hire company liable.

[Giant]

I'm also not quite convinced by this idea being thrown around that only the steerer of the hire boat at that moment is liable here.

 

Consider a company who let a penniless moron steer one of their ships. He hits something and causes millions in damage. Surely they are not off the hook by saying that it's all his fault.

 

They have a responsibility for the vessel they own, whether they steer it themselves or let someone else do so.

[bozlite]

I'm also not quite convinced by this idea being thrown around that only the steerer of the hire boat at that moment is liable here.

 

Consider a company who let a penniless moron steer one of their ships. He hits something and causes millions in damage. Surely they are not off the hook by saying that it's all his fault.

 

They have a responsibility for the vessel they own, whether they steer it themselves or let someone else do so.

No - my undertstanding is that they have to ensure that their hirers have adequate third-party insurance (and they normally do this by arranging it on their behalf and including the cost in the hire fee).

 

ETA: Of course, there are circumstances where they could be liable: hiring out a dangerously faulty boat, for example. They're not liable for the idiocies of their hirers, but they do have to ensure that they are insured idiots.

Edited April 8, 2016 by bozlite

[john6767]

 

As I understand it, he's paid for "legal cover" or "uninsured loss recovery" or however they descibe it, as an extra-cost component within the package of cover, one element of which is the basic insurance cover (which has paid out). What he's paid for is still covered under the ombudsman scheme (I think.....definitely worth checking). Their website is: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/They would expect a reasonable amount of dialogue/effort to have occurred to claim in the normal way. It may/may not be resolved via the ombudsman.

 

AIUI the legal process might then be:

 

1. Obtain court order against hire firm to release details of the responsible party at the time. This has a test for reasonableness, ie you can't just ask for someone's details without a good reason.

2. Sue the hirer revealed in 1 under the small claims court procedure

 

Its up to the hirer if they want to sue the hire firm if they find they're out of pocket and should have been covered by them. Then its up to the hire firm to sue their own insurance firm for not paying out what should have been paid out long ago (ie between insurers, or between the OP's legal cover firm and the hire firm's insurance company).

I the case of the legal cover etc, then I agree with you. In this case it seems to be worthless, as the do not seem to be competent to deal with it, so that seems to be a failt.

 

BTW, from Starline Narrowboat's T&Cs

 

8. Insurance

The Company insures the boat and its equipment and inventory against public liability risks. The company’s insurance does not cover personal accidents or loss or damage to personal effects. Hirers and their crews are advised to take out their own personal insurance cover. The hirer is responsible for the first £500 of any claim and the hire charge does not include the accidental damage waiver available from the company. The company reserves right to require an Insurance security Deposit equal to the excess as well as the standard boat security deposit. The Insurance Excess Deposit indemnifies hirers against this Excess, but excludes damage arising from speeding, contact with a lock sill causing damage to the rudder, skeg or stern gear, TV aerials, chimneys, malicious or intentional damage to the boat. Also excluded is malicious or intentional damage to other boats and property and the late return of the boat and return of the boat in unclean condition.

The Hirer will indemnify the Company against all costs, damage, expenses, liability and claims howsoever arising from the negligence, neglect or default of the Hirer to the extent that they are not covered by the company’s policy.

So if they were speeding then the hirer has to pay the firat £500, in other cases they may of may not depending on if they took out the waiver. The only person which knows that is the hire company, so to me they are the only ones you can chase for this.

[Neil Smith]

I think the hire company should have shown the hirer where the brakes were.

 

Neil

[BruceinSanity]

I the case of the legal cover etc, then I agree with you. In this case it seems to be worthless, as the do not seem to be competent to deal with it, so that seems to be a failt.

 

BTW, from Starline Narrowboat's T&Cs

 

So if they were speeding then the hirer has to pay the firat £500, in other cases they may of may not depending on if they took out the waiver. The only person which knows that is the hire company, so to me they are the only ones you can chase for this.

Reading those T&Cs, I still reckon it's worth £25 for a small claims court suit. The company is quite likely just to cough up to save its own legal costs. If they want to defend the action, they could only do so by identifying the hirer and exposing him/her to a small claim in turn.

[Tony Brooks]

Something further to consider and maybe hit the legal idiot with.

 

A few years ago there was an assault case where a boater assaulter a surveyor working for a different boater's insurance company who boarded the boat without permission of the owner/skipper.

 

The boater's defence was that under maritime law the master of a British ship was allowed to use force to eject boarders. This caused quiet a bit of interest at the time. (As I understand it a British ship is defined as a vessel belonging to a British National and registration is not a pre-requisite).

 

The judge in the case held that an inland boat was not covered by the relevant maritime acts and the boater was convicted. If you can get the search function to find it there may even be a discussion here.

 

If my memory ss correct then the Admiralty Court has nothing to do with it, it is a matter covered by ordinary UK law.

[MtB]

I'm a little unclear on how you ended up with this legal team and why you have to use them.

 

Towergate have paid out for your losses that were covered by your insurance with them. They may make their own efforts to sue the hire company to recover the costs of that, and your insurance contract may require you to assist their legal team with that, however incompetent they may be.

 

In such a situation, I suppose the insurer may try to help you recover your uninsured losses from the third party as part of the same action.

 

But if their legal team decide not to proceed with such action, surely it has no bearing on your ability to pursue your losses yourself.

 

You say that the hire company have ignored all contact over this. If so, all you may need to do is file a small claims suit against them. If they ignore the court papers like they do everything else, you will win by default, and can get a court order to have bailiffs take their stuff to pay for your losses.

 

 

Or better, apply for a winding up order (assuming its a limited company). They will ALWAYS respond to one of those, as to ignore it results in the company being wound up and unable to continue trading.

 

AIUI, IANAL.