International Rescue on the Langollen

[rustydiver]

Cracking news.

It restores your faith in people who are willing to go above and beyond to help out others who they don't know.

Have a good time on the rest off your holidays.

[junior]

Isn't it amazing that somehow, these people have turned up on the forum!

[Tigerr]

Ray, I have been critical of what I saw of RCR's service on this thread - is that justified or do you think they did a good job?

When I last saw you on Saturday I recall reassuring you they were entirely excellent and could be relied on to get it all sorted out, based on my own experiences - although there were some signs things were going awry even then. I was then quite shocked to hear you were still there on Sunday - I assumed a ball had been dropped there.

If in fact they did a great job, and there was some other factor in play here that turned a simple drive belt replacement into a 3/4 day problem then I am happy to withdraw any criticism of RCR - and would even suggest the thread is deleted since you are all OK.

[Bettie Boo]

Isn't it amazing that somehow, these people have turned up on the forum!

 

You couldn't make it up could you

 

I'm sure they will enjoy the rest of their trip, now that they are underway again

[Guest]

Great news. We are turnung on to the Llangollen tomorrow all being well. Will keep an eye open for you.

[Tony Brooks]

i'm ray reeb...i'm the one who's on the drowsing nymph and had the breakdown last weekend...comments to the affect that the owners of this boat are in any way negligent or not doing their best for us are totally incorrect...a belt can break on anyone at any time...i handled the problem thru RCR without involving the owners as best i could...the owners have been fully supportive and helpful to us in any way they could be during our time aboard...they've offered to put us up in hotels and anything else we might need...

also, the boat is fully insured and meets all the requirements necessary to be operated on the canal system...

and david, we're fine and moving again on the canal system! thanks for your help

 

Hi Ray

 

I am very pleased that you are now on your way again and hope you enjoy the rest of your holiday. However unless you have studied the boat's Boat Safety Certificate, the insurance document and possibly seen the Gassafe current test certificate it is perfectly possible that the boat is not insured and is also in breach of its license terms. A private boat insurance and BSS certification may well not be valid when the owners are receiving a consideration (the swap for your home) for letting you have the use of it. As an example one insurer I got a quote from would not even cover my boat for use by members of my family, let alone strangers who swapped with me. Just take care, if anything really serious goes wrong it could be a minefield if you just took the owners word that everything is OK.

 

Edited to add: If my fears turn out to be well founded - I have no idea if they are or not - then I do not think it would be you that is chased for recompense, it would be the owners and I hope your own travel insurance would sort out any injuries you might suffer.

 

Unfortunately many of the internet based swap or let out sites seem to have very little idea about the legal position of their users, especially with boats where different standards apply. If my fears are well founded I am sure the owners are not deliberately trying to act illegally, it will just be lack of knowledge.

 

I know you did not use AirBnB but it is likely that the Canal and River Trust could take a similar view. Within the last week or so someone was on here complaining that CRT had refused him a boat license because he was going to advertise "rooms" on his boat via AirBnB.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Tony Brooks

[Paul C]

i'm ray reeb...i'm the one who's on the drowsing nymph and had the breakdown last weekend...comments to the affect that the owners of this boat are in any way negligent or not doing their best for us are totally incorrect...a belt can break on anyone at any time...i handled the problem thru RCR without involving the owners as best i could...the owners have been fully supportive and helpful to us in any way they could be during our time aboard...they've offered to put us up in hotels and anything else we might need...

also, the boat is fully insured and meets all the requirements necessary to be operated on the canal system...

and david, we're fine and moving again on the canal system! thanks for your help

 

Good to hear you're sorted out. What was the main underlying reason for the issue and RCR being unable to fix it? Was it just bad timing over the weekend, difficult access, unusual parts or a bit of all 3?

[___]

Hi Ray

 

I am very pleased that you are now on your way again and hope you enjoy the rest of your holiday. However unless you have studied the boat's Boat Safety Certificate, the insurance document and possibly seen the Gassafe current test certificate it is perfectly possible that the boat is not insured and is also in breach of its license terms. A private boat insurance and BSS certification may well not be valid when the owners are receiving a consideration (the swap for your home) for letting you have the use of it. As an example one insurer I got a quote from would not even cover my boat for use by members of my family, let alone strangers who swapped with me. Just take care, if anything really serious goes wrong it could be a minefield if you just took the owners word that everything is OK.

 

Edited to add: If my fears turn out to be well founded - I have no idea if they are or not - then I do not think it would be you that is chased for recompense, it would be the owners and I hope your own travel insurance would sort out any injuries you might suffer.

 

Unfortunately many of the internet based swap or let out sites seem to have very little idea about the legal position of their users, especially with boats where different standards apply. If my fears are well founded I am sure the owners are not deliberately trying to act illegally, it will just be lack of knowledge.

 

I know you did not use AirBnB but it is likely that the Canal and River Trust could take a similar view. Within the last week or so someone was on here complaining that CRT had refused him a boat license because he was going to advertise "rooms" on his boat via AirBnB.

Is all that really necessary? I am sure it's well intended but there has already been a clear statement that the boat is all above board. Can't they just be left to get on with their holiday?

 

JP

[mark99]

Is all that really necessary? I am sure it's well intended but there has already been a clear statement that the boat is all above board. Can't they just be left to get on with their holiday?

 

JP

Agree. Enjoy Americans, our lovely canals. Edited June 22, 2016 by mark99

[Keeping Up]

Agree.

Me too

[Tony Brooks]

Is all that really necessary? I am sure it's well intended but there has already been a clear statement that the boat is all above board. Can't they just be left to get on with their holiday?

 

JP

 

I hope that they do get on and really enjoy their holiday but in light of the recent topic started by another boater about the refusal to issue a license for a boat using another "internet letting site" how can you be sure that statement is true. I am sure the OP in the other topic would also have told his customers all was above board had he got the license but CaRT differ.

 

I do not want to go into want might happen in the worst case in any detail if this use of the boat is considered as multi-use, letting, or hire and it is in fact insured and licensed as a private boat but there are many in the UK who do not seem to fully grasp the implications of insuring a boat and then using it for a different use. Are Americans any better equipped than UK residents to understand this? Does the probable internet outfit know or even care about the legality as long as the owners "sign on the dotted line"? If the answer to the above is YES then, as you say, such a warning is not necessary but if the answer is NO or any uncertainty then the answer is yes, it does need saying even it is just to help protect JIm himself if he thinks about doing it again.

 

As I said I do not want to go into details for fear of giving Jim even more to worry about but look at your public liability cover and ask yourself if you could fund that if the insurers voided the policy.

[Horace42]

 

As I said I do not want to go into details for fear of giving Jim even more to worry about but look at your public liability cover and ask yourself if you could fund that if the insurers voided the policy.

You seem to know about these things, and without going into detail, and not to worry Ray, if he reads this, if disputed by the insurance company, who is liable for to pay public liability damages ?

Is it boat user or the boat owner ?

[Tony Brooks]

You seem to know about these things, and without going into detail, and not to worry Ray, if he reads this, if disputed by the insurance company, who is liable for to pay public liability damages ?

Is it boat user or the boat owner ?

 

I have no special knowledge apart from a superficial study of contract law for my professional exams years ago, knowing a little about the requirements for hire boats and observing the antics of UK insurers when faced with a major claim over the years.

 

This all revolves around what type of License CaRT say the boat needs for this type of use and all that follows on from that. If CaRT know and are happy with a private license than apart from the insurance companies view in the matter all is probably fine. If they say it needs a hire license then in the worst case things could get very messy.

 

If (and remember this is in no way certain) the insurance company voided the insurance then I think the person on the boat would be libel in the first instance but would then have a claim against the owners. How this would be sorted out across continents is very uncertain.

 

If you read the latest news re Amazon and VAT you will see a perfect example of how little online outfits actually care about the legal niceties when money is coming their way. The same applies to how much help customers have got from a certain property letting sites when their customers get conned. My personal view, without seeing the relevant documents, is that there is every chance this could well be an example of of someone jumping in without sufficient research and putting themselves at risk. This goes for both parties. I simply can not see that all the paperwork and money CaRT and insurers demands for a hire operation would make swapping a viable option but the does CaRT think such use constitutes hire. I do not know but fear they might.

[Horace42]

 

........does CaRT think such use constitutes hire. I do not know but fear they might.

Thanks for the reply.

I am inclined to think the insurance policy in place on this boat will form the basis of a contract between the boat owner and the insurance company. Any claim arising will be looked at under the terms of the policy. And whatever CRT might think about the type of license needed, it will be the license actually issued that counts.

The insurance company will pay (or dispute) any claim covered by the terms of the policy.

No doubt there could be some mileage arguing about the meaning of 'hiring' in terms of profit in a commercial enterprise versus 'swapping' or 'loaning'.'not-for-profit' in a private arrangement.

I am inclined to think it is something that needs to be clarified by the insurance company particularly if there are extra charges for this type of use.

We don't want Ray to worry, but for others who might be thinking of a boat swap, it is an interesting issue.

[Top cat]

I think discussion of the legal implications of lending swapping your boat would be better on a dedicated thread so that those considering such actions could find it.

 

But here lets just be glad that Ray and his missus ( sorry forgot your name) are on there way again .

 

Top Cat

[mayalld]

Is all that really necessary? I am sure it's well intended but there has already been a clear statement that the boat is all above board. Can't they just be left to get on with their holiday?

 

JP

 

It actually does need to be said.

 

Tony isn't trying to spoil anybody's holiday, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that a private boat actually does have the right BSSC, Insurance and Licence to allow it to be used for hire or reward (and the provision of reciprocal accommodation is hire or reward)

 

I'm sure that the boat is licenced, insured etc, but I doubt that it is covered for its current use.

[BruceinSanity]

Thanks for the reply.

I am inclined to think the insurance policy in place on this boat will form the basis of a contract between the boat owner and the insurance company. Any claim arising will be looked at under the terms of the policy. And whatever CRT might think about the type of license needed, it will be the license actually issued that counts.

The insurance company will pay (or dispute) any claim covered by the terms of the policy.

No doubt there could be some mileage arguing about the meaning of 'hiring' in terms of profit in a commercial enterprise versus 'swapping' or 'loaning'.'not-for-profit' in a private arrangement.

I am inclined to think it is something that needs to be clarified by the insurance company particularly if there are extra charges for this type of use.

We don't want Ray to worry, but for others who might be thinking of a boat swap, it is an interesting issue.

As so often, we're speculating in a vacuum here. If I was contemplating lending my boat out as part of a deal like this, the first thing I would do is call my insurer to see how I stood, following up with an email exchange if they said it was ok.

 

What CRT's position would be is anyone's guess, but again the thing to do is ask. Note that shared ownership deals seem to be covered by the standard licence (afaik) as long as one owner undertakes to be named on the licence.

[Alan Taylor]

Assume for a moment the insurance becomes invalid; CRT, by law, have then issue a notice under 1995 Waterways Act Section 17 (4) requiring the owner to remedy the breach within 28 days.

 

Everyone happy now?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

As so often, we're speculating in a vacuum here. If I was contemplating lending my boat out as part of a deal like this, the first thing I would do is call my insurer to see how I stood, following up with an email exchange if they said it was ok.

 

What CRT's position would be is anyone's guess, but again the thing to do is ask. Note that shared ownership deals seem to be covered by the standard licence (afaik) as long as one owner undertakes to be named on the licence.

I have no doubt what CaRT's position would be. They would want to treat it as a hire boat for licencing purposes and business purposes. However, they are happy about sponsored boats (i.e. privately owned boats operating as part of a hire fleet) and perhaps this is a way forward

 

The situation regarding shared ownership boats is rather more complicated than you suggest. There are, in theory at least, four hurdles in the T's & C's that they most clear in order not to pay the multi-user (i.e. hire boat) licence fee.

 

 

[Bod]

Boat spotted at bridge 12W, moving under own power.

Both crew grinning like Cheshire cats!

 

Bod

[Jerra]

Boat spotted at bridge 12W, moving under own power.

Both crew grinning like Cheshire cats!

 

Bod

Good! That is how it should be.

[Dharl]

I think discussion of the legal implications of lending swapping your boat would be better on a dedicated thread so that those considering such actions could find it.

 

But here lets just be glad that Ray and his missus ( sorry forgot your name) are on there way again .

 

Top Cat

 

Here here, glad to here they are underway and according to Bod grinning away

[Tony Brooks]

Boat spotted at bridge 12W, moving under own power.

Both crew grinning like Cheshire cats!

 

Bod

 

Great.

I think discussion of the legal implications of lending swapping your boat would be better on a dedicated thread so that those considering such actions could find it.

 

But here lets just be glad that Ray and his missus ( sorry forgot your name) are on there way again .

 

Top Cat

 

I agree but it was this thread that started it off. Maybe a mod would be able to split it now.

[Tony Brooks]

I have no doubt what CaRT's position would be. They would want to treat it as a hire boat for licencing purposes and business purposes. However, they are happy about sponsored boats (i.e. privately owned boats operating as part of a hire fleet) and perhaps this is a way forward

 

The situation regarding shared ownership boats is rather more complicated than you suggest. There are, in theory at least, four hurdles in the T's & C's that they most clear in order not to pay the multi-user (i.e. hire boat) licence fee.

 

 

 

As I understand it Sponsor boats in hire fleets may be privately owned but the operating contract requires them to be insured and operated as boats owned by the hire fleet so they would be licensed and insured as hire boats.

 

I think share boats being operated by a company rather than a committee of the individual owners also require "hire boat" licenses and all that entails but may be wrong on this.

[Tony Brooks]

Thanks for the reply.

I am inclined to think the insurance policy in place on this boat will form the basis of a contract between the boat owner and the insurance company. Any claim arising will be looked at under the terms of the policy. And whatever CRT might think about the type of license needed, it will be the license actually issued that counts.

The insurance company will pay (or dispute) any claim covered by the terms of the policy.

No doubt there could be some mileage arguing about the meaning of 'hiring' in terms of profit in a commercial enterprise versus 'swapping' or 'loaning'.'not-for-profit' in a private arrangement.

I am inclined to think it is something that needs to be clarified by the insurance company particularly if there are extra charges for this type of use.

We don't want Ray to worry, but for others who might be thinking of a boat swap, it is an interesting issue.

 

My policy requires me to license the boat so if CaRT withdrew the license then my insurance would be voided. Many people do not read their policies or even ask questions. Likewise my license requires me to have current suitable boat insurance. If my insurance is voided so is my license.

 

However CaRT would not normally get to hear about a voided insurance until after a serious incident.

 

I also do not want Ray to worry because the chances of an incident are probably small but I did want them to consider such things if they want to do a swap again. Hopefully they are more aware of the detail now.