Legal and financial implications of using an accomodation swap for boat use.

[Tony Brooks]

As the title says. Apparently it is difficult to split individual posts from a topic so I have started a new one specifically to discuss the implications of home - boat swaps.

 

My view is that such swaps involve a consideration (payment in kind) so may require a hire boat license, insurance, BSS and possibly a current Gassafe certificate. I think a major accident could well result in no insurance cover being in force so any damages and payments would fall to either the owner or the swapper to meet from their own resources.

 

 

[magnetman]

I suspect huge numbers of boats are being let on airbnb without consideration for any of the issues you raise.

 

I agree with you that a boat fire or whatever could put an owner in deep -semi solid waste product- which is why I personally would not do it without addressing all of the issues you raise.

 

A lot people ain't bovvered, and get away with it I suspect.

[MtB]

I'd say it depends if there is an existing friendship between the two parties swapping.

 

If there isn't then it is a commercial trade. If there is, then its just mates lending each other their assets.

[ditchcrawler]

Knowing insurance companies I think Tony could be right unless you discuss exactly what you plan to do with your insurance company. I would imagine that people who do house swaps do this as the same problem could exist with their home, say a kitchen fire or even just a burglary

I suspect huge numbers of boats are being let on airbnb without consideration for any of the issues you raise.

I agree with you that a boat fire or whatever could put an owner in deep -semi solid waste product- which is why I personally would not do it without addressing all of the issues you raise.

A lot people ain't bovvered, and get away with it I suspect.

Also consider accidents, what if the boat that hit Keeping Up had been a private arrangement and not a hire boat.

[magnetman]

Sorry didn't read that thread

[Arthur Marshall]

Must say never considered any of this when lending the tub to friends. Would depend I'd have thought whether it was a commercial deal or just someone else taking it for a ride. I've always assumed the borrower should do their best and pay for any accidents or breakages they were actually responsible for, but the overall responsibility for it stayed with me as I'd chosen to lend it to them.

Now it's a bit old and weather-beaten, I don't lend it anyway.

[Jerra]

Must say never considered any of this when lending the tub to friends.

I suspect there would be a difference between lending to friends where there is no gain (monitory or otherwise) compared to a property swap where it can be argued there is a gain. For example if somebody in the Lake District swapped their house for the use of a boat in the midlands there is a gain. People A are getting the use of a boat for nothing and the people B are getting the use of a residential property in a very desirable area. Both things they would not have had with out exchange of money had it not been for the exchange.

[Ray T]

We lend our boat to friends. No money or favours change hands.

 

Each time we lend the boat out to these friends we inform the insurance company, Towergate Mardon.

 

All they ask is that we confirm, in writing, that no money is exchanged and that we are happy with the competency of the crew, which we are.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Ray T

[magnetman]

That's interesting - surely open to some abuse as well. I wonder what would actually happen if your 'friends' set fire to the boat ?

 

I suppose the insurance pays out. Do they do any checks to ensure it was actually your friend who was on the boat?

[Ray T]

That's interesting - surely open to some abuse as well. I wonder what would actually happen if your 'friends' set fire to the boat ?

 

I suppose the insurance pays out. Do they do any checks to ensure it was actually your friend who was on the boat?

 

magnetman, I can assure you that we have implicit trust in this couple having known them for many, many years, It is actually Mrs T's niece and her husband.

 

We have supplied Towergate Mardon with their names and address. I also write a covering letter "To whom it may concern", saying I give them full permission to use the boat between stated dates.

 

They have yet never failed to return our boat.

[ditchcrawler]

That's interesting - surely open to some abuse as well. I wonder what would actually happen if your 'friends' set fire to the boat ?

 

I suppose the insurance pays out. Do they do any checks to ensure it was actually your friend who was on the boat?

I think the problem would be if the friend who are already registered with TGM damaged my boat and then told me they had hire, done a house swap or whatever from Ray and that is what I told the insurance company, where as if they said they were Ray's mates and he had lent it to them there wouldn't be a problem.

I think the problem would be if the friend who are already registered with TGM damaged my boat and then told me they had hire, done a house swap or whatever from Ray and that is what I told the insurance company, where as if they said they were Ray's mates and he had lent it to them there wouldn't be a problem.

I think I know what I mean Ray

[magnetman]

 

magnetman, I can assure you that we have implicit trust in this couple having known them for many, many years, It is actually Mrs T's niece and her husband.

 

We have supplied Towergate Mardon with their names and address. I also write a covering letter "To whom it may concern", saying I give them full permission to use the boat between stated dates.

 

They have yet never failed to return our boat.

Yes it was not a personal comment just an observation about an insurance company

[Tony Brooks]

I made sure my insurance company allowed me to lend my boat to close friends and family. I am required to ensure they are competent to handle the boat. It is made absolutely clear verbally and in writing before the lend that no money or gifts can be accepted but any fuel or gas used must be replaced and the toilet pumped out. This is also in the boat manual in big print.

 

I do not think any problems attach to pure loan of the boat for no recompense/consideration even although one company said they would not even cover my 35 year old son.

 

I think it is important that potential swappers grasp the fact that if anything goes wrong they could be in big trouble and that things are more complicated than many suppose - let alone those who say don't ask, just do it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

From the other thread -

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.

 

With regard to Sponsor boats that is correct. It is a legitimate and accepted way to hire out a private boat. In reality, it is often used by the smaller hire companies to avoid the building costs associated with putting a new hire boat into service at the expense of sharing profit with a third party.

With regard to share boats there is a difference with, say timeshare boats. Timeshare boats are operated by a company and the boat is not owned by those that use it . With shared ownership boats, the boat is owned and operated by those that use it who may employ the services of a company to manage it.

As far as I am aware all shared boats that are wholly privately owned now licence as private. This was not the case back in the days Challenger and Ownerships. Challenger managed boats licenced as commercial and OwnerShips.boats as private.

[cuthound]

As far as I am aware all shared boats that are wholly privately owned now licence as private. This was not the case back in the days Challenger and Ownerships. Challenger managed boats licenced as commercial and OwnerShips.boats as private.

That is because Challenger used to sell 8% shares and thus retained a 4% interest in the boat, whereas Ownerships sold 1/12th shares, and had no financial interest in the boat.

 

I note that ABC were selling 8% shares in their share boats, thus retaining a financial interest in the bost. Not sure about the situation since the merger with BCBM.

[Alan Taylor]

Knowing insurance companies I think Tony could be right unless you discuss exactly what you plan to do with your insurance company. I would imagine that people who do house swaps do this as the same problem could exist with their home, say a kitchen fire or even just a burglary

 

Also consider accidents, what if the boat that hit Keeping Up had been a private arrangement and not a hire boat.

Whereas the Americans have somehow infused us in compensation culture it doesn't inform everything I do. I am insured for boating, it doesn't specify what boat so, should someone ask me to steer their boat, I am third party and salvage covered. Anything else I am willing to underwrite my own risks.

 

As for a license, it is my boat that is licensed, not me. If any navigation authority has an issue with the way I use it, or allow anyone else to do so, then they can use the legal means at their disposal to prevent me.

 

i shake my head in polite wonderment at the issues raised by the OP, if that's the way he wishes to approach boating that is his perogative but it's not for me.

[ditchcrawler]

. I am insured for boating, it doesn't specify what boat so, should someone ask me to steer their boat, I am third party and salvage covered. Anything else I am willing to underwrite my own risks.

I think that is probably different to most of us as most of us insure the boat, I know I do and if we didn't others would not be insured to use it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

That is because Challenger used to sell 8% shares and thus retained a 4% interest in the boat, whereas Ownerships sold 1/12th shares, and had no financial interest in the boat.

 

I note that ABC were selling 8% shares in their share boats, thus retaining a financial interest in the bost. Not sure about the situation since the merger with BCBM.

It was found, when Challenger went bust, that the 4% interest supposedly retained by Challenger in most boats had been sold as a half share. Thus boats were wholly privately owned.

 

At risk of having to start a third thread, the reason that Challenger boats were being charged at 2.47 times the rate of OwnerShips boats was that Sally Ash told Ed Rimmer that Licence conditions had been altered such that it was impossible to licence a shared boat as private!

 

However, this was not the case. OwnerShips MD, Allen Matthews, contacted Head of Boating Sally Ash telling her that his owners would prefer to licence boats as private rather commercial and asked what needed to be done to facilitate this. According to Matthews, she laughed down the phone at him saying that it had been made impossible. Mathews contacted Ash's boss, Simon Salem who apologised and told him that as long as the licence application was made by an owner and insurance taken out in the name of an owner boats could be licensed as private.

 

When Ed Rimmer found out, he was furious and threatened legal action against BW. However, events overtook him with Challenger going bust and him ending up in jail.

 

With regard to BCBM/ABC, ex-Challenger owners took the opportunity to licence boats privately as BCBM/ABC had no part ownership of the boat.

 

 

 

[Horace42]

Generally speaking, I think the principles and rules underlying insurance for boats and boat owners is very much along the lines of insurance for cars and car owners.

The action you must take to comply with road laws (to avoid committing a criminal offence for instance) and an MOT (like a BSS) ) to protect third parties is fairly well established - plus the fact that you need to protect your financial investment in your property - the latter being the one thing that falls by the wayside if you do not tell the insurance company that you have allowed a third party to use your boat in your absence.

[tagulablue]

we sometimes needed to go home so friends came to take the boat for a few days and they insured their car for me to drive. I rang Newton Crum to check if they were covered if we were not on the boat and they just added their name to policy. This was free and if gave me peace of mind that we were fully covered

[Cheshire cat]

It was found, when Challenger went bust, that the 4% interest supposedly retained by Challenger in most boats had been sold as a half share. Thus boats were wholly privately owned.

 

At risk of having to start a third thread, the reason that Challenger boats were being charged at 2.47 times the rate of OwnerShips boats was that Sally Ash told Ed Rimmer that Licence conditions had been altered such that it was impossible to licence a shared boat as private!

 

However, this was not the case. OwnerShips MD, Allen Matthews, contacted Head of Boating Sally Ash telling her that his owners would prefer to licence boats as private rather commercial and asked what needed to be done to facilitate this. According to Matthews, she laughed down the phone at him saying that it had been made impossible. Mathews contacted Ash's boss, Simon Salem who apologised and told him that as long as the licence application was made by an owner and insurance taken out in the name of an owner boats could be licensed as private.

 

When Ed Rimmer found out, he was furious and threatened legal action against BW. However, events overtook him with Challenger going bust and him ending up in jail.

 

With regard to BCBM/ABC, ex-Challenger owners took the opportunity to licence boats privately as BCBM/ABC had no part ownership of the boat.

 

 

 

I don't think this posting is entirely accurate. Haggis "of this parish" was responsible for Ownerships boats being licensed as private boats and she had to do battle with the ombudsman to achieve it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I don't think this posting is entirely accurate. Haggis "of this parish" was responsible for Ownerships boats being licensed as private boats and she had to do battle with the ombudsman to achieve it.

The events I describe happened some time after the complaint to which you refer was made. In short, following the Ombudsman's ruling that shared boats could be licenced as private if they were privately owned, BW started a consultation on differential pricing with the aim of reversing that decision. Two more complaints were made but these did not prevent BW introducing licence conditions which made it very difficult to licence shared boats as private.

 

It is probably worth mentioning that BW made a second attempt to get shared boats treated as hire via MCA but this was headed off thanks to another member of this forum.

[Tony Brooks]

Whereas the Americans have somehow infused us in compensation culture it doesn't inform everything I do. I am insured for boating, it doesn't specify what boat so, should someone ask me to steer their boat, I am third party and salvage covered. Anything else I am willing to underwrite my own risks.

 

As for a license, it is my boat that is licensed, not me. If any navigation authority has an issue with the way I use it, or allow anyone else to do so, then they can use the legal means at their disposal to prevent me.

 

i shake my head in polite wonderment at the issues raised by the OP, if that's the way he wishes to approach boating that is his perogative but it's not for me.

 

Is your boat licensed, BSS'd and insured as a hire boat? I very much doubt it is.

 

It is not just me on here saying that they think the use the boat is being put to when "swapped" for accommodation elsewhere may well be deemed to make the boat fall into the hire boat category. If that is the case then the poor couple who's misfortune started the thoughts could, with not fault of their own bar naivety, faced with a bill for millions. Not likely but possible.

 

If you personally are willing and able to meet a large claim then that is fine, I know I could not. If your insurance is as you say then there is probably no problem except the type of BSS inspection the boat needs and that could well affect your insurance if you get it wrong.

 

This thread should not be about letting friends and family borrow the boat. It is all about the potential pitfalls when a boat is swapped or used in any other way that results in the owner receiving a"consideration". This may or may not be money. It includes good and services in kind.

 

Oh, and if my suspicions are correct the first thing CaRT would do is cancel your license and the take legal action to get you off their waterway. That could include the taking and destruction of your boat.

[mayalld]

Whereas the Americans have somehow infused us in compensation culture it doesn't inform everything I do. I am insured for boating, it doesn't specify what boat so, should someone ask me to steer their boat, I am third party and salvage covered. Anything else I am willing to underwrite my own risks.

 

As for a license, it is my boat that is licensed, not me. If any navigation authority has an issue with the way I use it, or allow anyone else to do so, then they can use the legal means at their disposal to prevent me.

 

i shake my head in polite wonderment at the issues raised by the OP, if that's the way he wishes to approach boating that is his perogative but it's not for me.

 

Like the OP, and indeed I hope like most people, I seek to "do the right thing"

 

Doing the right thing in the case of a boat means having the CORRECT Licence, Insurance and Safety Certificate. Not just having these things, but the appropriate type.

 

The versions of each held by a TYPICAL boater are not appropriate for a boat lent to another person for a consideration.

 

It isn't about how one approaches boating, but how one approaches life.

[Mike Todd]

Whereas the Americans have somehow infused us in compensation culture it doesn't inform everything I do. I am insured for boating, it doesn't specify what boat so, should someone ask me to steer their boat, I am third party and salvage covered. Anything else I am willing to underwrite my own risks.

 

As for a license, it is my boat that is licensed, not me. If any navigation authority has an issue with the way I use it, or allow anyone else to do so, then they can use the legal means at their disposal to prevent me.

 

i shake my head in polite wonderment at the issues raised by the OP, if that's the way he wishes to approach boating that is his perogative but it's not for me.

Insurance companies cannot prevent you from doing anything. They can, however, set limits on what activities are covered by any given policy. If you freely choose to do something else then you are simply not covered. By and large, AIUI, insurance polices are on the basis of default not covered rather than default covered.