Boat sunk on the Macc on Marple

[Mike Todd]

One would hope that if the boat was licensed it would have insurance.

 

I would suggest that the insurers be contacted as they may decide that 'amateur involvement' may have made the situation worse and will revoke cover.

alternatively he may have only had 3rd party insurance (it is sad that the boats most 'at risk', are insured 3rd party only as they would fail a survey and so are unable to secure fully comprehensive insurance)

 

If either the insurers or the owner (if 3rd party only) do not get the boat removed then C&RT will be 'hitting them' with charges for removal.

I thought that an enforceable condition to having a licence was that the vessel complied with BSS?

[ditchcrawler]

I thought that an enforceable condition to having a licence was that the vessel complied with BSS?

You can have a hole in the bottom and comply with the BSS

[Athy]

You can have a hole in the bottom and comply with the BSS

Of course - but can your boat?

[ditchcrawler]

Of course - but can your boat?

I was just pointing that the boat in question almost certainly had a BSS certificate and the fact it had hull problems would not invalidate that.

[Alan de Enfield]

I thought that an enforceable condition to having a licence was that the vessel complied with BSS?

 

A BSS only means that the boat is unlikely to 'kill any passers-by' by exploding, it means nothing about the condition / sea worthiness of the boat.

[Guest]

Of course - but can your boat?

Sorry can't give a greenie

[Arthur Marshall]

I thought that an enforceable condition to having a licence was that the vessel complied with BSS?

It probably wouldn't pass if it had actually got a hole in it below the waterline when the test was done, but what happens after that is the problem.

[Alan de Enfield]

It probably wouldn't pass if it had actually got a hole in it below the waterline when the test was done, but what happens after that is the problem.

 

It would not 'fail' the BSS, but a note would be made and reported on that the examiner was unable to complete the test as the test point / cooker / what have you / etc was under water and therefore not accessible.

[BruceinSanity]

Reading that blog, I don't see any point trying to refloat a clearly seriously damaged boat until he's sorted somewhere to take it for docking. Note, I'm not unsympathetic to the poor guy's plight, it's awful for him, but why waste effort and goodwill without being organised for the aftermath?

 

Proper planning and preparation prevent p*ss poor performance and all that.

 

The nearest options, I think, are the NCCC slip at High Lane, about an hour away, or the Kerridge dry dock beyond Bollington, another two hours plus. It's going to need some hefty pump running to keep her afloat and presumably a tow as the engine is likely to be u/s until it can be cleaned up at least.

[Jrtm]

Reading that blog, I don't see any point trying to refloat a clearly seriously damaged boat until he's sorted somewhere to take it for docking. Note, I'm not unsympathetic to the poor guy's plight, it's awful for him, but why waste effort and goodwill without being organised for the aftermath?

 

Proper planning and preparation prevent p*ss poor performance and all that.

 

The nearest options, I think, are the NCCC slip at High Lane, about an hour away, or the Kerridge dry dock beyond Bollington, another two hours plus. It's going to need some hefty pump running to keep her afloat and presumably a tow as the engine is likely to be u/s until it can be cleaned up at least.

Sorry you cant say this! Is disrespectful to suggest the boat be docked or crained out.

[Mike Todd]

I was just pointing that the boat in question almost certainly had a BSS certificate and the fact it had hull problems would not invalidate that.

I was assuming that, like an MOT, the certificate is only a statement of compliance on the date of the inspection but that the licence requirement was to be compliant throughout the period of the licence. But I may be over-interpreting.

[ditchcrawler]

I was assuming that, like an MOT, the certificate is only a statement of compliance on the date of the inspection but that the licence requirement was to be compliant throughout the period of the licence. But I may be over-interpreting.

It is, but there is nothing in the BSS to say you cant have a leaking hull so you can have a valid BSS cert with water coming into the hull. ie a leaking prop shaft seal

[Graham Davis]

And now there is a crowdfunding appeal to help Djembe Dave!

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/david-booth-2?utm_id=106&utm_term=ERBm9mqjr

[StarUKKiwi]

It has been posted on FB that the person on the boat is not the owner, the boat has been moored in Marple Marina until recently.

Edited January 9, 2017 by StarUKKiwi

[GoodGurl]

It has been posted on FB that the person on the boat is not the owner, the boat has been moored in Marple Marina until recently.

was he renting the boat then if its not his boat?

[Tuscan]

was he renting the boat then if its not his boat?

From Facebook, Apparently so, understand that the base plate is the problem

[StarUKKiwi]

was he renting the boat then if its not his boat?

I don't know if he was 'renting' it or just using it until he had sorted things out; as I understand it, he was homeless prior to moving aboard. Either way, I hope the owner has been informed so they can contact their insurance company.

[David Mack]

If it was being rented out, without the insurer's permission, then any insurance is almost certainly invalidated.

[Alan de Enfield]

If it was being rented out, without the insurer's permission, then any insurance is almost certainly invalidated.

 

And - BSS and Licence (unless it was already classified as a 'commercial boat')

[RD1]

If it was being rented out, without the insurer's permission, then any insurance is almost certainly invalidated.

This can be the problem with social media, too much talk and too much information put into the public domain, some right, some rumoured, when the insurance company sees these blogs they might make their own decision as to whether to pay out or not. They can afford to do the research too, if they can save paying out £50k for a total loss, it's worth a day or so trawling the social media.

Lets say a boat sank on the Trent and Mersey in November 2016, it wouldn't take much googling of key words to pick up a few blogs, then all the links to faceache, or similar.

 

A bit like going for an interview for a job, the potential employer might search faceache or similar, they might read a blog....

Like... I got bladdered on Saturday night, feel awful I'll take a sickie Monday, Tuesday, as I lost my weekend...

 

Words I just made up to demonstrate a possible situation, if I was his/her potential employer... he/she wouldn't get the job.

So be aware, that often references taken up, might just be what you have written in the public domain, and any critism of your current employer could kill the chances of getting your dream job.

 

A lot of people easily give information away, security information, holidays, how long away, addresses linked to birthday parties, oh ... date of birth given away there, Uncles that stand a 50/50 chance of having your mother's maiden name. Name of pets, which could be a password.. Am I being paranoid? No, just being careful and protecting my identity. Yes we have a shreader, and no personal information gets thrown into the recycling either.

Edited January 9, 2017 by RD1

[Athy]

 

 

 

A lot of people easily give information away, security information, holidays, how long away, addresses linked to birthday parties, oh ... date of birth given away there, Uncles that stand a 50/50 chance of having your mother's maiden name. Name of pets, which could be a password.. Am I being paranoid?

Sho' nuff.

Never mind, I'm sure they aren't all out to get you really. No, honestly.

[RD1]

Sho' nuff.

Never mind, I'm sure they aren't all out to get you really. No, honestly.

I don't do internet banking either, even my PayPal account is linked to a seperate account not the main account.

At least when there is a breach, and there have been a few over the last few years, of internet banking security by hackers, I don't need to panic or worry about my account.

 

Being an electronic engineer I know how secure bank accounts are, and they are only secure until the next hacker breaks into them, and they are attacking them all the time, mostly with automatic programmes that work 24/7 from computers all over the world.

 

There is always the "Ken Dodd" approach to accountancy, keep it under the mattress lol. That can have it's dangers too...

It raises the mattress, and you could fall off the bed. lol

[Athy]

I don't do internet banking either, even my PayPal account is linked to a seperate account not the main account.

At least when there is a breach, and there have been a few over the last few years, of internet banking security by hackers, I don't need to panic or worry about my account.

 

Being an electronic engineer I know how secure bank accounts are, and they are only secure until the next hacker breaks into them, and they are attacking them all the time, mostly with automatic programmes that work 24/7 from computers all over the world.

 

 

I'm sure that as an electronics man you know how secure bank accounts are - but surely, as a reasonable human being, you know how unlikely you are to be affected by such criminal activities?

Some of what you say makes sense, but when you tell me that you're afraid to call your dog by its name in case it lets some tab-hanging hacker into your Swiss bank account, I think you may be taking prudence a little too far.

[Paul C]

I'm pretty sure online fraud, at least in terms of bank accounts, is covered by your bank so long as you're fairly sensible with your passwords/security details etc. There was a big uproar recently when a bank tried to put more onus onto the customer via the T&Cs and they retracted, I think? So, just don't be daft etc. In fact, its much more likely you'll have your card blocked/account stopped on a false positive. For that reason, I always take 2 methods of payment with me if I go shopping etc.

[Athy]

. In fact, its much more likely you'll have your card blocked/account stopped on a false positive. For that reason, I always take 2 methods of payment with me if I go shopping etc.

Not sure what a "false positive" is, but yes, you're wise to take an alternative to a payment card. My cash has never bounced yet.