Interesting Tolls Discussion

[marshman]

So I guess you will not get a toll then!!  I suspect the registration refers to the number you have been given, not to the ships registration nor the SSR. Again I guess thats your interpretation - don't be too surprised if the Courts view is different!

I am glad you have such stamina but from the outside looking in, it does seem a huge amount of effort, time and fuss all round over what is really not a lot, even if you are right which I somehow doubt!

 

[JanetAnne]

A couple of points,

Firstly we, for some years, used to insure with the company referred to in previous posts and therefore had been unwittingly making a false declaration to the BA at the point of toll collection. We have since changed companies after becoming aware of the issue.

Secondly, you can not buy a temporary toll for a visiting dinghy without making an insurance declaration even though the act does not require such a vessel to carry insurance. So, to comply with the form to buy a temporary toll you are making a false declaration whilst actually complying with the act!

Thirdly, also mentioned above, there is no longer a requirement to prove insurance at the time of paying ved (car tax) and hasn't been for a while now. However, it is against the law to own a taxed but un- insured vehicle irrespective of whether it is actually in use or not. 

Personally I welcome kfurbank's quest to clarify the situation. My boats are insured appropriately and I have always felt the question, at the point of toll payment, to be worthless. If BA actually do not need to ask then it also simplifies their processes so maybe it's a good thing? Just like your mot certificate at the point of VED payment, any policy or declaration to the BA is only valid at the point of sale. Your insurance details are not recorded and, therefore, could expire the following day but your declaration allows you a toll payment for up to 12 months cruising!

There are no ANPR cameras on the broads!!

[ScrumpyCheddar]

It's the same as taxing a car years ago at the post office .... as long as you've got insurance at the time you can tax the car.... Then go home and cancel it...  

 

[kfurbank]

3 hours ago, marshman said:

So I guess you will not get a toll then!!  I suspect the registration refers to the number you have been given, not to the ships registration nor the SSR. Again I guess thats your interpretation - don't be too surprised if the Courts view is different!

I am glad you have such stamina but from the outside looking in, it does seem a huge amount of effort, time and fuss all round over what is really not a lot, even if you are right which I somehow doubt!

 

I guess time will tell. A cheque has gone in the post tonight to The Broads Authority with a covering letter, and without an insurance declaration. Whether or not they choose to cash the cheque is beyond my control, but my guess is any court would view a claim for non payment of tolls rather dimly, especially as two attempts have been made to make such payment. The BA could off course claim the defence of no insurance declaration being provided, but then they would also have to show which relevant byelaw, or Act of Parliament allows them to insist upon such a declaration and prove they are not exceeding their authority!!!

[Poppy]

12 hours ago, Paladin said:

kfurbank, I know just where you're coming from. For those who don't take a look here and scroll down to the 10th entry (the one with Unauthorised written in red) and hover your cursor over the exclamation mark. Anyone insuring with this company and making a declaration to the BA that they have the requisite insurance is, I believe, making a false declaration.

However, I still think you're on a hiding to nothing. While toll receipts are no longer issued, I think you're approaching this from the wrong direction. The self-declaration, and ability of the BA to refuse to accept payment, are covered in section 11 of the Broads Act 2009, IMO. We can argue till the cows come home whether the non-issue of a toll receipt is relevant or not, but section 11(8) also gives the BA the power to cancel a registration if any of the conditions are not met (which would include evidence of insurance or a self-declaration).

It could hardly be clearer!  Beware of making a 'false ' declaration !

[JawsOrca]

Keith,

You have my support on this one. I see certainly people don't quite understand it but society wouldn't have got this far if it didn't make a pain of itself and question things... I doubt asking such questions is costing anyones time and certainly we as a consumers shouldn't end up paying for authorities lazyness.  So please keep driving forward.. I think it's about time we all got an answer to the Edward Williams situation... I suspect it is a scam but somethings occuring to stay just the right side of the law. I have been approached by this firm on a couple of occassions and would have fallen for it if I wasn't aware. If there is anything I can do to help the authorities I'm happy to help.

 

[MauriceMynah]

Keith, I fully appreciate what it is you are trying to achieve, though I'm yet to be convinced you are going the best way about achieving it. On that latter point I rather agree with Marshman.

I personally think*  that if you wish to progress this line, you might have done better to have picked a time when there were not the other Tolls issues being argued about. If you are right, the "restructuring" will be used to cloud the issue, and if you are wrong then your claim might be used to take attention away from it.

Either way, please be careful that you don't just go down a route which you will not only lose but one where such a loss will be personally very expensive to you.

 

* Though I'm yet to find a way I can think which isn't "personally".

[marshman]

Don't think Edward Williams is a scam!! They certainly exist as they have an office in Ferry now, but its just there are not quite the safeguards surrounding them. But its NOT the BA's function to regulate them - thats the province of the Spanish Govt!!

Its like many people continue to invest in products not covered by the FSCS guarantee simply because that operates in the more sophisticated financial markets. How many people invested in Icelandic Banks without that guarantee and they were very very lucky to get their money back courtesy of the UK Govt.? Greed does funny things ,especially to investors who forget the other side of the coin - risk!!

Horses for courses, you pays your money etc etc

 

[kfurbank]

Marshman, If they are not regulated by the FCA or the DGS then you're right the safe guards are not in place. I do understand your stance, however it is the insidious nature of The Broads Authority, exceeding their Authority and insisting that people (with no legal background) make a declaration about their insurance meeting the requirements of the act, when the same act does not allow for the with holding of a toll on the grounds of not having insurance or BSS. There are separate requirements of the act that the BA can enforce, but not by ransom, i.e. with holding the issuing of a toll.

A BA river inspector has said that he would not make an on the spot decision about whether insurance was valid, but would note down the details and refer it back to Yare House. Why should general members of the public be expected to be any more of an expert and make a declaration with regards to meeting the requirements?

It wouldn't be so bad if The BA were not aware that there is a company trading on their doorstep who are not authorised by the FCA or the DGS, in fact both government agencies carry warnings about using them. Whilst I understand that the BA do not regulate the insurance industry, I would have thought a little more care in checking the insurance policies in force would be in order, or highlighting more thoroughly just exactly what the declaration is that people are being asked to make. A simple "if you are insured with a non UK company, have you checked that your insurer is regulated by the EU equivalent of the FCA and have you checked their registration number, may be enough to make people think twice and question about using none regulated companies.

The BA introduced the requirement for third party insurance as a safety issue. It's a nonsense if they are aware of and are failing to check for non compliance.

[Paladin]

16 hours ago, marshman said:

Caveat Emptor - you buy any insurance at your risk. Where is the pressure to buy from them especially when most people are aware. Do the BA have wet nurse everyone?

If I employ a dodgy mechanic, whose fault is it? Ok I have a motor boat, my motor boat has to have an engine, but it is not the responsibility of the BA to check he is competent. Similarly gas engineers who install gas or indeed the BSC engineers. Do we we really need the BA to check the certificates are issued by genuine engineers?

NO!! Thats your responsibility!!

Isn't this a different argument, though? The BA are acting under a statute that requires insurance of a particular standard. The BA is the only body with the power to enforce that standard. It is surely then incumbent on them to do so.

This could be done very easily by including a question on the registration/tolls application forms as to who the insurer is. That question could also be asked by the Tolls Office staff, for a telephone renewal.

As far as I am aware, there is only one company insuring boats in this area that does not comply with the BA requirements. Should any others emerge, it is not beyond the wit of the BA to add them to their 'does not comply' list.

[vanessan]

One forum member has confirmed that they used Edward William Marine Insurance in the past and I am sure there will be a few others too. When handed the business card last year, I did think about looking to see if we could save money with them. Luckily, I forgot about it! It is only through the forum that I am now aware of them - how many private boat owners are there I wonder who are totally unaware that they are breaching BA insurance guidelines. If the Authority is going to ask for an insurance declaration, then I agree it should also question the validity of the insurance as Keith suggested in his last post.

[MauriceMynah]

39 minutes ago, vanessan said:

how many private boat owners are there I wonder who are totally unaware that they are breaching BA insurance guidelines

I know that this sounds like nitpicking but the situation is a little worse. It is not "how many are unaware" but "How many honestly believe that they are NOT breaching BA insurance guidelines" and if they are unaware that guidelines exist, they are hardly likely to check them.

[vanessan]

Just now, MauriceMynah said:

I know that this sounds like nitpicking but the situation is a little worse. It is not "how many are unaware" but "How many honestly believe that they are NOT breaching BA insurance guidelines" and if they are unaware that guidelines exist, they are hardly likely to check them.

I don't think that sounds like nit-picking, it is probably stating it exactly how it is and that is concerning. Even more reason for the BA to tighten up on the issue surely?

[Paladin]

39 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

 

39 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I know that this sounds like nitpicking but the situation is a little worse. It is not "how many are unaware" but "How many honestly believe that they are NOT breaching BA insurance guidelines" and if they are unaware that guidelines exist, they are hardly likely to check them.

It's not nit-picking at all, but it is somewhat inaccurate. These are not insurance guidelines (advisory), they are statutory requirements (compulsory).

These requirements are clearly stated on the BA web site and, for those without the Internet, it is also clearly stated on the toll renewal document, which anyone who hasn't signed up for on-line renewal will receive in the post.

There seems to be no reasonable excuse for not knowing what the insurance requirements are. While it is up to the individual to comply, it is also up to the BA to have some sort of audit and enforcement policies in place.

 

 

[marshman]

It is not now, or ever , up to the BA to get involved in financial regulation whatever any of you say and if any of their budget is spent in such a manner, I would strongly object . 

They control what happens on the Broads, not EU financial markets. If you ever buy an investment from an unauthorised body, it is YOUR risk and the government will not ,and should not stand behind you and hold your hand. 

If you go against the advice of the FO and go to a foreign country against their advice, thats your risk - if you buy a financial product from an unauthorised company against the advice of the FCA, thats down to you not the BA. You have been advised many times on here that is the case and this advice has been running in the Yachting Press for years too. Why does anyone still do it???

 Oh perhaps I do know - are they cheaper?? You get what you pay for and thats not sympathy.

 

[kfurbank]

Marshman, Do The BA allow you to self certify that you have a BSS? or do they insist on having a copy of the pass certificate sent to them for their records? Compulsory BSS and third party insurance are all covered in the same way under The Broads Act 2009. They were both implemented under the section Safety of Vessels etc. Why is one given more importance than the other? If it was found that an engineer was not BSS qualified, but had been issuing fake certificates anyway, and the BA had been alerted, would you not expect the BA to check BSS certificates a little more thoroughly? 

[ChrisB]

BSS is sent online.

[ranworthbreeze]

Thanks for the BSS reminder ours runs out in September so I have left a message for Ian Jennings to contact me so I can arrange an inspection in September.

Regards

Alan

[JennyMorgan]

In a nutshell, if a boat insured by a Spanish company was to hit and damage mine, possibly injuring a crew member, then would I be compensated? If the answer is no then obviously the company concerned is selling a duff product as far as the Authority is concerned. Please, what is the shortcoming of an Edward William's Marine Policy?

[kfurbank]

Peter, I would suggest you Google and look at the good and bad reviews and make up your own mind. However bear in mind that reputable companies operating in the UK are and should be regulated by The FCA. Other EU countries have similar financial regulatory bodies. Spain has The DGS. Companies that are not regulated by an appropriate financial body, have not been financially scrutinised and it would be a lottery whether they either would, or have the financial ability to pay a large claim. Such companies would never get any business if they never paid out any claims, so they tend to pay the smaller ones that suit them. A larger claim that involved serious injury, or perhaps loss of life might well prove very troublesome. I would avoid companies that are not regulated, I would avoid like the plague ones that The FCA or DGS have taken the time to add to a black list and warn about.

Since you mention Edward William, take a look at their website and see if you can see any registered company numbers? any FCA, or DGS registration numbers? VAT number? They do provide a UK and Spanish phone number and a correspondence address in Spain.

To expand this slightly Edward Williams are a broker who are not authorised to sell financial services in the UK. Northern Reef are their insurer who also appears on the DGS black list. I note that Northern Reef are now listed as being based in Uraguay!!!!

That to one side, The BA requirement is that the third party insurance be for a sum of two million pound and be with a company regulated by the FCA, or similar body in an EU country.

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

 

2 hours ago, marshman said:

It is not now, or ever , up to the BA to get involved in financial regulation whatever any of you say and if any of their budget is spent in such a manner, I would strongly object . 

They control what happens on the Broads, not EU financial markets. If you ever buy an investment from an unauthorised body, it is YOUR risk and the government will not ,and should not stand behind you and hold your hand. 

If you go against the advice of the FO and go to a foreign country against their advice, thats your risk - if you buy a financial product from an unauthorised company against the advice of the FCA, thats down to you not the BA. You have been advised many times on here that is the case and this advice has been running in the Yachting Press for years too. Why does anyone still do it???

 Oh perhaps I do know - are they cheaper?? You get what you pay for and thats not sympathy.

 

marshman, you seem to be subscribing to a different discussion. People can choose whatever insurance company they like, or can choose not to take out insurance at all. I don't think anyone has said differently.

BUT, the BA has had it written into the 2009 Act, on pain of prosecution and financial penalty, that there are certain requirements which MUST be complied with. The criticism, as I understand it, is that the BA knows that  the law, their law if you like, in this regard is not being complied with, yet has done, and is doing, absolutely nothing about it. While they do not have any control on financial institutions, they do have the ability to control compliance to their own rules and regulations, but they choose not to.

[kfurbank]

Palandin, Nail very squarely hit on the head.  I couldn't have put it better.

[grendel]

perhaps asking for a confirmation of insurance is their way of burying their head in the sand, especially if they do not intend to do anything about it, it sounds like it may be their law, but maybe they dont want to have to enforce it, so by asking and getting a confirmation, that is good enough to cover their backsides.

[Paladin]

On 04/04/2017 at 5:00 PM, kfurbank said:

 At least two members on here have communicated personally with The BA on this matter. They are aware make no mistake. 

 

1 hour ago, grendel said:

perhaps asking for a confirmation of insurance is their way of burying their head in the sand, especially if they do not intend to do anything about it, it sounds like it may be their law, but maybe they dont want to have to enforce it, so by asking and getting a confirmation, that is good enough to cover their backsides.

It might cover their backsides if they could claim to be unaware of any potential problem, but they are aware and appear to be doing absolutely nothing about it. We expect them to enforce speed limits, non-payment of tolls and other breaches, so why not this one.

[kfurbank]

Grendel, I suspect that was the plan, and it might work, but having been alerted to an issue, it could now be verging on negligence.