Interesting Tolls Discussion

[ranworthbreeze]

Anyone involved with BSI will know we have all become just box tickers.

Regards

Alan

[Vaughan]

Go to jail.

Go directly to jail. Do not pass "go". Do not collect £200.

[MauriceMynah]

8 hours ago, Paladin said:

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.

 

 

Thanks Pally, That clears it up as far as I'm concerned.

[SteveO]

Sigh.

 

[Poppy]

10 hours ago, SteveO said:

Sigh.

 

??

[Poppy]

I wonder if anybody has written to their MP on this issue ?

[JennyMorgan]

38 minutes ago, Poppy said:

I wonder if anybody has written to their MP on this issue ?

It's all very well sounding off online but what can we do? Join the NSBA for a kick off. Write not only to your MP but also to DEFRA. Have a go about the governance of the BA whilst you are at it too! Ooooh, dare I suggest that you mention BNP saga as well? Well, I've done that so obviously I do dare!

[kfurbank]

I suspect BA eyes are looking at this thread. It is certainly in the public domain. It would make very uncomfortable reading if someone were to suffer a loss as a result of a collision with, or mooring near to someone who's insurance didn't meet The BA's requirements. I mentioned it on another thread and I'll say it again, If anyone suffers such a loss they are more than welcome to copies of my correspondence with the BA on this matter.

I probably have no more to add to this discussion at the moment, other than going over old ground, the next move is with The BA. Since I shall be afloat soon I'm expecting the  at some point.  as I said before, cheques in the post guv. I shall try and keep up with the forum what little mobile service in Norfolk allows.  Hopefully not too many of those  darting about all over the place.

[kfurbank]

Actually I will just add one more comment as a result of a conversation with a friend who has more legal knowledge in these matters than me. I showed him the copy of the BA insurance declaration form. Once he recomposed himself, he made a VERY valid point.

The declaration is a point in time declaration. You sign and date it. You are not declaring for any period The form would be a whole lot more valid and useful with a very small change. If the declaration was for insuring the vessel if kept within the navigation, or adjacent waters, for the duration of the toll year that the toll is being paid for, or the declaration is being made for. Assuming off course that there is the necessary byelaw in place to force such declarations in the first place.

[Poppy]

13 minutes ago, kfurbank said:

Actually I will just add one more comment as a result of a conversation with a friend who has more legal knowledge in these matters than me. I showed him the copy of the BA insurance declaration form. Once he recomposed himself, he made a VERY valid point.

The declaration is a point in time declaration. You sign and date it. You are not declaring for any period The form would be a whole lot more valid and useful with a very small change. If the declaration was for insuring the vessel if kept within the navigation, or adjacent waters, for the duration of the toll year that the toll is being paid for, or the declaration is being made for. Assuming off course that there is the necessary byelaw in place to force such declarations in the first place.

Assuming that a BSS certification is in place , but expired tomorrow would the BA be within their rights to deny a toll on those grounds ? Hypothetical case, BTW.

[kfurbank]

Simple answer no. Even if there wasn't a BSS in place I don't see how under The Broads Act 2009 they could refuse a toll, providing the boat is registered with The BA Again hypothetical but your boat is on the hard standing with no insurance and no BSS. No rules being broken. You are entitled to pay your toll. You work on your boat and get it past the BSS. You then get your insurance and finally you launch your boat and enjoy it knowing you have already paid your tolls. No offences committed. Or you already have a toll and your BSS runs out and you fail the test. Major work is needed so you lift the boat and do not renew your insurance that runs out days later. No offence. You complete the major work, get the BSS and then re-insure and launch and continue to use the remainder of your paid toll. Again no offences committed.

The Broads Act 2009 sets out the requirements for insurance and BSS or equivalent and makes it an offence to use a boat in the navigation or adjacent waters without either. It does not extend to having to sign or make a declaration about either. Tolls are covered in a separate area. It is possible to with hold registering a boat on the grounds of no insurance or BSS, but registering is different to paying the annual toll or navigation charges.

[Paladin]

54 minutes ago, kfurbank said:

Actually I will just add one more comment as a result of a conversation with a friend who has more legal knowledge in these matters than me. I showed him the copy of the BA insurance declaration form. Once he recomposed himself, he made a VERY valid point.

The declaration is a point in time declaration. You sign and date it. You are not declaring for any period The form would be a whole lot more valid and useful with a very small change. If the declaration was for insuring the vessel if kept within the navigation, or adjacent waters, for the duration of the toll year that the toll is being paid for, or the declaration is being made for. Assuming off course that there is the necessary byelaw in place to force such declarations in the first place.

In 2015, the BA held an insurance audit, checking the insurance of 100 boaters, picked at random. The results were discussed at the NavCom meeting on 8 September 2015. One member is recorded as commenting that "the declaration made at toll renewal and registration time should be altered to require that insurance should be in place for the entire period of the toll." (source: NavCom minutes)

The response from the Head of Safety Management was that, "although the Authority had the powers under the 2009 Act to formally request information relating to insurance from boat owners, it had no power to require boat owners to have insurance when their boats were not in the navigation or adjacent waters i.e. stored ashore over the winter period. Therefore depending on the circumstances it may not be necessary to have insurance in place for the full term of the toll."

 The suggestion was dropped.

[MauriceMynah]

Had that suggestion been taken up, would that not have meant that all registered boats would have to have an insurance renewal date of 01/04/YYYY to have insurance for the full term of the toll?

Or have I got this round my neck again?

[Paladin]

31 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Had that suggestion been taken up, would that not have meant that all registered boats would have to have an insurance renewal date of 01/04/YYYY to have insurance for the full term of the toll?

Or have I got this round my neck again?

I would think the declaration would have been written to confirm that there would be insurance for the period of the toll. Provided the insurance was renewed continually, as most insurances are, that would suffice.

[Paladin]

The following information is extracted from the report to the NavCom. The full report can be read here

The result of the 2015 insurance audit was as follows:

A sample size of 100 was selected for the audit, this represents 1.2% of the total number of boats tolled that required insurance.

100% response, all boat owners surveyed have been engaged with 

87 boat owners had policies that were fully compliant
5 boat owners confirmed they did not have insurance in place at the time of declaration, but have insurance in place now
6 boat owners have stated that they have insurance but are still to present documents for validation (ongoing enquiry)
2 policies supplied had no specific mention of third party cover (ongoing enquiry)
All policies presented complied with the requirements of the 2009 Act
Of the 87 policies presented all had either the minimum or more cover required by the Authority.

Boats that had not been through the toll procedure were not included in the sampling.

So 100 of 8333 boats were selected. If the results are extrapolated (and I don't know if that is statistically acceptable), that would suggest that, at the time of the audit, 415 boats were uninsured, the owners of another 498 boats claimed to have insurance, but didn't produce it and a further 166 policies made no mention of 3rd party cover, a total of 1079 boats the insurance for which was either non-existent or non-compliant.

And the BA still relies on self-declaration!

 

 

[kfurbank]

Update:

After some email exchanges with Bill Housden, the matter has been escalated to his line manager Andrea Long. Further email dialogue has taken place with Andrea Long, who has confirmed that the Authority have received my cheque, but are unable to process the toll payment without a self declaration of insurance. The dialogue has failed to convince me that The Authority has the power to insist upon self declaration and they have also failed to show where they have the power to refuse to process a toll payment. Andrea has been keen to remind me that I should not have my vessel in the navigation area or adjacent waters without a toll receipt, which is a little heavy handed since they are refusing to process payment, despite having the cheque.

As we seem to have reached something of an impasse and being mindful of Andrea's "comments" re the use of the navigation, I have asked for the issue to be raised to the level of complaint on three different issues, one of which I fully intend to pursue to government ombudsmen level. Since the normal process for a complaint would probably have involved Bill (level 1) and then Andrea, (level 2) it has now been forwarded to The Authorities solicitor for his response, which is where the matter currently sits.

I am guessing this will probably end up going one of two ways,

Either; The Authority accept the full payment that has been proffered and confirmed it has received.

Or, The Authority pursue this through court for non-payment of toll, despite the fact that The Authority already has a cheque for full payment in their possession!!. Off course The Authority could in its defence claim that I have failed to make a self-declaration of insurance, but then The Authority would need to prove beyond all reasonable legal doubt that they do indeed have the powers to demand a self-declaration in the first place. In my defence I would merely point out that The Authority unquestionably already has the far greater power to request a copy of an insurance document from a toll payer, yet is inexplicably being stubborn about using such powers? 

 

Off course The Authority are keen not to use the powers at their disposal, because it would negate the use of the lesser power of Self Declaration which it has assumed it has the right to enforce, The self declaration process is severely flawed and it is reliance on this process that is leading to them failing to properly enforce the requirements for third party insurance. 

 

[johnm]

Don Quixote springs to mind 

If you're looking to come out on top in this one, I hope you have very deep pockets!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, kfurbank said:

Update:

After some email exchanges with Bill Housden, the matter has been escalated to his line manager Andrea Long. Further email dialogue has taken place with Andrea Long, who has confirmed that the Authority have received my cheque, but are unable to process the toll payment without a self declaration of insurance. The dialogue has failed to convince me that The Authority has the power to insist upon self declaration and they have also failed to show where they have the power to refuse to process a toll payment. Andrea has been keen to remind me that I should not have my vessel in the navigation area or adjacent waters without a toll receipt, which is a little heavy handed since they are refusing to process payment, despite having the cheque.

As we seem to have reached something of an impasse and being mindful of Andrea's "comments" re the use of the navigation, I have asked for the issue to be raised to the level of complaint on three different issues, one of which I fully intend to pursue to government ombudsmen level. Since the normal process for a complaint would probably have involved Bill (level 1) and then Andrea, (level 2) it has now been forwarded to The Authorities solicitor for his response, which is where the matter currently sits.

I am guessing this will probably end up going one of two ways,

Either; The Authority accept the full payment that has been proffered and confirmed it has received.

Or, The Authority pursue this through court for non-payment of toll, despite the fact that The Authority already has a cheque for full payment in their possession!!. Off course The Authority could in its defence claim that I have failed to make a self-declaration of insurance, but then The Authority would need to prove beyond all reasonable legal doubt that they do indeed have the powers to demand a self-declaration in the first place. In my defence I would merely point out that The Authority unquestionably already has the far greater power to request a copy of an insurance document from a toll payer, yet is inexplicably being stubborn about using such powers? 

 

Off course The Authority are keen not to use the powers at their disposal, because it would negate the use of the lesser power of Self Declaration which it has assumed it has the right to enforce, The self declaration process is severely flawed and it is reliance on this process that is leading to them failing to properly enforce the requirements for third party insurance. 

 

My I wouldn't like to be BA's solicitor , what with this and other things on is doorstep he's gonna be  very busy , I actually agree with kufubank on this its ridiculous not to regulate what's a valid insurance company or not and for all those that disagree then I truly hope you are not hit and suffer a loss by someone insured by that well known company , that's when you might need big pockets yourself .

[kfurbank]

2 hours ago, johnm said:

Don Quixote springs to mind 

If you're looking to come out on top in this one, I hope you have very deep pockets!

The answer is I haven't, and they shouldn't be needed. If it went as far as court, no reason for it to, but the costs on average tend to be, the cost of the toll, which since The BA already have that cheque that's accounted for, and average court costs of £200 - £300. You could add solicitor's fees to that, but I'm quite prepared to represent myself so actually deep pockets not needed.

I should add that last week whilst around Broadland I was introduced to someone, who for obvious reasons I won't name, who like probably a few people, has arranged insurance, been asked to make a declaration to The BA, and who now realises that he has probably made an invalid declaration. It was mutual friends who as a result of discussing this thread have alerted him to this situation. I genuinely feel that this is someone who thought they were covered and doing the right thing, yet has been failed by an Authority that know of a situation but refuse to do anything about it.

The BA is insisting on people making self declarations, which I don't believe they have the right or power to force. They do have the power to request information from you. It "might" be far more sensible to enquire when you pay the toll, who you are insured with? and for what period of time. Both questions I believe they do have the power to ask, as opposed to forcing you to make a meaningless declaration. There cannot be that many companies that insure boats on The Broads? Would it really be difficult for The BA to hold a list of those that meet the requirements of The Broads Act 2009, and those that don't and to use this to educate people when they are asked which insurance company they are insured with?

Going back to the meaningless insurance declaration, since The BA do not warn you that they are recording the call when you call the tolls office, it is fair to assume they are not. Certainly if they are, they could not use it in a court of law. So therefore what legal basis is there to the declaration they ask you to make when paying your toll over the phone? It would be someone's word against another that they were even asked to make a declaration in the first place. It is for the sake of this worthless declaration that The BA are refusing to accept my toll payment. However that is masking the real issue that they are relying on this "process" that has no legal basis to avoid properly enforcing the third party insurance requirements.

Under a freedom of information request I asked Steve Birtles in December 2016, how many people had been reported or prosecuted for having no insurance during 2016?  The answer was none have been prosecuted, there was one on going enquiry that may or may not result in prosecution. Compare this to the results of the audit that Palandin referred to in his post above and you can see that there is no will on the part of The BA to properly check insurance.

Actually it is also valid to compare the lack of prosecutions for no insurance, with the amount made for non payment of tolls. It is probably fair to assume that someone who doesn't pay their tolls, more than likely doesn't have insurance as well. I cannot believe all the people prosecuted last year for no toll, had valid insurance?

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, kfurbank said:

The answer is I haven't, and they shouldn't be needed. If it went as far as court, no reason for it to, but the costs on average tend to be, the cost of the toll, which since The BA already have that cheque that's accounted for, and average court costs of £200 - £300. You could add solicitor's fees to that, but I'm quite prepared to represent myself so actually deep pockets not needed.

I should add that last week whilst around Broadland I was introduced to someone, who for obvious reasons I won't name, who like probably a few people, has arranged insurance, been asked to make a declaration to The BA, and who now realises that he has probably made an invalid declaration. It was mutual friends who as a result of discussing this thread have alerted him to this situation. I genuinely feel that this is someone who thought they were covered and doing the right thing, yet has been failed by an Authority that know of a situation but refuse to do anything about it.

The BA is insisting on people making self declarations, which I don't believe they have the right or power to force. They do have the power to request information from you. It "might" be far more sensible to enquire when you pay the toll, who you are insured with? and for what period of time. Both questions I believe they do have the power to ask, as opposed to forcing you to make a meaningless declaration. There cannot be that many companies that insure boats on The Broads? Would it really be difficult for The BA to hold a list of those that meet the requirements of The Broads Act 2009, and those that don't and to use this to educate people when they are asked which insurance company they are insured with?

Going back to the meaningless insurance declaration, since The BA do not warn you that they are recording the call when you call the tolls office, it is fair to assume they are not. Certainly if they are, they could not use it in a court of law. So therefore what legal basis is there to the declaration they ask you to make when paying your toll over the phone? It would be someone's word against another that they were even asked to make a declaration in the first place. It is for the sake of this worthless declaration that The BA are refusing to accept my toll payment. However that is masking the real issue that they are relying on this "process" that has no legal basis to avoid properly enforcing the third party insurance requirements.

Under a freedom of information request I asked Steve Birtles in December 2016, how many people had been reported or prosecuted for having no insurance during 2016?  The answer was none have been prosecuted, there was one on going enquiry that may or may not result in prosecution. Compare this to the results of the audit that Palandin referred to in his post above and you can see that there is no will on the part of The BA to properly check insurance.

Actually it is also valid to compare the lack of prosecutions for no insurance, with the amount made for non payment of tolls. It is probably fair to assume that someone who doesn't pay their tolls, more than likely doesn't have insurance as well. I cannot believe all the people prosecuted last year for no toll, had valid insurance?

 

Kfurbank if you lose n that's very unlikely even if it went to court , £300 costs + toll + victims surcharge + solicitors cost ( prosecution ) would be very likely what the out come would be it was for those none toll payers last yr .

That said its highly unlikely to even get to court on less BA get thier silly head on , regarding those taken to court for no toll last yr I find it unbelievable that they had insurance .

[Viking23]

On 5 April 2017 at 0:48 PM, ranworthbreeze said:

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

Hi Alan, I have it in the back of my mind that Ian is no longer doing BSS inspections. Could he have started up again? 

Sorry to divert the thread.

Richard

[ranworthbreeze]

5 hours ago, Viking23 said:

Hi Alan, I have it in the back of my mind that Ian is no longer doing BSS inspections. Could he have started up again? 

Sorry to divert the thread.

Richard

Hi Richard, 

When I contacted Ian, he s still doing BSS inspections but no longer in our area, but he recommended Alan May another local BSS inspector. 

Both Southern Crusader and Ranworth Breeze have booked him for our September inspections. 

Alan May

6 low road
Hempstead
Norwich
NR12 0DH
Tel. 07833657570

Regards

Alan
 

I hope this helps

[Viking23]

58 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Hi Richard, 

When I contacted Ian, he s still doing BSS inspections but no longer in our area, but he recommended Alan May another local BSS inspector. 

Both Southern Crusader and Ranworth Breeze have booked him for our September inspections. 

Alan May

6 low road
Hempstead
Norwich
NR12 0DH
Tel. 07833657570

Regards

Alan
 

I hope this helps

From a selfish point if view, as we have moved to Oxford, onto the Thames, I think we are closer to him. So we have 17 months to our next one, so I'll contact him nearer the time. Thanks for the update.

Richard

[kfurbank]

I have unashamedly lifted this quote from another place. Unbelievable really when you consider who made it.

" Of course if the Authority became aware that boat owners on the Broads were purchasing insurance which was unregulated or invalid then it would contact the UK Regulatory Authorities for advice. If the position was confirmed the Broads Authority would make this known to our Broads boat owners. "

[DaveRolaves]

This interesting thread has now being going for 6 weeks is there any update on the broads authority stand that licence holders have to confirm that they have boat insurance before being granted the issue of the licence to use their craft on the broads..