Sunrise From Richardson's Was Stuck Under Wroxham Bridge This Afternoon

[ranworthbreeze]

Sunrise from Richardson's was stuck under Wroxham Bridge this afternoon, No details known.

Regards

Alan

[kfurbank]

Wouldn't think there was a pilot on board. It was heading up river. Pilots might go a little near the mark to bring a boat back, but never to get one up river if the clearance is so tight.

[trambo]

7' 2'' air draft according to brochure. Knowing the profile of Sunrise, not a boat I would take through without a pilot.

Fred

[CheshireCat]

[JennyMorgan]

Nearly made it! The roof is pretty well shaped to fit under the bridge. Pretty central too. Nice try. Is the height gauge in the picture not working? Twatts!

[Oddfellow]

One of our worst nightmares as a hire operator. 

The bridge pilots at Wroxham are far from infallible in my sad experience. 

[Warp]

43 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

One of our worst nightmares as a hire operator. 

The bridge pilots at Wroxham are far from infallible in my sad experience. 

Was this the pilot?!

[BuffaloBill]

Thankyou CheshireCat for using my picture that I posted on the NBF.

It was stuck for about 10 minutes and they did try backing it up but

the canopy seemed to lift at the back so they stopped. Unfortunately

the camera then moved and when it went back, the boat was

out and it seemed as if the pilot then took it through with 'ease'.....

[BroadScot]

Looking at that pic, the roof runners are a couple of inches short of fully back, maybe?

Iain

[Bob48]

expensive mistake to make , a thought has occured to me , when hiring vessels irrespective of size the damage waiver of £45  is paid to cover the hirer from bumps and knocks , would it also then cover you if you managed to rip the sliding roof off a boat ? just a thought

[ranworthbreeze]

Hi Bob.

I am sure you are covered with the waiver (maybe Clive can advise us).

I know I had to check with our insurance that we were covered by Bridge Damage on our policy, it would seem that not all insurances policies do not cover this risk, it is deemed to be the responsibility of the skipper that they should check for safe passage. Personally I think that is a fair comment from the insurance companies.

I have seen a few boat roofs damaged at Wroxham whilst sitting outside of the Hotel, and stupid practices of trying to save tackle on the boats roof, better to loose the fishing tackle rather than having a serious accident.

Sadly people have been crushed going through that bridge.  

Regards

Alan

[kfurbank]

I would have thought the CDW is not relevant for Wroxham bridge. If the hire yard states you should use the pilot and you don't then you are surely responsible for damage? I thought the CDW only covered accidental damage, not wilful damage? If a pilot causes the damage then again the CDW is irrelevant as the pilot insurance would cover it.

[kfurbank]

Just checked the Richardsons T+Cs and the CDW does not cover you if they consider the loss or damage was caused deliberately, or by negligence or carelessness. I would think not using a bridge pilot when instructed would be considered careless or negligent if you hit the bridge?

[Brundall1037]

We too are covered for bridge damage unless it is "wilful negligence". We also had a week last year in the cottages facing Wroxham Hotel and noticed the pilot hitting the bridge twice taking hire boats through.

 

 

[JawsOrca]

Not good to see. Thoughts to the richos team hope it's minor damage and quickly back to work shortly. 

[LondonRascal]

The only thankful thing about this whole incident, is the fact the hirers had not gone thru at speed and the canopy sheared off the back of the boat type thing.

It is clear - you hire a boat you use the pilot.

The problem is, how do you hold the hirer financially responsible for part of the cost of repair? You can't within the framework of the Non-Refundable Damage Waiver scheme.

The fact is the boat will go back to Richardson’s and it is likely on this occasion there is actually minimal damage, but let us presume there were gouges out of the wheelhouse gel coat, missing hand rails etc and upon hand back in reception, the hirer was asked about such damage and they said ‘nothing to do with us’ (for example).

Well, Richardson’s would be a bit stumped then despite this photo of the incident it just shows the boat is wedged under the bridge not who is onboard or what has happened at the time so I cannot see it proves liability of any sort.

Can you imagine the cost or trying to get money out of a customer who did not want to admit liability and contribute anything?  Added to that is the very real risk of the customer then publishing such events on Social Media and perhaps such being distorted but can the company get into a ‘slinging match’ in open exchanges in the public realm?  no even if they, the company is in the right, it just is not a good look for them to do so.  it is easier and cheaper to just let them go on their way and patch up the damage.

The fact is the Non-Refundable Damage Waiver scheme works well if the majority of your boats have got through the season with just the usual wear and tear occasioned; there is then funds in the bank to pay for the odd significant repair needed to some that did not make it through the season unscathed.

Personally, I don’t agree with this – the scheme simply waves you of certain liability – it is not insurance cover it cannot be, because then the hire yard would need to be licensed to sell insurance or go through a broker to do so so they call it a 'Waiver'.  This is a complicated and poorly explained item you are handing over money for, since on the one hand it removes the hirer of liability in the event of loss of or damage to their boat, it’s equipment or third party liability in lieu of a Security Deposit but at the same time  the boatyard does reserve the right to make an additional charge for neglect or a deliberate act of carelessness.

 

As I said earlier though, it is one thing to ask for money from a customer the boatyard suspects has caused wilful damaged to the boat, quite another to go after payment if the customer does not voluntarily wish to pay anything or admit any liability.

 

Because the money collected from these waivers adds up over the season from every hire, it has become another revenue stream, a deposit based system would provide no extra revenue (or cover any usual wear and tear maintenance costs) because 99% of the time the customer would get their deposit returned to them in full. You can see why the Waivers are a popular choice for boatyards to charge - and their cost varies from fleet to fleet.

 

Perhaps a fair system would be a 50/50 approach whereby the Non-Refundable Damage Waiver scheme is still in place, but at a far reduced rate – perhaps £20.00 but a refundable deposit is taken of say £50.00. 

 

To most people booking their holiday they could be assured of this being returned – and the odd ding here or scratch there is fine and would not affect the refund of the deposit, but get your boat stuck under Wroxham Bridge and it is kept. 

 

Of course £50.00 would not pay for much, but it is not really the point, it would be that there was some (even if a little) financially impact on someone who takes the ‘pea’ rather than being able to leave the boatyard and suffer no penalty whatever.

 

[VetChugger]

Robin, I would have thought that the fact that digital photos are date and time stamped and, as such, would indicate a situation where the boat was clearly in the possession of the hirers!

[Bob48]

clearly this is a topic open to debate, i suppose as Robin says, a matter of whether or not proof is available , to point fingers and say " you , were negligent " if you hire a boat and it states in your " skippers manual " that you must use the bridge pilot  at such and such place " then it's clear that by not doing so you are in breach of an agreement or even a contract ( ?) which would make you liable for any damage caused by negligence or just plain stupidity , that's not even considering the impact it could have if somebody on board was seriously injured or even killed . when in doubt use that new superpower , " common sense .

 

[NorfolkNog]

Although probably quite within their rights, I suspect Richardsons won't pursue the hirers for the repair costs. Think back a few years to the Oyster Gem saga. Although the hirers were successfully taken to court for failing to navigate safely Richardsons didn't claim costs, probably because it would have been more hassle than it was worth. Just a thought. 

[Poppy]

23 minutes ago, NorfolkNog said:

Although probably quite within their rights, I suspect Richardsons won't pursue the hirers for the repair costs. Think back a few years to the Oyster Gem saga. Although the hirers were successfully taken to court for failing to navigate safely Richardsons didn't claim costs, probably because it would have been more hassle than it was worth. Just a thought. 

... or they had more than enough in the bin from damage waiver ........

[LondonRascal]

"...Think back a few years to the Oyster Gem saga..."

If I remember rightly, this was where Oyster Gem was hired by a group of men who after leaving Horning headed for somewhere (Yarmouth perhaps) and would not have made it before it got dark - carried on regardless after sunset then either gave up and 'moored' (if you can call it that) or otherwise ran aground on the Bure at a location below Stracey Arms moorings.

As the tide went out something punctured the hull and hey ho the boat filled up with water - cue call to Coast Guard to be rescued.

People will do foolish things, it is May, I wonder by October how many stories will have been shared of such and such a boat being where it ought not, getting stuck under a bridge and so on. I just cannot see a way of stopping it, but I think being able to get some money easily off those who do these things is a start.

[NorfolkNog]

That's the one Robin. 

[JawsOrca]

I do wonder were inexperience comes into play with negligence cases. Not to say that if you drive a boat into a bridge you should get away with it but it could be easy to say on day two of hiring a boat.. "well we watched other boats do it".. ?! It's easy for us experienced helms to say they shouldn't have done it but it's hard to imagine what must be going through newbies minds it's clearly a lot think about. 

I guess the broads have these cases year in year out so they must understand and know the outcome. Personally I'm on the fence on whether people should be trained in the UK now. Part of me says it would kill the broads  (but how many newbies are there really these days) other part says as boats are getting bigger. Broads users are getting more experienced. Then perhaps there's a good need for mandatory training like we see on the continent. 

Also I'd think there's a market (as there's lots of experiences hirers out.. people who have way more experience than me) to have experience only boats. Nice big twin screw boats. Nav lights etc... 

From what I understand from Marine insurance.. you pay more for the higher risk..  so inland daylight only you pay peanuts. UK coastal to continent cost a bit! So perhaps (and not sure if they do this) hirers should pay insurance to match the risk and value if the boat... non refundable of course..

[Broadsword]

Back in the day, hire cruisers had a b****y great notice at the helm which said 'This boat must not be taken under Potter Heigham Bridge without a Pilot' - Do they no longer have such notices with regard to low bridges? If they do, then surely the only defence against a charge of wilful negligence if you blunder through without the pilot and damage the boat in the process is either; inability to read or blindness... Stupid might also work...

Robins point about limited damage because they were going slowly is an interesting one. In my experience the pilots go at a fair old lick which, I am told has the effect of pushing the boat down into the water... I do, of course, write as one of those saily types who can pretty well get under anything, so what do I know?

[deebee29]

16 minutes ago, Broadsword said:

Back in the day, hire cruisers had a b****y great notice at the helm which said 'This boat must not be taken under Potter Heigham Bridge without a Pilot' - Do they no longer have such notices  

They still do and it's in the handbook