BA Broad Sheet

[Poppy]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Regarding the noise of rattling rigging, couldn't agree more. For example the unfrapped halliards in the dinghy park nearby the Pleasure Boat can be down right anti-social. Lot to be said for wooden masts! 

I also think that there is an argument that modern boating is actually departing from the joy of independence that boating has long provided. Perhaps modern boating should be less about pandering to the perceived and often unnecessary 'needs' of modern man and more targeted to providing practical, dependable independence from power points, and educating customers as to what to expect about of the boating experience. 

    Very good point well made!. Of course we mustn't forget that all that kit allows for higher charges !

[LondonRascal]

A good point made about what the customers of today expect verses that of the past.  However, it has been going on for years.

In the past when there were a larger number of boatyards if you had a popular new model it would be fitted out by those yards to their standard and that is, I presume what would help keep customers returning – first you had the actual customer service, warm welcome and second you had a high quality product and if one yard could include a video player for example, or an additional television in the master cabin it would make that boat stand out in the brochure despite the actual accommodation being no different to another boatyards take on that model.

It seems the latest trend is twofold: Firstly to get away from compromises of what you can and cannot use on a boat – usually down to power availability and secondly the real ‘wow’ factor being virtually silent hybrid systems whereby an engine still exists but is not running all of the time to drive the boat, but is used to recharge batteries or act as a generator when required for larger domestic appliances like electric hobs or kettles. 

Now this to many people is an attractive and very much modern take on the classic ‘getting away from it all’ holiday boating has been.  So you produce far more sophisticated boats, that will be let for a short period often long weekends or mid-week breaks, but be able to charge a higher hire fee none the less. 

At the end of the day it is about profit and margins – if the boatyards make the product, the customers pay for it then when someone asks “What about the noise?” perhaps the only answer one can give is ‘it is because of progress’.  

[Poppy]

48 minutes ago, LondonRascal said:

A good point made about what the customers of today expect verses that of the past.  However, it has been going on for years.

In the past when there were a larger number of boatyards if you had a popular new model it would be fitted out by those yards to their standard and that is, I presume what would help keep customers returning – first you had the actual customer service, warm welcome and second you had a high quality product and if one yard could include a video player for example, or an additional television in the master cabin it would make that boat stand out in the brochure despite the actual accommodation being no different to another boatyards take on that model.

It seems the latest trend is twofold: Firstly to get away from compromises of what you can and cannot use on a boat – usually down to power availability and secondly the real ‘wow’ factor being virtually silent hybrid systems whereby an engine still exists but is not running all of the time to drive the boat, but is used to recharge batteries or act as a generator when required for larger domestic appliances like electric hobs or kettles. 

Now this to many people is an attractive and very much modern take on the classic ‘getting away from it all’ holiday boating has been.  So you produce far more sophisticated boats, that will be let for a short period often long weekends or mid-week breaks, but be able to charge a higher hire fee none the less. 

At the end of the day it is about profit and margins – if the boatyards make the product, the customers pay for it then when someone asks “What about the noise?” perhaps the only answer one can give is ‘it is because of progress’.  

 

Wasn't it Arthur Ransom who wrote about ' hullabaloos' , who spoiled the peace and gave no regard to the wildlife of the Broads in persuit of their own selfish enjoyment, regardless of others ?  Yes Robin, it has been ' going on for years '.

[johnb]

"Nuisance" isn't only noise, fumes transferring from one boat to the next when moored can be dangerous and at least uncomfortable

[Wussername]

1 hour ago, johnb said:

"Nuisance" isn't only noise, fumes transferring from one boat to the next when moored can be dangerous and at least uncomfortable

A valid comment Johnb and a matter which deserves more attention than it seems to attract at the present time. If a boat is unable to sustain itself without contaminating all and sundry then it should not be allowed on the river. 

Noise pollution is bad enough,  but few people suffer long term effects. Regretfully the same cannot be said of diesel exhaust fumes. 

I can foresee a time in the not too distant future when hire craft and private craft will be forced to address this issue in the event of long awaited legislation.

Andrew.

 

 

 

[Polly]

Agreed, being low and with canvas sides , our cockpit is vulnerable to exhausts from boats on moorings, it's pretty scary. Do I knock on the hull next door? Not usually, being British has its drawbacks! 

We avoid mooring next to others quite a lot. 

Noisy halyards? Bad sailing in my view, it's easy to prevent the 'tingling, and  antisocial not to do so. However this is annoying rather than downright dangerous as in the case of exhausts.

[rightsaidfred]

"BYELAW 84

The master of a vessel shall not permit the vessel to emit smoke or fumes or make any noise or nuisance which gives reasonable grounds for annoyance to any other person."

Often been referred to in discussing this, nothing new and I believe it was supposedly placed in the skippers manual at the start of this year, just a case of enforcement.

Fred
 

[Mowjo]

I think part of the problem is hirers expect boats to be home from home! my first and only hire boat back in the early 80's had one catalic heater, a two ring gas cooker, 1x 12v shaving socket, todays boats are power hungry, microwaves, inverters, some electric cookers, TV, CD player in every room, sat TV,  plus anything else that can be plugged in, and banks of battery's that can run a small town, so it's no wonder they have to run the engines every day. We made some new friends last season, both are new to boating a both with a big list of must haves, when I pointed out I have no hot water, no heating, no inverter a porta potty loo, they looked at me like I was from the dark ages, the only thing I wouldn't mind is heating so I can use the boat all year round, then the Mrs points out we managed for 35 years, with warm clothes, hot water bottles, boiling the kettle which also warms the boat up, why do we need anything else? the only modern thing on my boat is the 40w solar panel I fitted this year which keeps my battery's nicely topped up so I don't have to do the daily run to top them up,,

[Mowjo]

While I think of it! can I get a discount for being a green boater, mine is one of those nice petrol engines, not one of those smelly, dangerous diesel things????

[imtamping2]

Dangerous diesel things he says..........how and where do you get your motion lotion.....

[MauriceMynah]

Motion Lotion !!! .....Haven't heard it called that for a while!!..... 4 for sure!

[Poppy]

47 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Motion Lotion !!! .....Haven't heard it called that for a while!!..... 4 for sure!

That's what my old dad called syrup of figs 

[JennyMorgan]

On 12/12/2016 at 4:42 PM, Wussername said:

A valid comment Johnb and a matter which deserves more attention than it seems to attract at the present time. If a boat is unable to sustain itself without contaminating all and sundry then it should not be allowed on the river. 

Noise pollution is bad enough,  but few people suffer long term effects. Regretfully the same cannot be said of diesel exhaust fumes. 

I can foresee a time in the not too distant future when hire craft and private craft will be forced to address this issue in the event of long awaited legislation.

Andrew.

 

The legislation is there, it just requires an |Authority with the will to enforce it.

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

On 12/12/2016 at 11:37 AM, MauriceMynah said:

"modern boating is actually departing from the joy of independence that boating has long provided."

No, I think "Replaced" rather than departing from. It's happened, not happening.

"Perhaps modern boating should be less about pandering to the perceived....."

 Maybe, but it won't be.

The overriding problem with what you are saying Peter is that you want the supplier to tell the customer what he should want, rather than supplying what the customer says he wants. There can be only very few businesses that can operate in that way. The hire fleets are, as you put it, "pandering" or as they would say, "responding to customer requirements." Not to do so would finish the broads as a tourist area faster than the famous JP or RSPB could even dream of.   

Hunters and Martham are both very good at telling their hirers what they can have and what to expect. Wish that more would follow their example!

[JennyMorgan]

On 12/12/2016 at 2:30 PM, LondonRascal said:

 

At the end of the day it is about profit and margins – if the boatyards make the product, the customers pay for it then when someone asks “What about the noise?” perhaps the only answer one can give is ‘it is because of progress’.  

 

But is it really progress when a boat becomes dependent rather than independent? The battle by the yards to overcome the issue of flat batteries has been a long and largely unsuccessful one but this has largely been down to the ever increasing demand on the battery banks. On a quiet, still night, even a well insulated generator can be downright anti-social. There will never be enough mains hook up points or hook up points at every available mooring so why create a demand for what will probably never be? It goes beyond that when it means mooring up at two o'clock to ensure access to the mains, or running a generator to the annoyance of others. Progress isn't always progress, it's just an excuse to charge more! (Pun intended)

[rightsaidfred]

Maybe they could just invest some of their tolls savings in upgrading their batteries, or is that wishful thinking.

Fred

[kfurbank]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

The legislation is there, it just requires an |Authority with the will to enforce it.

Depends on whether it is a safety or money issue. The Broads Authority wanted the power to enforce third party insurance on all boat owners. An email I received from Steve Birtles this afternoon to quote "Boat owners are required to make a declaration that they have insurance in place at the time of paying their tolls which all have done either in written form or by oral means over the phone. We do not verify that boat owners have insurance that is compliant with the Act as it is the responsibility of the boat owner to ensure that insurance they hold is in accordance with the Act provisions"

Despite at least two people having email correspondence with The Head of Safety Management about the fact that at least one of the insurance companies used by a number of people to insure their boats, does NOT comply with the requirements of the 2009 act that The Authority spent our money pushing through parliament, they have absolutely no interest in enforcing that particular byelaw as confirmed by a FOI request.

Anybody care to guess how many people have been reported or prosecuted so far this year for no, or non compliant insurance? Absolutely none, nada, zilch, zero, 0. Which compares rather unfavourably with the 504 boat owners reported for not paying their toll, resulting in 27 prosecutions for the 2015 / 16 tolls year.

So my advice for those who maybe facing boating hardship next year would be to pay your toll, even if you cannot afford your insurance, or chose to downgrade to a cheaper non compliant insurance company.

PS, if anybody suffers a loss as a result of being hit by a boat insured with a non complaint insurance company, you are welcome to my full correspondence with The Authority and its Head of Safety Management. I'm sure any decent lawyer would find a case for negligence and failing in a duty of care, since it has been pointed out to the Authority on more than one occasion that they are failing to enforce their own byelaw.

Their own Report also makes interesting reading.

 

[johnm]

That report is interesting, but I note that it was from 2015 and do not have the time (or inclination) to find the follow-on records. However, 2 points leap out:

The first is, what were the results of the "ongoing enquiries" into the 8 non-compliant responses? Given the statistically small, albeit well-balanced by vessel type, sample size this is a significant number. Without checking the results, I would fully expect  that 6 either produced valid insurance dated from before the enquiry or possibly admitted a lapse and provided documentation from after the enquiry. In a similar vein, the 2 without explicit mention of 3rd Party will, most likely, either have demonstrated such or shifted their policy in order to demonstrate compliance - this is, after all the action of most reasonable people when faced with being shown to have failed to comply with an enforceable requirement. 

The second is, what decision did members take from the options presented at para 5.2; from the wording of the e-mail you quote, I would presume that it was either:

"do nothing further" - which you seem to imply as being a bad thing given your negative interpretation of BA actions but which I do not necessarily see as such, given that the powers already in place (see next comment) do not require the Members to take further action and that the actual risks associated from the holding of insurance cover (or not) by private owners is extremely low.

or

"take a risk based approach and request insurance information following the issue of written warnings/or notice of contravention for no payment of tolls" - without chasing around for records of members decisions, I would see this as the most logical decision for enforcement officers to be following regardless of Members' decision as they already have this power. Not having been the recipient of either a warning or contravention notice, I am unable to prove this but would expect that it is part of the standard procedures for following up such notices - maybe someone here is able to verify, although probably not because we are all such well-behaved and honourable individuals.

I would suggest that what this exercise proved is that the additional costs of managing a system whereby toll payers are required to actively demonstrate compliance are outweighed by continuing to maintain the status quo when balanced against the perceived risk. I would also expect, and fully support, that a similar sized sample is checked on a relatively regular basis (probably 3-5 yearly given the apparently high level of compliance and low risk) to monitor toll payer behaviour patterns and to provide input to ongoing policy development. This will allow administration costs to be kept down, which can only be a good thing and leaves the Authority with more funds available to achieve all the other things that they have to achieve  within their limited resources such as the maintenance of the navigation, repairs and maintenance of moorings, visitor assistance and safety patrolling of the rivers, not to mention enforcement of "disturbances"...

[Mowjo]

21 hours ago, imtamping2 said:

Dangerous diesel things he says..........how and where do you get your motion lotion.....

It's  easy Tony! I keep my 130ltr petrol tank topped up using a Jerry can, I never let it go below 3/4 unless we are out for a few weeks, a full tank last me over three weeks, I actually don't find it a problem popping the the garage to fill the can, I tend to let it go below half towards the end of the season so I can top up with fresh fuel at the start of the season, I really can't see why people are scared of petrol engines, after all most of us drove petrol cars for years, the main difference is maintenance you have to look after petrol engines more carefully, but I don't think thats a bad thing, I know quite a few diesel owners that don't touch their engines untill they go wrong, if pertol was available on the Broads I think we would see a lot more petrol boats, but H&S and insurance cost killed that off,,

[kfurbank]

Johnm,

With regard to your first point, I made the FOI regarding 2016. Given the report they pointed me to is from 2015, then perhaps a FOI request to see how many people were prosecuted during 2015 maybe more relevant.

With regard to your second point the survey is being rerun in 2017 again.

The whole point is that the BA have been made aware that there is at least one insurance company out there that does NOT provide cover that complies with the act. If they have no intention of enforcing the byelaw, why go to the expense of creating that byelaw in the first place?

The BA are aware that insurance issued by Edward William Marine Insurance and Northern Reef is not issued by an insurer authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to carry on in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland insurance business of a relevant class neither is it issued by a company who has corresponding permission under the law of another member state of the European Community. Indeed the Spanish equivalent specifically list those two companies as NOT authorised by the Spanish authorities. I have purposely highlighted in Blue the text that is a direct copy of what is in the BA declaration.

The BA seem quite content to place the onus of the declaration on the boat owner, However the onus is on the boat owner to abide by any of the BA byelaws, and the onus is most definitely on The BA to police the compliance with any of its byelaws. It cannot pick and chose which byelaws it wants to enforce.

 

 

[johnm]

kfurbank,

I don't know the detail of your FOI request but presume that it was something to do with the number of enforcement actions/prosecutions.

WRT the enforcement of a toll payer being required to hold compulsory 3rd Party insurance to a level of £2,000,000 they already are! All toll payers are required to make a statement that they hold suitable insurance; anyone who lies or is foolish enough to take out a policy with a company that is not authorised under FSA2000 and is involved in an accident/incident will not only severely prejudice their own defence in any investigation (by the insurance companies, Police or Authority) but will also be liable for that offence as well as any other they may face prosecution for.

The Authority have put the rule in place to protect everyone and have obviously satisfied themselves that the measures in place are sufficient after a risk based analysis. Indeed, I am (personally) unaware of any incidents that have needed the Authority's officers to be included in any investigations where it has become apparent that no insurance was held; evidently there have been a few isolated cases according to the Authority's report but they have apparently decided that the measures in place are sufficient. I suspect that there is a direct correlation between non payment of tolls and lack of insurance and that they deem that the enforcement action of the former offence will cover the majority of cases of the latter.

Essentially, it comes down to a matter of personal responsibility on the part of the toll payer to comply with the law, a presumption that I do not believe is unreasonable, and for the Authority to satisfy themselves that sufficient measures are in place to enforce the requirement, without placing undue burden on their staff or increasing the costs which, ultimately, come back on the toll payer. You appear to see this as evidence of not policing this particular Byelaw but I would disagree for exactly the reasons I have given.

In this case I, for one, believe that they have got it about right and am very glad that they are not increasing the red tape associated with toll renewal.

I also welcome the news that they are repeating the survey in 2017 (presumably at the time of toll renewal) as evidence that they are keeping a watchful eye on their policy with a view to reviewing it should the need become apparent. Maybe this will also act as a spur to anyone foolish enough to take your (doubtless tongue in cheek) advice:

So my advice for those who maybe facing boating hardship next year would be to pay your toll, even if you cannot afford your insurance, or chose to downgrade to a cheaper non compliant insurance company. 

seriously that they should actually face up to the responsibilities of boat owning and make sure that they cover all of their responsibilities.

[kfurbank]

16 minutes ago, johnm said:

I suspect that there is a direct correlation between non payment of tolls and lack of insurance and that they deem that the enforcement action of the former offence will cover the majority of cases of the latter.

Really? So why 27 prosecutions for not paying the toll, and none for insurance related offences? I repeat again. The BA have been made aware of an issue with a certain insurance company and are refusing to take action by putting the onus back on the boat owner. That is negligence.

[johnm]

1 hour ago, kfurbank said:

Really? So why 27 prosecutions for not paying the toll, and none for insurance related offences? I repeat again. The BA have been made aware of an issue with a certain insurance company and are refusing to take action by putting the onus back on the boat owner. That is negligence.

It is well known that prosecution for non-payment of tolls is very much a last resort used against only the most persistent offenders. The majority of cases would appear to be dealt with without recourse to expensive prosecutions. I would expect that the same is likely to be the case with those found to be without insurance, indeed the very report you linked to would imply that is the case with the 5 owners who only took out insurance after the survey. education and discussion is far cheaper (and possibly more effective in the long run) than prosecution.

WRT your repeated assertions about certain insurance companies, how do you know that the Authority are not taking action? They may well be in discussion with the insurance regulators if that company(/ies) is not in compliance with UK and/or EU legislation/regulations; we don't know and, to be frank, it doesn't matter! The onus is on the boat owner/toll payer to ensure that their craft is properly tolled and suitably insured as required by the Byelaws in exactly the same way that it is the responsibility of each and every car driver to ensure that their vehicle is correctly MoT tested and suitably insured as required by the law. Each and every toll payer is required to make a declaration that their vessel is suitably insured and that is all that the Authority needs to do and it is not negligent for them to expect toll payers to take responsibility for their own actions. It is also not their responsibility to advise/direct toll payers which insurance companies they should use, we do not live in that sort of country yet, however much people would like to make us think so.

However, if the Authority has been made aware of specific companies whose policies do not not meet the requirement, I would agree that they may be wise to highlight this to toll payers as part of their communication and education strategy. If it was me, I would probably consider including that information with the reminders sent out to toll payers and also including a piece in the regular issue of the Broad Sheet. Given that this appears to be a recent exchange between yourself and the Authority, how do we know that this is not their plan? The Authority's staff (at all levels) are human beings with full in-trays, conflicting priorities, limited resources and busy lives, they are not faceless automatons only out to see off the boating fraternity. Why not ask or make a polite suggestion, you might be surprised by the response to a helpful and proactive approach.

[marshman]

Not quite sure what some of you wish the BA to do ?? If there is such a thing as a non compliant ins co, then surely it is up the the  individual concerned, if you are at all worried about the issue, to ensure that any insurance you take out is compliant? Why is it the BA's job to specifically warn you - I certainly do not see it as being negligent on the BA's part, but on yours!!

Ignorance has never been a successful defence and the rules are quite clearly laid down - if you do not comply with them, even through ignorance, it is your issue, not down to the BA to look after you!! Perhaps you should inform the Companies concerned and get them to be responsible - now that seems more appropriate to me!!

[kfurbank]

Marshman, Try insuring your car with we.are.a.cheap.car.insurance.and.not.regulated.com and then try taxing your car. I think that you may find it impossible. The point is, the government want you to have car insurance and they damn well make sure you have it before you can tax your car. Yes you could cancel it a day later, yes it is your responsibility to make sure you keep car insurance, BUT can you really see a day when the government turn round and say make a declaration that you have car insurance and we'll let you tax your car . The BA wanted us to have third party insurance and they even went as far as stipulating what cover and who regulated the insurers, only to then decide they actually didn't really give a toss after wasting our money.

Perhaps the BA will let us make a declaration that we have paid our toll and not bother checking? Perhaps they will let us make a declaration that we were not speeding or creating any wash and send us on our way?

What you are missing is that the BA insisted on third party insurance cover of a certain level and regulated by specified bodies, they pursued that through an act of parliament at a cost. Therefore they made it their responsibility to enforce the act. I repeat, the onus is on the boat owner to have insurance and comply with the act, BUT the onus is on the BA to ensure that the boat owner complies with the act, in exactly the same way as they police the payment of tolls and speeding. They can not cherry pick which of the byelaws they want to enforce.

If a BA ranger stood by and did nothing whilst observing a boat speeding past and that boat then caused a nasty accident, I think you HAVE to agree they were negligent in their duty. The BA have been warned about a certain insurance company and are making no effort to police it. What's the difference? They cannot claim ignorance on the matter. They know a byelaw is being broken by a number of people and do nothing. That IS negligence.