BA Broad Sheet

[marshman]

There are a number of banks offering deposits who will accept your money and yet are not covered by the the FSCS compensation scheme - does the FSA warn people who these are? NO -  it is your responsibility to check. Caveat emptor and all that squit!

Spot the difference? Not sure there is any!

You may think differently as clearly you are entitled to but methinks you are picking a quarrel for the sake of it!

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, in this instance I think that you are entirely right, for once!

However Keith is not entirely wrong. I have always got on with the troops in the tolls office and when I paid my toll over the phone I was asked to confirm that I have insurance. I duly did just that and asked why I had never been asked to prove that I really did have insurance, as I do with my car. It was admitted that the Authority has no power to check at the time of application as the vehicle licencing johnnies can. I didn't push the issue and I assume that they can ask at a spot check. Bearing in mind that it is only a few years since the Broads Bill went through Parliament I find it surprising that being able to check insurance at the time of application was not part and parcel of the legislation. Like far too much of Authority legislation it's poorly thought through in my opinion.

[kfurbank]

3 hours ago, marshman said:

There are a number of banks offering deposits who will accept your money and yet are not covered by the the FSCS compensation scheme - does the FSA warn people who these are? NO -  it is your responsibility to check. Caveat emptor and all that squit!

Spot the difference? Not sure there is any!

Marshman, You have unwittingly hit the nail very squarely on the head. There is a very big difference. The government has NOT passed any legislation stating that you may only invest your money in an institution that is covered or regulated by the FSCS scheme, therefore should you chose to invest your money in Arther.Daley.Ten Percent.Interest.com that is your prerogative and very much your risk. However the government does pay for adverts extolling the virtues of the FSCS scheme. On the other hand the BA did create legislation that insists that you have insurance and defines who that insurance company should be regulated by.

On speaking to a legal friend of mine it does appear that the BA may very much have over stepped the mark in relation to the declaration. There is absolutely nothing in the 2009 Broads Act that allows the BA to insist upon you making a declaration or allows them to with hold issuing a toll if you do not make such a declaration. Seems an abuse of power is taking place.

The act under schedule 3 says that the insurance must be issued by an insurer authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Section 14 says to hire, keep or use a vessel you must have insurance in place that meets the standards defined in Schedule 3.

Section 21 (d) says you must produce the insurance documents to an authorised officer if required.

Plainly it is for the BA to inspect any such insurance documents and decide whether they meet the requirements of the act.

I repeat again, the act puts the onus on the boat owner to have insurance in place, BUT it puts the onus for checking that insurance meets the requirements with The Broads Authority by virtue of you providing documents to them, for them to check. The declaration is NOT covered by the act and is a cop out. They certainly have no right to with hold a toll if you don't provide a declaration. They can ask for proof of insurance at any time.

 

[ranworthbreeze]

Hi Keith,

The very fact that you can be asked to produce the boats insurance details is why we have a copy on board in our boats log.

Regards

Alan

 

[kfurbank]

Hi Alan,

I also have a copy of mine on board available electronically and a paper backup in case of no mobile phone service which never happens on The Broads  My current marina ask for a copy of the insurance each time the mooring fees are due. To my mind they are observing due diligence and ensuring that all berth holders are insured and therefore protected from each other should a fire break out. That contrasts rather starkly to The BA who take such a negligent laid back approach in the face of a known issue. Especially poor when it was them who instigated the legislation in the first place.

[Mowjo]

As I've said many times before Kfurbank! it's now three times I spoken to the BA about insurance with Edward William, and every time they have told me it's fine, surely  if they breached any bye law BA would not accept my insurance as valid especially as we could be talking life or death situations,  I've had claims with them and they have paid out in record time,

[kfurbank]

And as I've asked you before, how do you comply with the declaration when,

1. Edward William insurance 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

2. Neither is it issued by a company who has corresponding permission under the law of another member state of the European Community

3. Edward William and Northern Reef both appear on a Spanish list stating they are NOT authorised to operate in Spain.

Whilst you may have spoken to the BA several times, can I refer you back to what Steve Birtles has written to me in an email only the other day "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"

So who within the BA is correct? shoulder sloping Steve? or the people you have spoken to? Who ultimately would be to blame if Edward Williams refused to pay out in the event of a big claim? Total loss of craft, or life.

It is negligence on the behalf of The BA to be giving out such conflicting advice.

 

[kfurbank]

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/edward-william-marine-services

Why would The BA and others ignore that warning? That makes it clear that Edward William do NOT comply with the first part of the declaration.

http://www.dgsfp.mineco.es/sector/entidadesnoautorizadas.asp

That makes it clear they do NOT comply with the second part of the declaration.

[johnb]

Kfurbank mentioned:

Arther.Daley.Ten Percent.Interest.com

I tried this link as I thought I may invest some of my wife's cash, but it doesn't seem to work, has she lost her opportunity?

 

 

Sorry, but a spirit of levity came over me because it's nearly Christmas!

[rightsaidfred]

I never have understood why people cut corners to save a few coppers with something as important as insurance be it boat, car or household, what`s the savings benefit compared to the possible total loss of the item insured apart from the public liability you could be held responsible for.

Fred

 

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, johnb said:

Sorry, but a spirit of levity came over me because it's nearly Christmas!

Isn't that the BA's latest fast patrol vessel?

[AEJB]

As the boat owner I am responsible for insuring my own vessel to a standard that is set down in the acts. It is not up to the BA to advise me who I should use to insure my boat to get cover I require.

If I choose to insure my boat using a company that is effectively not insuring my boat it will be my loss, not only would I be in court for not having insurance,but much worst I could be fighting a very very large claim for damages.

Don't waste time by worrying about what the BA require, just make sure you are covered for what might be the worst case scenario.  

[kfurbank]

Andy,

If during the course of your patrols you spotted a boat that didn't have a valid toll, I'm assuming you would stop that boat? It would be fair to assume that since they have no toll they haven't had the chance to make an insurance declaration and therefore you would ask to see proof that they are insured? If they then produced an insurance certificate from Edward William Insurance would you report the boat owner for not having a valid toll, or for not having a valid toll AND for not having insurance that meets the minimum requirements of the 2009 Broads Act? 

[AEJB]

I would advise a short visit to make the vessel legal. If the vessel was registered with the BA and the owner was recorded, I would then issue a request to inspect the BSC and insurance documents. 

This would then be dealt with by the Tolls office.

[Viking23]

14 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Isn't that the BA's latest fast patrol vessel?

"Spirit of levity" ...   levitation !  so is the new fast patrol boat a hover craft, just what the BA need for rescuing stranded crews from Breydon Water lol..

One day, just one day they will get the right boat for Breydon water, rather than a deeper drafted boat than the one they are trying to rescue that is stuck in the mud. lol.

 

[kfurbank]

Andy,

With all due respect, that is very much a politicians answer!! You have partially answered a different question

Lets assume you stopped the boat and the boat owner IS present. It is probably safe to assume that as they have no toll, they have not had a chance to make an insurance declaration.

1. Would you ask to see their insurance documents?

Assuming they surprised you and said they were insured, and produced there and then a copy for you to inspect, which turns out to be a policy from Edward William Insurance.

2. Would you accept the policy, or would you report them for having insurance that does NOT meet the minimum requirements of the 2009 Broads Act?

[Viking23]

15 hours ago, johnb said:

Kfurbank mentioned:

Arther.Daley.Ten Percent.Interest.com

I tried this link as I thought I may invest some of my wife's cash, but it doesn't seem to work, has she lost her opportunity?

The reason the link didn't work is you have a typo not Arther, but Arthur. lol

 

[MauriceMynah]

Keith,

Surely if a person has insured his boat with Edward William Insurance (for example) and has done so both in good faith and on the grounds that he has done so for some time before 2009, would that not be completely understandable? Further if that person had first hand knowledge of the speedy payouts of claims, (or even second knowledge from a source he trusted) would not that be sufficient endorsement for him to continue with that company?

Believe it or not, there are boaters out there who do not belong to forums such as this, and who have not read the Broads Authority Act 2009. In fact I would wager that of broads boat owners generally, those who have read the act would be in the minority.

In my opinion  (famously far from 'humble') questioning someone's professionalism, publicly on open forum is not really within the spirit of this forum. What A.J.B. may or may not do under any given circumstances when working is not our concern, nor does he have any obligation to justify such actions to any one of us.

[kfurbank]

32 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Surely if a person has insured his boat with Edward William Insurance (for example) and has done so both in good faith and on the grounds that he has done so for some time before 2009, would that not be completely understandable? Further if that person had first hand knowledge of the speedy payouts of claims, (or even second knowledge from a source he trusted) would not that be sufficient endorsement for him to continue with that company?

Believe it or not, there are boaters out there who do not belong to forums such as this, and who have not read the Broads Authority Act 2009. In fact I would wager that of broads boat owners generally, those who have read the act would be in the minority.

Maurice, all of which is precisely why the onus is on The Broads Authority to enforce. It doesn't have to prosecute, but it could ask to see documentation, then advise if and when the insurance doesn't meet it's requirements. Incidentally Maurice, you don't need to belong to forums, or have knowledge of the 2009 Broads Act. You just need to read the declaration and make sure you comply with it, before agreeing with it.

And I wasn't questioning Andy's professionalism, but that of the Authority he works for. We have the situation where it would appear a ranger would refer the matter to the tolls office. We have Mowjo on this forum who has asked the tolls office and been told it is ok, then we have Steve Birtles Head of Safety Management who puts the onus back on the boat owner. Frankly they couldn't organise a in a brewery, but it didn't stop them spending our tolls money on gaining legislation that they are failing to properly administer.

[marshman]

There have been warnings in all the yachting press, the internet and the FCA,  NOT to use Edward Williams - the user has a responsibility greater than the BA - IMHO. 

Ignorance is no defence, never has been and we as individuals have a responsibility too. I personally would NEVER use anyone I had never heard of or researched - any research shows its dodgy so why all the fuss? Indeed why is ANYONE using them when you have been warned off? Well - because its cheaper??

My suggestion is you divert your attention away from the BA and contact the appropriate EU department  - err perhaps that is not a  good idea!!!!

 

[JennyMorgan]

Gosh, Marsh, the 'likes' are mounting up! On the Edward Williams issue you are absolutely right.

Incidentally if people want cheaper then they could Google Newton Crum, that worked for me.

[Mowjo]

Marshman! in my case it has nothing to do with being cheaper, I have had quotes of the same price from other insurers, I use them because I know and trust them and have been with them since 1983, claimed twice and had near instant payouts, unfortunalty Kfurbank seems to have some sort of grudge against Edward William as everytime they are mentioned he go's into overdrive about them, as I said three times I've asked the BA if they were Ok to use, three different people there have told me YES! they are fine to use, I actually mailed a friend who works for a well know marine insurers to ask about Edward William and below is his reply,

Hi Frank

Thank you for your email ************* has passed your email to me to reply. Firstly let me assure you that your insurance is fully valid in the UK. You may hear the argument that because you are placed with an offshore company that you would not be protected by the Financial Conduct Authorities (financial services compensation scheme). This is true but then despite what you may be told you would not have that protection with a UK insurer either because it does not apply to marine insurance policies. As a consumer with regard to certain insurances including Marine, you are allowed to place your cover with whom so ever you choose be it a UK or an overseas company.

[Poppy]

2 hours ago, Mowjo said:

Marshman! in my case it has nothing to do with being cheaper, I have had quotes of the same price from other insurers, I use them because I know and trust them and have been with them since 1983, claimed twice and had near instant payouts,

You may have been fortunate - twice . Others appear not to have been so fortunate !

http://www.noonsite.com/General/GlobalYachtingServices/Insurance/research-your-insurance-company-to-avoid-a-refused-claim

[Poppy]

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?146392-Salvage-Northernreef-Edward-William-Brian-Hepburn-Loss-Claim

[JawsOrca]

My understanding of insurance is that there something strange about asking for a copy of insurance certificates.. Something to do with, if the marina asks for a copy then they are therefore liable/responsible should anything happen. I've had this a couple of times, the yacht club just ask to sign a declaration and the same is true at broadsedge, although my resi marina do ask for a copy.. So this maybe one reason why the BA have kinda washed their hands, they can't know what's what and it is down to the boat owners. 

I'm a sucker for insurance and all our boats are insured with the top underwritter; nav and gen and the service we received when we had to claim was outstanding.. I will never insure with anyone else.