BA Broad Sheet

[Mowjo]

Poppy! one of those articals is from 2008 and the other from 2013, I'm not defending Edward William I just get fed up that every time they are mentioned people start knocking them, in the end it's up to the person who they insure with, there are hundreds on the Broads that use them and there's not an insurance company out there that won't try getting out of a pay out, just read the small print on any of them, I recommend them them because I've been with them years and it's all been good for me, I first contacted the BA after Kfurbank mentioned them a couple of years back, and as I said three times they have confirmed they are fine to use, somewhere I even have an E/mail confirming it,  now even my friend who works for one of the leading UK marine insurers has just confirmed they are Ok to use, 

[AEJB]

10 hours ago, kfurbank said:

 

Andy,

 

Kfurbank asked,

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?............

KF I would note all the details of all the paperwork I was offered and pass this information to Yare house..........it's not for me to make a judgement on what is a valid insurance policy, this is done by people who specialise in that particular field.

My opinion would be that in the first instance the BA would give advice re the content or lack of in the policy, and expect it to be remedied immediately. 

   

 

[marshman]

I am delighted that some individuals have, and do , like these people who are not authorised to conduct financial business in the UK. The FCA site still says you are strongly advised not to do business with them but that gets me thinking a bit. Why do THEY not get themselves authorised if they really want UK business??

I am reminded of all those who invested in Icelandic Banks and who only, by some luck, managed to get their money back,

All I can say to that is why bother, when you can deal with those who are!!  Its certainly fine by me though but who will you complain to IF anything goes wrong??

[kfurbank]

1 hour ago, A.J.B. said:

KF I would note all the details of all the paperwork I was offered and pass this information to Yare house..........it's not for me to make a judgement on what is a valid insurance policy, this is done by people who specialise in that particular field.

My opinion would be that in the first instance the BA would give advice re the content or lack of in the policy, and expect it to be remedied immediately. 

Andy, and to be honest I fully understand and don't blame you. You cannot be expected to know if what you have been handed is genuine or meets the requirements of The BA requirements. However we now know that the rangers will refer the matter back to Yare House, where the tolls office will probably say it's ok, based upon Franks experience, and when questioned specifically The Head of Safety Management will put the onus back on the boat owner. So who ultimately is responsible for deciding whether your insurance meets the requirements of The BA? Surely it can ONLY be the authority who crafted and required the legislation in the first place? which was The BA in the first place.

Frank, despite your protestations of how wonderful Edward William are, you have still failed to explain how they meet the requirements of the declaration that you make each year to The BA. Whilst Edward William may have met some small claims, there are enough horror stories around the web, that suggest when it comes to a big claim they do not meet their obligations.

I have no knowledge either way, but most people know there was a major incident in Oulton Broad earlier this year. We can all hope they were insured with a company who are properly regulated, for all concerned.

By the way, it may not be just Edward William who DO NOT meet The BA requirements, but it's the one that I know about, which is why I mention them. I'm not particularly having a pop at Edward William, but at The authority (not the troops) who are responsible for enforcing the byelaw, and are failing in that duty.

I think we have probably gone as far as we can with this subject, but at least no one can say they were not warned, and that is aimed specifically at the body who pushed the legislation through parliament.

[Oddfellow]

On 14/12/2016 at 0:16 PM, Mowjo said:

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,,

Petrol vapour is explosive and heavier than air. In your car, there are no air-tight areas and vapour, unless it is in large quantities, are easily dispersed and lost. Not so in your boat. Yes, maintenance plays a part. Storage of fuel too. Common sense also. 

One of the key reasons there is little or no petrol available on the river is the H&S of actually storing it and retailing it in such close proximity to a watercourse - for example, you are not permitted to store petrol above ground. And if someone were to try it in this day and age, people would not use it because the cost would be so high that boaters would moan at "profiteering" boatyards. 

 

[Oddfellow]

On 14/12/2016 at 0:28 PM, kfurbank said:

It cannot pick and chose which byelaws it wants to enforce

Why not? It picks and chooses (and reinterprets) loads of legalisation from the Broads Act already. To not do it to this particular bylaw would surely lead to accusations of discrimination; not being even handed, etc.  

Now, turning a blind eye, that's different. Oh, wait....

[Oddfellow]

On 14/12/2016 at 10:54 PM, JennyMorgan said:

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.

The motor industry runs the MID - Motor Insurance Database. This is a log of all vehicle insurance details that the government agencies have access to. With VED now being electronic, a simple database query shows that a given vehicle is or is not insured which allows for the VED to be purchased or refused. There is no such database of insured boats on the Broads (to my knowledge) and so the only way that tolls could enforce this would be to have sight of the original insurance certificate along with the tolls application. Imagine the additional costs of doing this? The time delays and the subsequent rise in tolls to police it. 

The system is imperfect. 

[JanetAnne]

39 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

With VED now being electronic, a simple database query shows that a given vehicle is or is not insured which allows for the VED to be purchased or refused.

Actually there is no longer an insurance validity check at the point of purchase of VED. The only requirement is MOT, when applicable, and money!

Having a taxed but un- insured vehicle will, however, bring an automated prosecution.

 

[JennyMorgan]

Regarding diesel versus petrol debate, the environmental consequences of diesel are many and varied but one nasty is that the stuff sinks rather than evaporates. Core samples of Broads mud clearly shows the build up of diesel residue in the spoil since the fifties and sixties..

The Americans are normally safety conscious to the enth degree, diesel powered leisure craft, apparently, are still very much in the minority over there, anyone know why?  

[MauriceMynah]

22 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The Americans are normally safety conscious to the enth degree, diesel powered leisure craft, apparently, are still very much in the minority over there, anyone know why?  

Yeah, Petrol is cheap there!

[Mowjo]

Peter I know diesel is actually banned in many American Marinas, from what bits I can find it seems to be because it's more polluting as diesel floats, gradually clumps then sinks to the bottom affecting marine life, where as Petrol floats but evaporates, as I said I love my petrol engines but the first thing I do when I buy one is fit two bilge blowers and make sure i turn the on a few minutes befor starting up,,

[Mowjo]

4 hours ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

Petrol vapour is explosive and heavier than air. In your car, there are no air-tight areas and vapour, unless it is in large quantities, are easily dispersed and lost. Not so in your boat. Yes, maintenance plays a part. Storage of fuel too. Common sense also. 

One of the key reasons there is little or no petrol available on the river is the H&S of actually storing it and retailing it in such close proximity to a watercourse - for example, you are not permitted to store petrol above ground. And if someone were to try it in this day and age, people would not use it because the cost would be so high that boaters would moan at "profiteering" boatyards. 

 

Andy I know H&S play a major part now plus the cost of insurance, but going back wasn't part of the reason petrol went, was part that all the hire yards were diesel, because they were easier to maintain, more reliable and much cheaper on fuel when we had the Red, now most of the boats on the Broads are ex hire boats and diesel because over the years the yards have sold them off, the only petrol ones seems to be those that havn't been on a hire fleet, as for your first part I totally agree and would never advise a first time buyer to buy petrol, I change my two bilge blowers every two years and have very strict maintenance and never start the engines until the blowers have been going a few minutes,