Single Parent Hiring Boats

[Vaughan]

After all, they are both sponsors and members, of this forum?

[Boatingman]

I always use smaller yards I feel you get better customer service although there are one or two exceptions

It is a pity about Richardsons because up to now over the past decade their image had improved tremendously

Ray

[Maxwellian]

Market forces Vaughan. Usually someone will fill the void.

[Vaughan]

8 minutes ago, Maxwellian said:

Market forces Vaughan. Usually someone will fill the void.

I think that is a very good note on which I will retire and wish you all a good evening.

Tomorrow will be another day, when we can all peruse our conditions of hire in case we have missed something!

[JennyMorgan]

40 minutes ago, SteveDuk said:

Or it could be simply capitalising on someone else's bad decision. Nothing wrong with that.

It might also be Matthew at Barnes winding up Clive at Richardsons! 

[BroadAmbition]

 

Whilst some customers of Richo's have been inconvenienced (That's probably putting it mildly from their perspective) in the grand scheme of things, it will soon settle down as no more solo hires will be accepted, therefore no more upset customers

Respect to Clive for coming on here and replying to some of the questions.  ( The good Dr on t'other thread could learn something from Clive and try doing the same) He was under no obligations to do that.

I don't think all yards will go down the same path as Richo's though.  Herbert Woods have not hired out to solo skippers for as long as I can remember.  They are also a big yard with a substantial fleet and none of the other yards followed them.

Griff

[MauriceMynah]

People run businesses and make decisions, some good, some less so. In my massively unhumble opinion, this one is firmly in the "less so" camp... BUT... It's not set in stone. It can be reversed in future. Whilst sopme loyal and safe customers will have been lost for ever, this will not be a number that will significantly impact the business.

It might benefit some smaller yards (which is no bad thing) but I doubt there will be any lasting tears shed.

There is however an issue highlighted by all this. It would come as no surprise to me if I learned that there was a considerable number of boats out on hire where there is only one member on board who is actually doing anything regarding boat handling. More than we might think I suspect.

[CambridgeCabby]

Living in the sort of society that we now live , where pond life individuals seem to spend their whole existence in trying to find ways to sue individuals and successful companies for any tiny mishap it is not surprising that Richardson’s have taken this decision , yes over the years many loyal customers have enjoyed solo cruising hires or single parent hires unfortunately it would only take one disgruntled solo/single parent to have a mishap (more than likely caused by their own lack of common sense) to bring a legal case to seriously affect  Richardson's business model .

I'm sure all in charge at Richardson’s have not taken this preemptive measure lightly, but it is merely a business decision based on their solid business model and the direction they believe the trade is heading and as previously stated by Chris to move the company more in line with their business partners terms and conditions.

Also what hasn’t been mentioned is the current trend for larger hire craft which are far less suited to solo / single parent cruising .

Can I thank Chris for putting himself out there and not “being temporarily unavailable” many a lesser individual would have not.

Yes Barnes have jumped on the bandwagon , nice to see they have peeped over the parapet or should I say peeped over their new disputed mooring pontoon 

 

[SwanR]

I think that the real shame in this is not honouring the bookings that had already been made and payment taken. It's very hard for us as customers to be able to cancel something once we are committed.

At least if they had done that, unless there was some legal obligation not to do so, the publicity wouldn't have been quite so bad. And I can't help wondering if the timing is purely coincidental in being when the news stories are around about Hoseason's changing ownership.

[High6]

Seems to me this is discriminating against one parent families. What next, refusing couples where one partner is in some way handicapped, and what would be the dividing line? Does arthritis count against you?

As ever, Common Sense is the victim here. Maybe restrict solo handling to a selection of smaller, more easily manageable boats for those with demonstrable experience. And no, any kind of shared database is just not feasible due to privacy, data protection laws and Russian hackers.

[Vaughan]

47 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

number of boats out on hire where there is only one member on board who is actually doing anything regarding boat handling.

That sounds like me, when Susie is still in the shower when I cast off in the morning!

A black list has never been practical in the industry, for the simple reason that the offender can always book again in the name of someone else in the party.

Selecting suitable boats for experienced (regular) customers is how it has always worked, by common sense. Incidentally, a bigger boat is a lot easier to handle single handed than a small one. They are more stable and don't blow about in the wind so much.

[Arthur]

5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Incidentally, a bigger boat is a lot easier to handle single handed than a small one. They are more stable and don't blow about in the wind so much.

I would second that comment Vaughan

Over the years I often hired larger craft particularly if I intended traveling  over Breydon to the South or from the South to the North.

Much easier to handle from my experience and gave you that extra space on board.

My preference as a Solo hirer was always larger, centre cockpit craft.

Good view all round and just bring the warps alongside the cockpit and mooring single handed is easy.

 

[Wussername]

23 hours ago, Vaughan said:

When I am doing a trial run, I reckon I can tell within about 10 seconds of going on board, whether the party know about boats or not.  I am sure Wussername would agree with that!

Wrong. 2 seconds.

I just look at their shoes. 

[Maxwellian]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

That sounds like me, when Susie is still in the shower when I cast off in the morning!

Vaughan

My other half does not like morning too much so I often get going while she is in bed. Would not surprise me if it is not common practice.

[marshman]

OK - I hear what Clive has to say but I just cannot spot the risk - he says its not an insurance issue which it may not be, superficially, but someone somewhere feels something is at risk? So what is it? 

As Vaughan said a long time ago, it is not the boat I suspect, as they repair them themselves. 

So explain to me what the underlying issue really is? It cannot be unsuitability of hirers as they still hire to single sex parties etc etc, and I was not aware they  actually carried personal insurance for the hirers well being? If it relates to the personal aspect of insurance, then Wyndhams (or whoever) cannot force you to take that so organise your own - many have it anyway.

I am obviously missing something very obvious.....!!

[Wussername]

20 minutes ago, marshman said:

and I was not aware they  actually carried personal insurance for the hirers well being? If it relates to the personal aspect of insurance, then Wyndhams (or whoever) cannot force you to take that so organise your own - many have it anyway.

Do the hire companies automatically provide their customers with a third party public insurance to cover any claim for injury brought about by the customers negligence? I would imagine that a private owner could well purchase his own insurance but would a holiday maker be granted this facility?

Andrew 

[JohnK]

My guess would be fear of litigation.
In my opinion litigation in the UK is now as bad as the US.
A few years ago I worked for a company that owned a few quarries. One disused one had filled with water and had security fencing installed around it.
Allegedly a parent broke through the fencing to allow him and his child through to go swimming. The child allegedly got injured and the parent was intending to sue the company for not having strong enough fencing to keep him out.
It would have gone to court but the company lawyers settled because they thought they’d loose.
Mad isn’t it?
On the back of cases like that I’m not at all surprised companies are now risk averse.
In some ways we as a nation only have ourselves to blame for letting this happen in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughan]

21 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Do the hire companies automatically provide their customers with a third party public insurance to cover any claim for injury brought about by the customers negligence?

Interesting point. A third party claim from a vessel damaged by the hire boat will be paid, if fault can be proven. But would the hire boat's insurance pay for injury to someone on the third party boat, or would the insurance say that the crew should have had their own injury insurance. That is certainly what the insurance would say to the crew of the insured boat (the hire boat).

It sounds a bit like the sign that you always see in a hotel reception - "Do not leave valuables in your car". This means they are not going to pay out if someone nicks cameras or laptops out of your car, in their car park.

Anyway I don't think we are talking about insurance here. It may be a fear of litigation but I can't see why, since the hirer has taken a conscious and prior decision to take the boat on his own. The same sort of waiver as signing the paper to say "No trial run given".

Like Marshman, I think there must be a reason we know not what.

[DAVIDH]

When booking through Hoseasons you are offered the opportunity to take out personal insurance as an extra which includes up to £2million personal liability cover. Must say i always decline it - but then other household insurances include it. 

 

[Labrador]

So, if the hire boat policy is applied to the roads, will this mean I won't be able to hire a car on my own?

[JohnK]

If you register a boat with the BA you need £2m+ public liability insurance don’t you?
Would a hire boat be different?
Not convinced that’s anything to do with this though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NonTecky]

A few years ago, actually it was the day that HRH came to Herbert Woods and somehow we manged to enter their marina and wondered why there was no space and people in jackets with bulges, but that's another story.... Anyhow, I was chatting with the folk in reception (we were not allowed out of the building as they were still trying to figure out how we had got in)! I asked why I could not hire from them with my two crew (we were all there in our lifejackets).... He told me it was down to insurance and that was due to a tragic incident a few years earlier. I didn't get the full details but it was a lone  adult with child and one of them didn't survive. So I can see what the risks are and hence my crew (one of whom will be 18 by the next time we on a boat at Easter who both heard the story, have NEVER " oh Dad why" when reminded about Lifejackets and suitable shoes and ropes, jumping on or off and, and....  infact at time they remind me!  

So I do think this is a sad choice for Richardsons, but I do understand the tough decision made and I do hope that my preferred yard don't do the same in the next 18 months as my son isnt 18 till then and I am not sure daughter will be up to when she is off at Uni!

[JennyMorgan]

I understand where Richardsons are coming from on this one but I also fear that those in the insurance industry, as well as some within Yare House, will consider it to be a good idea, heaven forbid. 

[vanessan]

21 hours ago, C.Ricko said:

this change will bring us in line with our agents standard, it has not been forced and is not due to insurance. 

over the years we have had to bring in measures like stability tests and canopy procedures due to problems at other yards, these are reactive measures, 

we would rather make a change before a problem,  it is the prerogative of the other yards to take on the risk and allow single adult hires. 

 

Clive’s words here seem to say the following:

a) We are doing this to bring us in line with Hoseasons standards. 

b) Other yards have had problems with various things so we have been reactive and brought in certain measures.

c) Other yards have had problems with solo hirers and single parent hirers so we are being proactive in this instance.

c) is my interpretation of course but I’m not sure how else you could interpret that. It still seems rather strange to me and, like others, I do wonder if there is more to it than that.

 

[Meantime]

This seems a very strange decision. We are being told it is to bring the terms and conditions in line with those of Hoseasons and that it is nothing to do with insurance. That I can certainly believe because Barnes are still happy and even promoting the fact that they will do solo hires, and yet they also use Hoseasons. So I guess Barnes are happy to keep their own terms and conditions and not align themselves to Hoseasons and their insurance company are happy with that.

Makes me think though that I would be very wary of booking with a company that doesn't allow solo hires, or insists upon 2 x people over the age of 18 in every party. I can see a number of scenarios where someone could inadvertently fall foul of the companies booking conditions.

1. Mum and Dad + children booked on a boat, take the boat over and are happily enjoying their holiday when something happens elsewhere within the family. Aunt or Uncle, Grandmother of grandfather taken ill. Home or business emergency. Not serious enough for the family to cancel their holiday, but one of the parents on board the boat may decide to curtail the rest of their holiday to go and attend to the sick relative leaving the remaining parent to carry on with the children on their holiday, or could they now? Wouldn't that then fall foul of the new conditions?

2. Mum and Dad + children booked on a boat and prior to the holiday something important crops up at work for one of the parents meaning they must make an appearance for a day or two back at work. They intend on starting their holiday with one parent disappearing for a couple of days leaving the remaining parent with the children until they return, or can they now?

3. Thursday start holiday, Mum cannot get the Thursday and Friday of work, so Dad intends on going to start the holiday with able 13 and 15 year old, and Mum will join the group on the Saturday, but not any longer under the new terms?

All seems very short sighted to me and I'm sure has a bigger impact than just the small number of people who may solo hire. Even as a group booking, I would now be nervous of situations that may occur that could needlessly curtail the holiday for everyone.