Jump to content

Single Parent Hiring Boats


Loddonlad

Recommended Posts

I am sorry if it offends anyone but this is getting boring now, it is up to any business be it Richardsons or anyone else how they conduct their business and the T & Cs they adopt we either accept them or find another company that accommodates our needs, given the potential loss of customers I am sure this decision for whatever reason  wasn`t taken lightly.

Fred

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not exactly call the discussion boring.

On the other hand I would agree that all we are doing now is going round in circles basically expressing our disagreement with the recent decision made by Richardsons.

They have made their decision and are not going to change it, so there is little more to say.

I have my own theory  but I do not wish to add any more fuel to the situation.

Like others I feel aggrieved as a single hirer that I am no longer welcome to holiday with a company I have used for a good while.

However. as has already been said there are still other yards willing to hire and when and if i am able to get to the Broads again then I am happy that I will still be able to hire a boat.

 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am sorry if it offends anyone but this is getting boring now, it is up to any business be it Richardsons or anyone else how they conduct their business and the T & Cs they adopt we either accept them or find another company that accommodates our needs, given the potential loss of customers I am sure this decision for whatever reason  wasn`t taken lightly.

Fred

Do not forget that we are talking about a company of many years standing. Plus a company, an agency held in respect for several decades. Their descion, their joint descion was not made lightly. It was not an individual descion. It would have been a board descion agreed by both parties.

Why? They both had a concern. A concern for their respective companies, their employees, their customers. Richardson's, Hoseasons, will have taken legal advice with regard to their position.

I personally feel disappointed by the negative and disrespectful comments made here on this forum and other forums towards two companies who have served the Broads with a commitment and deserve better.

Andrew

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wussername said:

Do not forget that we are talking about a company of many years standing. Plus a company, an agency held in respect for several decades. Their descion, their joint descion was not made lightly. It was not an individual descion. It would have been a board descion agreed by both parties.

Why? They both had a concern. A concern for their respective companies, their employees, their customers. Richardson's, Hoseasons, will have taken legal advice with regard to their position.

I personally feel disappointed by the negative and disrespectful comments made here on this forum and other forums towards two companies who have served the Broads with a commitment and deserve better.

Andrew

 

 

 

I totally agree, well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Andrew and I said something similar a couple of days ago. I still feel though, that if existing, legal, contracts of hire had been honoured, then the forum's reaction to a simple change of policy, presumably for safety reasons, would have been very different.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I agree with you Andrew and I said something similar a couple of days ago. I still feel though, that if existing, legal, contracts of hire had been honoured, then the forum's reaction to a simple change of policy, presumably for safety reasons, would have been very different.

Exactly this, its the cancelling of existing bookings, some at very short notice that has caused the negativity. Not the actual change of policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was interested to read again that BA report on incidents which Paladin kindly posted. 

One can see that of the 5 drownings in 2014 only one was from a private moored boat, where the cause was not known.

Hardly any of the collision incidents resulted in injury apart from falling over on the quay, which I suspect is the result of people trying to jump ashore instead of waiting until they can step ashore. Those who were knocked overboard in incidents either got themselves out again or were fished out by others.

One solo hirer fell in while mooring, but that was because he had left the boat in gear.

Incidents of "inadvertently entering the water" suddenly leap up in numbers from 2003, as this was when the BA decided to record and declare all such incidents as a "drowning near - miss". At first this did include simply capsizing in a racing dinghy on Wroxham Broad. In which case I must have got through more lives, by now, than all of Grendel's cats put together!

I have noticed over the years that almost all the "boat related" drownings on the Broads,  have been the result of someone staggering drunk out of a pub in the dark and falling in the river while trying to find the boat.

I don't think I am casual about safety - in my job I couldn't be - but I think we must look at this in proportion to the huge numbers of people who enjoy a trouble free holiday every year.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am sorry if it offends anyone but this is getting boring now, it is up to any business be it Richardsons or anyone else how they conduct their business and the T & Cs they adopt we either accept them or find another company that accommodates our needs, given the potential loss of customers I am sure this decision for whatever reason  wasn`t taken lightly.

Fred

It's not boring in the slightest, if you're bored with the thread then stop reading the updates and let those of us with a strong interest in it carry on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wussername said:

Do not forget that we are talking about a company of many years standing. Plus a company, an agency held in respect for several decades. Their descion, their joint descion was not made lightly. It was not an individual descion. It would have been a board descion agreed by both parties.

Why? They both had a concern. A concern for their respective companies, their employees, their customers. Richardson's, Hoseasons, will have taken legal advice with regard to their position.

I personally feel disappointed by the negative and disrespectful comments made here on this forum and other forums towards two companies who have served the Broads with a commitment and deserve better.

Andrew

 

 

 

I couldn't disagree more Andrew. No company, whatever their reputation, should be exempt from negative feedback. It's because I'm a loyal Richardsons customer that I feel so let down on this one and I and others are absolutely entitled to be negative. 

As  Vaughan says, if this had been a simple change in policy applicable to new bookings only then that would have been acceptable. It's the cancellation of existing bookings which is unacceptable. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2018 at 11:42, Vaughan said:

By the way, I gather Clive has said it is difficult to expect his staff to decide on a person's competence. In which case, the instructor seeks advice from his management, doesn't he?

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!

Me too, Vaughan. But it's a bit late when someone has just driven 150 miles only for the yard to say, "Sorry, you are a danger to yourself, please leave....." 

What Clive is talking about is the effect it would have on the staff member(s) who handled the booking and worked with the customer should the worst happen. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

Me too, Vaughan. But it's a bit late when someone has just driven 150 miles only for the yard to say, "Sorry, you are a danger to yourself, please leave....." 

What Clive is talking about is the effect it would have on the staff member(s) who handled the booking and worked with the customer should the worst happen. 

A couple of things there :

I was talking about what I was told Clive had said on Facebook.

What we are talking of here is a decision made at the time of booking to accept or refuse a single handed or single parent hirer, just as you do yourself.

The risk of someone (anyone) arriving at the yard and turning out to be incapable of taking the boat out, is always there and is always an awful thing to have to deal with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TheQ said:

Since most of the bigger boats have bow thrusters, I would have thought hiring solo on a bigger boat would be no problem as you can bring them along side to a dead stop quite easily before heading for the ropes...

Most is rather inaccurate. Some larger boats have bow thrusters. 

In reality, this is a tiny consideration. Handling is one thing, experience is something else. For example, we often see bow thrusters being used as an aid to navigation; lord knows how long some of these poor motors last out there. Thrusters are for positioning in close quarters only; not as a substitute for the rudder whilst underway.

The concerns at Richardsons would have been many and varied and they would likely have been though a difficult process assessing the multitude of risks to hiring to solos and ultimately come to the decision that the risks were greater than they were prepared to accept. 

Anyone who's had to do a risk assessment for a business in the past will appreciate this process. Anyone who hasn't needs to appreciate that Risk Assessments are are vital part of business today in this country that impact massively on the safety of our lifestyles. Not only this, these assessments are challenging and costly to perform and need regular review and documentation and would be scrutinised in minute detail should anything go wrong and could land people in gaol. If I really thought long and hard about it, I would probably suggest too that solo boating for anybody would be a bad idea (including myself and all the river rangers who are out there alone for most of the time). 

We are a small family business trust the judgement of ourselves and our workers to make the right decisions based on their extensive experience of this business. Solo Hiring is not a big thing - Richardson's 25 people affected shows this perfectly well but it still considered risks outweighed the benefits. There is a great deal of negativity towards it for this move though I can see a great deal of sensible reasoning behind the decision. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

A couple of things there :

I was talking about what I was told Clive had said on Facebook.

What we are talking of here is a decision made at the time of booking to accept or refuse a single handed or single parent hirer, just as you do yourself.

The risk of someone (anyone) arriving at the yard and turning out to be incapable of taking the boat out, is always there and is always an awful thing to have deal with.

Indeed. There are one or two I wish I had turned away in the past!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Broads01 said:

I couldn't disagree more Andrew. No company, whatever their reputation, should be exempt from negative feedback. It's because I'm a loyal Richardsons customer that I feel so let down on this one and I and others are absolutely entitled to be negative. 

As  Vaughan says, if this had been a simple change in policy applicable to new bookings only then that would have been acceptable. It's the cancellation of existing bookings which is unacceptable. 

I agree and understand to some extent.

"It's the cancellation of existing bookings which is unacceptable." 

It was the way in which the cancellations were carried out and to my mind in an insensitive and cavalier manner. Completely out of character to that which we have come to recognise from one of our leading hire companies.

This leads me to suspect that there is some legal influence at work. 

However this is not an excuse but a possible explanation for the undue haste  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MorningSwan said:

...

Freedom I expect has time to do this but with the volume of turn rounds at a larger yard I can appreciate the difficulties and commercial pressures in spending that time to ensure they are safe but at the end of the day it is the yards responsibility.

That said time,or lackof it, is no excuse to allow someone your not happy with to go out on the river.

We really don't have "the time", but pride ourselves on the quality of our handover as investment of time up-front often means fewer calls from the customer which impacts positively on their holiday experience. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MorningSwan said:

Freedom I expect has time to do this but with the volume of turn rounds at a larger yard I can appreciate the difficulties and commercial pressures in spending that time to ensure they are safe but at the end of the day it is the yards responsibility.

Actually a large yard has just as much time to give to customers with special needs - if it is as well run as Richardsons!

I wonder if I could put my "nostalgic hat" on for a moment, as I am very much in a cleft stick about this situation.

I have always had the same approach to solo hirers as Andy at Freedom. If you know them as regulars or if they can prove experience, then OK. After all when they take that boat out (on charter) they are responsible for their own actions.

On the other hand, I have a very (very) soft spot for Richardsons. I wonder if you can imagine the sort of organisation, planning and logistics that are involved in running 300 hire boats out of the same base? When I worked there, only 50 of them went out on a Thursday and all the rest turned round on the Saturday. And two thirds of them were wooden boats in those days.

Throughout my career since then, whenever I have been starting up a new operation or changing the running of an existing one, I have used Richardsons' methods and they have always worked. They taught me all I know about the "running" of a boatyard. This is why I am also glad to be now one of their regular customers.

Unfortunately though, I can't help remembering what David Court used to say when he was managing director of Blakes. He said it takes a yard 10 years to build a good reputation - and 10 minutes to lose it. And that was said long before the days of the internet, or Tripadvisor.

I very much hope that this "banana skin" will not do long term harm and as others have said, that Richardsons are big enough to be able to "ride the punch".

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they will be Vaughan, given the tiny number of people affected. The episode hasn't changed my mind about hiring with them in the future and indeed I have two (non-solo) bookings with them this year after my cancelled trip. In my mind, its value for money that makes them stand out, not just in terms of pricing but in terms of the standard of boat you get for the money and the way everything on the boat 'just works' with no hassle. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have been reading this thread with interest and noted the comments, both for and against Richardsons. As one of the 'few' who had their solo hire cancelled, in my case within 4 weeks of the hire, it is not the change of policy that has caused my anger. As others have stated, it is Richardsons right to change its Terms & Conditions and I do not have a problem with that;  it is the refusal to honour bookings accepted and fully paid for that has caused the disquiet.

If Richardsons had honoured the bookings, the change of policy would probably only received minor comment and we would all have moved on; but they didn't, and therefore must accept the criticism. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having done a risk assessment and concluded that solo or single adult hiring was a risk they could not allow,  if they then continued to hire and a problem arose,  they would be in the deep smelly stuff as they had hired despite a known risk.  Damned if they do,  damned if they don't.

Risk assessments are active from the moment they are identified,  not in a years time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BoF said:

 

I have been reading this thread with interest and noted the comments, both for and against Richardsons. As one of the 'few' who had their solo hire cancelled, in my case within 4 weeks of the hire, it is not the change of policy that has caused my anger. As others have stated, it is Richardsons right to change its Terms & Conditions and I do not have a problem with that;  it is the refusal to honour bookings accepted and fully paid for that has caused the disquiet.

If Richardsons had honoured the bookings, the change of policy would probably only received minor comment and we would all have moved on; but they didn't, and therefore must accept the criticism. 

This seems to be the recurring theme, it's your business your rules, but don't go changing the rules after you've had the money.

I did see a comment from Mr Richardson that most of the effected people were understanding, but I'm yet to see a response from an actual person who has had their holiday cancelled saying they're ok with it. A bit of spin doctoring perhaps?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:

Having done a risk assessment and concluded that solo or single adult hiring was a risk they could not allow,  if they then continued to hire and a problem arose,  they would be in the deep smelly stuff as they had hired despite a known risk.  Damned if they do,  damned if they don't.

Risk assessments are active from the moment they are identified,  not in a years time.

All businesses, hire operators included  accept risks that they manage through mitigation measures. Hire operators by their nature accept risks with every customer that takes one of their boats out so even if they identified a particular risk with solo hirers, they could have accepted that risk and managed it accordingly. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything stopping someone declaring two people and the other "can't make it till tommorow" or borrowing a local for the handover and then sending them off with a thank you beer to enjoy a weeks hire?

I don't want to appear cynical, but I am! And I'd try it!

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:

Having done a risk assessment and concluded that solo or single adult hiring was a risk they could not allow,  if they then continued to hire and a problem arose,  they would be in the deep smelly stuff as they had hired despite a known risk.  Damned if they do,  damned if they don't.

Risk assessments are active from the moment they are identified,  not in a years time.

Would anyone care to share this risk assessment so that we can all appreciate the detail? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Is there anything stopping someone declaring two people and the other "can't make it till tommorow" or borrowing a local for the handover and then sending them off with a thank you beer to enjoy a weeks hire?

I don't want to appear cynical, but I am! And I'd try it!

With due respect we see far to many hirers abusing their terms of hire picking up additional unregistered crew that would negate their insurance amongst other things to find this idea even remotely acceptable, I am sorry but given the amount of abuse we witness regularly I have every sympathy with the yards and fully understand them taking whatever steps they deem necessary, while I have every sympathy with genuine people who are penalised its the old story of many suffering because of the few. 

Fred

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.