Idiot Hirers - Edp Story

[Oddfellow]

17 minutes ago, marshman said:

To be honest, spending the money on a prosecution is no way to proceed either!

The costs of even bringing a speeding prosecution have been mentioned previously and I seem to recall it well in excess of £1000 - all for what? Any guess what the fine might be? Possibly not even a fine but a community order - is that the best way to spend toll money?

In principle I tend to agree but it would do nothing to dissuade others so in reality why bother with that cost when all you would get is at best, a slap.

The last hearing I went along to for speeding where I was a witness, the fella got a fines and costs totalling £1400. 
It's quite a deterrent. 

[vanessan]

22 minutes ago, marshman said:

The costs of even bringing a speeding prosecution have been mentioned previously and I seem to recall it well in excess of £1000 - all for what? Any guess what the fine might be? Possibly not even a fine but a community order - is that the best way to spend toll money?

If someone is found guilty of speeding, wouldn’t they be liable for the BA’s costs? Seems to me that, if they are not, there is no point in a prosecution as the associated fines seem to be less than £1000 generally. Probably serves to act as a deterrent to a small extent anyhow. 

[vanessan]

Just read Andy’s post above re the court hearing he attended - that’s good news. 

[marshman]

I suspect it would depend - whilst not condoning it at all, no one was injured nor much damage doe, other than to peoples righteous indignation!

[floydraser]

Why am I not surprised to see this behaviour? A group of young lads leave their BMWs and Audi's behind and take to the scenery at 4mph. How much fun did they think that was going to be? Idiots yes, and they'll probably be more while Ibiza's out of bounds. We saw a stag party on the broads when we first came over here for a look in 2007 and were surprised that same sex groups were allowed.

[RumPunch]

OK - as I started it, what would I consider fair ?

As I said, I'd ring the yard and probably include a picture / video. Main reason is I think they should be aware so firstly, they can check for damage to their property and secondly, if considered appropriate, they can withhold any deposit or escalate further with the appropriate authorities.

Maybe a few withheld deposits would help offset some of the lockdown losses

[MauriceMynah]

Well, It's nice to know "Outraged of Sevenoaks" is alive and well and visiting the Norfolk Broads. 

1.  That boat was never in any danger of capsizing.

2. Why no video of the rubbish being thrown into the reeds?

What I saw was a group of people enjoying themselves. A bit rowdy maybe, but letting their hair down after lockdown. If no damage was done, good luck to them I say.

Was any damage done to the boat?

What was the level of this littering (alleged) ?

As the EDP is renowned for it's researched and highly accurate journalism, I trust it will; be sending a dossier of proven evidence to the police.

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Well, It's nice to know "Outraged of Sevenoaks" is alive and well and visiting the Norfolk Broads. 

I would also like to add some comments to that, from a hire fleet manager.

What do we suppose the boatyard should be "made aware of" by these phone calls and videos?  There are companies on the Broads such as John Loynes (Broads Tours) who have been letting day launches ever since the petrol engine was invented.  They are very well aware of what their customers get up to, thank you!  Their staff are also most adept at checking their boats for damage when suspicious looking lads bring them back in again.

But they are NOT, never have been and please God, never will be responsible for the civil behaviour of members of the public, in public. The behaviour of yobs on Bournemouth beach is a public order matter for the police but NOT for the coach tour company that brought them there.

And what is all this about with-holding security deposits when bad behaviour is reported?  That, itself, would be blatantly illegal!  You can't even with-hold a hirer's deposit for damage to another boat : that is for third party insurance cover.  You can't extract money out of people just because some member of the boating fraternity (who probably posts under a synonym) says they saw them pee-ing in the reeds!

I am sad, honestly, that we now live in a dash-cam age where the slightest incident can be uploaded in seconds and dissected at will on the internet. I repeat, I am not condoning this although I am not in the least shocked by it either. Could those who wish to report these things please report matters of civil behaviour to the civil authorities?

Meantime, if this is a sign of what is going to be happening on this forum during this season, then I for one will prefer to stick to railway modelling.

 

[grendel]

I am sure once members get back on the water, business as usual will be resumed (not that reposting an EDP article isnt business as normal), but these type of reports are normally swamped by the volume of posts of people enjoying the broads and posting their tales, videos and pictures of peace and tranquility. Its just in these lean times for broads related posts that  it brings these posts to the fore.

[marshman]

As has been suggested by the last 3 posters, what a load of 'ol squit about bu**er all!!!!!

I suspect all of those self righteous posters expressing indignation, have all taken part in similar activities in their late teens/early twenties which they pretend to have forgotten about. ( We, of course, will now get posts saying that they never indulged in such behaviour - yeah right!! )

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I am sad, honestly, that we now live in a dash-cam age where the slightest incident can be uploaded in seconds and dissected at will on the internet.

It is also a fact that forum addicts are constantly looking for topics on which to post and to comment, however trivial. Clearly there is a downside to this trend.

Dash Cams on boats, whatever next?

 

[grendel]

especially when the source is the EDP

[Vaughan]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

especially when the source is the EDP

Perhaps I am getting out of my area of knowledge here   but the source was quite clearly a smartphone video, taken on another day launch and then posted to the EDP, but not, it seems, to the appropriate authorities. The EDP then added their own, ill - informed opinion to it.

[floydraser]

24 minutes ago, marshman said:

As has been suggested by the last 3 posters, what a load of 'ol squit about bu**er all!!!!!

I suspect all of those self righteous posters expressing indignation, have all taken part in similar activities in their late teens/early twenties which they pretend to have forgotten about. ( We, of course, will now get posts saying that they never indulged in such behaviour - yeah right!! )

 

I'll put my hand up here and say yes, at that I age I could see myself and a few mates doing the  same; getting bored sh**less and larking about. But I'm now my Dad!

But I wouldn't want to be there as an adult with young children witnessing that kind of thing.

It is a shame that these vids get as much exposure as they do and I hope we don't get people like the cyclist's vigilante brigade who strap cameras all over themselves then go out looking for articulated lorries!

[Oddfellow]

3 hours ago, RumPunch said:

OK - as I started it, what would I consider fair ?

As I said, I'd ring the yard and probably include a picture / video. Main reason is I think they should be aware so firstly, they can check for damage to their property and secondly, if considered appropriate, they can withhold any deposit or escalate further with the appropriate authorities.

Maybe a few withheld deposits would help offset some of the lockdown losses

I am not sure that even suggesting that deposits can be used like that is at all helpful. You'd have to keep most deposits to mitigate any losses this year and we don't want the suggestion that anybody would do that, emoji or not.

Besides, VERY few yards actually take deposits. Freedom used to because it focused the mind - I recall just four or five occasions where we withheld them and in EVERY situation, the customers were bang out of order and bleated horribly about it. One, last year, I charged them my time to sort out their mess which they accepted then refused to pay, so I issued court papers and got paid after much more bleating and at the 11th hour moments before I was going to file them. I was rewarded with bad reviews on twitadviser or similar in most cases. But I am not there to be pushed around; people pay me to provide a service and agree the terms of that service before they part with their money. Good ole customer service is part and parcel of the offering and most are decent people and will abide by the agreement; a few stick in the memory for being absolute bellends who will push and push the boundaries. 

Deposits are difficult because most card processors will not allow businesses like ours to take a payment as a deposit with the expectation of getting it refunded at some point in the near future. Therefore, deposits need to be cash and people would prefer not to hand over £50 or whatever and countless forget to bring it and that causes other problems with delays too. For many operators, this element is just not worth the hassle. For me, it absolutely was worth it because I am convinced that without that focusing of minds, the incident count would have increased. There are some that simply don't care, obviously, and will look to apportion blame at any door other than their own, but they were few and far between because £50 cash was usually on the border of what they were prepared to lose. 

 

[RumPunch]

Ah well - next time I personally see people having 'high spirits' I'll ignore it.

I've seen many dangerous, life threatening, and downright illegal activities, but hey ho. So if it's your boat getting rammed by a tipsy hirer, your private quay heading being burned away by a  disposable barbi, someone you know being towed over the back of a hire boat over the prop on a rope - I'll walk away.

 

[MauriceMynah]

12 minutes ago, RumPunch said:

Ah well - next time I personally see people having 'high spirits' I'll ignore it.

I've seen many dangerous, life threatening, and downright illegal activities, but hey ho. So if it's your boat getting rammed by a tipsy hirer, your private quay heading being burned away by a  disposable barbi, someone you know being towed over the back of a hire boat over the prop on a rope - I'll walk away.

 

The clip showed no damage being caused, no life threatening behaviour (God forbid that wearing life jackets becomes a legal requirement) in fact nothing to worry about at all. I saw no illegal activity, not even apparent speeding. They didn't seem to be a nuisance to anybody. 

[floydraser]

3 hours ago, RumPunch said:

OK - as I started it, what would I consider fair ?

As I said, I'd ring the yard and probably include a picture / video. Main reason is I think they should be aware so firstly, they can check for damage to their property and secondly, if considered appropriate, they can withhold any deposit or escalate further with the appropriate authorities.

Maybe a few withheld deposits would help offset some of the lockdown losses

Firstly, I think that's a fair opinion from someone who like most of us here, doesn't know the all the legal ins and outs of hiring.

33 minutes ago, RumPunch said:

Ah well - next time I personally see people having 'high spirits' I'll ignore it.

I've seen many dangerous, life threatening, and downright illegal activities, but hey ho. So if it's your boat getting rammed by a tipsy hirer, your private quay heading being burned away by a  disposable barbi, someone you know being towed over the back of a hire boat over the prop on a rope - I'll walk away.

 

Secondly, I think that's a fair reaction to all the stick dished out to someone raising an issue. Interesting thread, thanks Rummy.

[TheQ]

18 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Pathetic! That's no way to tip a boat, but this is!

Hmm a death roll in one of those would be spectacular..

 

And expensive...

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, TheQ said:

Hmm a death roll in one of those would be spectacular..

 

And expensive...

I missed her at maximum roll but the skipper did afterwards tell me that he thought that they were going over. Mind you, not for the first time, on one occasion she had her sail laid on top of one of the Breydon posts! Effectively she is an overgrown dinghy with a lid on it.

[eddybear]

Well I have read through this complete post, and must agree yes as youngsters we all had this sense of adventure and tomfoolery but I'm afraid what these idiots were doing to the boat which was not there's but hired was basically disrespectful to the yards property, I still say that to have stopped the security deposit held against damage by the yards was a mistake, it certainly was a deterrent when we first hired back in the 70s we were short enough as it was without the loss of that deposit, so we were careful we didn't break a cup a saucer damage to boat in any way and spent the last day making sure it was clean and fit to hand back, just my thoughts of course.

[Oddfellow]

6 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

The clip showed no damage being caused, no life threatening behaviour (God forbid that wearing life jackets becomes a legal requirement) in fact nothing to worry about at all. I saw no illegal activity, not even apparent speeding. They didn't seem to be a nuisance to anybody. 

Maurice, you can't say this. There would have been drinks bring spilled all over the interior and such like; perhaps damage that dries up sticky to the upholstery isn't damage?

There might not have been a particular risk to the vessel as a whole, but there was a risk to the users. This behaviour is not what the hire operator would want to see happening to their valuable asset and, frankly, if they are dumb enough to do things like this, they are dumb enough to do anything.

I don't care how anybody else wants to paint this, as a current-day operator (and the only one on this topic, perhaps the only on on this forum), this is unacceptable treatment of somebody else's valuable property. It will be in direct contravention of the hire agreement, it is in contravention of the local navigation bylaws and, it would also appear, in contravention of social distancing rules. It is a blatant disregard for the safety of the crew and vessel; one slip and someone could be in the water and then who could tell what would happen next? No wise cracks needed about the depth of the river and such like; if there were no risks involved, we wouldn't need risk assessments, insurances and so on.

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

Maurice, you can't say this.

I not only can, to the best of my knowledge and belief, I did.

 

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

There would have been drinks bring spilled all over the interior and such like;

I couldn't see that from the clip.

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

perhaps damage that dries up sticky to the upholstery isn't damage?

It most certainly is, but again, I saw no such damage. Was there any?

 

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

There might not have been a particular risk to the vessel as a whole,

agreed

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

but there was a risk to the users.

That's their problem. I do not personally approve of nanny states taking risks away from users. 

 

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

This behaviour is not what the hire operator would want to see happening to their valuable asset and, frankly, if they are dumb enough to do things like this, they are dumb enough to do anything.

How thoroughly do hirers of craft vet their customers to ensure they don't get dumb customers? Ok, unfair question, but if a hirer sees it's a bunch of high spirited youngsters, would they refuse to let their craft?

 

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

, this is unacceptable treatment of somebody else's valuable property. It will be in direct contravention of the hire agreement, it is in contravention of the local navigation bylaws and, it would also appear, in contravention of social distancing rules.

I have to agree that the social distancing rules were flouted (very probably) and if any actions were in contravention of the hire agreement, what on earth can the hirer do about it given the camera evidence?

[marshman]

Andy - whilst I have many times in the past admired your contribution to the Forum and indeed the help you have given people, you do depress me a bit these days! You seem to look for the very worst in almost every situation and I cannot help feel that the this whole pandemic issue has got to you, perhaps more than others and unquestionably with some justification. This pandemic was none of our doing but even you must see we have to look forward and not try and see negatives constantly? I don't actually believe we won't pull through this, as we have to, -  some like yourselves will no doubt have more difficulty than others but surely there must be a plus side and some reasons for being optimistic?

You are after all still a  yard proprietor and surely almost everything Maurice has said is right? I really find it hard to believe that you have not come across kids or adults, like this - or more to the point, worse? I suspect if this video had not emerged, and the boat returned in the normal course of events, no one would have been any the wiser - you listed all the faults and dangers, but in fact the net result was nothing happened that had an adverse impact on the boat as far as I am aware? Or am I wrong? 

[Wussername]

Was the helm in charge of the boat?

Was the helm aware of his responsibility towards his crew.?

Did the helm have any concept of his responsibility with regard to other craft?

Finally did the helm have control of the boat?

Finally, accidents, serious incidents involving death, life changing incidents, invariably are not caused by an isolated incident but a combination of factors.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we have witnessed the  possible escalation of a serious issue. Thankfully this did not happen.