Beached trimaran: can you believe what happened?

[Talulah]

Gus Lewis, Legal Manager at the RYA, kindly phoned the HNYC salvage team very promptly with advice. He confirmed that the MCA does in fact have the right to detain any vessel, though perhaps not under these circumstances (boat having been brought ashore safely and under control by a responsible and experienced skipper).

I'm still curious to know under what legislation the MCA does in fact have the right. The only legislation I can find is under the Merchant Shipping Act. So if I was ever faced with a similar situation I would like to be forewarned. The act also goes on to discuss compensation where an unlawful prohibition notice is served.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...g/improvement-notices-and-prohibition-notices

As always the devil is in the detail. This is what keeps legal eagles in work.

 

[aquaholic]

Yes, that just does not ring true. More to this story than we have been told, I suspect.

I can assure you the story is being told exactly as it happened, which is why Tony is trying to highlight it as much as possible. As one of the club members who assisted with the repairs needed in order to salvage the boat I am very concerned that the events occurred and so should every other leisure boater. Slippery slope and all that....

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I'm still curious to know under what legislation the MCA does in fact have the right. The only legislation I can find is under the Merchant Shipping Act. So if I was ever faced with a similar situation I would like to be forewarned.

+1

Always handy to know what the rules are.

 

[Biggles Wader]

What happened to the Dutch owner?Thats the bit that seems odd to me.He just vanished back to Holland according to the article.

 

[robertj]

all good preparation for legislation!

 

[mtb]

was his son under 18 if so the ole bill could have used the child protection act, if they deemed the child was at risk YEAH I KNOW
none of us want to be forced by those in power to do as they see fit. MY thinking is they should not be allowed to start wading as reported where does it end !!!!
disgruntled mick !

 

[tony_lavelle]

An important point that seems to have been overlooked by the authorities, and some respondents here, is that trimarans have three hulls. Flooding of the starboard float does not cause sinking or capsize as there is ample reserve buoyancy in the main hull and port-side float, which also provides stability like the outrigger on a Polynesian canoe. The owner was able to bring the vessel safely and under control onto a sandy beach, so discussion of rescue etc misses the point. Multihulls are designed to be parked on beaches!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

An important point that seems to have been overlooked by the authorities, ..... trimarans .... not cause sinking .....

It is not relevant though as the authorities would only have been concerned about a damaged boat being beached and the implications of that for them, not an analysis of what type of boat and its inherent capabilities. Obviously the implications were addressed once the damage was made good and sanctioned by the MCA surveyor. The vessel was then released in the expectation that it would no longer present a risk again. To me it looks like the authorities acted in a reasonable way. The yacht club members who helped to repair the vessel are the real heroes here. If no once gave a toss, from what other posters have said, the boat would probably have been stripped and then written off with all that entails.

 

[Seatrout]

It is not relevant though as the authorities would only have been concerned about a damaged boat being beached and the implications of that for them, not an analysis of what type of boat and its inherent capabilities. Obviously the implications were addressed once the damage was made good and sanctioned by the MCA surveyor. The vessel was then released in the expectation that it would no longer present a risk again. To me it looks like the authorities acted in a reasonable way. The yacht club members who helped to repair the vessel are the real heroes here. If no once gave a toss, from what other posters have said, the boat would probably have been stripped and then written off with all that entails.

+1
IMO the police and MCA acted reasonably and with great common sense.
Discussion of 'police state' etc above is a distortion of the circumstances and no doubt emanates from an blinkered opposition to any form of control, and really not very helpful in appreciating the broader circumstances.

 

[prv]

To me it looks like the authorities acted in a reasonable way.

While still annoyed by it, I have less of a problem with the MCA's role here. They seem to have been within their rights although I can't see why their interference was necessary or appropriate.

What I cannot fathom is why the police insisted on forcing the owner to leave his boat - it's this that precipitated all the subsequent bother like removal of gear. Does anyone who was there know what on earth they were thinking?

Pete

 

[chanelyacht]

and why did someone remove the halyards of all things, what was the purpose in doing that except to make sure the yacht could not sail?



.

From what I can see, I don't think the local CG removed them - it appears the boat was subject to some theft afterwards.

 

[prv]

it appears the boat was subject to some theft afterwards.

...because the idiot police, not being familiar with the sea but sticking their noses in anyway, forced the owner to abandon it.

Pete

 

[Seatrout]

...because the idiot police, not being familiar with the sea but sticking their noses in anyway, forced the owner to abandon it.

Pete

We are not party to the circumstances other than it was blowing force 7. We are unaware of the skipper's competence nor the age of the nephew, nor the clothing both had, nor the safety equipment onboard, nor the safety kit etc, etc.

The act of taking the pair to a local hotel indicates to me there was significant concern for their welfare and that Sect. 12 Children and Young Persons Act (exposing child to unnecessary danger/neglect) may have been a consideration thus making the shelter provision a discretion as alternative to arrest? (just one of a raft of possible scenarios).

Jumping to conclusions based on scant information is a feature of the forum and vitriol such as 'idiot police' is unhelpful in truly understanding what happened. Those who have the full helicopter vision of the event are the police, the CG and to a lesser extent the skipper and the child. None of which are likely to air the facts publicly.

 

[Seajet]

We are not party to the circumstances other than it was blowing force 7. We are unaware of the skipper's competence nor the age of the nephew, nor the clothing both had, nor the safety equipment onboard, nor the safety kit etc, etc.

The act of taking the pair to a local hotel indicates to me there was significant concern for their welfare and that Sect. 12 Children and Young Persons Act (exposing child to unnecessary danger/neglect) may have been a consideration thus making the shelter provision a discretion as alternative to arrest? (just one of a raft of possible scenarios).

Jumping to conclusions based on scant information is a feature of the forum and vitriol such as 'idiot police' is unhelpful in truly understanding what happened. Those who have the full helicopter vision of the event are the police, the CG and to a lesser extent the skipper and the child. None of which are likely to air the facts publicly.

Seatrout,

suggesting the police & CG ' know better than the skipper / owner ' is a bit much, it's that sort of attitude which puts peoples' backs up, inc mine.

 

[Seatrout]

Seajet,

Point accepted. It just gets on my goat that people make blanket generalisations peppered with their personal prejudices on an extremely slender set of 'facts'. Being the forum 'conscience' is not a role I relish or exercise often. If, between the lines it is construed I believe the skipper to be a bumbling liability, then, I stress it, was not meant. Although it is a possible explanation for the actions taken.
ST

 

[Tranona]

Seajet,

Point accepted. It just gets on my goat that people make blanket generalisations peppered with their personal prejudices on an extremely slender set of 'facts'. Being the forum 'conscience' is not a role I relish or exercise often. If, between the lines it is construed I believe the skipper to be a bumbling liability, then, I stress it, was not meant. Although it is a possible explanation for the actions taken.
ST

Well said. Invariably when all the facts come out a different story emerges, so best to observe rather than jump to a conclusion based on limited facts.

It is rare for the authorities to take this kind of positive action. The criticism is usually that they take too little or inappropriate action. The important thing is that the skipper and crew are safe and the boat has not ended up a wreck.

 

[Little Big B]

I'm the previous owner of the tri and in the owners absence have been representing his interests.
Just to respond to a couple of queries as much as I can
The owners nephew was not a minor. the halyards had been used to extend the anchor rode and the anchors had been buried in the sand further up the beach.
The biggest failing was that no-one saw it as their role to assist him. He was taken to a hotel without money, transport a working phone or any contact numbers.
The prohibition notice was unhelpfull as to get the boat away needed a weather window, and the tides were going from springs to neeps so to get off one needed to be swift. This created an impediment to doing this. Fortunately the weather calmed down and did not go easterly, else the boat would have been smashed on the shoreline.

 

[tony_lavelle]

Clarification

Some of the replies suggest I haven't been clear in my account, so for the avoidance of doubt, let me state:
1. The skipper/owner is an experienced and responsible sailor.
2. He brought his vessel safely and under control onto a beach, demonstrating competence and seamanship.
3. He did not call for help and did not get any.
4. His crew (nephew) is a man in his twenties, not a child.
5. The police forced him to abandon his boat on the beach and took him to a hotel against his will.
5. The coastguard disabled the boat by removing the outboard engine (cropped the padlocks) and halyards, then (in case there was any doubt of their intention) slapped a detention order making it a criminal offence to move it.
6. When the authorities intervened, the crew and vessel were not in danger and did not want their "help".
7. A trimaran does not sink or capsize when one float takes on water.
8. A trimaran on a beach should not be assumed to be wrecked or in immediate need of towing back into the sea.

There are some big questions to be asked here:
A. Do the police/coastguard have the right to force abandonment of a vessel *when it is not in danger*?
B. Can they force their ill-informed "help" on a skipper against his/her will?
C. Why didn't they take the trouble to find out from the skipper (or someone who knows about boats) what was needed?

 

[sailorman]

Some of the replies suggest I haven't been clear in my account, so for the avoidance of doubt, let me state:
1. The skipper/owner is an experienced and responsible sailor.
2. He brought his vessel safely and under control onto a beach, demonstrating competence and seamanship.
3. He did not call for help and did not get any.
4. His crew (nephew) is a man in his twenties, not a child.
5. The police forced him to abandon his boat on the beach and took him to a hotel against his will.
5. The coastguard disabled the boat by removing the outboard engine (cropped the padlocks) and halyards, then (in case there was any doubt of their intention) slapped a detention order making it a criminal offence to move it.
6. When the authorities intervened, the crew and vessel were not in danger and did not want their "help".
7. A trimaran does not sink or capsize when one float takes on water.
8. A trimaran on a beach should not be assumed to be wrecked or in immediate need of towing back into the sea.

There are some big questions to be asked here:
A. Do the police/coastguard have the right to force abandonment of a vessel *when it is not in danger*?
B. Can they force their ill-informed "help" on a skipper against his/her will?
C. Why didn't they take the trouble to find out from the skipper (or someone who knows about boats) what was needed?

There was the incident wher a former RN Officer was "rescued" against his will in the North Sea & received an apology. His wife asked the CG if they has any news & they raised a search. it was light winds he was quite happily sailing from Ijmuiden > Harwich in light airs in his Red Fox.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Some of the replies suggest I haven't been clear in my account, so for the avoidance of doubt, let me state:
1. The skipper/owner is an experienced and responsible sailor.
2. He brought his vessel safely and under control onto a beach, demonstrating competence and seamanship.
3. He did not call for help and did not get any.
4. His crew (nephew) is a man in his twenties, not a child.
5. The police forced him to abandon his boat on the beach and took him to a hotel against his will.
5. The coastguard disabled the boat by removing the outboard engine (cropped the padlocks) and halyards, then (in case there was any doubt of their intention) slapped a detention order making it a criminal offence to move it.
6. When the authorities intervened, the crew and vessel were not in danger and did not want their "help".
7. A trimaran does not sink or capsize when one float takes on water.
8. A trimaran on a beach should not be assumed to be wrecked or in immediate need of towing back into the sea.

There are some big questions to be asked here:
A. Do the police/coastguard have the right to force abandonment of a vessel *when it is not in danger*?
B. Can they force their ill-informed "help" on a skipper against his/her will?
C. Why didn't they take the trouble to find out from the skipper (or someone who knows about boats) what was needed?

Point 5 still does not ring true, I have never heard of police taking a member of the public against his will to a hotel. Usually they are taken to the cells. But a hotel? If so what was to stop him immediately leaving said hotel? Or did they lock his room door and take away the key? And place bars on the windows? And allow them to eat only via room service?