Being charged by mooring company to get a boat safety certificate done by person of my choice 🫤

[47GC]

Up to a point. There’s a lot of consumer protection in law to stop owners of monopoly facilities adding arbitrary charges.

Agreed. But you either accept the T&C’s or you don’t. A lot of discussion over 20 quid!

 

[Daydream believer]

I’d suggest it’s no more difficult to check if someone has presented you with something which appears to be a valid insurance policy than it is to check if someone appears to have a valid driving license.

You seem to forget one major point. Our clerk- who is also our harbourmaster- is a volunteer member of the committe. he has no training of insurance documents . Nor do other volunteers. We have an insurance policy to cover ourselves as a community organisation & our insurance company has seen & agreed ( after comment) our procedural rules etc. with the information therein. No one expects an ordinary man off the street ( I hope our HM forgives me for that description) to be able to understand legal intent on such documents.

 

[Daydream believer]

A lot of discussion over 20 quid!

Not if it was your 20 squids

 

[47GC]

Not if it was your 20 squids

Probably more cash lost down the back of my sofa.

 

[colhel]

I don't think I've ever shown a marina or mooring company my certificate of insurance, they just want me to say I've got it. (This for the drifted part of the thread)

 

[Momac]

But should they? With our mooring holders we do not physically check policies as this puts a liability on us if something goes wrong when a claim arises. What we do is get the mooring holder to sign a document to say that they have read the rules of the Fairway Committee & have the required 3rd party insurance in place.
Then if a claim arises we can say that the holder said that he was insured. This is advice similar to that suggested by the RYA when checking insurance on dinghies at open meetings. The entrant has to say that they are insured. The host club should not check the policy.
So carrying this one stage further; a visiting subcontractor should sign to say that he has insurance & the marina owner need not look at the policy.
The risk assessment is a different proposition & a marina operator might check such assessment was valid but also that works were being carried out in accordance with the assessment. This being to avoid damage to surrounding boats. Sheeting etc. If access scaffolding was to be used they may insist on guard rails being used. falls are quite common in marinas & operators can do without such instances.

I wouldn't suggest asking to look at the insurance policy, only the insurance certificate.
That's what the company I work for does.

 

[Seastoke]

Not if it was your 20 squids

It also depends , how much their man charges and how much the op guy charges.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

A little late to the party but I was the person that took Shotley to the Small Claims court claiming unfair contract. The settled on the day without going to court. Cost them a lot more than they would have gained in commission. There is a long thread about it somewhere.
You can't just say unfair contract you have to say within the definition of what constitutes an unfair contract why it is. It's true that one of the fundamental issues and how it arose in the first place they are not offering any service. However there are other points. It took me several days of reading and study to prepare my case.
I took advice from 3 people, a contracts lawyer who I knew and worked with, A Circuit Judge and a District Judge I knew both as friends. All three said they would find against me which was surprising, the reason the two judges did was because I presented a legal case before them as a layman and it seemed to annoy them not really either reading or listening to the argument. In any case the it would be heard either by a magistrate ( most likely) or a recorder and it just so happened that a couple of years later I met a recorder who was a friend of a friend and he listened carefully to the argument and he said in his opinion provided I presented it in layman's terms and didn't try to be a lawyer then it was almost certain to succeed.
I know of one case that was heard before mine involving a Solent marina and it went to the SCC and won and at least two others that have successfully challenged marinas who have conceded the point.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Agreed. But you either accept the T&C’s or you don’t. A lot of discussion over 20 quid!

That is one view and it can be challenged I am not saying that Marinas cannot enforce work to be done solely by approved contractors, I think it can but the idea that just because you sign a contract the T&C are binding and correct is not the case, hence "Unfair Contract"

 

[ylop]

You seem to forget one major point. Our clerk- who is also our harbourmaster- is a volunteer member of the committe.

I’m not forgetting anything, not least because you didn’t tell us this but mostly because it’s irrelevant.

he has no training of insurance documents . Nor do other volunteers.

That sounds like an organisational risk to me. Would you say “we don’t provide first aid because we have nobody trained” no you identify a need and then pay someone to train them. It’s not particularly hard to look at a marine insurance certificate and use a simple form or checklist to record the key information: name of vessel, owner, expiry date, insurer name, policy number, value.

Perhaps the biggest issue with that is if I am staying long term and my policy expires in a few months someone probably should be checking I have renewed it and getting the up-to-date details.

We have an insurance policy to cover ourselves as a community organisation & our insurance company has seen & agreed ( after comment) our procedural rules etc. with the information therein.

good. I hope it covers you for any liability that your client’s inadequacy fails to cover. I assume they are happy that either they have excluded this risk from their cover (which makes it your problem) or they accept the risk but believe it is small enough that they can bear it - after all an insurance policy that only covered things which are impossible would be pointless.

No one expects an ordinary man off the street ( I hope our HM forgives me for that description) to be able to understand legal intent on such documents.

And yet you do expect your clients/tennants to understand it? You might dig yourself a hole if you ever found yourself defending a don’t ask for evidence policy.

 

[Daydream believer]

Perhaps the biggest issue with that is if I am staying long term and my policy expires in a few months someone probably should be checking I have renewed it and getting the up-to-date details.

And yet you do expect your clients/tennants to understand it? You might dig yourself a hole if you ever found yourself defending a don’t ask for evidence policy.

First point- We are certainly not accepting that risk. Say we missed the renewal date. Would we be liable?
second point=I it is not our place to give client advice on policies. Only to ask them to confirm that they have £5m annual public liabiity cover.
Finally- things like Insurers name , policy No. proves very little. It does not give the terms of the policy. The terms could be quite onerous The number of the policy for instance is irrelevant. there is no point recording those details. A term in the policy could, for instance say, if the boat is left on a mooring it must not be left un attended for more than 24 hours. How would policy No tell one that. policies do carry terms in that sort of vein.

 

[47GC]

That is one view and it can be challenged I am not saying that Marinas cannot enforce work to be done solely by approved contractors, I think it can but the idea that just because you sign a contract the T&C are binding and correct is not the case, hence "Unfair Contract"

An unfair contract imho is defined as a restrictive activity that solely affects a single party and. It both parties. I don’t think having a term in an agreement that specifies a charge for using a supplier that is not an approved supplier is unfair. I could be wrong, any legal eagles here?

 

[Tranona]

An unfair contract imho is defined as a restrictive activity that solely affects a single party and. It both parties. I don’t think having a term in an agreement that specifies a charge for using a supplier that is not an approved supplier is unfair. I could be wrong, any legal eagles here?

The "unfair contract" argument is in respect of commission payable to the marina on the sale of a boat in a berth . The argument is that the marina does not provide any service to justify the charge, unless for example they have a brokerage service that handled the sale (which would of course be a separate contract), or a specific agreement to show potential buyers the boat in the absence of the owner. That is the origin of that condition in the typical boatyard contract as it dates from the time when many yards provided that sort of service - for example taking buyers out to a swinging mooring, or bringing the boat to a jetty for a viewing.

The daily charge for of site contractors is different because the yard is providing a service - that is a location to carry out the work and often services such as water and electricity. It also provides some sort of levelling for trades who pay a rent for a base in the yard.

 

[ylop]

it is not our place to give client advice on policies.

I think it’s entirely possible to do a little more diligence than ask “do you have 5M annual public liability insurance” without providing clients advice on insurance. I say that because major corporates ask me to provide proof of professional indemnity and employee liability insurance all the time and not one has gone beyond on the certificate and not one of their extensive legal teams has been worried that they were providing me with advice. Equally my insurers require me to check and keep copies of my subcontractors insurance - nobody has ever provided anything other that the certificate nor has my insurer suggested I need anything more than that. I have encountered people who claimed to be insured during all the preceding discussions even signing documents confirming that but coincidentally when the certificate is requested the policy “renews” that very week!

Finally- things like Insurers name , policy No. proves very little.

It forces the insured to check their policy details. Someone claiming to be insured who is not has to actively lie (commit fraud) rather than mistakenly not realise a policy has expired or tick yes meaning to get round to it before they arrive but forgetting.

The number of the policy for instance is irrelevant.

If I was affected by one of your berth holders the policy number and name of the insurer would actually be very helpful information if I have a claim and the boat owner is uncontactable. No there is not a GDPR issue before you open that can of worms - you just tell people that you are collecting the details specifically to pass on to potential claimants!

. A term in the policy could, for instance say, if the boat is left on a mooring it must not be left un attended for more than 24 hours.

It could, you currently have that risk.

Probably the risk to you is very low. I suspect though it is higher than if you did some very basic checks.

 

[Daydream believer]

All the pointless replies that you come up with, just show how arguments can arise & how contra points can be considered. That is why we do not intend to raise a can of worms & we stick with the legal advice of an expert & not that of some ill informed forumite sitting in their armchair at home looking for irrelevant .
loopholes. We are not into pointless box ticking & we certainly do not wish to open ourselves up to problems by going down that route. What we have has worked for years & we have countered several challenges in the past with success. So it cannot be that wrong.

 

[colhel]

Has anyone here been asked to show a certificate of insurance to a marina or mooring company?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Has anyone here been asked to show a certificate of insurance to a marina or mooring company?

Once a long time ago when I first took a berth in a marina afterwards on renewal they only wanted to see my cheque book.

 

[colhel]

I'm fairly certain I never have, even when I offered to show them they said no, just wanted me to say I had it

 

[ylop]

All the pointless replies that you come up with, just show how arguments can arise & how contra points can be considered. That is why we do not intend to raise a can of worms & we stick with the legal advice of an expert & not that of some ill informed forumite sitting in their armchair at home looking for irrelevant .
loopholes. We are not into pointless box ticking & we certainly do not wish to open ourselves up to problems by going down that route. What we have has worked for years & we have countered several challenges in the past with success. So it cannot be that wrong.

So long as your advice is up to date! Your insurance is there to cover you if you've got it wrong. So long as you understand its limitations. I'm not sure "we've never had a problem before" is great risk management.

 

[ylop]

Has anyone here been asked to show a certificate of insurance to a marina or mooring company?

Yes - although it is definitely not the norm.