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

[DinghyMan]

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.

Having been on the edge of a incident that arose because of someone claiming to be both insured and safe/healthy to do something, then through absolutely no fault of the organiser and there was a death, the disclaimers weren't worth anything and the blame was placed squarely on the organiser, even by the family who knew the paperwork and claims were false. I couldnt see how as an organiser you could realistically be expected to check every bit of paperwork given to you is true and valid but the courts didnt see it that way - one of the reasons I stopped being involved in Club activities

Anyone can claim anything but when it hits the fan, especially when a death is involved, everyone looks for a scapegoat (and for a claim...)

What happens when there is an incident and one party isnt insured? Insurance / family etc., may well come after you and my experience is that just saying "they said they were insured" doesnt exonerate you, particularly as the involved parties & family know you have (or may just claim you have?) insurance in place

I have been asked to provide proof of training, insurance, and in some cases security clearance, to go on sites for jobs, and saw it as perfectly normal as we used to do the same

 

[benjenbav]

I think it’s a bit of a drift from the original question about an administrative fee for recognising the existence of a standard certificate to get into quite tricky insurance questions.

I do, however, think that owners of facilities used by others should take time to understand where they themselves might be liable to claims for losses suffered by third parties and, hence, where they should consider protecting against such liabilities through insurance.

For example, and this is by no means the entirety of it, there’s a whole world that doesn’t immediately seem to make sense within the ambit of the Occupiers Liability Acts: drunks falling down steps in licensed premises; children breaking into construction sites and then hurting themselves; etc.

 

[penberth3]

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....

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm 100% sure this is wrong. Deliberately not checking does not remove your liability, and might increase it!

 

[penberth3]

I think it’s a bit of a drift from the original question about an administrative fee for recognising the existence of a standard certificate to get into quite tricky insurance questions....

The original post didn't say what the fee was for. The issue about BSS certificates came up in the replies.

 

[PaulRainbow]

The original post didn't say what the fee was for. The issue about BSS certificates came up in the replies.

Post #1 says "The place where we moor our boat want to charge us £20 if we use someone other than they want us to use for the boat safety certificate"

 

[penberth3]

Post #1 says "The place where we moor our boat want to charge us £20 if we use someone other than they want us to use for the boat safety certificate"

Yes, I read it. That doesn't say the fee was re: the certificate.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Yes, I read it. That doesn't say the fee was re: the certificate.

Perhaps you should read it again.

"The place where we moor our boat want to charge us £20 if we use someone other than they want us to use for the boat safety certificate"

Surely that's clear ?

 

[Daydream believer]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm 100% sure this is wrong. Deliberately not checking does not remove your liability, and might increase it!

Well, we trump your lack of legal status, with our having taken legal advice, when setting up our rules & proceedures years ago

 

[47GC]

And the answer is pretty obvious. The owner of a mooring or marina can put anything in the terms and conditions, including fees for non approved suppliers providing services on the marina etc.

 

[penberth3]

Perhaps you should read it again.

"The place where we moor our boat want to charge us £20 if we use someone other than they want us to use for the boat safety certificate"

Surely that's clear ?

Not clear at all. Nothing there says the £20 is anything to do with the safety certificate. It could be for accommodating an outside contractor - "using someone other than...".

Both possibilities have been discussed in the replies.

 

[penberth3]

Well, we trump your lack of legal status, with our having taken legal advice, when setting up our rules & proceedures years ago

The worse case is you're in court with a choice of saying "we deliberately didn't bother to check" or "we checked but missed a detail/were deceived".

I know which one I'd prefer.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Not clear at all. Nothing there says the £20 is anything to do with the safety certificate. It could be for accommodating an outside contractor - "using someone other than...".

Both possibilities have been discussed in the replies.

OK, what i should have said is, it's perfectly clear to everyone else here but you.

This forum gets dafter by the day.

 

[ylop]

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.

I think that’s probably not well thought out advice. A clear comparison would be an employer allowing employees to drive company vehicles - you would find no defence in saying “we just ask people to sign to say they have a valid license” when it would be reasonable to see the license, and keep a record either as a copy of a license or the license number and expiry date etc.

I couldnt see how as an organiser you could realistically be expected to check every bit of paperwork given to you is true and valid but the courts didnt see it that way

If I was designing such a system I would be asking the users for name of insurance company, policy number and the level of 3rd party cover - not just tick boxes or signatures. That forces thought and a degree of fraud if someone wishes to deceive you. It’s probably not possible to verify all policies are valid on the day but self declaration, especially if it’s part of a bunch of other stuff where it’s significance may be lost is going to be hard to convince someone after the event that it was a meaningful safeguard.

Well, we trump your lack of legal status, with our having taken legal advice, when setting up our rules & proceedures years ago

I wonder if that advice is still up to date. I don’t deal with moorings but I have noticed the shift DinghyMan referred to where regulators and courts don’t simply accept a promise from someone else as adequate due dilligence. As a general rule writing down what you’ve done which basically says “better not to ask” is a particularly bad idea. If there ever was a claim and those words come to light you may find the judge has less sympathy than if you simply said, “we trust our berth holders not to be so stupid”.

 

[Daydream believer]

I think that’s probably not well thought out advice. A clear comparison would be an employer allowing employees to drive company vehicles - you would find no defence in saying “we just ask people to sign to say they have a valid license” when it would be reasonable to see the license, and keep a record either as a copy of a license or the license number and expiry date etc.

I wonder if that advice is still up to date. I don’t deal with moorings but I have noticed the shift DinghyMan referred to where regulators and courts don’t simply accept a promise from someone else as adequate due dilligence. As a general rule writing down what you’ve done which basically says “better not to ask” is a particularly bad idea. If there ever was a claim and those words come to light you may find the judge has less sympathy than if you simply said, “we trust our berth holders not to be so stupid”.

One does not need a particular qualification to see if someone has a valid driving licence & record said details.My own company insurance co actually puts the onus on us to do this & made it our responsibility to check validity.
As for your second point how about:-
We are not legally qualified to determine if an insurance policy is suitable or not. So we put the onus on the applicant to check that it meets the requirements of our rules.
In the same way, I would suggest, an issuing insurance company puts the onus on the new policy holder to check the terms of the policy to see that it suits his needs. He cannot later turn round & say that it was an unsuitable policy.
Incidentally, we have had several attempts over the years by insurance companies to charge claims for boats clashing when boats have been damaged, on to us. We have shown them our rules & signed acceptance copies by holders & heard no more.

But you seem to have ignored the rest of my earlier post when I pointed out that the RYA advises clubs holding open meetings NOT to examine policies. Only to get the applicant to confirm that they hold suitable insurance. This follows a case in the EU years ago when an accident occurred & costs fell on to a third party who had examined a policy & deemed it satisfactory. If they had just asked the holder to confirm that they were covered they would have been Ok. The RYA have not, as far as I am aware, changed their advice on this matter.
Can you tell me how this differs from our mooring holders situation?

 

[ylop]

One does not need a particular qualification to see if someone has a valid driving licence & record said details.

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. Just as you might need to check specific license categories you might also want to read the certificate to see if there are any exclusions or if the cover is at the value you require. I don’t believe anyone would expect a mooring provider or marina to read the entire policy.

We are not legally qualified to determine if an insurance policy is suitable or not. So we put the onus on the applicant to check that it meets the requirements of our rules.

If I was a disgruntled neighbouring berth holder and it emerged you had “required” insurance but not checked ant was in place I would probably feel aggrieved if I suffered a loss as a result. Nobody can know whether a court would determine you owed me a duty of care or had been negligent by not asking for details of the policy. I’d suggest it’s almost zero additional effort for you to get the policy number, expiry date and insurer name - which would address the probably more frequent risk of someone forgetting to renew than intentional fraud.

In the same way, I would suggest, an issuing insurance company puts the onus on the new policy holder to check the terms of the policy to see that it suits his needs. He cannot later turn round & say that it was an unsuitable policy.

Are you worried about claims from the underinsured berth holder? That sound very unlikely. But other berth holders or third parties might expect you to do some dilligence given you have an application process rather than help yourself.

But you seem to have ignored the rest of my earlier post when I pointed out that the RYA advises clubs holding open meetings NOT to examine policies. Only to get the applicant to confirm that they hold suitable insurance.

No I didn’t ignore it. I don’t know exactly what the RYA advised before or advise now. It’s quite possible the RYA says they do not require you to make such checks. They of course have their own organisers insurance, which affiliated clubs and race officials are essentially buying into, so they have a safeguard if found liable. It may well be simply a balancing act between risk and practicality. I would be surprised if the RYA advice is that should actively avoid verifying insurance, albeit I can see they won’t want to get into being seen to advise on whether any exclusions etc do or do not apply.

This follows a case in the EU years ago when an accident occurred & costs fell on to a third party who had examined a policy & deemed it satisfactory. If they had just asked the holder to confirm that they were covered they would have been Ok. The RYA have not, as far as I am aware, changed their advice on this matter.

Do you have a link to the case? That sounds a lot like the sort of story that gets retold and embellished in the process. “They would have been Ok” sounds unlikely but is perhaps how it has been reported: cases are tried on the facts and circumstances that applied not on what ifs.

Can you tell me how this differs from our mooring holders situation?

I’d suggest there are a number of differentiating factors:
1. Throughput, you have time to realistically record every berth holders policy details whereas the race registration team do not.
2. Pressure on competitors v applicants: it’s easy for a mooring applicant to append their insurance certificate or complete the details at leisure. A competitor may forget their policy or have it on their phone not easy for you to inspect/copy. That can lead to potential confrontation.
3. The RYAs only policy (and reserves) - which may be better than yours? If your own insurer has said - please don’t ask for insurance details, we will cover you if anything arises as a result then I’m fine with that.
4. The main risk in races is presumably to other competitors who have all accepted to some extent an element of risk by competing, they will know if policies are scrutinised and the risks that poses. Your own customers will be in the same boat - but do your customers boats present a risk to people who are not your customers?

Your “well the RYA does this in a different setting” is like me saying “I thought I was insured to drive my car abroad because my dad is insured to drive his car abroad”.

 

[benjenbav]

And the answer is pretty obvious. The owner of a mooring or marina can put anything in the terms and conditions, including fees for non approved suppliers providing services on the marina etc.

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

 

[alandalus11]

If Havanachow had paid his £20 for an external contractor I wouldn't be having a headache reading all these replies.

 

[Seastoke]

Well I would not be very happy if some one came on the marina , grinding or using open flame . Without the marina knowing or checking they are insured.
It would help if the op give more info.

 

[alandalus11]

The OP has given all the info needed. He wants a Boat Safety Certificate issued by an external contractor. AAAARRGGH. He is not looking at grinding. That is a totally different website. He just wanted to know if the marina was in its rights to charge him £20 for an external contractor.

 

[Seastoke]

I will get my donkey jacket.