Boat Buddies. Illegal Charters or not?

[cascars]

Copied from www.worldseafishing.com, but I would also like the opinions from members on here, as it has been suggested that there may be a few more legal minds on this site

I have been asked to give my views on this matter as part of a magazine feature, which will publish all sides of the matter. There will also be views from a Charter Skipper and the MCA, and this could form the basis of discussions with the MCA to make the law / regulations clearer to understand for all.
Please keep this civil and do not use it to argue with, or insult someone who may have a different point of view, as I hope to get input from charter skippers, boat owners, and boat anglers who do not have their own boat but may go out with mates, on charters or with boat owners looking for crew for the day in exchange for a contribution towards fuel costs.

When I bought my latest boat over 6 years ago, I decided I would like to find guys that would be able to regularly accompany me for the day for both inshore and offshore trips, whenever I wanted to go. My personal circle of friends did not include enough anglers that were able to go when I wanted to go and I decided to ask the members of WSF if I occasionally needed one or two people to make up the crew for a trip.
There were several benefits.

1) Two or three other people on the boat meant that if I were to have an accident or health problem then there would be somebody able to get help or take the boat back in.

2) An average wrecking trip could easily cost me £100+ in fuel, and a couple of others contributing towards this would mean that I could possibly go out more often (although the British weather has put paid to that!). It would be rare that anyone coming out with me would even contribute an equal share with me of the fuel cost (it would usually be less), but any contribution would help. I have only ever been interested in a contribution towards the days running costs, and not the overall cost of running my boat. If that were case then every time anyone came out with me they would probably need to give me about £300! Each person would be responsible for providing their own bait or lures, although as anyone that has come fishing with me will testify I usually end up lending or giving quite a few of my own away.

3) It would introduce new people to boat fishing that probably would not want to go out on a charter for the first time for fear of showing themselves up, by either being ill or not having a clue what to do. With only 3 or 4 of us on the boat we could all help any newbie, and if someone was really ill then they could be taken back to shore without affecting ten or more others. Hopefully these new boat anglers would enjoy the experience so much that they would then become regular buddies that I could call on to help make up a crew at short notice. I can not remember a single person so far that has said that they never want to go boat fishing again, and most are now regulars on charter boats, so it seems to have worked!

4) Fishing on your own is not only dangerous but for most of us having one or two others to chat to makes the day far more enjoyable, as well the fact that sharing advice and methods helps to improve your own success rate.

5) Teaching others what I have learned from over 40 years of boat angling and boat handling would hopefully give them a better idea of whether they would have the skills needed to skipper their own boat, before just buying one and setting to sea with no experience. It is impossible to learn what you need to know in a day or two of classroom training and a few hours on a 'school' boat. I have also shown numerous other boat anglers who already have their own boats how I plot, and anchor wrecks and other marks safely and effectively. This improves their own experience and success.

Over the past six years although only probably averaging a dozen trips a year out on my own boat I have introduced many people to boat angling that had never done it before, hopefully helped quite a few existing boat owners to make their own fishing more productive, made dozens of new friends, raised a few thousand pounds for various charities (usually the RNLI), managed to find new PB's and firsts for almost everyone that has come out on Sea Mistress, and enjoyed myself immensely while doing so. The small amount contributed by those that have fished with me (usually £10-35) each has obviously helped with the fuel cost, but as anyone who has their own boat will know, that is a drop in the ocean compared to the true cost of owning the boat. I estimate that my boat has cost me personally around £700 per trip when storage, maintenance, electronics and the cost of buying it are taken into consideration.
18 Months ago I started the Boat Buddies thread on here so that all those that wanted to do something similar could do so. To date there have been around 100 boat owners that have made use of this, and although feedback is limited I hope that most have those have now found people that they can call friends that they fish with regularly. The fact that some of these will help towards the cost of the day financially or in other ways, maybe helping with maintenance, storage etc is irrelevant. The main thing is that these people will hopefully all be enjoying their boating more than ever now.
However I know that there are some people out there that are a danger to themselves, never mind others, and I would always urge anyone that has any reservations about crewing for someone with dubious boat handling skills, a poorly maintained boat or no safety equipment not to go with them. Anyone asking for payment that is clearly above what could be considered a contribution should also be ignored. There is no substitute for a properly qualified skipper, and coded boat, but I believe there is also a place for responsible boat owners to share their day with others for a little help with the costs.
Please discuss

 

[Davy_S]

I read through all the posts, simply because I used to do a great deal of wreck fishing both charter and private. My opinion is this, I have always had a small outboard powered fishing boat and been a member of local boat clubs, most boats would comfortably fish 2 or 3, It was normal practice offer a place to a friend, money towards fuel could be offered, taken or not, or bait provided instead. I have no problem at all with this.
I can understand the concerns of charter boat operators when they see an advert offering boat places in return for expenses, to me this is taking money from a stranger to offset the running cost of a private boat. So I have to side with the charter boat owner, his running costs have risen, he has no choice but to pay them or lose his coding. He is between a rock and a hard place.

 

[jfm]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Whether it is legal? What you describe is perfectly legal in a non coded <24m LLL boat owned by you personally provided (a) the "passengers" only pay a contribution to running costs of the particular excursion concerned, (ie no margin or profit element) which I think you've confirmed, and (b) they are your "freinds". Now, "friends" is not defined in law, but people who have been out with you previously are friends and for newcomers I think you need to have a coffee with them in the clubhouse or on the aft deck first to make them friends

MCA are a prosecuting authority in their own right. I mean they don't need the CPS. Their enforcement unit is a bit trigger happy imho and though not everyone who works there is the sharpest of knives in the drawer it is better to avoid antagonising them, for an easy life. But meeting (a) and (b) above is pretty easy so you shouldn't have a problem

If you want the actual law, see here. If you cite this in your mag article write it as "The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998, SI 1998/2771". In order not to be breaking the law in a non coded boat you need to be a "pleasure vessel" within the definition contained in para 2(1)

But I'm not sure if this is what you were actually asking. On reading Davy S's post above, perhaps I have wrong end of stick sorry. if we are talking about advertising for passengers and charging a fee only equal to the running costs then imho you are on a sticky wicket because that might fall short of a "friend" relationship. If advertising, you need to invite people to join a group of like-minded friends who co-use a boat. Stick the word "friend" in the ad. You gotta manage the risk that MCA enforcement unit, who are as i say trigger happy imho, will take action. This is easy to get right, and also easy to screw up.

 

[Davy_S]

But I'm not sure if this is what you were actually asking. On reading Davy S's post above, perhaps I have wrong end of stick sorry. if we are talking about advertising for passengers and charging a fee only equal to the running costs then imho you are on a sticky wicket because that might fall short of a "friend" relationship. If advertising, you need to invite people to join a group of like-minded friends who co-use a boat. Stick the word "friend" in the ad. You gotta manage the risk that MCA enforcement unit, who are as i say trigger happy imho, will take action. This is easy to get right, and also easy to screw up.

I took it that the question was, Is boat buddies legal. In other words advertising on a forum for available boat fishing spaces, costs probably expected. To me, these are not friends so I could see the charter guys getting a little hot under the collar. A very fine line!
course we could both be wrong

 

[dt4134]

I took it that the question was, Is boat buddies legal. In other words advertising on a forum for available boat fishing spaces, costs probably expected. To me, these are not friends so I could see the charter guys getting a little hot under the collar. A very fine line!
course we could both be wrong

Has there ever been a suggestion that advertising via a website such as Crewseekers in chartering? That site includes the option for the owner to indicate whether they would charge a contribution to expenses.

 

[jfm]

Insurance is about duty of disclosure and I suspect your Insurers will view this activity as charter ( I accept jfms argument that they will be wrong to do so)

No, I haven't argued that. The question of breaching the law and failing to honour/disclose in an insurance contract are different things, though the former may create an exclusion under the latter. If there is advertising and the spirit of what is happening is not-for-profit charters as opposed to a trip for a group of mates, then insurers would likely not pay and would likely be right (depending on policy wording of course)

I did get a bit confused about what OP was asking. Maybe my fault for not reading the long post carefully. If the exact question was in there, it was a bit lost imho. If there is advertising for fishing trips for payment, even not-for-profit controbutions, then the people on the trip will likely be on board qua customers not qua friends, and this is then at best borderline on the criminal law. i would advise against doing that. To be "friends" you don't have to have known someone long but there has to be social interaction other than the seafishing trip, either before or after the trip, to make someone a friend, imho.

If prosecuted this would all turn on whethert he people on the boat were "friends" (read the law link to see why), assuming the money merely forms a contribution to the fuel as OP describes, and which seems plausible if it is £10-£35 per person. (OP's £700-per-trip comment is irrelevant here and is the wrong measure). OP is self incriminating in his 3rd para on the "friends" point but helpful in his 9th para; go figure!

Ref OP's second para he hasn't a hope of getting a law change. The law is perfectly clear

 

[jfm]

I realize that, I'm just trying to keep a long response short and pre empt a ding dong which can make the overall message difficult to follow.

I accept I should have added , jfm is correct it is not charter in certain circumstances.

main point I was attempting to make is that with your help the op can manage to manipulate / re organise / fiddle a friendship by having a coffee before he casts off etc. etc, (loads more to it).

Having conformed to all the suggestions he may be legal .........

but

even if he is legal, he will not be able to persuade his Insurers that it is legal as they are too thick to understand your arguments.

If he gets caught (being technically legal) he will need to spend a huge amount of money and time in proving he is legal.

I'm guessing here and could well be wrong but when I see your boat I assume £30 k to prove a point is irritating but you wouldnt need to change your lifestyle.

The op has a small fishing boat and looking for contributions of £10 to £35 towards fuel, my guess is that even if he is legal he really doesnt want to re mortage his house or sell his boat to prove the point .

This is in no way meant as an argument, I wouldnt be daft enough to argue with you on the law.
You are right, you have answered the op question well.

My concern is that if the op follows your advice and complies with the law to the letter he needs to have a slush fund available to prove you are right .

Yep, all fair comment Daka; 100% agreed. Putting that another way, what you're warning OP about is that any time you make a big insurance claim the insurers will find every which way they can to avoid paying, and that inlcudes running a "you were chartering the boat therefore not following the law therefore we're not liable" argument. Thus, it would be better for OP to tell insurers in writing all about the "regular fishing trips with friends" activity to remove this risk. They might charge a small premium for charter use but it is likely to be small. But yep, all agreed, sound advice imho

Incidentally, bit of relevant thread drift, i have taken up 2 formuite cases to fight insurers who refuse to pay on trumped up (imho) arguments, plus my own big claim. First was Seahope's, and we won fully. I won my own claim too and gave them a bloody nose. The third one, a forumite job, is still ongoing, and has been listed for adjudication with Ombudsman. Complex case becuase Ombudsman still hasn't decided it after about 6 months from the filing. Even though we are right, insurers just don't understand the arguments and therefore have not paid yet. If ombudsamn doesn't agree (unlikely) we'll go to High Court. So your advice is right: being right is one thing but getting insurers actually to write a cheque is a higher hurdle altogether

 

[Davy_S]

Has there ever been a suggestion that advertising via a website such as Crewseekers in chartering? That site includes the option for the owner to indicate whether they would charge a contribution to expenses.

I have never had any dealings with Crewseekers, so I would not know whether advertising on the site could be considered chartering, sorry.

 

[cascars]

Just to clear things up. If for example I am planning a fishing trip later in the week and can not find one of my regular crewmates that is free to come with me then I will often put up a post on the forum stating that I am looking for one or two crew for a certain day. There is never any mention of money by way of contribution or otherwise.
However usually when forum members are interested they will then contact me and sometimes ask how much they would be expected to contribute towards the day. I will normally say something like "I would expect the fuel for the day to cost me £90-£120 but we usually share the cost of the this between all on the boat". I never ask anyone for any money, I just point out to them what the fuel will cost me for the day. There is no obligation on them to chip in anything, and quite often at the end of the day I am offered more than their share. I have never accepted anything more than an equal share, but often when the fuel bill may have been £150 I will still take no more than £30 when it is offered.
I have been a member on the WSF forum for over 6 years now, most of that in an admin role and just about everyone on it will know of me, as I will them. It is extremely rare for someone that has not been out with me before to jump in and grab an offered crew space anyway.
There have been a number of points raised on the WSF discussion, notable the fact that the wording '(a)any vessel which at the time it is being used is:
(i)(aa)in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals, used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner;' can be interpreted as 'To be a pleasure vessel the boat has to be used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner, OR for the pleasure of his/her immediate family or friends'. As it is unlikely that the boat owner will not be aboard when he takes out anyone from the forum for example, then they do not have to be family or friends!
I would be grateful if JFM could cast his eye over the thread on WSF and maybe bring some of the raised points into this thread.

 

[jfm]

I only looked at page 1 of wsf forum plus the last 3 pages. Many people were discussing their ranty views (if you can't afford to run a boat without £££ from your mates you shouldn't have a boat), which is fine, but i don't wish to read all 12 pages of that stuff

Grey Viking correctly zoomed in on the legal question on p1. However I wouldn't accept MCA's "definition" which is that a friend is someone you've known personally "for some time". You can be a friend in one day. Anyway, that's neither here not there. I would say:

1. If you advertise on a forum and someone you've never met or PMed extensively rocks up and steps aboard after just a brief chat, you are at risk of MCA prosecution bearing in mind MCA's trigger happiness. i would want an hour with the new friend before leaving the dock, minimum. Or an introduction from a long-term mate (a friend of a friend can become your friend within minutes, a court is likely to accept)
2. Insurance point as per daka's comments above. Even if you think you're right, insurers will refuse to pay if they merely think they're right. So get it on record with insurers that you take forum/club members for trips; that they pay a share of running costs only; that you consider them to be friends but the definition isn't clear so to put it beyond doubt you are asking insurers to note this activity and confirm it wont result in loss of cover
3. I don't think, in fact I'm 100% certain, that there is a golden nugget as mentioned in your penultimate para above. The WSF post #92 by gusmcg is wrong. The "or" in that sentence most certainly does not give you the answer that post #92 argues for. To think it does is just to fail to read the English correctly (especially, the significance of the crucial word "only" is paramount). Sorry to rain on parades on this one, but it's completely clear cut. Oh and tell Tom in post #109 that he's mebbe 15 years out of date with his £500. That's a comma (and some) short of an hour's worth of legal advice in the big cities

Good luck, and sorry not to be able to back you up with a "you're completely safe" answer. I fully appreciate that you're not guilty of any wrong doing here and are just innocently and kindly sharing your hobby with others. You have the "no profit" aspect fully covered off here - you are 100% legal on that point. It's only the "friends" thing where there are some doubts. Would be interesting to reflect on changing the way you do this - if you have forum pub meets then perhaps only take out daytrippers whom you've met at the pub, say, and trade a few emails before the trip. With a few markers in the email "This is nothing formal, just a trip with a group of friends. I'll introduce you to the other guys. It'll be fun." But I dunno if that lack of spontaneity works for you? Good luck anyway

 

[jrudge]

I had a light aircraft for some 15 years, and this type of "story" would come up in the aviation press regularly.

The bottom line was that as long as it was cost share it was not a commercial operation. Cost share mean that if there were 4 seats occupied then each paid a quarter, including the pilot. Make £1 and it is hire and reward. The general view was also that it was the direct cost of the trip that was split ( fuel, oil, landing fees) not maintenance, hangarage etc - which would mean the trip was generating a profit.

I used to fly Scouts on Sunday mornings, and had to pay 25% of the aircraft cost to remain legal.

My logic in recounting this is that if the highly zealous and regulated aviation world things this is ok then I am sure that it will pass muster in boating terms!

The aviation world also conducts ramp checks quite regularly, especially at things like horse racing meetings, so there is also a level of enforcement.

 

[jfm]

I had a light aircraft for some 15 years, and this type of "story" would come up in the aviation press regularly.

The bottom line was that as long as it was cost share it was not a commercial operation. Cost share mean that if there were 4 seats occupied then each paid a quarter, including the pilot. Make £1 and it is hire and reward. The general view was also that it was the direct cost of the trip that was split ( fuel, oil, landing fees) not maintenance, hangarage etc - which would mean the trip was generating a profit.

I used to fly Scouts on Sunday mornings, and had to pay 25% of the aircraft cost to remain legal.

My logic in recounting this is that if the highly zealous and regulated aviation world things this is ok then I am sure that it will pass muster in boating terms!

The aviation world also conducts ramp checks quite regularly, especially at things like horse racing meetings, so there is also a level of enforcement.

He fully passes muster on the "no profit/not commercial" condition, but that is only 50% of the story. The "friends" condition is the other 50%, and there is no equivalent of the "friends" rule in (UK) aviation law. The "friends" rule only appears in shipping law. Hence the problem. Combined with the fact MCA is trigger happy and insurers will do anything not to pay.

 

[cascars]

Thank you very much for your input JFM. It is much appreciated and taken on board (without a 'contribution', lol)

 

[ShaunG]

I find this one really interesting...any views on taking a fellow forumites out whom you have never met in person before?

I would and have offered trips out to fellow forum peeps, either because they fancy a different type of trip, are in the area, etc etc. however I have only 'befriended' them in the virtual world. Is the current law, and legal definition of a 'friend' someway behind the current way of establishing and maintaining friendships. (Am a saily boat so any fuel contribution if offered would be about 20p, so I have no axe to grind, although would a drink and dinner count as 'payment' although I guess if that was done after a days sailing we would now be friends.

Thinking about this on other pastimes that I have had, you sometimes meet people you have never met before and they become friends as part of an ad hoc get together, golf would be a great example, you meet someone else playing solo on the course, join up for the round and agree to do it again,

 

[paddy01]

I think the nub here Shaun is that from what I understand, the word friend (as it pertains here) has no definition in law. It's entirely subjective and I would suspect that any attempt at defining it would be so wide you could sail through the gaps

 

[jfm]

I think the nub here Shaun is that from what I understand, the word friend (as it pertains here) has no definition in law. It's entirely subjective and I would suspect that any attempt at defining it would be so wide you could sail through the gaps

But alas the only time it will be (sort of defined) is on 3 occasions:

1. By the MCA when they indict. Sure they are neither judge nor jury, merely prosecutor, but for the one year while they're attacking you and before the trial you'll need a decent sphincter
2. By the judge/jury, gweep
3. By your insurance company. Again you might overturn their view but as Daka said it wont be fun for the year or so you are in dispute. In the case I'm doing for a forumite the argument is also about the meaning of a single noun funnily enough, and the forumite has repaired hs boat but has been unaid by insurers for over a year.

I'm not wishing to be doomy and gloomy, just pragmatic. I think the modern view of the word "friend" is quite wide and would be held by a jury to be so, especially if you have corresponded with someone electronically at length in a friendly manner then meet up

 

[PaulGooch]

There used to be an article on the RYA site about this, but i can't find it now.

I remember one of their key points was to make sure you only take any contributions at the end of the day, not the beginning.

 

[MapisM]

Geez... This debate is nothing short of amazing.
Wouldn't it be much simpler (but equally correct) to tell the OP that if he has to ask, then it's illegal?
And since he asked, illegal it is, in that specific case...

 

[MapisM]

simpler but possibly not 100% accurate.

Yep, possibly, but sometimes I'm fine with a 98% accuracy, you know. Life's too short...

PS: incidentally, I also think that bothering with sophisticated ways to "get around the law, legally" is not much simpler than just complying with the law, if you see what I mean...

 

[mikefleetwood]

An interesting topic!

In my village we hold regular (Summer) boat-based angling competitions. It is expected that anyone with spare "berths" on their boat will take anyone who doesn't have one. No money changes hands, just the odd beer - especially if the guest wins! By any of the above definitions, this is completely legal.

To advertise for crew on the basis of sharing costs is getting perilously close to a commercial operation - even if no profit is made. Why not just get the boat coded - the requirements are not that onerous, quite similar to the BSS? Then get an operators licence from the local authority - it doesn't cost much. That way, no one can complain.

Just my 2p-worth