Is this allowed? paying crew.

AngusMcDoon said:
For those who think that these rules are an encumberment on our freedom to run a business exactly as we please, this type of event is all too common in countries that do not have strict enforcement of marine safety laws...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ferry-capsizes-sinks-Thai-resort-Pattaya.html

As for those who claim that these rules are unnecessary because there isn't a problem of accidents at sea in the UK - there's a reason for that - most stick to the rules, and those who don't are persuaded otherwise by the MCA.
Click to expand...

+1 UK of course is not alone in that these laws are pretty much uniform over the western world. Just look at the number of people who die in ferries in the 3 rd world from overloading, poor seamanship and poor safety gear to see what happens without these laws. You have to draw a line a he is beyond that line olewill
 
JumbleDuck said:
True, but if the no-money-changes-hands-save-an-equitable-share-of-direct-expenses is passed, the how-do-you-know-these-people test doesn't have to be applied, does it?



I think if he set a fixed rate very low - that's why I suggested a tenner - he could make a reasonable case that, although it was a flat rate, it was a reasonable approximation to, as you put it, "the specific costs of the trip". Safest, of course, would simply be not to charge anything at all; second safest would be to work out exactly what was spent and divvy that up.



Ah, but the amount of money he is charging is surely crucial to determining the nature of the activity? Five hundred quid a day to go sailing would clearly be commercial, while a fiver in the biscuits kitty would, I think, clearly not be commercial. I think we can agree, though, that £55 flat rate, plus any marina costs, is implausibly high for non-commercial, even if it is a fair reflection of his overall costs per day of sailing.
Click to expand...
It is not just one factor you need to consider. If you took away his claims not to be a profit making business from his website then it would have all the hallmarks of a commercial charter operation. Suggest you go back to the earlier thread and read the letter from the MCA clarifying the important issues to consider.

Wriggling around what is acceptable and what is not is pointless. The fact that he is making an overt statement that he does not want to be seen as a commercial charter operation shows that he is aware that he has to meet certain requirements and he is deliberately trying to avoid them. All his potential problems go away if he codes his boat and gets the qualification consistent with what he is offering. If he does not want to, or is not prepared to, invest in these he can't legally charter his boat at any price.
 
Tranona said:
It is not just one factor you need to consider. If you took away his claims not to be a profit making business from his website then it would have all the hallmarks of a commercial charter operation. Suggest you go back to the earlier thread and read the letter from the MCA clarifying the important issues to consider.

Wriggling around what is acceptable and what is not is pointless. The fact that he is making an overt statement that he does not want to be seen as a commercial charter operation shows that he is aware that he has to meet certain requirements and he is deliberately trying to avoid them. All his potential problems go away if he codes his boat and gets the qualification consistent with what he is offering. If he does not want to, or is not prepared to, invest in these he can't legally charter his boat at any price.
Click to expand...

All that is true. But he can also make the problems go away completely if he charges nothing (which is easy to do) or only charges a share of costs incurred directly for each trip (which is harder).
 
I knew I had it somewhere, this might be useful clarification that was in an email from the MCA. It details that Marina/mooring fess can not be included in shared costs of voyage. I quote...

"If the vessel is being used as a "pleasure vessel" (defined in regulation 2(1) of SI 1998/2771) then the direct costs associated with the voyage may be shared. Such costs are considered to mean fuel and food costs, but not to include mooring, insurance, maintenance costs as they are not directly incurred as a result of the voyage. If the vessel is not being used as a "pleasure vessel" it is considered to be on a commercial voyage and therefore would be required to comply with the relevant legislation. The easiest means of compliance with some of the legislation for commercial voyages is to be certified under the MCA/UK Small Commercial Vessel Codes of Practice.

Mark Towl
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency"
Dec 2011
 
Neil_Y said:
I knew I had it somewhere, this might be useful clarification that was in an email from the MCA. It details that Marina/mooring fess can not be included in shared costs of voyage. I quote...

"If the vessel is being used as a "pleasure vessel" (defined in regulation 2(1) of SI 1998/2771) then the direct costs associated with the voyage may be shared. Such costs are considered to mean fuel and food costs, but not to include mooring, insurance, maintenance costs as they are not directly incurred as a result of the voyage. If the vessel is not being used as a "pleasure vessel" it is considered to be on a commercial voyage and therefore would be required to comply with the relevant legislation. The easiest means of compliance with some of the legislation for commercial voyages is to be certified under the MCA/UK Small Commercial Vessel Codes of Practice.

Mark Towl
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency"
Dec 2011
Click to expand...

I presume he means not annual mooring costs, but mooring costs away from the normal base incurred while on the trip could be shared.
 
Full marks to the guy for trying to make sailing a bit more accessible to people who dont own boats. But I am afraid I can see no actual difference between his £55 a day trip and the £5 an hour River boat trip I used to sell, except he is offering a bit of tuition as well. We are both doing the same thing, offering to the public (i.e. people we have not met and do not know beforehand) a ride in a boat for a fixed sum of money. For me, that money was supposed to cover the costs, and make a profit (it didnt - thanks to the weather!), for him it is just to help towards costs. There is no real difference, and certainly the law makes no distinction.

The problem is the fixed charge, and the fact he invites members of the public to pay it to come with him. That is the crucial point in law. If I pay him £55 he agrees to take me out in his boat, and an agreement which would be recognised in a court of law exists between us. This is totally different to me agreeing to take my mate out for a sail. Now, if he takes one person he gets £55, if he takes a family of four, he gets £220, but it doesnt cost him another £165 to have the other three on board.

It is not difficult or expensive to bring skipper and boat up to MCA minimum requirements. Once he has obtained the right paperwork, he can go on exactly as before confident that a) he is not breaking the law, and b) that his boat actually DOES meet legal safety standards and c) most importantly, he is fully covered if things go wrong.

Insurance is another matter: Insurers are notorious for trying to duck out of expensive claims: if he was so unfortunate as to have a fatality on board, his private boat insurance would not pay. He would end up with a bill potentially running in to 7 figures if a court found him at fault. That one is just too unpredictable to gamble on, and with proliferation of American style 'Ambulance chaser' lawyers that is not a gamble I would want to take.

Full marks to you sir for making your boat available for people to enjoy, but for goodness sake, make sure you have covered yourself, your boat and your guests properly and fully against anything going wrong.

As others have pointed out, the rules are there to protect both you and your passengers.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if it is the nature of the 'voyage' (MCA term) that's the stumbling block here. If I read the website correctly the 'voyages' he offers are day-sails. If he makes these voyages himself for his own pleasure on a regular basis without non-friends then he may argue that his eBay-sourced individuals are incidental to his normal pleasure sailing activities. I doubt this. I would need to see his log. I suspect that for the most part these day sails take place only when he has paying punters, so the voyages occur only when payers are aboard. So the answer to the OP's question Is this allowed? paying crew is "no". There, now; I told myself to stay out of this one but in the end I just couldn't help myself!
 
Whatever he charges, if it's offered to the general public, it starts to become business.
He might be making a loss but it is still business.
The rules particular to boats are one thing, you have to consider the rules that the HSE might apply to any business.
I would think insurance companies would view this as outside a normal yacht policy's cover.

I've never charged people for sailing on my boat apart from sharing direct costs like liferaft hire for a race, mooring and food.
When I sail on other people's boats, if I choose to pay the bill for a pub lunch, that is a gift with no strings.
Years ago I raced on a boat where everyone paid £10 towards the costs, I don't expect that went far towards the sail budget.

The only sailing I've done with 'strangers' is taking a few crew from Crewseekers, which was done on a 'no fees' basis as I was trying to recruit a delivery crew for my own benefit and I was happy to be out on the boat for a few day sails beforehand. That was interesting to say the least. I met a few nice people, but a couple of others made me cross 'YM instructor' off the career options list.
 
jerrytug said:
Yes, these lace-curtain-twitching nosey parkers and internet hard-men should hopefully have achieved climax by now, so the guy will have a temporary respite.
Click to expand...
My thoughts too. I also can't help wondering why the MCA appear to be ok about taking family & friends out sailing and possibly killing them but then not to be ok about taking out strangers on the same boat with the same safety equipment and killing them? Seems to discriminate unfairly between human beings. I just detest regulations where none is necessary, if you don't protest the regulations then as sure as night follows day, you WILL end up having to comply with MCA regulations in respect of taking your boat on every occasion in a few years time.
 
Wandering Star said:
My thoughts too. I also can't help wondering why the MCA appear to be ok about taking family & friends out sailing and possibly killing them but then not to be ok about taking out strangers on the same boat with the same safety equipment and killing them? Seems to discriminate unfairly between human beings. I just detest regulations where none is necessary, if you don't protest the regulations then as sure as night follows day, you WILL end up having to comply with MCA regulations in respect of taking your boat on every occasion in a few years time.
Click to expand...

Because your family and friends know you and are therefore in a position to make a judgement about setting foot on your vessel.
It's exactly like you can cook what you want, how you want in your own home for your friends and family, but as soon as you offer a service to joe public, a whole load of paperwork comes into play.
 
Wandering Star said:
My thoughts too. I also can't help wondering why the MCA appear to be ok about taking family & friends out sailing and possibly killing them but then not to be ok about taking out strangers on the same boat with the same safety equipment and killing them? Seems to discriminate unfairly between human beings. I just detest regulations where none is necessary, if you don't protest the regulations then as sure as night follows day, you WILL end up having to comply with MCA regulations in respect of taking your boat on every occasion in a few years time.
Click to expand...

The MCA don't make the regulations, the government does that. The MCA implement them. Regulation of commercial operators has been around in the UK since the Plimsol line was invented in 1853 (and since 2500 BC in Crete) without it applying to leisure sailors, so I can't see that we will all have to have out boats coded any time soon.

Here's another example of what happens in countries with poor or no maritime regulation...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/01/south-sudan-ferry-sinks-20141148628828929.html

Which bit of regulation of commercial boat operators makes it safer for all of us do you not understand? Are you against regulation of commercial airlines and trains as well?
 
Last edited:
The rules are there to protect the unwary from going out with an outfit that is not fit for purpose. I'm sure this guy is fine, however how do you ensure that there's enough lifejackets, the life raft is in date and the radio works without some kind of inspection? MCA coding exists to protect the "customer" if there is any hint of a commercial operation about things. The rules are also so clearly defined to protect us leisure sailors too. The MCA's view on taking your mates out and splitting diesel and beer is "fine-get on with it".

It's only when people start overstepping the mark and taking fare paying passengers behind the screen of it being "not for profit" that true leisure sailors will have to start facing the consequences with increased legislation. Everyone who is shouting from the rooftops about 1984/nanny state/too much legislation...if you want to stand up for your freedoms you should actually be in favour of coding for commercial operations and the MCA laws, not the other way around!

Are you also in favour of people in unlicensed taxis that are just cars hanging around outside the pub, taking you home after a night out?
 
Iain C said:
The rules are there to protect the unwary from going out with an outfit that is not fit for purpose. I'm sure this guy is fine, however how do you ensure that there's enough lifejackets, the life raft is in date and the radio works without some kind of inspection? MCA coding exists to protect the "customer" if there is any hint of a commercial operation about things. The rules are also so clearly defined to protect us leisure sailors too. The MCA's view on taking your mates out and splitting diesel and beer is "fine-get on with it".

It's only when people start overstepping the mark and taking fare paying passengers behind the screen of it being "not for profit" that true leisure sailors will have to start facing the consequences with increased legislation. Everyone who is shouting from the rooftops about 1984/nanny state/too much legislation...if you want to stand up for your freedoms you should actually be in favour of coding for commercial operations and the MCA laws, not the other way around!

Are you also in favour of people in unlicensed taxis that are just cars hanging around outside the pub, taking you home after a night out?
Click to expand...

As one of those opposed to the nanny state and poorly thought out legislation, I'd say that if you just sit back and acquiesce to the introduction of new rules and regs, then you will see regulation getting a lot more excessive and unnecessary.

If the taxpayer had to fund the RNLI you can be sure there'd be a lot more controls on leisure boating so we are fortunate that it is free from government meddling and not forgetting the RYA for their support for us.
 
ianj99 said:
As one of those opposed to the nanny state and poorly thought out legislation, I'd say that if you just sit back and acquiesce to the introduction of new rules and regs, then you will see regulation getting a lot more excessive and unnecessary.

If the taxpayer had to fund the RNLI you can be sure there'd be a lot more controls on leisure boating so we are fortunate that it is free from government meddling and not forgetting the RYA for their support for us.
Click to expand...
Some, what evidence do you have that this legislation is poorly thought out? The principles on which it is based are well established and does not prevent people operating in the business it relates to.
 
ianj99 said:
If the taxpayer had to fund the RNLI you can be sure there'd be a lot more controls on leisure boating so we are fortunate that it is free from government meddling and not forgetting the RYA for their support for us.
Click to expand...

Leisure boating is almost completely unregulated in the UK. Commercial boating isn't. Where's the problem?
 
Tranona said:
Some, what evidence do you have that this legislation is poorly thought out? The principles on which it is based are well established and does not prevent people operating in the business it relates to.
Click to expand...

I was speaking generally in reply to IainC's comment:
"Everyone who is shouting from the rooftops about 1984/nanny state/too much legislation...if you want to stand up for your freedoms you should actually be in favour of coding for commercial operations and the MCA laws, not the other way around!"
 
It is spectacular how the length of this thread has resulted in this circular narrative.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top