Marinas and collisions

What term is most commonly used

  • Fore Peak

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fore Cabin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • "Forrid Cabin"

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • In the bow

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up front

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please do tell)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
understand you completely - but don't see th ereporting bit at all.

my boat was rammed in Feb - an accident but I was the one that found the damage and the boat that hit me (it wasn't damaged!)

Due to the DPA the marina wouldn't give me contact details but they contacted him and he agreed it was his boat/fault and arranged repairs..............it's now June and of course every possible issue has conspired to prevent resolution!

I have use of the boat but am hacked off that it has been out twice but is still not sorted.

It's a pain

And through all this the guy hasn't comeup to me to say sorry.........I don't think he's expecting a big bill but it could escalate significantly if I decide I won't accept any compromise.

I think PS's suggestions very sensible.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Either this was a reportable accident or it wasn't. The MAIB website includes directions to the relevant regulations. There's no room for being 'gracious' - you're bound by the law...

I really don't see what's wrong... It's the boat's owner who's responsible for its insurance, and he seems to have discharged his responsibilities very satisfactorily. The skipper did the right thing too, and saw to it that you were informed.

We all see (and many of us do) silly things in marinas... Sometimes, they result in damage. If only all the collisions had outcomes as satisfactory as this one!

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to say "lets see what Oen says" but I am clearly late to the party as usual!

My response was to say something along the lines of 'report it to MAIB and let them decide whether or not they give a flying unicorn?'.
 
I am in agreement wth most that it should not be reported. But common decency entitles me to expect the culprit to apologise. I can understand that he might not feel inclined to do so, but he is an educated man who should know better.

With regard to MAIB reports, my understanding is that it is only vessels below 8m that do not have to report. Over 8m a report should be made. In this case both vessels are both well over 8m.

I have been most impressed with the manner in which Pantaenius have dealt with the claim and look forward to the culprits insurance company refunding the deductible.
 
[ QUOTE ]
With regard to MAIB reports, my understanding is that it is only vessels below 8m that do not have to report. Over 8m a report should be made. In this case both vessels are both well over 8m.

[/ QUOTE ]No offence meant, but I really think you have missed the points made earlier. The full text is at http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/MGN%20289%5F1%2Epdf.

ANNEX A to Marine Guidance Note MGN 289 (M+F):
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Accidents involving or occurring on board -
(a) any United Kingdom ship,
must be reported to the MAIB under the Regulations.

2. Accidents involving or occurring on board -
(a) a pleasure vessel
(b) a recreational craft hired on a bareboat basis
(c) any other craft or boat, other than one carrying passengers, which is in commercial use in a harbour or on an inland waterway and is less than 8m in length

do not need to be reported to the MAIB, unless the accident involves
i. explosion
ii. fire
iii. death
iv. major injury
v. capsize of a power-driven craft or boat, or
vi. pollution causing significant harm to the environment


The two vessels involved were
<ul type="square"> (a) yours - a pleasure vessel
(b) the other bpat -a recreational craft hired on a bareboat basis [/list] therefore do not need to be reported to the MAIB, unless the accident involves
<ul type="square"> i. explosion
ii. fire
iii. death
iv. major injury
v. capsize of a power-driven craft or boat, or
vi. pollution causing significant harm to the environment[/i]
[/list]

PS: Pleased the insurers have done the business. Won't make up for the upset though.
 
Top