MCA and accident rteporting -- the official line

[Trevethan]

Reply from MCA re: new regs on accident/incident reporting

Dear Mr. Trevathan

We note your concern about requirements to report to HM Coastguard contained in the new 2004 Regulations.

A report need only be made when the accident or incident affects or could affect the safety of the ship or if marine pollution is involved. In such circumstances we would hope that the persons in charge of a boat would make a report whatever the requirements of the Regulations.

The MCA took a common sense approach in applying the reporting requirements that existed in previous regulations and will also do so in relation to the Regulations that have just come into force. It is not the Agency's intention to pursue yachtsmen for failing to report if, for example, they capsize their dinghies during a race, come into contact for other reasons without serious consequences or are considered by the community at large to be only routine occurrences.

Steps are now in hand to review and amend the regulations in question in consultation with recreational boat users and others, but this will take several months and we do not envisage that the regulations will come into force before May 2005.

Let me assure you that the MCA is not in the business of receiving or demanding reports with threat of prosecution for what could be described as very minor or routine incidents.

Yours sincerely


P. Wilkins

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsilver]

Well that's common sense but their view is still not the law! The legislation should never have been worded in such a way.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Trevethan]

But they are the ones that do the prosecuting so.....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

That's OK as long as tomorrows high flyer doesn't try and make a name for himself by forgetting yesterday man's promise then.



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

No they're not.... its 'The Crown' that does that, or the Crown Prosecution Office to be more precise..... While the MCA may not be interested in following this to the letter, it is entirely possible that another service, or another part of the same service could use this as a punative or vindictive measure, and be completely within the law.... I suspect the CPO would pretty much required to prosecute if they had sufficient evidence of a breach presented to them by a HMCG officer......even of a minor offence.... breaking the law is breaking the law, even if it is petty

Its an unlikely scenario admittedly, but we are obliged as subjects to follow the law..... and the fact is that a bad law is a bad law, and open to abuse, even where mostly common sense is trying to prevail.....

I believe it is fairly common practice within the Police to use old and irrelavent legislation to achieve their ends, such as vagrancy laws defining how much cash you must have on you etc etc...

Sorry to be so bloody gloomy, but I think that this is being resolved through common sense only, not the legislature, and as we are all only to sadly aware, all to often government and authority don't demonstrate excessive quantities of common sense.. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Quote "No they're not.... its 'The Crown' that does that, or the Crown Prosecution Office to be more precise..... " end

I think you'll find that it is! These kinds of powers are enacted through Secretaries of State (SoS), in this case SoS for the Dept of Transport and the powers are given (deputised if you like) to specific officers of the SoS. It is exactly the same with the Wireless Telegraphy Act only Ofcom officials can take you to Court for contraventions of it.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Bloke interested in boats who just also happens to work for Ofcom

 

[jfm]

legal lecture, sorry

Mike is right

Furthermore, while it isn't perfect having a draconian law relaxed by the letter above from the MCA official, the letter from MCA official does in effect form part of the law. If the letter to which it replies was clear and the reply is from a sufficently senior officer then legally it brings about a "legitimate expectation" for the public which is enforceable. In other words, if the MCA did now prosecute a dinghy sailor for a minor capsize then the MCA could be sued under the principles in 2 cases (MFK underwriters and Matrix securities) which basically say a public authority must act in accordance with a promise it has made, or the MCA's actons could be quashed by way of judicial review.

Not satisfactory, because seeking legal redress as mentioned above is expensive and takes much effort, and because the 3rd para of the MCA letter above contains a grammatical defect, but Trevethan's letter amounts to a big improvement on where we were beofre imho. (I repeat, it is crucial that the letter to the MCA official was addressed to a senior perosn and was clear, on neither of which 2 points can I comment)

 

[Birdseye]

Re: legal lecture, sorry

All of which amounts to the same thing - instead of being confident that you are safe from persecution when going about your normal and reasonable business, you are vulnerable either to the actions of the authorities like the MCA or the random idiocies of our legal system.

Whats more you are expected to know the letter of every regulation that apply to you. Every one. Including your harbour bye laws. And the ones which the judge might have to look up because he doesnt know them either. Which is a good illustration of the idiocies of the legal system.






<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.

 

[jimi]

Re: legal lecture, sorry

What would the insurance position be in the following scenario.

You whacked a rock causing structural damage but it being good weather and close to a harbour eg St Peter Port, you continued there without reporting the incident.

Could the insurance company, if it really wanted to, wriggle out of liability on the basis that you had been criminal in not reporting? Or could they perhaps conclude that as it had not been reported as required by the law, then the incident had not happened on that occasion and must have happened at some other time ie prior to being insured with them?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Re: legal lecture, sorry

No on both counts. I you are insured against pranging your boat, no normal insurance contract would let the insurer escape liability just becuase you didn't report the prang.

The prang wasn't illegal, only the non reporting of it was. Furthermore you're innocent of any crime till proven guilty so if you are not prosecuted for late reporting then you are innocent

You are right tho jimi that if anyone prangs a boat sufficiently to want to make an insurance claim, then it would be better to do the MCA report, else the write up you would make when filling out the insurance claim will kind of create the evidence for MCA to prosecute you if you dont report the prang

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[philip_stevens]

Have I missed something while I have been on holiday??

If I run my car into a hedge, and it doesn't affect the driving and safety of the car, but I can still drive it home, I don't have to report it to anyone other than the insurance company if and when making a claim.

Why then, do I have to make out a report if I hit a rock, loosen my bilge keel, but can still make it to a boatyard in safety??

There are more people hitting walls, hedges, obstructions and other cars with no reporting, than ever will be boat owners having minor miscalculations of position - and then being in a prosecutable position.

Is it because car drivers have licences, and boat owners don't and are then deemed to be less reliable/knowledgable/experienced?

What have I missed??

<hr width=100% size=1>regards,
Philip

 

[Mike_Martin]

Re: legal lecture, sorry

In those circumstances it is clearly in your own interest to report the incident anyway.

To give this some context, I should mention that if your car is broken into, the insurer wants to see your "crime number" from the local Police Service before processing your claim. This is despite the fact that the Police will do nothing to recover any stolen items as it is near impossible to achieve other than by dumb luck.
Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Bloke interested in boats who just also happens to work for Ofcom

 

[fireball]

Re: legal lecture, sorry

Ah yes - but then reported crime numbers go up in your postcode area and your insurance premiums follow! Also it's a way of being seen to be doing the right thing - get the crime reported and possibly investigated, give us a crime number and you get your dosh ... if it isn't worth the hassle of reporting then u don't get your dosh! Seems reasonable to me ...
The incident reporting on the other hand .... if it doesn't get moderated perhaps we should all submit a report for every incident in one month, by the time they have sifted through it all it'll be the 22nd century!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bob_tyler]

Re: legal lecture, sorry

If I am unlucky or unskilled enough to miss picking up my mooring single handed under sail at the first attempt does that count for a report?

I could swamp them on my own!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

i'm confused ... the regulation to which i thought you are referring to came into force on 20 September 2004 so, what regulation is the MCA referring to (that comes into force "before May 2005) ... ??

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Cantata]

Whatever it is....the CG have issued an instruction internally to 'acknowledge and note' the calls they get reporting trivial incidents, and to leave it at that.

Conspiracy theorists might suspect that this is/was all to do with collecting more statistics that would prove to somebody gullible that there are thousands of us out there who are a risk to ourselves and others, and need certification.......

<hr width=100% size=1>