Paying/contributing crew

[concentrik]

It's not a business or a holiday home or a ferry...... but

Over the past couple of years I've enjoyed and benefited from the company of 'stranger crews' - people who've responded to postings on crewing sites and joined me to help crew the boat.

They've always been happy to contribute to costs - mooring and marina fees, diesel, food - and I've always made it clear that it's a contribution.

But recently someone has suggested that I could be in a bit of bother for having paying guests and the boat (and me presumably) should be insured accordingly and commercially certified!

In response I pointed out that:

* Crew can't say where they go
* They have to work (crew) or leave
* They are expected to cook, wash up and clean in turns
* They have no guarantee that the boat will be where they expect it to be, in fact no guarantee they will be wanted at all!
* Having said that they do have a great time.....

How close to the wind am I sailing? Whats the essential difference between contribution by crew and paying for a cruise? And are there any additional safeguards I should adopt over and above those I would have for me and SWMBO on board?

 

[neilf39]

I thought if you suggested/solicited/agreed any sort of payment then the sort of things you mentioned come into play.

If you invite people to sail with no monetary agreement and they then voluntarily offer to contribute and its up to them how much they decide to give you then that does not constitute any form of commercial arrangement as its a gift.

 

[stevebrassett]

There is an equivalent in the car world. If you use your car to ferry old people around (for example), you are allowed to accept a contribution towards petrol, etc. without having to be insured or licenced for commercial reasons. As long as you are not making a profit out of the paying crew I am sure you are ok.

 

[prv]

Whats the essential difference between contribution by crew and paying for a cruise?

The essential difference is what they pay for. You are allowed to split direct costs of that particular trip - so visitor's mooring fees, food for the voyage, diesel actually consumed on the trip, etc. You can't charge for the trip itself, or to cover your general costs (home mooring fees, general maintenance (but repairs due to a particular trip are ok), or improvements to the boat). This is according to the MCA's definition of whether you need to be coded for charter, but I think insurance etc would probably be happy to follow the MCA's rules.

It sounds to me like you're ok.

Pete

 

[LadyInBed]

Isn't it covered by the "Rent a Room" scheme

 

[Seajet]

I've been in cars and boats where I'd happily pay to get out, maybe that was the idea !

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

It's not a business or a holiday home or a ferry...... but

Over the past couple of years I've enjoyed and benefited from the company of 'stranger crews' - people who've responded to postings on crewing sites and joined me to help crew the boat.

They've always been happy to contribute to costs - mooring and marina fees, diesel, food - and I've always made it clear that it's a contribution.

But recently someone has suggested that I could be in a bit of bother for having paying guests and the boat (and me presumably) should be insured accordingly and commercially certified!

In response I pointed out that:

* Crew can't say where they go
* They have to work (crew) or leave
* They are expected to cook, wash up and clean in turns
* They have no guarantee that the boat will be where they expect it to be, in fact no guarantee they will be wanted at all!
* Having said that they do have a great time.....

How close to the wind am I sailing? Whats the essential difference between contribution by crew and paying for a cruise? And are there any additional safeguards I should adopt over and above those I would have for me and SWMBO on board?

Rules here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2771/regulation/2/made

Assuming they're "friends" they can make a contribution to the direct costs of the time you're sailing.

So you'd need to become friends over the phone or e-mail before the trip, I'd be interested if there's ever been a case where someone was determined not to be a "friend". I doubt it.

 

[nimbusgb]

I doubt the problem is going to arise under normal circumstances.

But if someone got injured or worse and decided ( or their estate did ) to pursue your insurers for compensation is when I'd expect it to get nasty.

 

[snowleopard]

Do you expect them to pay a share of fuel, berthing etc. or just food? I doubt anyone could argue that you should feed them for free. When I take crew along I take the view that I'd be there anyway so I haven't incurred any extra boat-related costs. When I ask crew to help me move the boat rather than come along for the ride, I feed them as well (except when eating ashore).

 

[LadyInBed]

When I take crew along I take the view that I'd be there anyway so I haven't incurred any extra boat-related costs.

I take the view that with crew I would be in a marina, without crew I would more than likely be at anchor!
Crew is there to gain experience and visit new places, they are not invited for a free 'working' holiday.

 

[prv]

But if someone got injured or worse and decided ( or their estate did ) to pursue your insurers for compensation is when I'd expect it to get nasty.

The only relevant clause in our insurance requires that the "craft shall be used for private pleasure purposes only and not let out for hire or charter or reward".

Having people on your boat doesn't count as letting it out for hire, and genuine expenses are not reward, so the question is whether this use constitutes a skippered charter. The insurance contract doesn't define charter, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to rely on the MCA definition - but the OP could always email his insurance company to check, if he's concerned.

Pete

 

[[70521]]

My drinks cabinet always welcomes a new bottle, especially if it is a single malt I've not tasted before. Perhaps you could have an empty drinks cabinet/wine cellar/tab behind the bar.

 

[rotrax]

We bought a boat from a couple who were going into the crewed charter business. He was Skipper, she I/C hospitality. They were ex services.

To find out if they could deal with the pressures of the job-and, more importantly, cope with the general public-they took groups out for no charge.

They left leaflets around from official charterers so the groups would find out the retail cost while on board.

After the trips-usually long weekends -a bucket was placed on the table and the groups were invited to put donations in.

We were told that the groups were always very generous.

The couple now charter their new boat several times a year professionaly.

Probably bending the rules, but it appears to have worked for them.

 

[John.edwards]

looks suspiciously commercial. see http://www.rya.org.uk/coursestraini...ProfessionalPracticesandResponsibilities.aspx the course required for commercial endorsement as skipper etc. defines commercial sailing with examples

With a friend visiting from UK I took a day charter with a 36 foot Catalina on Sydney Harbour. The owner/skipper asked where we wanted to go. I replied that it would be nice to act out the start of the Sydney-Hobart by sailing out of the heads and down to Watsons Gap. Unfortunately the boat was licensed only to sail commercially within Sydney Harbour. I told the kipper we hadn't paid the account yet and until we did we were close friends and could sail anywhere! we sailed outside the harbour! Legal? questionable. Pragmatic, definitely.

 

[prv]

looks suspiciously commercial. see http://www.rya.org.uk/coursestraini...ProfessionalPracticesandResponsibilities.aspx the course required for commercial endorsement as skipper etc. defines commercial sailing with examples.

Ermm, yes, but none of the examples on that page are anything like what the OP is doing.

The law in this country as to what counts as chartering is reasonably clear and well-understood; I summarised it above and Toad provided a link. I don't think insurance is likely to be a problem, but the OP if he is worried can always ask his insurer whether they object to him splitting the costs of a voyage.

Simples.

Pete

 

[DAKA]

In my opinion its charter.

 

[DAKA]

Mike Thrussell Jnr, owner of www.worldseafishing.com, recently wrote to the MCA to try and get their take on this matter before proceeding with starting a Boating Buddies Forum. This was their reply:

The definition of a "pleasure vessel" is laid down in our Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport and Pleasure) Regulations 1998, SI1998/2771, and is also repeated in MGN280 the Small Commercial Vessels Code.

I'm not a lawyer, and I can't therefore give you formal legal advice, but a system set up to so that anglers can go out on a stranger's boat would, as far as I can see, come under the requirement for commercial operation and the vessels would need to be coded under MGN280.


There is no practical difference between what you are suggesting, and a commercial operation allowing people to charter a sea-angling boat over the internet. In both cases, people would be going out on an unknown boat with an unknown person. The regulations are intended to ensure that you can be confident that both the boat and the skipper meet certain minimum standards. Your proposed web page could also undermine legitimate commercial sea angling operators.


The absence of payment does not of itself mean that an operation is not commercial. Similarly, friends and family can pay for fuel and trip expenses - eg berthing fees - on a pleasure trip without it becoming commercial.


At stake is not just the legality of the operation; in the event of an incident, if you were found to be operating uncoded, then insurance might not pay out - or you could have a long court case to get them to pay, and you could be liable to be sued by affected parties in a civil court.


I think it would be inappropriate for you to create this web page, which would in effect be encouraging people to break the law; you could not absolve yourselves of your responsibilities just with a covering point about the legalities (or lack of them).


I appreciate that is not really the answer you were looking for, but I'm afraid that the regulations are there to protect the public and your proposals, whilst clearly well intentioned, would have some important negative consequences for safety.

Thats a quote from a thread on the mobo forum, that got nasty so I deleted my early contributions .
you can read the full thread here

here

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...llegal-Charters-or-not&highlight=boat+buddies

 

[concentrik]

DAKA thus:
There is no practical difference between what you are suggesting, and a commercial operation allowing people to charter a sea-angling boat over the internet

I know this was a quote from a third party letter so the "you" isn't directly "me", the OP. But it seems there are a number of practical differences between Mike Thrussel Jnr's situation and my own, in particular:

The boat will make the trip in any case, crew or not.
The crew have no influence on the trip - they can't stop, go, divert, hurry or tarry. They can only get off.
They will be 'actively engaged' in the handling of the boat
They can be asked to leave at any time - and in my case they have been.
There is no contractual agreement - they can turn up at the quayside after travelling for days expecting to be aboard for a week - and I can say no.

Those seem to be fundamental to defining a charter, ie the charterer is entitled to expect specific performance and would have recourse if it was not given. Not so in my case.

Toad kindly posted a link to the MCA definition of a pleasure vessel - one which is not engaged in commercial activity and therefore falls outside the requirements for coding and skipper certification (my bold):

“pleasure vessel” means–
(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; or
(bb)

in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used only for sport or pleasure and on which the persons on board are employees or officers of the body corporate, or their immediate family or friends; and
(ii)

on a voyage or excursion which is one for which the owner does not receive money for or in connection with operating the vessel or carrying any person, other than as a contribution to the direct expenses of the operation of the vessel incurred during the voyage or excursion;

Also, looking at this bit more carefully- 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 - I think this means the boat is considered to be a pleasure vessel if it is being used...by the owner ie with no one else aboard OR (not as well as) the immediate family OR friends. I don't think this para is talking about having friends with you, rather defining the types of people who would be considered using it for pleasure (or sport... Ha!)

Having studied the thoughtful responses so far I would have thought that covered it?

 

[DAKA]

DAKA thus:
There is no practical difference between what you are suggesting, and a commercial operation allowing people to charter a sea-angling boat over the internet

I know this was a quote from a third party letter so the "you" isn't directly "me", the OP. But it seems there are a number of practical differences between Mike Thrussel Jnr's situation and my own, in particular:

Please dont shoot the messenger but I fear you could be reading the bits you want and ignoring the bits you dont.

I requote
There is no practical difference between what you are suggesting, and a commercial operation allowing people to charter a sea-angling boat over the internet. In both cases, people would be going out on an unknown boat with an unknown person. The regulations are intended to ensure that you can be confident that both the boat and the skipper meet certain minimum standards.


Even if they dont pay £5 towards your costs or even buy you a pint the following evening you still fall foul as you are inviting strangers on your boat who have no way of knowing if your boat is safe or you are competent to take them out.

If I go out on a mates boat , I take a risk but I know my mate and know they act responsibly hence I also know they would not go out in an unsafe boat.

I dont know you from adam and have no way of knowing if you would cast off in an unsafe boat or if you are competent, hence the MCA have codes which I can check which hopefully minimises my risk .

You are attempting to bypass the safety system which has been developed to safeguard the public.

You might be legal, BUT you could be faced with ................

either admit to an offence and pay a £5000 fine plus £5000 costs

or

defend spending £30 000 and 2-3 years
Ask yourself how many of your internet friends will be happy to split the legal costs with you .

 

[concentrik]

Absolutely no nastiness intended and I am sincerely sorry if that's how it appeared.... I place great value on the opinions and suggestions I solicit on this forum so please don't read my response as combative - it was just meant to drill down a bit deeper, not to dismiss your suggestion!