Paying/contributing crew

[DAKA]

I just want to make harsh rude comments but you must be just a wind up. So I will refrain

If you read the thread and read all my posts on this thread you would realize it wasnt a wind up post.

All the OP has to do is advise the MCA that he is advertising on the internet for strangers to crew his boat and see how they react.
Its irrelevant really that the crew are paying anything as he needs to be coded without but adding in that payments are made and it is very clear cut.

NOW the important issue you need to take on board is that this isnt my opinion, read the green above, that was a quote from the MCA.

In my opinion there may well be a technical get out if there isnt a profit BUT there are not many of us who can afford to take on the MCA in court to argue this, they will set a fine at a level where you will be compelled to accept it .

Basically you are suggesting the op should be alright and if it goes wrong he can always remortage his house or sell his boat to fund the legal fees to prove you are right.

I think you need to research a little more before introducing your advice.

 

[concentrik]

In my opinion there may well be a technical get out if there isnt a profit.............

DAKA - A technical is just what I'm after, after all that's how law is drafted (or should be) - technical, precise, no room for ambiguity. Unfortunately the clauses we've been considering in this thread do appear ambiguous, so I'll ask the MCA to clarify.

 

[DAKA]

DAKA - A technical is just what I'm after, after all that's how law is drafted (or should be) - technical, precise, no room for ambiguity. Unfortunately the clauses we've been considering in this thread do appear ambiguous, so I'll ask the MCA to clarify.

Please post the response, this will be very interesting .

Good luck with it.

 

[JumbleDuck]

All the OP has to do is advise the MCA that he is advertising on the internet for strangers to crew his boat and see how they react.
Its irrelevant really that the crew are paying anything as he needs to be coded without but adding in that payments are made and it is very clear cut.

There goes the CA crew-finding service, then. There go the racing skippers advertising for unpaid crew. There go the notices on sailing club and marina noticeboards looking for crew or crewing opportunities.

 

[Kermit]

I find it quite sad that one cannot chip in towards the cost of a few days sailing without feeling that one's money has bought one the right to sue if anything goes wrong.

I've always paid for the overnight mooring fees, or the skippers evening meals and made sure I've bought more than my shares worth of beer when I've been sailing. It's a damn sight cheaper then having ones own boat! If anything I usually find that trying to persuade the skipper to take a contribution is no easy task.

I've been lucky that while I've been sailing for over 40 years the only accident of any note was a broken arm. I'd not contemplate holding Mike responsible for my bad luck or clumsiness. He had enough to worry about sailing the boat back to the home port single handed and then picking my up from Chelmsford A&E.

 

[Tranona]

Think you will find that the MCA has taken action when it is clear that somebody is operating a charter without coding and charging significant amounts. The wording is deliberately vague because the alternative is to be prescriptive and define the difference, so which side of the line you fall is a matter of interpretation or for the courts to decide. Cases would be heard in a magistrates court (probably) unless linked to something more serious, for example criminal negligence. So even if you could find examples of previous prosecutions the outcome might not be precedent.

The chances of MCA prosecuting are remote, and don't think you will get definitive advice from them as to when they would prosecute. The arrangements described in the original question are very common and if the interpretation that DAKA is describing is correct and acted upon then the courts would be clogged up with prosecutions.

The current case the MCA is pursuing and the recent failed prosecution in relation to Hot Liquid show how difficult it is to cases against people under the MSA relating to pleasure craft. It is "public interest" that prompts action from MCA rather than trying to establish what is acceptable behaviour. So, if there is an incident resulting in injury or deaths then they are likely to prosecute using whatever bits of the law they think will get a conviction, but they don't seem to go round looking for "technical" infringements.

 

[alant]

I agree. As I read it people on board need to be friends.

However "Friend" isn't defined in the law and nobody has come forward with a case of someone being in the slightest trouble for breaching this law on the basis of a crew member not being a friend.

The dictionary makes it clear that there's no time limit of being a friend. The OP and the people he sails with meet 4 out of the five definitions.

Friend

noun
1.
a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
2.
a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter: friends of the Boston Symphony.
3.
a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe?
4.
a member of the same nation, party, etc.
5.
( initial capital letter ) a member of the Religious Society of Friends; a Quaker.

I see no evidence that it's not possible to be friends with someone you've just met to go sailing with and plenty of evidence that there's no time limit on friendship.

Interestingly, I'm sure there are people who have sailed with other people they have no personal regard for, haven't assisted are not on good terms with and are not of the same nationality! So they were running a commercial vessel when they did that!

How the OP proves this to his own satisfaction is beyond me. Worth calling the MCA [1] but I don't hold high hopes for a definitive answer.

[1] MCA Legal: 023 8032 9342 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/aboutus/contact07/mcga-atoz.htm)

I refer you to post #21
"people who've responded to postings on crewing sites and joined me to help crew the boat."

Not sure regularly 'trawling for crew on websites', just to defray costs, quite meets the criteria of "friends".

 

[alant]

Yes - this also goes to the 'commercial' aspect. My first thought is that commerce implies profit and I've never had much success with that.....

I wonder if the difficulty I'm having in getting the 'definitive' answer is not because our collective brainpower is lacking but more a case of sloppy drafting by the legislators.

So I will write (not email) to the MCA today to ask them to clarify:

* The original question - do paying crew constitute a commercial arrangement and therefore bring the activity within the scope of the Act.
* If so, please walk me through the if...then...else logic of the Act, particularly the 'friends' aspect.
* Has there been any action taken against an individual boat owner over this specific matter and what was the outcome.

I'll send it later today. If you have any other points you think I should raise please post them.

That would exclude many of the multinationals, seemingly running commercial ventures in the UK then.

 

[alant]

I find it quite sad that one cannot chip in towards the cost of a few days sailing without feeling that one's money has bought one the right to sue if anything goes wrong.I've always paid for the overnight mooring fees, or the skippers evening meals and made sure I've bought more than my shares worth of beer when I've been sailing. It's a damn sight cheaper then having ones own boat! If anything I usually find that trying to persuade the skipper to take a contribution is no easy task.

I've been lucky that while I've been sailing for over 40 years the only accident of any note was a broken arm. I'd not contemplate holding Mike responsible for my bad luck or clumsiness. He had enough to worry about sailing the boat back to the home port single handed and then picking my up from Chelmsford A&E.

Its been said many times before on these forums, sailing with anyone on your boat, does not exempt you (as skipper) from your duty of care. If your close friend gets wacked by the boom & either killed or vegetablised, thus denying his family any future income, would you expect his family to 'not sue'?

 

[Talulah]

There goes the CA crew-finding service, then. There go the racing skippers advertising for unpaid crew. There go the notices on sailing club and marina noticeboards looking for crew or crewing opportunities.

Add to the list Crewfinders, Lovesail etc.
Also once defined as commercial you run into other difficulties. i.e. Manning Levels.
A few years ago the Clipper Boats fell foul of manning levels. They had to quickly respond by offering free places to people with Yachtmaster Offshore/Ocean qualifications as a suitably qualified mate was required.

 

[Talulah]

Also I seem to remember some charter company getting in to trouble selling ARC places and/or delivery trips to the Bahamas. The boats weren't coded for Cat 0. Ok once there but not for the crossing.
The MCA did prosecute.

 

[awol]

Its been said many times before on these forums, sailing with anyone on your boat, does not exempt you (as skipper) from your duty of care. If your close friend gets wacked by the boom & either killed or vegetablised, thus denying his family any future income, would you expect his family to 'not sue'?

Frankly, yes! If he is daft enough to put his head in the way of the boom, that's his look-out and I wouldn't expect my widow to go to court if I suffered a similar fate. However, if he was a newbie or stranger trawled from the internet or elsewhere, then my responsibilities change.

 

[obmij]

Just noticed the link the OP provides to his website, and what he offers looks fantastic and a real bargain for anyone seeking a sailing experience or indeed some time abroad.

I very much doubt the MCA would be interested in this kind of thing, it's pretty harmless and looks like everyone involved benefits.

Like liveaboards in marinas - this is probably left as a 'don't ask, don't tell' kind of situation.

If you do choose to ask, then my guess is the MCA would have no option but to tell you to stop.

 

[alant]

Frankly, yes! If he is daft enough to put his head in the way of the boom, that's his look-out and I wouldn't expect my widow to go to court if I suffered a similar fate. However, if he was a newbie or stranger trawled from the internet or elsewhere, then my responsibilities change.

Of course you would.

"Frankly, yes! If he is daft enough to put his head in the way of the boom"
And you call yourself a skipper?

 

[DAKA]

Just noticed the link the OP provides to his website, and what he offers looks fantastic and a real bargain for anyone seeking a sailing experience or indeed some time abroad.



If you do choose to ask, then my guess is the MCA would have no option but to tell you to stop.

My guess too.
One of the reasons he can afford to do it so cheap (note set fee, its not a voluntary contribution ) is because he hasnt had the expense of coding , paying qualified crew and Insurance costs.

It will be interesting to see the MCA response.

 

[doris]

My guess too.
One of the reasons he can afford to do it so cheap (note set fee, its not a voluntary contribution ) is because he hasnt had the expense of coding , paying qualified crew and Insurance costs.

It will be interesting to see the MCA response.

I must be missing something here. I looked at the OP's website and I don't see it as being 'cheap', it is just a requirement to pay for one's food and make a contribution towards berthing costs. He is not offering 'a sailing course' but is looking for some decent company that can pay its own way.

This is just what the vast majority of Crewseekers clients are doing, not sure about Lovesail, that's more of a sha**ing agency isn't it? We all know what cheap, on the side, chartering is and I do not see that here. Deffo feel the whole thread has been hijacked by the armchair lawyers seeing something that isn't there.

 

[awol]

Of course you would.
"Frankly, yes! If he is daft enough to put his head in the way of the boom"
And you call yourself a skipper?

I don't expect my close friends to sue me when they bang their heads on the boom or on the closed sliding hatch, particularly when they were the one who closed it, or for any of the other mishaps that they manage to let befall them. Nor would I apportion any blame to my friends for any injuries my own actions cause on their boats.

I do reserve the right to insist on the wearing of life-jackets and using lifelines at night and at any other time I deem it appropriate but leave it to my friends to choose at other times. I suppose alant would regard it as my fault if they fell overboard despite the unlikelihood that a LJ or lifeline would have prevented their clumsiness?

Complete strangers, neophytes and small children are much more of a burden to a skipper and some seem only to learn by experience no matter how often or graphically dangers are described to them.

 

[DAKA]

Deffo feel the whole thread has been hijacked by the armchair lawyers seeing something that isn't there.

Like a coding certificate you mean

sorry thats my sense of humour.

I apologise if you feel that I was one who hijacked the thread, I thought the OP was asking if he needed to be coded and I answered to the best of my ability.

Do I deduce that you took the thread to be a cunning way of advertising his charter cruises and nothing to do about coding ?



I will leave you gentlemen to it.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Its been said many times before on these forums, sailing with anyone on your boat, does not exempt you (as skipper) from your duty of care. If your close friend gets wacked by the boom & either killed or vegetablised, thus denying his family any future income, would you expect his family to 'not sue'?

Exactly. The idea that one's duty of care changes drastically just because someone has said "I'll buy you this tank of diesel" is nonsense.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Add to the list Crewfinders, Lovesail etc.

IPC might be in trouble too ...