Paying crew are not classed as charter

[DAKA]

Several months ago we had a debate about advertising for paying strangers (befriended on the internet) for fuel .

There has been a thread of posts on scuttlebutts about the same issue.
Anyone concerned about chartering should read this as it contains a letter from the MCA which scuttlebutts feel gives the green light..



Thread with copy of MCA letter here

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?380553-Update-Paying-contributing-crew

 

[henryf]

I had a very quick scan of the letter and thought it said the owner can employ crew to assist him. Surely it is the crew who are paying the owner not the other way round.

Henry

 

[Tranona]

Several months ago we had a debate about advertising for paying strangers (befriended on the internet) for fuel .

There has been a thread of posts on scuttlebutts about the same issue.
Anyone concerned about chartering should read this as it contains a letter from the MCA which scuttlebutts feel gives the green light..



Thread with copy of MCA letter here

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?380553-Update-Paying-contributing-crew

If you read it all think you will find the letter says nothing new, nor does it give any "green light". It merely restated the law. Crews sharing expenses, and being recruited through such sources as crew finding services has been going on for years with no action from MCA to class such activities as commercial.

If I recall the discussion here was a bit different as the offer was to take people fishing in return for payment, which could be argued is not the same thing as having someone help sail your boat. Posing the question in those terms to the MCA might get a different response.

 

[DAKA]

I did read it thankyou, I have very strong views on this subject but for once decided to keep them to myself as I do not wish to start another thread .

Some on this forum take cash for fuel and wouldnt allow fishing so I feel the letter has equal relevance on both forums ( I dont take cash for fuel but have in the past offered a cruise for a donation to charity where 100% of the donation goes to charity, I have kept a copy of the MCA letter and thought others may also wish to store a copy).

Any comments or contributions should be made on the scuttlebutts thread (IMHO).

 

[Tranona]

Any comments or contributions should be made on the scuttlebutts thread (IMHO).

Why should they not be made here? You posted what could be seen as misleading comment. I note that you have deleted your long post from the Scuttlebutt thread. Presumably that contained your "very strong views"?

The letter does indeed have relevance to all boaters. However there is nothing new in it as it is just a restatement of the law as it is written. The issue of interpretation and where the line is drawn between Pleasure and Commercial is still there.

 

[DAKA]

Why should they not be made here?

No reason at all, I just suggested they would be best placed on the original scuttlebutts thread in an attempt to save duplications.
You posted what could be seen as misleading comment.

Thats odd as I didnt intend to comment either way, I just wanted to draw stinkers attention to it as not many stinkers read scuttlebutts

I note that you have deleted your long post from the Scuttlebutt thread.

I actually did two along similar lines but decided I didnt want a protracted argument on scuttlebutts
Presumably that contained your "very strong views"?
Only a small fraction.

The letter does indeed have relevance to all boaters.
Good, then you will agree a link was sensible to attract the wider audience.

 

[DAKA]

I had a very quick scan of the letter and thought it said the owner can employ crew to assist him. Surely it is the crew who are paying the owner not the other way round.

Henry

I think you have the wrong specs on Henry...........

try these

 

[jfm]

Thanks Daka. I think that MCA letter is remarkable (in a good way) and advances the thinking considerably on this topic. I posted a reply on scutbut

 

[jfm]

I had a very quick scan of the letter and thought it said the owner can employ crew to assist him. Surely it is the crew who are paying the owner not the other way round.

Henry

Henry, the remarkable thing about the MCA letter is that MCA accept that for someone to be crew it isn't necessary that he/she is paid. Someone can pay the boat owner, and still be crew. That is game changing, in a good way

 

[DAKA]

Thanks Daka. I think that MCA letter is remarkable (in a good way) and advances the thinking considerably on this topic. I posted a reply on scutbut

Your welcome but the thanks are to yourself and Tranona for giving this the quality interpretation for us and of course to concentrik for sharing the letter. :encouragement: