Premier Marinas new charge for offsite contractors

[PhillM]

Is this reasonable?

https://www.premiermarinas.com/cont...e=emailCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=

Should they charge £5 / day just to allow other people to work on your boat. I am glad most of my work has been done otherwise this would have racked up considerable extra charges as ultimately its the customer who ends up paying.

 

[Tranona]

Pretty standard practice. Not a lot of money in relation to a day's labour rate. Allows the yard to check who is working on their premises and that they are insured. Also might encourage use of on site businesses who rent space there but don't have to pay a daily charge.

 

[jerrytug]

I see they are asking for copies of "Gas Safe" tickets, thus spreading the utter myth that it is needed for gas installations on yachts, which can actually be done by anybody.
No it's totally unreasonable and bad for everybody, except the marina as Tranona says.

 

[mrming]

I think a one off charge to cover the admin of checking whether a given contractor has permission / insurance etc to work is okay, but charging £5 a day is just nonsense. What does the £5 a day pay for? I would be okay with paying once and giving an estimate of how long my contractor would be working there.

 

[markleuty]

and one of the things that needs to be handed in with the application form is

"A copy of your risk assessment and method statement for the proposed work"

Oh how we laughed

Mark

 

[bedouin]

The basic principle of them doing basic safety checks on people working in the marina is sound. The level of charges is not reasonable and I think they would have great trouble defending them if challenged in court.

 

[emsworthy]

The basic principle of them doing basic safety checks on people working in the marina is sound. The level of charges is not reasonable and I think they would have great trouble defending them if challenged in court.

Until of course they pointed out that it is private property and they don't have to allow them on at all if they don't want to!

I have a similar situation in my day job and a contractor doesn't even get to open his tool bag until we have copies of public and employer's liability and seen risk and method statements for what they are planning to do. You'd be jolly glad Premier do it too if you were a neighbouring boat when the clown of a fitter sends hot grinding sparks to melt rusty holes in your gelcoat or pulls a cradle leg and causes the boat to topple onto yours. Who should pay up if the guy gets on his toes and is never seen again!!

 

[hartcjhart]

Until of course they pointed out that it is private property and they don't have to allow them on at all if they don't want to!

I have a similar situation in my day job and a contractor doesn't even get to open his tool bag until we have copies of public and employer's liability and seen risk and method statements for what they are planning to do. You'd be jolly glad Premier do it too if you were a neighbouring boat when the clown of a fitter sends hot grinding sparks to melt rusty holes in your gelcoat or pulls a cradle leg and causes the boat to topple onto yours. Who should pay up if the guy gets on his toes and is never seen again!!

+1

 

[KINGFISHER 8]

The cost will simply be passed on ... guess who'll be paying?

 

[bedouin]

Until of course they pointed out that it is private property and they don't have to allow them on at all if they don't want to!

I have a similar situation in my day job and a contractor doesn't even get to open his tool bag until we have copies of public and employer's liability and seen risk and method statements for what they are planning to do. You'd be jolly glad Premier do it too if you were a neighbouring boat when the clown of a fitter sends hot grinding sparks to melt rusty holes in your gelcoat or pulls a cradle leg and causes the boat to topple onto yours. Who should pay up if the guy gets on his toes and is never seen again!!

As I said - the policy is good and I am glad it is there. But the issue is how much they charge - they can't really charge more than is reasonable - e.g. they can't make a profit out of administering such a scheme, and they can't unreasonably prevent anyone from working on your boat for you. There are various competition and consumer contract laws that could be used to challenge this rule (e.g. the way the brokerage fee clause has been challenged)

 

[jwilson]

One marina/boatyard published elf-n-safety requirements for anyone working on any boat at height, that included a requirement to have metre high guardrails round everywhere you worked which of course would include all round the decks of every boat stored ashore, round any staging erected to polish topsides, etc.

 

[duncan99210]

Just be thankful you're not in Greece, where it is common practice to charge 20 - 30% for contractors working in marinas and yards, just as a kickback to the marina operator. £5 a day is negligible.

 

[northwind]

One marina/boatyard published elf-n-safety requirements for anyone working on any boat at height, that included a requirement to have metre high guardrails round everywhere you worked which of course would include all round the decks of every boat stored ashore, round any staging erected to polish topsides, etc.

This unfortunately is the response to a yard being sued by a worker who fell off a platform whilst working on a hull.

 

[Colvic Watson]

I don't get why the charge is 'excessive' - it works out at about 60p an hour extra for a day's work, he's likely charging you about £50 an hour anyway. Plus the contractor gets free parking, free loos and washing facilities and maybe a clubhouse to have a lunch break.

 

[doris]

A risk assessment for every job, method statement for every job, signing in every time the contractor pops out and returns, all will take significant time which the boat owner will have to pay for. Also to have to supply written approval to release keys is a serious irritation. The staff know me, if I ring and give a name I expect that name to get the keys. If I was a very occasional owner then have a password system or the like but written is just big company paranoia.

Contractors are having a tough time. I do not the time or inclination to do boaty DIY and if the good contractors get squeezed out, effectively so am I.

The whole problem Premier are trying to resolve would easily be sorted with competent on site marina managers. They do not have these AFAIK. Having an average manager in charge of several marinas, will inadequate delegation, is not great efficiency.

My own experience of Premier Gosport's treatment of contractors was a significant contributor to my moving to Haslar. Dean and R have on site, knowledgeable can do managers. All power to them. Premier have become a property company that owns a few marinas. The availability of berths in their marinas tells a story.

 

[bedouin]

I don't get why the charge is 'excessive' - it works out at about 60p an hour extra for a day's work, he's likely charging you about £50 an hour anyway. Plus the contractor gets free parking, free loos and washing facilities and maybe a clubhouse to have a lunch break.

It is excessive because it doesn't reflect the cost to the marina of administering the scheme. So a charge of say £20-30 as a one off might be reasonable, maybe renewed once a year. £5 a day is not.

 

[Sailfree]

When is a friend helping you do something become a contractor?

 

[bedouin]

When is a friend helping you do something become a contractor?

When you pay him.

 

[lw395]

In my view, the only way this might be wrong is that it might be a change of terms in the contract between berth holders and the marina.
What I would be prepared to pay for a berth would be influenced by incidental charges like this which always come back to the consumer in the end.
If I were a contractor I'd be speaking to Premier and asking for a deal on an annual or other basis.
As a one off, £5 does not cover much admin time.

Is there any basis in the idea that by checking method statements etc, Premier are endorsing certain contractors and end up with some measure of responsibility for those methods?

 

[bedouin]

In my view, the only way this might be wrong is that it might be a change of terms in the contract between berth holders and the marina.
What I would be prepared to pay for a berth would be influenced by incidental charges like this which always come back to the consumer in the end.
If I were a contractor I'd be speaking to Premier and asking for a deal on an annual or other basis.
As a one off, £5 does not cover much admin time.

Is there any basis in the idea that by checking method statements etc, Premier are endorsing certain contractors and end up with some measure of responsibility for those methods?

If it were written into the berthing contract it would almost certainly be covered by the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations. As with the recent discussions about the brokerage clause - such terms are simply not enforceable