RYA-Offensive presumption?

Don't ask me - ask them, if you are a member you are entitled to an explanation. You get obsessive about trying to tie people down when all the time you know from your own efforts that what you are asking for is not available. Read the RYA statement again. It is not a legal position statement but advice based on the best information they have, and confirming that it is not normally something they would get involved with. Why continually try and find something to beat them with?
 
Wouldnt you if you were the RYA? Publishing details of legal advice (which incidentally is advice to them not us) would only mean numbers of yotties sending irate emails to the lawyers concerned telling them they knew nothing. If you want legal adviuce yourself then you should pay a lawyer for it.

But what really puzzles me is that you obviously think the RYA have some underhand reason for not giving you a copy of their advice. What reason is that? What do you think they are trying to do? In short why do you doubt their reasons rather than assume they have good ones, or at least reasons they believe are good ones.
 
One of the problems with the RYA is that it fulfils a number of roles, sometimes overlapping and at times potentially conflicting.

In this case I was referring to the role it plays in representing the interests of UK based yachtsmen when they take their yachts abroad.

You are referring to one of its other roles as a training organisation where they work with and in a number of other countires.
 
As a member of both RYA & CA, I have to say that the current focus of the RYA appears to be aimed much more towards providing proof to HMGt to justify the not insignificant amount of grant aid it receives...particularly in regard to performance sailing aspects....rather than representing the interests of the majority of personal members.
Those aspects pointed out by Guapa and Rhum Lady are far more in keeping with the general viewpoint (mine included) than aspects of PWC/ Sailboarding/2012 Olympic hopefulls/ more courses/accreditation, that currently appear to be the prime objectives.
It may well be that I am misinterpretating the information provided...(am thick /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif) but I would suggest that if the RYA wish to retain a personal membership,probably not fiscally required, it should start to take notice of the general dissatisfaction being expressed
 
Three areas where I feel the RYA falls short. First they have not helped to protect members from the very real danger of losing large amounts of money when a builder or broker goes bust. Why have they not set up an escrow account into which members can place their
monies, subject to a fee, until a build or sale is completed. Second, support and advice for Clubs with lease negotiations should be much enhanced. All dinghy clubs on reservoirs have pressure put upon them to raise rents to unrealistic levels from time to time. Third, as mentioned by Guapa, there should be a legal challenge to charges for anchoring when no shoreside facilities are used eg. overnight or stress of weather at Dartmouth, Salcombe. Fair enough to charge if you dispose of gash or shower or use the toilets, but a diabolical injustice if you just anchor to await the tide or shelter from severe weather. Fourth help any Berth Holders Association fight excessive electricity charges and so on. Provide a series of visitors berths at popular cruising venues for RYA members, rather like the Caravan Club does with its sites, or even Marinas as the Nederlands parallel association does.
As my first post indicated I feel training and the Olympics have diverted the RYA from the essentials of what many of the individual members joined for. How to get back to basics is the problem!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've just read the news item of the pending retirement of the RYA Chief Executive. It states that the RYA is"the governing body" of the sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

The RYA has always been vociferously opposed to regulation of boats and sailors ... unless there is a chance they could earn some money by carrying out the regulation. In which case, pile it on, no problem.

It's a bit like the way they championed the rights of swinging mooring holders until about ten seconds after they got a nice fat sponsorship cheque from a marina development company.
 
[ QUOTE ]

But what really puzzles me is that you obviously think the RYA have some underhand reason for not giving you a copy of their advice. What reason is that? What do you think they are trying to do? In short why do you doubt their reasons rather than assume they have good ones, or at least reasons they believe are good ones.

[/ QUOTE ]Earlier this year I was in correspondence with an officer of the RYA about the situation in Spain and I explained that I had paid many hundreds of Euros for legal advice which directly contradicted their own published advice. They asked for sight of my legal advice. I sent the entire correspondence to the RYA and asked if they would tell me where there advice had come from.

BIG mistake. I should have had a written agreement for an exchange first. They refused to tell me from where their information came.

I could and might name and shame the individual concerned one day.

In effect the RYA ended up free of charge with qualified legal advice that I had paid for. Meanwhile they are publishing advice that is very possibly incorrect (at least, according to my Spanish lawyer it is incorrect). Did the RYA legal advice even come from a legally qualified source (and I don't mean a gestor, I mean a lawyer)? Who knows, but why would they not tell me the source?

I will never trust the RYA and I suggest others don't, either.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In this case I was referring to the role it plays in representing the interests of UK based yachtsmen when they take their yachts abroad.


[/ QUOTE ]

Random irrelevant point:
The RYA might provide advice, but as a Red Ensign-flying Small Ship, the DfT/FCO count for more if I go abroad - and the MoD, should I wander near Pompey^WSomalia =:-0
 
The RYA is in the same position as the BSAC (British Sub-Aqua Club) (and probably several other organisations).
Both governing bodies - Recognised by government as speaking for the sport.
Not satisfied with just a UK presence, so set up training networks world wide.
Has to keep generating more and more income to support it's own bureaucracy and prestige.

Back in the 70's / 80's The SAA (Sub Aqua Association) tried to usurp the BSAC, it failed but is still going.
Maybe it's time for the Cruising Association to make their move /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
I have to disagree with your first point. What you are suggesting is an insurance scheme, not just an Escrow account as anybody can arrange one of these through a bank or a lawyer. Equally, the professional bodies covering brokers and builders (such as they are) recommend client accounts and/or model contracts that seek to protect buyer's and seller's interests. So where is the need for yet another level of security?

The problems arise not because of the lack of the appropriate structures, but the misuse as in the case of Opal or the difficulties of what to do with the part complete boat you own as in the case of Sadler.

With regard to a legal challenge to mooring fees, not sure that would work. Charges are made precisely because the owner of the seabed has a legal right to charge. You might think it unjust and or poor value, but doubt there is a basis for legal challenge (although there are some local situations where there have been successful challenges, but only because no legal right existed)

Regarding visitor's berths, are you proposing that the RYA permanently rents berths in marinas for the use of members?

With regard to balance of effort, suggest you look at the latest members magazine. A significant amount is given over to the issues that come up here - including the entire letters section. E Borders, Alcohol, Red diesel Foreign Cruising Piracy, Studland Seahorses, Coding of boats. Fairly typical.
 
They don't have to set up an escrow account nor an insurance scheme. All they have to do is promote a set of conditions for the escrow account - i.e. who gets what when it all goes mammaries inverted. They could also try working with the BMF to create an accreditation scheme whereby specific rules, conditions (such as the use of stage payments, escrow accounts, etc.) are not only followed but brokers and manufacturers are independently audited. They could lobby hard and in public for brokers to stop the farcical practice of taking full payment for an asset they do not have title to.

All the RYA have to do is repeatedly point out that there is no justification or reason for the Broker to receive any monies other than those owed by the seller. They could even draw up a boiler-plate tripartite contract for use in the classic boat-oner selling through a broker to a third-party scenario. Yes, they'd have to go to a lawyer but only once and that's exactly the sort of thing the subscription fee's should be used for.

That's just some comparatively useful and easy things where really you just need to overcome a bit of resistance to change.

As for the arguments around eBorders, red diesel, VAT, etc. and being unable to change the government's mind (like this government has one!!) - that seems to infer that they can only do the simple and easy things that could be done by others but not the really important and difficult things that are actually needed.

The RYA could be in the envious position of representing the the spending power and commercial influence of a a leisure industry that spends a very high proportion of it's disposable income on it's hobby. Instead, entirely as a result of it's own behaviour, it's perceived largely as a quango in my experience.
 
Most of the procedures you propose already exist. It is misuse and fradulent use that causes problems.

How many cases have there actually been of people losing money when brokers go bust? Thousands of transactions go though trouble free every year. If an individual is concerned about security they can always use a solicitor to control the transaction. More cost, and as few people do it, suggests the risk is small - although the consequences for an individual may be large.
 
Over the years 4 of my friends have been caught up in firms going bust. D.C.Perfect in the 1960's, Newbridge in the 1980's, Westerly (final demise) and Opal recently.
I may not have got the terminology or process right but I still feel very strongly that the RYA should have and should now be taking steps to try to prevent their members being put in this position.
But if all the publicity, money, foreign trips and glamour come from jollying to world yachting events, such as the Olympics-why bother? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Correct
the LTA is the Governing body of the sport of Tennis
the ABA of Boxing
the RFU of Rugby Union and so on.
It is purely a term for a mechanism which links to Sport England and ultimately to funding and government initiatives such as Sport for All for those old enough to remember it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top