The end of owner maintenance ...

capnsensible said:
Because, as I keep saying, it doesn't. It is not r not gonna regulate anything.
Click to expand...

And you know this... how? The MCA have already gone beyond the recommendations made by the Judge in the Cheeki Rafiki trial (and don’t under estimate how much the Enforcement Division of the MCA hate losing an expensive high profile trial). The merchant fleet that they used to regulate is vanishing, thanks to Brexit.

You may be right, but if you are wrong, you, unlike most readers of this board, have nothing to lose.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
...Let us all remember that the people who are in the “training business” , which actually includes the RYA, are not on our side here. They want to see compulsory training and certification...
Click to expand...

That is just so wrong.

I have been involved with the RYA for 35+ odd years as a member through Scouting, sailing clubs and a pleasure yachty. For 25 years also as a part time freelance Examiner / Inspector. Through all this the underlying theme is education not legislation and this has worked well over the time to stop a lot of draconian rules being enforced on us. This is an other bit of the slowly encroaching nanny state which they will try to prevent or at the very least water down to a practical solution which will not destroy water sports.

Please for my benefit, show me one shred of evidence that the RYA have pushed compulsory training and certification for non commercial / professional work?
 
I agree that the RYA have done a wonderful job for us in keeping the Board of Trade and latterly the MCA at arm’s length. Up to now.

But - and this is my shred of evidence - the RYA have been working with the MCA on this without saying anything in public.

That’s pretty odd, don’t you think?

Edited to add - fwiw the MCA have a new CEO, described by friends within Spring Place as “hyperactive in seeking to expand”.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
And you know this... how? The MCA have already gone beyond the recommendations made by the Judge in the Cheeki Rafiki trial (and don’t under estimate how much the Enforcement Division of the MCA hate losing an expensive high profile trial). The merchant fleet that they used to regulate is vanishing, thanks to Brexit.

You may be right, but if you are wrong, you, unlike most readers of this board, have nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

I have had a fringe involvement in an MCA enforcement unit trial I get how they operate.

I have my own yacht that I have lived on for twenty years. My insurers are great. I have no fear about made up 'control by the state'.

Keep calm and carry on sailing.
 
I have had an excellent reply from Stuart Carruthers at the RYA. He says that they are on the case.
I quote: "I am in the process of drafting a detailed response to the consultation to stress firstly that the MCA’s reluctance to distinguish clearly between Small Coded Vessel requirements, the Recreational Craft Directive requirements and advice in general gives the impression that the obligations on pleasure vessels are greater than they are and secondly that as far as the owner of a pleasure craft is concerned, the MGN’s are non-mandatory guidance only and do not prevent an private owner from carrying out maintenance on their own vessel. Thirdly, the RYA already publishes a considerable amount of the same safety information and advice on its Safety Pages."

He urges all of us to reply to the consultation. The RYA has arranged a meeting with the CEO of the MCA for next Thursday and is putting together a detailed response to the consultation.
 
Minn said:
I agree that the RYA have done a wonderful job for us in keeping the Board of Trade and latterly the MCA at arm’s length. Up to now.

But - and this is my shred of evidence - the RYA have been working with the MCA on this without saying anything in public.

That’s pretty odd, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

No.


mainsail1 said:
I have had an excellent reply from Stuart Carruthers at the RYA. He says that they are on the case.
I quote: "I am in the process of drafting a detailed response to the consultation to stress firstly that the MCA’s reluctance to distinguish clearly between Small Coded Vessel requirements, the Recreational Craft Directive requirements and advice in general gives the impression that the obligations on pleasure vessels are greater than they are and secondly that as far as the owner of a pleasure craft is concerned, the MGN’s are non-mandatory guidance only and do not prevent an private owner from carrying out maintenance on their own vessel. Thirdly, the RYA already publishes a considerable amount of the same safety information and advice on its Safety Pages."

He urges all of us to reply to the consultation. The RYA has arranged a meeting with the CEO of the MCA for next Thursday and is putting together a detailed response to the consultation.
Click to expand...
 
GHA said:
No.
Click to expand...
image: http://www.ybw.com/forums/images/ybw/misc/quote_icon.png

Quote Originally Posted by Minn
image: http://www.ybw.com/forums/images/ybw/buttons/viewpost-right.png

View Post
I agree that the RYA have done a wonderful job for us in keeping the Board of Trade and latterly the MCA at arm’s length. Up to now.

But - and this is my shred of evidence - the RYA have been working with the MCA on this without saying anything in public.

That’s pretty odd, don’t you think?

Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...-owner-maintenance/page28#8d1pB9RPi4z5Gcu7.99
image: http://www.ybw.com/forums/images/ybw/misc/quote_icon.png

Quote Originally Posted by mainsail1
image: http://www.ybw.com/forums/images/ybw/buttons/viewpost-right.png

View Post
I have had an excellent reply from Stuart Carruthers at the RYA. He says that they are on the case.
I quote: "I am in the process of drafting a detailed response to the consultation to stress firstly that the MCA’s reluctance to distinguish clearly between Small Coded Vessel requirements, the Recreational Craft Directive requirements and advice in general gives the impression that the obligations on pleasure vessels are greater than they are and secondly that as far as the owner of a pleasure craft is concerned, the MGN’s are non-mandatory guidance only and do not prevent an private owner from carrying out maintenance on their own vessel. Thirdly, the RYA already publishes a considerable amount of the same safety information and advice on its Safety Pages."

He urges all of us to reply to the consultation. The RYA has arranged a meeting with the CEO of the MCA for next Thursday and is putting together a detailed response to the consultation.

Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...-owner-maintenance/page28#fDbSEtmORQJrOe8B.99



Wow, smoke and mirrors?
 
Last edited:
I would have thought that Grenfell Tower was built by suitably qualified professionals.

The amateur residents were unable to prevent those in power from putting them in danger.

There is an ever increasing mountain of law created to make life better which is simply resulting in a bigger number of solicitors per capita than doctors.

If vessels are not insurable at affordable rates interference by the MCA is unnecessary. Why are they trying to interfere? If government sees a need for intervention then legislate to require insurance.

How many life saving events are related to supermarket inflatables?

You cannot legislate for stupidity.
 
This will be an excellent money earning exercise for the government. It’s nothing to do with safety in my opinion or the so called ‘nanny state’ it’s about revenue.
The more leisure boaters are driven into the hands of professions the better for revenue.
Common sense and legislation are distant cousins in my opinion.
There will always be bodges by amateurs and professions aswell but a very high proportion of both sides have it in their own interests to do it properly, the amateur to get it right with the possibility of preventing death or injury as well as the professional who does a good job to further his livelihood.
This will not satisfy the legislators as their prime directive Is to legislate for revenue purposes.
The outcome will be a short term gain and a long term loss if legislation is enforced.
The short term will be all the extra revenue via taxable individuals providing the service be them corporations or small companies etc etc to the long term loss of the industry collapsing as many (me included) will sell (if they can) their boats with a huge reduction in the overall industry.
Good practice!
 
RobF said:
A number of people have noted the potential impact on insurance cover, and reasonably so. By way of a response.

a) the insurance market as we know it is heavily influenced by the foundations of insurance in the UK, which was instigated by owners of sea-going vessels to have some recompense in the event that their vessels came to an abrupt end. The insurance market also drove a number of improvements as it was not uncommon for non-seaworthy vessels to be given a lick of paint and then sent off to sail the seven seas. Most of us are aware of the the story of Edward Lloyd's coffee house, so I won't repeat it here. I make this point to emphasise that taking due care of sea vessels is one of the foundational principles of the global insurance system.

b) the insurance market is heavily regulated and biased in favour of the consumer. Examples include the unfair contract terms and the ongoing onslaught on PPI (yup, a form of insurance), which has shown that insurance which was mis-sold or unreasonable is frequently weighted in favour of the applicant.

c) An insurance company cannot enforce anything that is not in its Terms and Conditions.

d) The insurance industry is competitive in its nature. Therefore, if one insurer insists that all maintenance be done by fully qualified engineers we can switch to another insurer. Personally, I think that the addition of this term would be unlikely - their policy holders would leave in droves. The motor and home insurance industries are also competitive and neither of these enforce work is done by fully qualified engineers. I think the worst that could happen is that the insurance companies would charge an additional premium of owner maintained vessels (to cover the risk) and may specify terms and conditions on specific safety related items (such as 5 year gas check by certified marine gas installer)

e) The very term' qualified engineer' is challenging in all aspects of marine, motor and household work. Clearly, there are some trades which require a certification (e.g. GasSafe & NICIEC). However, most other trades (plumbing, tyre fitting and yacht rigging) do not have this category. It would therefore be challenging for an insurer to insert a clause requiring all work to always be done by a 'qualified engineer' into their Terms and Conditions.

f) An insurer can use negligence as a refusal to compensate in the event of an accident. If you change the brake pads on your car, and install unsuitable replacements, an insurer can reasonably refuse to pay out if this causes an accident. However, negligence would have to be proven. An Insurance Company won't say 'you installed that yourself, therefore you're not insured' unless they can prove that:
- the item was fitted unreasonably
- the item was designed for installation by by someone with specialist training / certification AND the installer did not have that training / certification
- their Terms and Conditions specifically prohibited such an installation

g) In the UK, we are fortunate to have a number of options to pursue if we believe an Insurance Company is unreasonably refusing to reimburse in the event of a claim. We have the FCA, PRA, FOS, OFT and local courts. However, this refusal is (in my opinion) exceptionally unlikely. An Insurance Company will abide by its own Terms and Conditions. It is naturally prescient on the Insured to have a reasonable understanding of the Terms and Conditions as well. Afterall, a contract is made by two parties who have 'capacity' to contract.
Click to expand...


Those comments make a lot of sense.
I am preparing other comments based on accident stats.
I suggest the issue is how can we put this together to make response that carries more weight than a single person ?
 
Tomahawk said:
Those comments make a lot of sense.
I am preparing other comments based on accident stats.
I suggest the issue is how can we put this together to make response that carries more weight than a single person ?
Click to expand...
I can see your point of view but I don't think the response will necessarily carry more weight if it is a compendium of individual responses. I think greater weight would be given to the responses if they are many and various coming from numerous knowledgeable individuals. Also, in post #269 Mainsail1 reported that the RYA are urging individuals to respond directly.

I suggest there are 2 issues:
1. The overriding questions: Why and how do MCA propose to involve themselves in the leisure/recreational/sport boating sector from now on? Is the draft guidance the first step towards direct regulation of maintenance of our vessels? The RYA are saying that MCA’s reluctance to distinguish clearly between Small Coded Vessel requirements, the Recreational Craft Directive requirements and advice in general gives the impression that the obligations on pleasure vessels are greater than they are. Should the guidance therefore be re-written completely so that it does not apply to us? Mainsail1's post #269 is worth reading again and Minn has made good points about this. I previously argued against raising these overriding questions but if the RYA think it's worth doing so I think we should too.
2. If the guidance is published in terms that suggest it is intended to apply to our sector, what details of the guidance might be amended to make it more palatable? So far as this is concerned I repeat that proposed amendments to the guidance are more helpful than generalised complaints about it.

The weather is great and we would all rather be out on the water but the deadline is 18 July and if we haven't made ourselves heard at MCA by then we have only ourselves to blame if the direction of travel is one which we don't like.
 
TwoHooter said:
I can see your point of view but I don't think the response will necessarily carry more weight if it is a compendium of individual responses. I think greater weight would be given to the responses if they are many and various coming from numerous knowledgeable individuals. Also, in post #269 Mainsail1 reported that the RYA are urging individuals to respond directly.

I suggest there are 2 issues:
1. The overriding questions: Why and how do MCA propose to involve themselves in the leisure/recreational/sport boating sector from now on? Is the draft guidance the first step towards direct regulation of maintenance of our vessels? The RYA are saying that MCA’s reluctance to distinguish clearly between Small Coded Vessel requirements, the Recreational Craft Directive requirements and advice in general gives the impression that the obligations on pleasure vessels are greater than they are. Should the guidance therefore be re-written completely so that it does not apply to us? Mainsail1's post #269 is worth reading again and Minn has made good points about this. I previously argued against raising these overriding questions but if the RYA think it's worth doing so I think we should too.
2. If the guidance is published in terms that suggest it is intended to apply to our sector, what details of the guidance might be amended to make it more palatable? So far as this is concerned I repeat that proposed amendments to the guidance are more helpful than generalised complaints about it.

The weather is great and we would all rather be out on the water but the deadline is 18 July and if we haven't made ourselves heard at MCA by then we have only ourselves to blame if the direction of travel is one which we don't like.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. I have asked the Committee of my Club to respond (I didn’t tell them what to say!) and I have taken advantage of my position as a significant customer of the MCA to ask their big ship side to have words with the Codes section. I’m writing myself and urging my sailing friends who don’t use this place to do the same. Since I happen to know Nusrat Ghani, the Shipping Minister, she is getting a letter as well, as is the head of the MCA, Brian Johnson, and the Chairman, Michael Parker. I’d urge anyone with a spare moment to do the same.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brian-johnson-appointed-chief-executive-of-mca

Write to Nusrat at the Commons or better at:

The Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR

Write to Brian and Michael at:
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency,
Head office,
Spring Place
105 Commercial Road
Southampton
SO15 1EG
United Kingdom

The more, the better.

We must nip this one in the bud or our children will lose the access to sailing and power boating that we take for granted.
 
There is a lobbying group called ‘Change.org’ post anything there for a free. The signatures will be lobbied to the government
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top