Trip on The Kipper as a charity auction prize?

[Colvic Watson]

We have a charity auction coming up at the daughter's school. Can I offer a trip on The Kipper without being coded?

Cheers. Jackson.

 

[Stork_III]

Legally no, unless the visitors act as crew. A thread on Scuttlebutt covered this with letters from MCA legal chap outlining the situation. Unless they are immediate family or friend (actual), be careful.

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

 

[Wandering Star]

We have a charity auction coming up at the daughter's school. Can I offer a trip on The Kipper without being coded?

Cheers. Jackson.

booby prize?

 

[BruceDanforth]

Will second prize be 2 trips on the Kipper?

 

[Seajet]

Lazy Kipper,

be VERY careful !

Sadly now all sorts of snags like insurance, qualified childminder, legal proof of no past kiddy fiddling...a minefield, I know people who did this sort of thing for years to the benefit of a lot of youngsters, but now sadly avoid it.

Much the same applies if dealing with adult prize winners...

 

[KenMcCulloch]

I think if the 'prize' is presented as 'an opportunity to crew' and that it is clear that crew are sailing as friends rather than as part of any more formal or commercial operation, you should be fine. 'Friends' in this context do not need to be of long standing. When I make someone, say a fellow club member, an offer to sail with me they become a friend. It doesn't mean I have to like them.

 

[Stork_III]

I think if the 'prize' is presented as 'an opportunity to crew' and that it is clear that crew are sailing as friends rather than as part of any more formal or commercial operation, you should be fine. 'Friends' in this context do not need to be of long standing. When I make someone, say a fellow club member, an offer to sail with me they become a friend. It doesn't mean I have to like them.

Afraid that is not the view of MCA. Provided they areactively crewing the boat, should be OK, if sat in the corner doing nothing think again.

 

[Colvic Watson]

booby prize?

Will second prize be 2 trips on the Kipper?

Cheeky blighters.

Thanks all. I'll offer it only to parents no kiddies allowed and as an opportunity to crew and be actively involved in a sail down the river.

 

[LittleSister]

The question of whether they are friends, and whether they actively crew, are red herrings. (The definition is in the form x or y or z, not x and y and z.) If the purpose of your voyage is your pleasure (and not profit), then you can take who you like and they can do anything or nothing while aboard.

 

[Stork_III]

The question of whether they are friends, and whether they actively crew, are red herrings. (The definition is in the form x or y or z, not x and y and z.) If the purpose of your voyage is your pleasure (and not profit), then you can take who you like and they can do anything or nothing while aboard.

The MCA do not agree.

 

[Resolution]

Assuming you do find a way to take some "friends" out for a day, one thing to watch out for is rings. That is rings on fingers. Do make sure that all rings that might either fall off or get caught in ropes are removed safely before you set out.

 

[LittleSister]

The MCA do not agree.

I cannot see why you think they disagree. There is nothing in the MCA letter (on the previous thread) that departs from my view. The MCA makes it clear they are not offering legal advice, then say so long as its for the owner's pleasure, etc., (and also imply the questioner is missing the point a bit!).

I quote the MCA letter:
'I cannot give you legal advice as to your personal position and you must seek independent legal advice if you are concerned that the way in which you crew your boat might be in breach of the relevant legal provisions.
Having said that it might help you if I set out some thoughts on the questions you raise. . . .
So the question is, is it a “vessel wholly owned by an individual . . . . used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner”
I am not sure what your Q1 is aiming at. If the vessel is being used at any time for the sport or pleasure of the owner, or his immediate family, or his friends, or any permutation of these three categories, it falls within this limb of the definition.
. . . . As I made clear at the start of this letter, these views are not offered as legal advice to you. . . .'

I now quote from the The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998:

Application
3. (1) . . . these Regulations apply to any vessel used for sport or pleasure which is not a pleasure vessel.

Interpretation

2. (1) In these Regulations–

“pleasure vessel” means–
(a) any vessel which at the time it is being used is:
(i)
(aa) in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals, used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner; or
(bb) in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used only for sport or pleasure and on which the persons on board are employees or officers of the body corporate, or their immediate family or friends; and

(ii)
on a voyage or excursion which is one for which the owner does not receive money for or in connection with operating the vessel or carrying any person, other than as a contribution to the direct expenses of the operation of the vessel incurred during the voyage or excursion; or

(b) any vessel wholly owned by or on behalf of a members' club formed for the purpose of sport or pleasure which, at the time it is being used, is used only for the sport or pleasure of members of that club or their immediate family, and for the use of which any charges levied are paid into club funds and applied for the general use of the club; and

(c) in the case of any vessel referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) above no other payments are made by or on behalf of users of the vessel, other than by the owner.

 

[DanTribe]

I tried to do this for a charity auction at my daughters office.
My insurers said definitely not covered.
And they were the ones organising the auction.

 

[Sybarite]

I cannot see why you think they disagree. There is nothing in the MCA letter (on the previous thread) that departs from my view. The MCA makes it clear they are not offering legal advice, then say so long as its for the owner's pleasure, etc., (and also imply the questioner is missing the point a bit!).

I quote the MCA letter:
'I cannot give you legal advice as to your personal position and you must seek independent legal advice if you are concerned that the way in which you crew your boat might be in breach of the relevant legal provisions.
Having said that it might help you if I set out some thoughts on the questions you raise. . . .
So the question is, is it a “vessel wholly owned by an individual . . . . used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner”
I am not sure what your Q1 is aiming at. If the vessel is being used at any time for the sport or pleasure of the owner, or his immediate family, or his friends, or any permutation of these three categories, it falls within this limb of the definition.
. . . . As I made clear at the start of this letter, these views are not offered as legal advice to you. . . .'

I now quote from the The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998:

Application
3. (1) . . . these Regulations apply to any vessel used for sport or pleasure which is not a pleasure vessel.

Interpretation

2. (1) In these Regulations–

“pleasure vessel” means–
(a) any vessel which at the time it is being used is:
(i)
(aa) in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals, used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner; or
(bb) in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used only for sport or pleasure and on which the persons on board are employees or officers of the body corporate, or their immediate family or friends; and

(ii)
on a voyage or excursion which is one for which the owner does not receive money for or in connection with operating the vessel or carrying any person, other than as a contribution to the direct expenses of the operation of the vessel incurred during the voyage or excursion; or

(b) any vessel wholly owned by or on behalf of a members' club formed for the purpose of sport or pleasure which, at the time it is being used, is used only for the sport or pleasure of members of that club or their immediate family, and for the use of which any charges levied are paid into club funds and applied for the general use of the club; and

(c) in the case of any vessel referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) above no other payments are made by or on behalf of users of the vessel, other than by the owner.

I have not read the MCA letter nor am I acquainted with the law.

However, it seems that because the start off point is an auction where, by definition, you do not know in advançe who the winner will be, this situation will determine the nature of the relationship between you and your "crew".

 

[LittleSister]

I have not read the MCA letter nor am I acquainted with the law.

However, it seems that because the start off point is an auction where, by definition, you do not know in advançe who the winner will be, this situation will determine the nature of the relationship between you and your "crew".

It's nothing to do with the relationship with the crew, what sort of friends they are, or whether they do or don't grind winches. The auction is neither the starting nor the end point.

If Mr. Kipper is going for a sail for his own pleasure, and people with him haven't paid him to join his trip, Lazy Kipper meets the relevant legal definition of a pleasure vessel and therefore isn't required to comply with coding or anything ese laid down in the regulations. (Neither would he would need a licence to sell alcoholic drink in order to donate a bottle of wine to the raffle!)

 

[LittleSister]

I tried to do this for a charity auction at my daughters office.
My insurers said definitely not covered.
And they were the ones organising the auction.

I agree that insurance cover is important, but what is critical is not what the insurers said in your case (and based on past experience I would give very little credence to anything someone in the front office told me verbally), but what is in the specific wording of Lazy Kipper's policy.

My own boat insurance is a very standard one (Axa Pleasure Craft Policy) and that excludes use for hire or charter, and anything except the owner's private pleasure.

I haven't researched exactly how 'hire' 'charter' and 'private pleasure' would be interpreted in law (these aren't defined in the policy itself), but I doubt Lazy Kipper's proposed trip would fall within either hire or charter, as he's neither receiving reward nor giving the raffle winner any control of the vessel or power to decide where, when or how the boat goes.

Unlike the definition under the regulations discussed above (where other issues didn't come into it if the voyage was for the owner's pleasure), the owner's private pleasure use in my insurance policy is exclusive. Strictly read it can't include anyone else's pleasure (so now I have an excuse if the crew aren't enjoying themselves!) or use if I'm not enjoying myself (cover suspended during wind against tide in the Wallet?). However, I can't imagine it could in practice really exclude non-paying others enjoying the same voyage.

In any case easily solved - I doubt a request for additional insurance cover for named people for an afternoon would attract a significant premium, if any charge at all was made.

 

[Sandy]

Afraid that is not the view of MCA. Provided they areactively crewing the boat, should be OK, if sat in the corner doing nothing think again.

So holding a compass and a cup of tea should be ok?

 

[LittleSister]

I have not read the MCA letter nor am I acquainted with the law.

However, it seems that because the start off point is an auction where, by definition, you do not know in advançe who the winner will be, this situation will determine the nature of the relationship between you and your "crew".

Upon further consideration I think the auction is critical, not for that reason, but whether this could be taken to be a 'payment' under (c) of the definition of pleasure vessel in the regulations I quoted. Clearly, if it were 'Lazy Kipper Enterprises' receiving the money paid by the winning bidder it would be. As it is, whether the fact that the 'payment' is really a donation to the school (as is Lazy Kipper's offer to host the trip), and that there are no monies received in relation to the vessel or its operation, which is what the regulations are about, are enough to mean that the monies paid by the winning bidder are not a 'payment' under those regulations, could be decisive.

 

[LadyInBed]

I think it is the school that would be the determine issue, as they are the ones selling the ticket.
They are the ones that would be held responsible if anything went wrong.
If they are happy and boat insurance is satisfied then there is no problem.

 

[chinita]

If it is an 'Auction of Promises'- and it sounds like it is - there will be no tickets sold.

Bidders simply bid for whatever promise they find attractive.

I held one one once. The local undertaker promised a free funeral - providing the winner used it within the next five years. There were no bids!