UK yacht registration for any Tom, Dick and Harry?

[rogerthebodger]

I think third party insurance is compulsory in the EU....if you live /use your boat in UK waters I dont think you are required to register or insure. That said the upper Thames requires a license, and possible other inland waters.I believe, also the t's&c's of marinas maybe require tpf insurance, but not necessarily registration.

that raises a question in that can a supplier of goods or services to a private consumer to enter into a agreement with a specified third party.

I.E can a marina compel a consumer to enter into an additional agreement with a designated third party

Where I live we have a consumer protection act that has a condition bans that but most just ignore that restriction.

Most consumers don't know their rights and its so costly to enforce your rights most don't bother

 

[Fr J Hackett]

that raises a question in that can a supplier of goods or services to a private consumer to enter into a agreement with a specified third party.

I.E can a marina compel a consumer to enter into an additional agreement with a designated third party

Where I live we have a consumer protection act that has a condition bans that but most just ignore that restriction.

Most consumers don't know their rights and its so costly to enforce your rights most don't bother

No they can't compel you but they can make it a condition of entering into a contract with them, if you wish to enter into such a contract then you need to comply. It also wouldn't stand challenge under unfair contract.
There are ways in which you can satisfy such a reasonable request for "insurance"

 

[rogerthebodger]

On what grounds would you suggest that there could be any form of legal challenge. For sure if people don't like it then they can choose another registration country if available.

legal challenge would be based on the application legislation and any restriction and banned Terms and conditions.

Section 13 of the South African Consumer protection act quite

(13. (1) A supplier must not require, as a condition of offering to supply or supplying any goods or services, or as a condition of entering into an agreement or transaction, that the consumer must—

(a) purchase any other particular goods or services from that supplier;

b) enter into an additional agreement or transaction with the same supplier or a designated third party; or

(c) agree to purchase any particular goods or services from a designated third-party,unless the supplier—

(i) can show that the convenience to the consumer in having those goods or services bundled outweighs the limitation of the consumer’s right to choice

(ii) can show that the bundling of those goods or services results in economic benefit for consumers; or(iii) offers bundled goods or services separately and at individual prices )

Section 13 (1) (b) to me protects the consumer from a supplier(the Marina) require the consumer from having enter into an agreement with a third party (an Insurance company)
Complete CPA can be downloaded at th above address

https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/32186_467.pdf

 

[rogerthebodger]

No they can't compel you but they can make it a condition of entering into a contract with them, if you wish to enter into such a contract then you need to comply. It also wouldn't stand challenge under unfair contract.
There are ways in which you can satisfy such a reasonable request for "insurance"

See post #63 as the CPA in South Africa specifically states that is is in contravention of section 13 of the RSA CPA

Is there any restriction in the UK of EU Consumer protection legislation.

If not it IMHO age big oversite in the protection of the rights of all consumers

You being in Frans the legal system is different and I an not up to the french legislations

 

[Fr J Hackett]

legal challenge would be based on the application legislation and any restriction and banned Terms and conditions.

Section 13 of the South African Consumer protection act quite

(13. (1) A supplier must not require, as a condition of offering to supply or supplying any goods or services, or as a condition of entering into an agreement or transaction, that the consumer must—

(a) purchase any other particular goods or services from that supplier;

b) enter into an additional agreement or transaction with the same supplier or a designated third party; or

(c) agree to purchase any particular goods or services from a designated third-party,unless the supplier—

(i) can show that the convenience to the consumer in having those goods or services bundled outweighs the limitation of the consumer’s right to choice

(ii) can show that the bundling of those goods or services results in economic benefit for consumers; or(iii) offers bundled goods or services separately and at individual prices )

Section 13 (1) (b) to me protects the consumer from a supplier(the Marina) require the consumer from having enter into an agreement with a third party (an Insurance company)
Complete CPA can be downloaded at th above address

https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/32186_467.pdf

It wouldn't necessarily mean that it would mean that the customer provides insurance for third party claims a reasonable request, that particular piece of law seems to be directed at physical services and goods which are outside of the scope of the original contract, similar to UK unfair contract.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

See post #63 as the CPA in South Africa specifically states that is is in contravention of section 13 of the RSA CPA

Is there any restriction in the UK of EU Consumer protection legislation.

If not it IMHO age big oversite in the protection of the rights of all consumers

You being in Frans the legal system is different and I an not up to the french legislations

I spent many years in the UK and successfully fought an unfair contract issue with a UK marina, insurance would fall outside of that legislation unless the marina was insisting on providing the insurance cover at the owners cost.

 

[rogerthebodger]

It wouldn't necessarily mean that it would mean that the customer provides insurance for third party claims a reasonable request, that particular piece of law seems to be directed at physical services and goods which are outside of the scope of the original contract, similar to UK unfair contract.

Yes you do have a point but it is a general restriction not specific to insurance. of banking

We do have simulate restrictions in the banking and insurance services and the CPA does include a condition that the legislation does apply to ALL transactions within RSA even by an overseas supplier.

The CPA is a very compresentative piece of legislation and needs studying in great detail.

Its really the UK and EU legislation that needs a detail study to look at the restrictions applicable in the particular jurisdiction

 

[rogerthebodger]

I spent many years in the UK and successfully fought an unfair contract issue with a UK marina, insurance would fall outside of that legislation unless the marina was insisting on providing the insurance cover at the owners cost.

It seems in the UK insurance can be compulasy like it is on the roads.

Here there is no legal requirement for insurance on the roads although I do have full insurance for my main cars

Some people self insure as with boats that is a personal choice as IMHO it should be

 

[Fr J Hackett]

You seem to have accepted that insurance requirements are legitimately outside of the RSA goods and services act in your earlier post #45

 

[Fr J Hackett]

It seems in the UK insurance can be compulasy like it is on the roads.

Here there is no legal requirement for insurance on the roads although I do have full insurance for my main cars

Some people self insure as with boats that is a personal choice as IMHO it should be

I am not sure that it is compulsory on ownership but that's different than using it and availing yourself of others services like a marina berth or mooring where you and your boat become a potential risk to others.
Traona will possibly know the definitive answer to whether insurance is compulsory regardless but I suspect it isn't other than what I have outlined.

 

[rogerthebodger]

You seem to have accepted that insurance requirements are legitimately outside of the RSA goods and services act in your earlier post #45

Wll non of thee RSA legislation is applicable outside RSA as with UK legislation is not applicable to RSA

But to ne we should have the same protection of the consumer by preventing any and all "abuses" by suppliers of goods and service of comtrace/agreement conditions.

It away of making the balance of agreements more equal and the protection of the individual

 

[rogerthebodger]

I am not sure that it is compulsory on ownership but that's different than using it and availing yourself of others services like a marina berth or mooring where you and your boat become a potential risk to others.
Traona will possibly know the definitive answer to whether insurance is compulsory regardless but I suspect it isn't other than what I have outlined.

I know when I used to visit my brother and borrow his car the he had to all me to his insurance.

insurance should be a choice as you can take on any liability on your own risk and any one with insurance has in effect contracted with the insurer to handle that risk for a payment of a fee.

Its the same as contracting a builder to build you a building , he will take on any libility to you for the building and willbe accountable to any risk to your proprity he or his staff could damage.

You claim will be against the builder and not his insurance company. the insurance company mat toke the clain over but if the insurance refutes any clain the buildr will still ne lible for your claim.

Same with the Marina if your boat damages any of the marina propriety or another boat in the marina

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Wll non of thee RSA legislation is applicable outside RSA as with UK legislation is not applicable to RSA

But to ne we should have the same protection of the consumer by preventing any and all "abuses" by suppliers of goods and service of comtrace/agreement conditions.

It away of making the balance of agreements more equal and the protection of the individual

Indeed it is but so are such things a s a reasonable request or condition that one insures ones self or vessel when using facilities where yo potentially pose a risk to others. Linking it to the contract is not the same as forcing you to accept it ( you can go away) or the worst case of taking their insurance which I agree makes an unfair demand.
I have quite a bit of experience in writing and negotiating service contracts ( all verified by lawyers) and one case of fighting an unfair contract.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I know when I used to visit my brother and borrow his car the he had to all me to his insurance.

insurance should be a choice as you can take on any liability on your own risk and any one with insurance has in effect contracted with the insurer to handle that risk for a payment of a fee.

Its the same as contracting a builder to build you a building , he will take on any libility to you for the building and willbe accountable to any risk to your proprity he or his staff could damage.

You claim will be against the builder and not his insurance company. the insurance company mat toke the clain over but if the insurance refutes any clain the buildr will still ne lible for your claim.

Same with the Marina if your boat damages any of the marina propriety or another boat in the marina

It's a question of if you are able to satisfy the potential claim, it's normally done by bond ( which you have to purchase) or an amount lodged in escrow. Insurance is in 99.9999999999% of the cases cheaper. You are beginning to sound like viago.
What happens when the builder or you can't cover the debt? Why should the rest of the world potentially suffer because you don't like taking out insurance.

 

[rogerthebodger]

Indeed it is but so are such things a s a reasonable request or condition that one insures ones self or vessel when using facilities where yo potentially pose a risk to others. Linking it to the contract is not the same as forcing you to accept it ( you can go away) or the worst case of taking their insurance which I agree makes an unfair demand.
I have quite a bit of experience in writing and negotiating service contracts ( all verified by lawyers) and one case of fighting an unfair contract.

So have I and in fact I took Durban Marina to court for attempt of contract and won the case with cots.

I ran a Commuter Software development company where detailed specifications and comprehensive contracts were very important with specific targets and provable specifications would be essential other payment could and has been delayed

 

[rogerthebodger]

It's a question of if you are able to satisfy the potential claim, it's normally done by bond ( which you have to purchase) or an amount lodged in escrow. Insurance is in 99.9999999999% of the cases cheaper. You are beginning to sound like viago.
What happens when the builder or you can't cover the debt? Why should the rest of the world potentially suffer because you don't like taking out insurance.

Its not a cse I don't like insurance I think it should be a passional choice.

I have plenty of insurance an 2 proprieties and several cars but I do look at all the conditions and ensure I do not breach any T & C

If any do not understand the terms and conditions, rules and legislation otherwise you can loose out

It all cones to the additional requirements before an agreement is entered into and of course any unilateral changes to the original agreement.

When I entered into the agreement for my mooring there was no requirements for insurance in the contract but that was added later

Of cause if the requirement is upfront and you agree to the terms and conditions you can be held to those T & C's as in the original agreement.

If you have a yearly contract the marina can change the conditions every year. In my case I have an indefinite agreement until I cancel

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Its not a cse I don't like insurance I think it should be a passional choice.

I have plenty of insurance an 2 proprieties and several cars but I do look at all the conditions and ensure I do not breach any T & C

If any do not understand the terms and conditions, rules and legislation otherwise you can loose out

It all cones to the additional requirements before an agreement is entered into and of course any unilateral changes to the original agreement.

When I entered into the agreement for my mooring there was no requirements for insurance in the contract but that was added later

Of cause if the requirement is upfront and you agree to the terms and conditions you can be held to those T & C's as in the original agreement.

If you have a yearly contract the marina can change the conditions every year. In my case I have an indefinite agreement until I cancel

It can only be a personal choice if you have the wherewithal to stand the potential claims which can easily run into millions. Now tell me why I should suffer because someone thinks insurance is optional and a personal choice but then can't afford the cost of the damage that he or his property causes.

 

[rogerthebodger]

It can only be a personal choice if you have the wherewithal to stand the potential claims which can easily run into millions. Now tell me why I should suffer because someone thinks insurance is optional and a personal choice but then can't afford the cost of the damage that he or his property causes.

That my point is must be a personal choice and if you cannot or don't wish to take the risk you insure.

My boat was involved in the Durban Marina break up but being steel only sustained minor damage to some paint other boats sunk

Durban marina would not accept any liability as mine was minor I did not claim as the excess would ne more than the cost to repair and I did not wish to take durban marina to court again just moves to Richards Bay

 

[dunedin]

[

Its not a cse I don't like insurance I think it should be a passional choice.

I have plenty of insurance an 2 proprieties and several cars but I do look at all the conditions and ensure I do not breach any T & C

If any do not understand the terms and conditions, rules and legislation otherwise you can loose out

It all cones to the additional requirements before an agreement is entered into and of course any unilateral changes to the original agreement.

When I entered into the agreement for my mooring there was no requirements for insurance in the contract but that was added later

Of cause if the requirement is upfront and you agree to the terms and conditions you can be held to those T & C's as in the original agreement.

If you have a yearly contract the marina can change the conditions every year. In my case I have an indefinite agreement until I cancel

You have a strange obsession with the laws of a country you don’t live in. And I suspect few UK residents share your concerns about the laws and marina conditions you refer to.

Most of us are very happy that insurance is compulsory in some situations - such as compulsory third party insurance for cars, which cause lots of damage to people and other cars.
And generally we are very happy that our marinas insist on third party insurance for all boats berthed there (though the choice of insurance company is left to the berth holder).
There have been lots of issues with uninsured boats causing damage in other situations.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

That my point is must be a personal choice and if you cannot or don't wish to take the risk you insure.

My boat was involved in the Durban Marina break up but being steel only sustained minor damage to some paint other boats sunk

Durban marina would not accept any liability as mine was minor I did not claim as the excess would ne more than the cost to repair and I did not wish to take durban marina to court again just moves to Richards Bay

the only thing you left out is must and you must demonstrate that you can self insure which is the case certainly in the UK as I indicated by bond purchase or escrow lodged sum which given the usual third party liability cover is usually in the millions, who in their right mind would lodge several million into a bank and pay for the pleasure so that the bank could have the interest except perhaps some obsessive with more money than sense.