Organising Trips:

"Digger" <somogyi@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:708d35cd.0309141219.196f97c9@posting.google.c om...

> > 1) If you book onto a trip - it's your responsibility to pay for your
own
> > expenses, you are responsible for ensuring you have the required
insurance,
> > certifications and experience to undertake the dives as advertised and
> > understand that these dives may be changed (outside of the control of
the
> > organiser) to similar dives.
> >
> > 2)You will not resell the dive without agreement from the organiser, but
> > should you find someone to take your place that forfills these
requirements,
> > but is rejected by the organiser your liability is discharged.
> >
> > 3)In the event that you do not meet your financial agreements by the
start
> > of the trip you (your name and unmunged email address) will be placed on
the
> > not-paid page detailing your outstanding expenses; these will attract a
10%
> > credit charge every 28 days until the amount becomes recoverable in the
> > small claims court. If small claims recovery is used - your name and
> > unmunged email address will be moved to the required-recovery list.
> >

> With regard to an organiser going free, where would that leave us with
> HSE? It could be construed as payment and therefore work to me.

Yep - Lots of good thoughts on this and I think you're find that any thing
not cost/direct expence could be viewed as profit and therefore render the
organiser "at work"

> With regard to contracts, official and bookings etc, no thanks. If I
> wanted to do that I would organise trips for my local padi school or
> become a travel agent. I take your point about this being usenet, but
> it is also a bunch of friends. People that come once and don't come
> again are the ones it doesn't suit. People that come back for more
> generally turn into friends, or at the least known risks!.
>
> Regarding your condition 2, I could not accept that. What would
> happen if someones replacement was not up to the dive? Qualifications
> or not, I do not want an obligation to take someone I don't feel would
> fit the trip, for whatever reason, and I have no intention of
> explaining my reasoning either. It's my one prerogative for the
> hassle of organising, I get to vet the participants.

Well yes and no - Condition two is for exactly the reason you described, but
allows doesn't allow the trip organiser to take advantage, i.e you've paid
so I'm going to keep the place free and have more room on the boat. So if a
qualified person wants the trip and the organiser rejects them on that
basis, or someother unfair reasons then the original buyer is released.

> Regarding condition 3, any interest would be wiped out by the hassle
> of sorting out the tax man...no ta.
>
> All in all it smacks way too much of a business for me.

It does, and to be honest it's a default and obvious course for me -
contract is there to protect both parties, I don't have the hassel of
avoiding the diver at work stuff - because I suffer that already, so I'm
going to do any other trips ever again on that basis. So I'll still run
trips (yes Mark to Croatia) but only via the commercial outlets I work for.

> I'm going to stick to the conditions etc that I have used for the last
> two years, including boat cost up front unless I know you. When I
> first upped the deposit from the £10 or so it used to be, people kept
> telling me I would get no takers, well that has not proved to be the
> case. If you want a place on a trip, you will find the cash. I've
> done it often enough in the past.
>
> Digs

A little addendum, I was reading in this months SAA rag, about the
requirement for ABTA bonding if you offer arrangements for accomodation and
charter - hence the new tread

/F

Frank Bruce wrote:
> A little addendum, I was reading in this months SAA rag, about the
> requirement for ABTA bonding if you offer arrangements for accomodation
> and charter - hence the new tread

Oh yea Gods, shoot me now...

Al.

"Frank Bruce" <fbruce@cruelmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f64e7ed$0$261$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> ...
<snip>
>
> A little addendum, I was reading in this months SAA rag, about the
> requirement for ABTA bonding if you offer arrangements for accomodation and
> charter - hence the new tread
>
> /F

I don't get the SAA rag, any chance of posting the details here for all to consider?

Cheers

Digs

On 15 Sep 2003 05:36:17 -0700, somogyi@btinternet.com (Digger) wrote:

>"Frank Bruce" <fbruce@cruelmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f64e7ed$0$261$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> ...
><snip>
>>
>> A little addendum, I was reading in this months SAA rag, about the
>> requirement for ABTA bonding if you offer arrangements for accomodation and
>> charter - hence the new tread
>>
>> /F
>
>I don't get the SAA rag, any chance of posting the details here for all to consider?
>

A precis of the letter in Scuba World:-

Statutory Instrument No 3288 "The Package Travel, Package Holidays and
Package Tour Regulations 1992"

The regulations state that any company offering a "Package" must bond
(protect) clients monies.

A "Package", is two out of three from this list:- Transport,
Accomodation, or "other tourist services". Other tourist services is
thought to be a dive trip, sporting activities, etc.

The legislation is poorly enforced by trading standards.

It appears that compliance could be achieved by the use of a "client"
bank account.

End of precis.

Or you could do what I did. A tin of "trip cash" on my desk.

The letter appears to be an advert (surely not!!) for a dive charter
company that does bond customers money.

It appears that the aim is to force companies holding customers money
to protect that money in the event that the company goes tits up. UKRS
is not a company. It does not run holidays or charters. It is not a
club. The trips are run by private individuals. I would suggest that
trips run by individuals are outside the actual legislation, and
certainly outside the spirit of the legislation. And if trading
standards don't chase companies to bond customers money, why should an
individual diver running a non profit making weekend trip worry?

Pete S.

<Pete S.> wrote in message
news:o05cmvso52okb8eg08veugkjao1ptsj5kh@4ax.com...
<SNIP>

> It appears that the aim is to force companies holding customers money
> to protect that money in the event that the company goes tits up. UKRS
> is not a company. It does not run holidays or charters. It is not a
> club. The trips are run by private individuals. I would suggest that
> trips run by individuals are outside the actual legislation, and
> certainly outside the spirit of the legislation. And if trading
> standards don't chase companies to bond customers money, why should an
> individual diver running a non profit making weekend trip worry?
>
> Pete S.

That was how I was interpreting it; if the trips are run non-profit, no free
place ect - everyone contributes a share of the total costs - all should be
okay.
It's the other practises that are likely to be picked up should the trip
come under scruitiny.
Good to have another view.

/F

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:41:11 +0100, "Frank Bruce"
<fbruce@cruelmail.com> wrote:

>That was how I was interpreting it; if the trips are run non-profit, no free
>place ect - everyone contributes a share of the total costs - all should be
>okay.
>It's the other practises that are likely to be picked up should the trip
>come under scruitiny.
>Good to have another view.

Not directly relevant, but this is a fairly well-established bit of UK
law with reference to pilot's licences and you could probably cite it
if it ever came to the crunch; if you're on a private pilot's licence
you may not profit from your trips when taking others. On a Corporate
PL, you may.

The example cited when I did ground-school many years ago was that of
a pilot who decides to fly 3 friends to Paris for the day. He hires a
plane, fills it up, etc, and charges each friend 1/3 of the cost - he
doesn't pocket any money, but nor does he pay his share. With a PPL,
he's breaking the law and the CAA can prosecute him. With a CPL, he's
quite within his rights to do this. Had Mr PPL chipped in 1/4 himself
and charged the others 1/4 each, he'd have been fine.

Kev