Attempt by our Committee to change the Club rules without notifying the members

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colvic Watson said:
Never mind all this pm malarkey - give us a synopsis, how did we get to this fascinating point?
Click to expand...
Read the website of docs, I have. It's a long and sorry tale.

Remember why the earlier thread got suspended? He can't put it here or this one gets suspended.

Can we have answer from the admins, if it is posted here will the whole thread get deleted?
 
Last edited:
Floyd Raser said:
This everybody, is further provocative behaviour from this NickC character. Is this bullying? I'm not bothered if it is but all you who have had a go at me are now invited to comment on this part of Nick's behaviour. Tell me how you justify supporting this person. See what he does with your support?

I don't have to stifle RATIONAL debate, it hasn't started yet!
Click to expand...

Have you not read, he is not reading your posts. If you have anything constructive to say I or someone else will copy it to him.

Are you the comedy-dore?
 
Last edited:
NickC said:
Many thanks to all those who have PM’d me for the website link and taking the time to read the correspondence and documentation. All responses received from those who have read it have been 100% positive, thank you for your words of support.

It is noted that of all those who are continually posting negatively on this thread the number who have PM’d me and read the website is 0%.

Interesting that.
Click to expand...

Please send me the link too.

(Gosh, this is like being given the key to a secret garden, or initiated into a secretive male club)
 
captainpugwash88 said:
Have you not read, he is not reading your posts. If you have anything constructive to say I or someone else will copy it to him.

Are you the comedy-dore?
Click to expand...

As someone has said previously “there is not so blind as those that cannot see”. Nick C aka captainpugwash88 really is deluding his own self-importance. The situation as I see it is if you do not agree with Nick C aka captainpugwash88 you are branded a troll plant or anything else. Whilst the engine issue was a mess I am looking beyond that. I urge everyone to look at the god knows how many posts about, I presume the previous engine and then look at the oversized engine. Please look at the dates and see if that engine ever worked and could it be that it was fitted “in anger”. Was that engine Nick C aka captainpugwash88 ever the main engine for your boat. I wonder. See I am free to express my impression without being attacked by Nick C aka captainpugwash88. I have PM’d someone the predicted reply and I could make £5 on what it is expected to be. I have discovered some rather odd discrepancies in this thread and elsewhere. Nick C aka captainpugwash88 go and sail dedicate your time to that if you wish to spend it here that’s your choice but the reality is this. I was sailing in the Solent last weekend with a friend. You say in a previous post you don’t want to be remembered at that person ….. Sorry to say the commodore of an East Coast Sailing Club was also present and your reputation is not as you would want. Some clubs are even changing application forms to weed you out.

I say to you again contact your friends (you haven’t any genuine friends here) and make your peace. Sail
 
This thread puzzles me. For a start, its got nothing to do with any practical issue of boating and seems to be a wrangle between club members. Secondly, its been rumbling on since January (I realise I have contributed to its extended life now). For goodness sake, put it to bed!
 
Comrade Red said:
(Gosh, this is like being given the key to a secret garden, or initiated into a secretive male club)
Click to expand...

It reminds me strongly of Twin Peaks, the TV series that started out weird and became more surreal as time went on. But addictive in a painful sort of way.
 
elsie said:
Sorry to say the commodore of an East Coast Sailing Club was also present and your reputation is not as you would want. Some clubs are even changing application forms to weed you out.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that most sailing clubs would want to attract members who will remain in membership for 25 years, as NickC did until he was ejected.

What most members would not relish is to be a member of a boat owning syndicate where one of the members, who happens to be an official at the Club, shoe-horns a huge engine into a small boat thereby making it unusable and then, when the member attempts to remove the engine to use the boat, issues a warning that any attempt to do so will be regarded as theft which the Club will act upon.

I'm summarising a great deal but those who have been with this from the beginning will know the story and will have seen the above correspondence which no-one from the Club has challenged on here!

Richard
 
RichardS said:
I would have thought that most sailing clubs would want to attract members who will remain in membership for 25 years, as NickC did until he was ejected.

What most members would not relish is to be a member of a boat owning syndicate where one of the members, who happens to be an official at the Club, shoe-horns a huge engine into a small boat thereby making it unusable and then, when the member attempts to remove the engine to use the boat, issues a warning that any attempt to do so will be regarded as theft which the Club will act upon.

I'm summarising a great deal but those who have been with this from the beginning will know the story and will have seen the above correspondence which no-one from the Club has challenged on here!

Richard
Click to expand...

So what efforts if any has Nick C aka Captainpugwash88 made to resolve the situation. Why is there no provenance to the original treat only Nick C aka Captainpugwash88 and he talks about straw.
 
ghostlymoron said:
This thread puzzles me. For a start, its got nothing to do with any practical issue of boating and seems to be a wrangle between club members. Secondly, its been rumbling on since January (I realise I have contributed to its extended life now). For goodness sake, put it to bed!
Click to expand...

It is potentially of practical importance to sailors.

no matter which side of the argument one takes:

1. It warns of the difficulties which arise from partnership/syndicate boat ownership which are not put on a proper footing.

2. It warns that we should assert our rights early on because difficult people only become more difficult to deal with unless reined in.

3 It warns of difficulties with sailing clubs/ commodores/members conflicts.

using a sailing club and its facilities, or enjoying a syndicate owned boat rather than owning ones own marina or boat are all practical issues for many boaters.

There is much thread drift, but that is a common theme on this site, ( personally I tend to ignore posts from many who have more than 1500 posts) but if you read OP's documents and look at the syntax and grammar in many posts you can see who really is who, and make your own judgement on the veracity of many of the posts.

Tony.
 
Last edited:
Colvic Watson said:
Never mind all this pm malarkey - give us a synopsis, how did we get to this fascinating point?
Click to expand...
Ok Colvic let’s see if we can find some existing text that can be copied and anonymised into a synopsis…

Initial problem is we don’t know what actual reason we are arguing against as the Committee have not committed to and specified any valid reason for expulsion, you can see this from both their letters which I have already published (letter 1, letter 2). All we can do is discuss other disputes with the people in this little consortium which may or may not have any bearing at all on the expulsion.

Firstly there was the issue of the theft of mooring chain:

However, the mooring was a private arrangement between each mooring holder and the landowner, nothing whatsoever to do with the Sailing Club. However I will post summary of that issue later when I find a suitable summary.
​

Secondly came the issue of the oversized outboard engine and associated threats:

The boat did originally have a perfectly good 6hp Johnson. Unfortunately, much against my advice and due to the arrogance of one particular partner, this was left dangling in the water for eighteen months without being flushed-out or serviced. As you can imagine in that time much microscopic sea-life crawled up the waterways, curled-up and died.
​

It was finally brought ashore covered in weed and well clogged-up. Took me a long time but eventually we got her cleaned-out and running reliably again. On one day we flushed her out in a dustbin of sulfamic acid, half the club were around and involved that day. Took her for a test run up the river for half an hour on the back of a small rib (with the Commodore) she ran fine, see earlier post: Outboard-engine-descaler. Constant flow from indicator jet albeit not especially strong (another flush out with sulfamic acid would have cured that).

By then she started first pull almost every time, other club members had witnessed that, just needed a bit of use to finally flush the remaining crap out.

The one final unresolved issue with that outboard was the worn slip bearing in the prop albeit I had glued that and it wasn’t actually slipping anymore, just left a bit too much end-play on the prop splines. Unfortunately the previous winter our esteemed Commodore had taken a few of his friends out for a day and run the outboard for around four hours with three foot of weed hanging off the prop so the slip bearing had obviously been slipping for most of that time. We never got to the point of arguing over who was going to pay for the new slip bearing or prop because the generously proportioned one (engine that is) got installed.

There was also my smaller 2.5hp outboard as a reserve engine which I made available to all partners and indeed any club members who asked to borrow it. Unfortunately a certain person (you can guess which partner) continually insisted on taking my engine without asking, he was even telling members it was a club engine and anyone could use it, so it eventually had to be chained-up. Then when anyone asked to borrow it I would tell them the location of the key.

Two of the partners then installed a wholly inappropriate (15hp?) engine without the permission of the other two owners, thus making the boat un-sailable and unsaleable.

When Nick politely asked them to remove it:

From: Nick
Sent: 27 August 2014 21:26
To: {partner4}; {partner6}
Cc: {partner5}
Subject: Pandemonium outboard

{partner4}/{partner6},

Chaps, can we get this 15hp lump ashore as it is not working as it is stopping us from being able to use the boat.

We couldn’t use it for half the year because there was no mooring and now that is back we still can’t use it.

Many thanks,
Nick
​

This was the response:

From: {partner6}
Sent: 27 August 2014 21:58
To: Nick
Cc: {partner4}; {partner5}
Subject: Re: Pandemonium outboard

Nick

The engine belongs to me and {partner4} only.

You do not have any permission inplied or otherwise to use it any use by you will be considered as theft and a breach of my rights to enjoy my property. You have no right whatsoever to interfere with my property and should you do so the appropriate civil tort will employed to recover by civil means appropriate damages at an agrivated level. You also have no right to gain directly or indirectly from any part or service what so ever from my engine.

Last year you were informed that in my case the i would make arrangements to supply a replacement engine. No reply was made by you so it is reasonable to assume that you raised no objectiobs. I would also draw your attention to an e mail quite rightly telling us that the insurance policy stipulates a back up engine needs to be fitted. Fit the engine you have worked on and are advertising as fully serviced. When we we working on the boat when it was out of the water we ensured the outboard bracket was fully working. So fit the engine and do not interfere with my property.

FYI. The parts are available for my and {partner4}s engine ufortunately i am out of the country when i return they will be fitted and this engine will return to full time service.​
 
RichardS said:
elsie said:
Sorry to say the commodore of an East Coast Sailing Club was also present and your reputation is not as you would want. Some clubs are even changing application forms to weed you out.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that most sailing clubs would want to attract members who will remain in membership for 25 years, as NickC did until he was ejected.
Click to expand...

We've been taking bets on how long it would take you to resort to those kind of threats elsie.:eek:

For those that were left in any doubt you now understand why this matter must be resolved and cannot be simply forgotten about. The Committee have started this ball rolling and must now complete the process.
 
Last edited:
NickC said:
Ok Colvic let’s see if we can find some existing text that can be copied and anonymised into a synopsis…

Initial problem is we don’t know what actual reason we are arguing against as the Committee have not committed to and specified any valid reason for expulsion, you can see this from both their letters which I have already published (letter 1, letter 2). All we can do is discuss other disputes with the people in this little consortium which may or may not have any bearing at all on the expulsion.

Firstly there was the issue of the theft of mooring chain:

However, the mooring was a private arrangement between each mooring holder and the landowner, nothing whatsoever to do with the Sailing Club. However I will post summary of that issue later when I find a suitable summary.
​

Secondly came the issue of the oversized outboard engine and associated threats:

The boat did originally have a perfectly good 6hp Johnson. Unfortunately, much against my advice and due to the arrogance of one particular partner, this was left dangling in the water for eighteen months without being flushed-out or serviced. As you can imagine in that time much microscopic sea-life crawled up the waterways, curled-up and died.
​

It was finally brought ashore covered in weed and well clogged-up. Took me a long time but eventually we got her cleaned-out and running reliably again. On one day we flushed her out in a dustbin of sulfamic acid, half the club were around and involved that day. Took her for a test run up the river for half an hour on the back of a small rib (with the Commodore) she ran fine, see earlier post: Outboard-engine-descaler. Constant flow from indicator jet albeit not especially strong (another flush out with sulfamic acid would have cured that).

By then she started first pull almost every time, other club members had witnessed that, just needed a bit of use to finally flush the remaining crap out.

The one final unresolved issue with that outboard was the worn slip bearing in the prop albeit I had glued that and it wasn’t actually slipping anymore, just left a bit too much end-play on the prop splines. Unfortunately the previous winter our esteemed Commodore had taken a few of his friends out for a day and run the outboard for around four hours with three foot of weed hanging off the prop so the slip bearing had obviously been slipping for most of that time. We never got to the point of arguing over who was going to pay for the new slip bearing or prop because the generously proportioned one (engine that is) got installed.

There was also my smaller 2.5hp outboard as a reserve engine which I made available to all partners and indeed any club members who asked to borrow it. Unfortunately a certain person (you can guess which partner) continually insisted on taking my engine without asking, he was even telling members it was a club engine and anyone could use it, so it eventually had to be chained-up. Then when anyone asked to borrow it I would tell them the location of the key.

Two of the partners then installed a wholly inappropriate (15hp?) engine without the permission of the other two owners, thus making the boat un-sailable and unsaleable.

When Nick politely asked them to remove it:

From: Nick
Sent: 27 August 2014 21:26
To: {partner4}; {partner6}
Cc: {partner5}
Subject: Pandemonium outboard

{partner4}/{partner6},

Chaps, can we get this 15hp lump ashore as it is not working as it is stopping us from being able to use the boat.

We couldn’t use it for half the year because there was no mooring and now that is back we still can’t use it.

Many thanks,
Nick
​

This was the response:

From: {partner6}
Sent: 27 August 2014 21:58
To: Nick
Cc: {partner4}; {partner5}
Subject: Re: Pandemonium outboard

Nick

The engine belongs to me and {partner4} only.

You do not have any permission inplied or otherwise to use it any use by you will be considered as theft and a breach of my rights to enjoy my property. You have no right whatsoever to interfere with my property and should you do so the appropriate civil tort will employed to recover by civil means appropriate damages at an agrivated level. You also have no right to gain directly or indirectly from any part or service what so ever from my engine.

Last year you were informed that in my case the i would make arrangements to supply a replacement engine. No reply was made by you so it is reasonable to assume that you raised no objectiobs. I would also draw your attention to an e mail quite rightly telling us that the insurance policy stipulates a back up engine needs to be fitted. Fit the engine you have worked on and are advertising as fully serviced. When we we working on the boat when it was out of the water we ensured the outboard bracket was fully working. So fit the engine and do not interfere with my property.

FYI. The parts are available for my and {partner4}s engine ufortunately i am out of the country when i return they will be fitted and this engine will return to full time service.​
Click to expand...

And someone has been accused of impersonating a member of the committee.
And someone told someone that someone else had lied about the cost of the mooring which doesn't seem to have been proved, which may well be deformation of character.

Simples!
 
RichardS said:
I would have thought that most sailing clubs would want to attract members who will remain in membership for 25 years, as NickC did until he was ejected.

What most members would not relish is to be a member of a boat owning syndicate where one of the members, who happens to be an official at the Club, shoe-horns a huge engine into a small boat thereby making it unusable and then, when the member attempts to remove the engine to use the boat, issues a warning that any attempt to do so will be regarded as theft which the Club will act upon.

I'm summarising a great deal but those who have been with this from the beginning will know the story and will have seen the above correspondence which no-one from the Club has challenged on here!

Richard
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued about this alleged amending of application forms, do they all now ask prospective members what their YBW log in details might be :rolleyes:
 
NickC said:
However I will post summary of that issue later when I find a suitable summary.
Click to expand...

The Mooring Saga.

Pandormonium was sailed back and put on an empty mooring.

  • Nick was told by {partner4} that the empty mooring belonged to {mooring4} and it was ok for Pandemonium to use it.

Nick went to see {landowner} to ask if a new mooring could be laid for Pandormonium.

  • A month later when Nick was next at the club, with the boat still on this borrowed mooring and as none of the other co-owners had done anything about it in the meantime, Nick went to see {landowner}.
  • {landowner} mentioned that he wondered whose boat it was left on his mooring and expressed his dissatisfaction that it had been left there without anyone asking him.
  • It transpired that {mooring4} hadn't paid any rent for a number of years, therefore ownership had reverted to {landowner} and it was no-longer considered to be {mooring4}'s mooring.
  • Nick explained the situation and apologised on behalf of the Pandormonium owners.
  • {landowner} suggested arranging a meeting with {mooring2}, {mooring3} and Nick.

{landowner} expressed concerns regarding liability, even before the addition of a new mooring. He mentioned that the land available could accommodate around thirty moorings and asked that Nick investigate possible solutions to liability issues for him:

  • Landholders mooring Indemnity Insurance.
  • Creation of a xxx Mooring Association.
  • Club taking on responsibility for the moorings and therefore combine insurance with general Club Insurance.
    • Nick discussed this with various other members including some Committee members. There was little appetite for this as it was felt it would lead to a change in the membership of the Club which was not in keeping with its traditional aims.
  • Investigations were made, legal opinion obtained, and legal position relevant to liability reviewed.
  • Final conclusion reached for reasons of minimising landowners liability was:
    • Mooring holders Rent land only, not whole mooring
    • Hardware of each mooring owned separately by each individual mooring holder
    • Trot end-points (Anchors) shared ownership between all mooring holders. Landowner has ownership in his role as one of the mooring holders.
{landowner} agreed to allow a new mooring for Pandormonium but asked that Nick arrange maintenance of the rest of the trot.

  • This maintenance was to happen at the same time as adding the new mooring. As requested Nick made contact with the other mooring holders, {mooring2} and {mooring3} as requested.
  • Advice regarding suitable mooring and chain (size and new vs second-hand) was obtained from various sources including {boatyard2Owner}, {BY1} at {boatyard} and the original founders of the trot. Prices of options were discussed with both {boatyard2} and {boatyard}. In fact it was {BY1}'s recommendation that we should, if we could afford the extra, go for new chain as it would last much longer and require less maintenance.
  • {BY1} and others suggested that the whole trot would likely needed the ground chain replacing due to its condition the last time it was examined. Based on what he could remember from the last time the trot was lifted, and as the original chain had been down for eight years, it the rest of the ground chain would likely need replacement at the same time.
  • This boiled down to two alternatives, approx. £150 for second-hand chain vs £300 for new chain both with a reconditioned 250Kg anchor.
  • The intention was that new chain could then remain down for seven or eight years with minimal maintenance of around £50 a year for it to be inspected every year and maybe minor replacements.
  • The Pandemonium owners discussed the options and decided to pay the extra and go with the new chain (22mm) option.
  • It was all finally agreed (specifications and everything) and ready to go ahead.

History of Trot Maintenance.

  • Before {mooring2sBoat} was sold maintenance was always dealt with by the original founders of the trot {trot1}/{trot2}
  • When {mooring2sBoat} was sold {landowner} requested maintenance be arranged by the new mooring holder {mooring2}.
  • To the best of anyone's knowledge, no general maintenance of the trot had occurred after {mooring2sBoat} was sold.
  • To clarify: up to this point in time {mooring4} had not previously been involved in maintenance of the trot. This is why when he decided to involve himself he telephoned {trot1} to ask about what the arrangements were.

Cancelled for the first time.

  • Two of the Pandormonium owners, Nick and {partner2}, had paid in for the new mooring but the other two, {partner4} and {partner3}, had not paid their contributions in to pay for the new mooring.
  • See Nick's email to {partner4}.
  • Emails: chasing payment or selling, chasing payment or selling 2, selling 3, selling 4, selling 5,ok lets sell then, {partner4}'s objection, informing {landowner}, Nick's response to {partner4}, selling FYI, selling 6, Nick's response to {partner4} 2, chasing payment 7, chasing payment or selling 8, {partner4}'s objection 2, chasing payment 9, ,
  • Email: Nick's final attempt to get this situation sorted
  • In light of the missing contributions and as per his agreement with {landowner}, Nick cancelled the laying of the new mooring with {boatyard}, and informed him of such.
  • {boatyard} were told to go ahead with maintenance of the existing trot but not to add the new mooring.
  • {partner4} then agreed to put in his contribution to pay for the mooring. Email: {partner4} agreed to pay in his contribution.
  • Nick informed {boatyard} that they now had the money to go ahead with the new mooring and informed {landowner} of such.
  • Emails: Nick's summary, {partner4}'s reply

Cancelled for the second time.

  • {landowner} told Nick that he was not happy with the situation and asked Nick to cancel the new mooring.
  • Nick spoke to {boatyard} and cancelled the new mooring again
  • {landowner} explained that he had not realised it was intended to be a shared mooring and that would not allow a shared mooring.
  • Emails: {landowner}1, Nick1, {landowner}2, Nick2
  • Nick agreed to be responsible for:
    • Ensuring that the boat remains fully insured with valid insurance at all times while on the mooring.
    • Paying the yearly rent.
    • Personally liable for all costs incurred by Pandormonium while on the mooring.
  • {landowner} agreed that he would allow Nick a personal mooring.
  • Nick discussed this arrangement with the other Pandormonium owners who agreed they wanted to go ahead with the mooring on this basis with him as the mooring holder. As the mooring holder/owner the Pandemonium group would pay Nick for the mooring hardware, yearly maintenance and ground rent.
  • Note: Nick has agreed here to be personally liable for this mooring for the benefit of all of the other Pandormonium owners.

Spacing out of moorings

  • {landowner} noticed that {mooring2'sBoat} and Pandemonium were very close if not touching so asked that Nick arrange for the moorings to be spaced out by 10ft each, adding 30ft extra chain.
  • Nick obtained costs for adding this extra chain from {boatyard}.
  • Nick contacted other mooring holders to obtain their opinion.
  • Emails: Nick1, Nick2, to {landowner}, to {mooring4}, from {mooring4}
  • Both {mooring2} and {mooring3} agreed that they were happy to pay for new chain that for this extra 30ft rather than using second-hand but would go with either just to get the job done.
  • {mooring4} did not answer the question.
  • Emails (confirmation of arrangements): Nick to {mooring4}, Nick to Pandy owners, Nick to {boatyard},
  • Emails ({mooring4}'s objections): {mooring4}1, Nick's attempt to pacify {mooring4}
  • Decision on replacing whole of the ground chain with new was pending news from {BY1} after he had examined it.
  • The question of how often the trot should be lifting for examination arose - {mooring4} insisted only every two years, {BY1} ({boatyard}) advised it should be every one year, Insurance Company insisted on every year.

{mooring4} then tried to insist that the Pandormonium group go with an alternative proposal of his.

  • {mooring4} attempted to insist the Pandormonium group go with an alternative proposal he had come up with. This was eventually revealed to be for 25mm second-hand chain for which he wanted them to pay him £350. It was made abundantly clear to him that they would stick with their previously agreed arrangement with {boatyard}: £300 for new chain.
  • {landowner} was asked about this but knew nothing of {mooring4}'s alternative proposal.
  • Emails: Nick to {mooring3}, {mooring3}'s reply, {mooring4} being awkward, Nick to other mooring holders, Nick to {mooring4}, Nick's clarification and response to {mooring4}'s objections, Nick to {mooring3}, Nick to {boatyard},
  • At the last minute {mooring4} then tried to introduce some longest mooring holder rule.
    • He claimed that there was some historic rule on this trot that whoever had been there longest moved to the mooring nearest the ramp, which was where the new mooring was intended to be laid. This would have meant his boat would end-up on the their new mooring and new piece of chain and they would be left on his nine year old mooring chain.
    • There never had been any such arrangement, this was confirmed with the original founder members of the trot.
    • When {mooring3}'s mooring was previously added to the trot for {mooring3'sBoat}, there was no question of any such re-arrangement of moorings on this trot, it was simply added on to the end.
  • Emails: {mooring4} attempt at changing the order of the moorings, Nick's reply to {mooring4}, {mooring3}'s attempt to pacify {mooring4}
  • Emails: Nick summary to {partner4}, Nick to {mooring3}, {mooring4}'s most unhelpful finale
  • Emails: Nick to Pandy owners, Nick's suggested solution to {mooring4}, now what is {mooring4} up to, Nick to {landowner},

Laying of mooring

  • Email confirming specification of mooring chain ordered; new 22mm chain. This was simply confirming what had already been agreed verbally.
  • {boatyard} were instructed not to accept any payment from {mooring4} for the Pandormonium mooring, that cost was to be paid directly by Nick.
  • Mooring was laid - it is understood that {mooring4} was present on the {boatyard} workboat when this was done.
  • {mooring4} notified Nick that his mooring had been laid and assured him that it had been done with new chain as specified.
  • {BY2} of {boatyard} spoke to Nick (3/8/2012) and confirmed that his new mooring was attached at downstream end of trot as planned and all components were new - riser, chain etc.
  • Telephone message from {BY1} (7/8/2012):
    • 'Hi Nick, its {BY1} {boatyard}. Just to let you know yes the new chain is under you, and new rope shackles and buoy. Total cost £320 which {mooring4} has paid, and you will need to see him to square up with him he has paid the whole bill. All right, any problems ring me back thanks bye.”
  • Emails: Nick to {partner4} summary and maintenance, Nick to {boatyard}, Nick to {partner4} (what has been going on here), Nick to {partner4} 2,

Meeting of mooring holders.

  • A meeting was arranged with all mooring holders - as per {landholder}s original request.
  • It was agreed that next year nothing would be done on the trot without discussion at a further mooring holders meeting first.
  • {landholder} (who was not present) - expressed his opinion that next year's maintenance should be discussed in advance by email between all mooring holders, including himself.
  • Emails: Nick to {landholder}

How much were {boatyard} paid for the new Pandemonium mooring?

  • {mooring4} was paid £320 from Nick and £50 from {partner4}, £370 in total.
  • Email: Email from Nick to {boatyard} asking for confirmation of what was paid.
  • Email: Response from {boatyard} stating that they had received only £150.
  • When challenged about this discrepancy they later retracted this amount but never gave any explanation and were never able to come up with the correct amount.

Our Commodore wrote to {boatyard} informing them that the moorings were owned by the club.

  • Moorings are not connected to the Club in any way whatsoever, they are a private arrangement between each mooring holder and the landowner.
  • It later came to light that apparently an email claiming to be on behalf of the {club} Committee (from {partner4} as Commodore) stated that the trot was owned by the Sailing Club and further that the Committee had discussed this matter had decided that {mooring4} should arrange maintenance of the trot on their behalf.
  • Just for clarification, at this time {mooring4} had not been asked by any of the mooring holders to become involved in maintenance of the trot. Nick has since discussed with the landowner who confirms that he did not ask {mooring4} to become involved either. Nor was {mooring4} asked by the original founders of the trot to take over the maintenance.
  • See Nicks email to {BY1} 1, email to {BY1} 2, and {BY1}'s reply., Nick 3,
  • Also a couple of text messages:
    • Text msg Nick to {BY1} (2/12/2013 14:53): {BY1}, you seem reluctant to forward me that email.
    • Text {BY1} to Nick (2/12/2013 15:21): Not reluctant but as yet I haven't been able to find it. As soon as I do you will have a copy.

Continued in second post, reason: too many characters...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top