Berth Holders should be aware of Marina cancellation policies.

[awol]

I'm surprised there isn't a commission clause grabbing a percentage of the selling price.

 

[gjgm]

If I was the marina manager and "Fred", a good customer of many years, found himself in the same position, I would do something, anything, as a means of saying thank you for his past custom and loyalty. It is called using one's discretion. The fact that we all have to rush around then don glasses to read the small print, and all as one, say "yes but its in the contract, you should have read it" is a reflection of the sad state that the country now finds itself in. Loyalty means absolutely nothing, use of discretion has disappeared, we have all faced with similar situations to the above (where something didn't feel fair), and we all have 12 year old bank managers.

So, If I was "Fred" then yes, I would tie up a dinghy in my spot ............... hardly a sensible way forward, but at least it may assuage that feeling of having been "ripped off" a little. The problem is that we have all become so used to being stitched up by the small print, that we all see things like this as the norm.

Another example of what has taken the Great out of Britain ........ all in the blind pursuit of economic success .....................

All this is untrue .......... discuss.

You might argue that it is the other bertholders who will subsidise Fred leaving.. or is Fred a special case, but Pete isnt...
Might be interesting to know what % of berth holders leave 31 March, otherwise the cost of your generosity just puts up the bills for all those renewing.

 

[Tranona]

Read what I wrote, rather than what you've two-tone ( http://www.glasswings.com.au/comics/ozyandmillie.au/2000/om20000723.html ) categorised my post as in your head. I wasn't even talking about the OP!

Someone said "a goodwill gesture would have been a positive step", to which you replied "You seem to be suggesting that there is no need for a contract." That's beyond hyperbole into being a complete non-sequiteur, and I was merely calling you on that by way of a point of order.

I made no comment on whether MDL might or should have offered the OP anything; as it happens I entirely agree with you on that question.

Pete

Well your original post at 22.37 did not contain the second sentence which presumably you added in your edit. If it had been there in the original, I would not have made the comment.

 

[Tranona]

Dis-agree. A contract is a legal document to refer to if the relationship breaks down and parties cannot agree. My contract with O2 says they can charge what they want even £500 a month - it also says I can leave if I don't like their price increase. But they haven't charged me £500 a month and I haven't left them. A contract should always be one the last resorts, not a default go to as soon as you don't like something.

What are you disagreeing with? MDL are sticking to the written procedure for what happens when somebody leaves early. There has been no breakdown. Either the OP did not read it before signing or did not appreciate the implications.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

What are you disagreeing with? MDL are sticking to the written procedure for what happens when somebody leaves early. There has been no breakdown. Either the OP did not read it before signing or did not appreciate the implications.

No, not at all - I'm disagreeing with your comment about companies making an ad-hoc decision on an individual basis. It happens all the time - an item is tendered at a specific price but a lower price is negotiated. A payment is overdue but the late interest payment is waived. The marina moves your berth at your request even though don't have to - that sort of thing and all done on an ad-hoc and individual basis. In the OP's case I'd agree the relationship has broken down and they've had to resort to the contract. The customer isn't happy and, while the marina may have what they want short term, there's a good chance they've lost a customer. They've certainly lost goodwill. What I'm trying to say is, if you have to rely on the contract all the time you probably shouldn't be in that agreement in the first place.

 

[Tranona]

No, not at all - I'm disagreeing with your comment about companies making an ad-hoc decision on an individual basis. It happens all the time - an item is tendered at a specific price but a lower price is negotiated. A payment is overdue but the late interest payment is waived. The marina moves your berth at your request even though don't have to - that sort of thing and all done on an ad-hoc and individual basis. In the OP's case I'd agree the relationship has broken down and they've had to resort to the contract. The customer isn't happy and, while the marina may have what they want short term, there's a good chance they've lost a customer. They've certainly lost goodwill. What I'm trying to say is, if you have to rely on the contract all the time you probably shouldn't be in that agreement in the first place.

But there has been no breakdown. The marina has not done anything different from what it said it would do. It would be different if it applied a penalty that was not in the contract.
The whole point of putting it in writing is to avoid any disputes. How can they have lost a customer when he was terminating the agreement through choice? Whose goodwill have they lost? As I understand it the contract allows for carryover to a new berth if he buys another boat and continues as a customer.

 

[Stork_III]

But there has been no breakdown. The marina has not done anything different from what it said it would do. It would be different if it applied a penalty that was not in the contract.
The whole point of putting it in writing is to avoid any disputes. How can they have lost a customer when he was terminating the agreement through choice? Whose goodwill have they lost? As I understand it the contract allows for carryover to a new berth if he buys another boat and continues as a customer.

Yes it does as here:-

Account 'Suspended'
In the event that an OWNER has sold their boat and intends to purchase a new boat and therefore does not require a berth for a period of time, the
following may be arranged:
Upon receipt of 4 weeks written notice from the OWNER, MDL will calculate the cost to date of usage and the unused value of berthing package fees on a pro-rata basis. This credit balance will be held on the customer’s account for up to 24 months and will be set off against future berthing fees. In the event that this credit balance is unused after 24 months from termination we will apply the Cancellation of Berth Policy scheduled below without further notice.
The above arrangement does not apply to any other situation where a berth holder may not wish to use the berth for a period of time during the
licence period.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

But there has been no breakdown. The marina has not done anything different from what it said it would do. It would be different if it applied a penalty that was not in the contract.
The whole point of putting it in writing is to avoid any disputes. How can they have lost a customer when he was terminating the agreement through choice? Whose goodwill have they lost? As I understand it the contract allows for carryover to a new berth if he buys another boat and continues as a customer.

Let's just agree to dis-agree then. You obviously have a different definition of a breakdown in a customer-supplier relationship to me.

 

[Tranona]

Let's just agree to dis-agree then. You obviously have a different definition of a breakdown in a customer-supplier relationship to me.

Yes. I fail to see how acting in accordance with an agreed contract can possibly be described as a breakdown. A break down is when one party acts against the contract, and this has not happened in this case.

The OP may be a bit peeved because he had not read his contract and it comes as a surprise to him - but that is his problem and you can't blame that on the other party. By his own admission he has been a customer for years so you would expect anybody spending that amount of money to make himself aware of what he is agreeing to.

Do you really think a company that has made clear what its policy is should just ignore it should just say - sorry we did not mean it so we will do something different? If so you live in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[ianj99]

What is a business' most important asset ? Its not the bricks and mortar, cash in the bank nor stock on the shelf, its THEIR CUSTOMERS. Satisfied customers are also any business' free sales force... So any business that operates strictly according to the small print in their contracts is oblivious to this fact and it is they who are in cloud cuckoo land.

By using their discretion to keep customers happy, even ones who are (temporarily) leaving, ensures the essential repeat business and recommendations. Pre the internet, they may have got away with being inflexible and not bothering whether customers were peeved but nowadays, they need to think about their attitude lest being discussed in less than glowing terms on sites such as this.

As far as the ' if you don't like the small print don't sign the contract' goes, lets be honest, most of us would change some of the wording of contracts we sign every day for things such as all type of insurance, vehicle hire, marina berthing to name but a few. Reality is, that its sign up (there's no option to renegotiate contracts) or go without so I would be a hypocrit if I uttered those words.

Clear to me some forumites do not run a business..

 

[Tranona]

What is a business' most important asset ? Its not the bricks and mortar, cash in the bank nor stock on the shelf, its THEIR CUSTOMERS. Satisfied customers are also any business' free sales force... So any business that operates strictly according to the small print in their contracts is oblivious to this fact and it is they who are in cloud cuckoo land.

By using their discretion to keep customers happy, even ones who are (temporarily) leaving, ensures the essential repeat business and recommendations. Pre the internet, they may have got away with being inflexible and not bothering whether customers were peeved but nowadays, they need to think about their attitude lest being discussed in less than glowing terms on sites such as this.

As far as the ' if you don't like the small print don't sign the contract' goes, lets be honest, most of us would change some of the wording of contracts we sign every day for things such as all type of insurance, vehicle hire, marina berthing to name but a few. Reality is, that its sign up (there's no option to renegotiate contracts) or go without so I would be a hypocrit if I uttered those words.

Clear to me some forumites do not run a business..

So would you prefer a contract that says something like

Cancellations. If you leave before the contract is complete there may or may not bad refund. The manager will decide on the day.

Would you agree to that?

Contracts that clearly lay out such policies are better than those that are vague. Both parties know exactly where they stand.

This is a different question from whether it is fair or reasonable, although in this case it follows the recommended model contract and pretty sure would stand up in court.

Many disputes arise in business because the parties are not clear about the terms and conditions. Now people seem to saying it is OK to make it up as you go along.

 

[Ken Darby]

Hell's Teeth - What a furore!
My boat sold within one week of putting her on the market, much to my surprise, and the purchaser announced he would immediately take it away to Totnes. It was only then that I became aware of the small print in the contract re: termination. Yes, I had not read the small print in all the years of berthing at Queen Anne's Battery, and of course MDL are within their contractual rights, but that was not my original point. Yes I was doing a gripe, but my main aim was to acqauint berth holders of the facts. I wouldn't mind betting that there are hundreds out there that are not as aware as some of you lot.
Anyway : Thank you to those who have offered a modicum of support.
Thank you to the contract law preachers for stating the obvious but missing the point.
And for those who so rudely think me naive, "May the bluebird of happiness **** all over your birthday cakes."

 

[pvb]

Hell's Teeth - What a furore!
My boat sold within one week of putting her on the market, much to my surprise, and the purchaser announced he would immediately take it away to Totnes. It was only then that I became aware of the small print in the contract re: termination. Yes, I had not read the small print in all the years of berthing at Queen Anne's Battery, and of course MDL are within their contractual rights, but that was not my original point. Yes I was doing a gripe, but my main aim was to acqauint berth holders of the facts. I wouldn't mind betting that there are hundreds out there that are not as aware as some of you lot.
Anyway : Thank you to those who have offered a modicum of support.
Thank you to the contract law preachers for stating the obvious but missing the point.
And for those who so rudely think me naive, "May the bluebird of happiness **** all over your birthday cakes."

And in all the excitement, I think we forgot to welcome you to the forum!

 

[ianj99]

So would you prefer a contract that says something like

Cancellations. If you leave before the contract is complete there may or may not bad refund. The manager will decide on the day.

Would you agree to that?

Contracts that clearly lay out such policies are better than those that are vague. Both parties know exactly where they stand.

This is a different question from whether it is fair or reasonable, although in this case it follows the recommended model contract and pretty sure would stand up in court.

Many disputes arise in business because the parties are not clear about the terms and conditions. Now people seem to saying it is OK to make it up as you go along.

Discretion is the better part of valour.

Most business sectors use a standard contract which was drawn up by their trade body and designed to benefit the business. So there is nothing wrong with having a contract but having to enforce the small print should be a 'fall back' position. I personally would regard it as failure to have to wave the contract in my customers face - I would reach an amicable agreement. Your way would result in many offended customers even though you may be technically in the right and I'd imagine you'd have a reputation as a job's worth !
In this case, the OP may not be popular with the marina manager who was not inclined to be flexible, or maybe the head office don't allow managers any discretion.

Ken Darby - welcome to the testosterone filled & egomaniacal world of the YBW forums! (You soon learn to separate the wheat from the chaff)

 

[Tranona]

Discretion is the better part of valour.

Most business sectors use a standard contract which was drawn up by their trade body and designed to benefit the business. So there is nothing wrong with having a contract but having to enforce the small print should be a 'fall back' position. I personally would regard it as failure to have to wave the contract in my customers face - I would reach an amicable agreement. Your way would result in many offended customers even though you may be technically in the right and I'd imagine you'd have a reputation as a job's worth !
In this case, the OP may not be popular with the marina manager who was not inclined to be flexible, or maybe the head office don't allow managers any discretion.

Ken Darby - welcome to the testosterone filled & egomaniacal world of the YBW forums! (You soon learn to separate the wheat from the chaff)

So how do you suggest the marina should have acted? They were not "enforcing the small print" but simply acting in accordance with the contract. If they did not intend to take that course of action then there would be no point in putting it in the contract. It is clearly an important issue so essential the policy is stated in advance. Can't see any reason for "discretion". If they wanted to be able to exercise discretion then the contract would have said something like "we reserve the right to....". However not sure anybody would do business on the basis that they don't know how they would be treated. After all in this case offering reduced rates for fixed long term agreements and provision for early cancellation is not unusual, nor is it unreasonable to have a set of rules for what would happen in that event.

If there was a failing it is perhaps in the company not making it sufficiently clear, although the actual clause could not be more clear. So Ken's warning to others that they should read the contract seems appropriate. But how often do we enter into agreements without fully appreciating them simply because we don't expect to be in a position in the future where such clauses come into play?

 

[ianj99]

So how do you suggest the marina should have acted? They were not "enforcing the small print" but simply acting in accordance with the contract. If they did not intend to take that course of action then there would be no point in putting it in the contract. It is clearly an important issue so essential the policy is stated in advance. Can't see any reason for "discretion". If they wanted to be able to exercise discretion then the contract would have said something like "we reserve the right to....". However not sure anybody would do business on the basis that they don't know how they would be treated. After all in this case offering reduced rates for fixed long term agreements and provision for early cancellation is not unusual, nor is it unreasonable to have a set of rules for what would happen in that event.

If there was a failing it is perhaps in the company not making it sufficiently clear, although the actual clause could not be more clear. So Ken's warning to others that they should read the contract seems appropriate. But how often do we enter into agreements without fully appreciating them simply because we don't expect to be in a position in the future where such clauses come into play?

As manager of any marina this would be my Gold Standard Customer Service approach:-

Dear Mr Darby,
As a longstanding and valued customer we are sorry that you are leaving us and I am pleased to advise you that we are making a goodwill gesture outside the terms of the berthing agreement and will therefore refund you the unused portion of your fee from the date your berth is re let. I hope you can appreciate that if the berth remains unoccupied until the end of the season, we cannot offer a refund.
We look forward to welcoming you back with your next vessel in the future. etc etc

What has this good will gesture cost me if the berth is re let? Absolutely nothing - in fact I would gain due to being able to charge a higher rate until the start of the next season.
So everybody wins!
QED.
I'm moving on before I lose the will to live

This might be your approach Tranona:-

Dear Mr Darby,

We cannot offer any refund because we are not liable to do so under the terms of the agreement. If you do not like the terms you should not have signed it.
Yours etc..

 

[capnsensible]

Its not all doom and gloom. We lived in Puerto Calero, Lanzarotte, for a couple of years. We used to front up 6 months berthing at a time to get the max 40% dicount. We had a change of plan two months into our last 6 month period and got a full refund from the day we left. Nice people.

 

[Tranona]

As manager of any marina this would be my Gold Standard Customer Service approach:-

Dear Mr Darby,
As a longstanding and valued customer we are sorry that you are leaving us and I am pleased to advise you that we are making a goodwill gesture outside the terms of the berthing agreement and will therefore refund you the unused portion of your fee from the date your berth is re let. I hope you can appreciate that if the berth remains unoccupied until the end of the season, we cannot offer a refund.
We look forward to welcoming you back with your next vessel in the future. etc etc

What has this good will gesture cost me if the berth is re let? Absolutely nothing - in fact I would gain due to being able to charge a higher rate until the start of the next season.
So everybody wins!
QED.
I'm moving on before I lose the will to live

This might be your approach Tranona:-

Dear Mr Darby,

We cannot offer any refund because we are not liable to do so under the terms of the agreement. If you do not like the terms you should not have signed it.
Yours etc..

That really is nonsense. If they intended to give refunds based on long service, then that is how the clause would have been worded. As to re-letting, there is nothing to relet. The contract is to provide a berth for the year. This does not mean the person who uses that berth has any property rights over that berth - it is not his to let so he is not entitled to any income from it when he is not using it under the terms of the contract. There are, of course contracts that do include clauses which share the income from letting a vacant berth, but this is not one of them.

You can't have it both ways and I fail to see any reason why the marina should change its policy on a whim. It has been up front about the way it calculates refunds so what you are suggesting is that it says its sorry but it didn't mean what it said. How bizarre!

My letter would simply state the facts. Pity you do not seem able to accept the facts, preferring to make up your own account of what should have happened.