Boatyard quality of work / payment dispute

[mickyp168]

I am sure we are all just giving the poor OP a headache with our opinions however well intended and the poor chap still has a broken boat. However I do not agree with the above. Possession is 9/10ths of the law . The OP took it upon himself to take back possession of his property with an outstanding lien against it whether the work was complete or not. Maybe there is a legal professional on this forum who can comment 'without prejudice' of course.

 

[prv]

Maybe there is a legal professional on this forum who can comment 'without prejudice' of course.

He already did, in post #3

Pete

 

[ianj99]

The earlier advice to have them come to the boat to correct the defective work, or pay for it to be corrected is sound.

+1. The yard needs to be offered the opportunity to come and inspect and offer to do the repairs at their expense, without requiring the return of it to the yard. Upon satisfactory completion of the remedial work, then their original bill is settled.

 

[RichardS]

+1. The yard needs to be offered the opportunity to come and inspect and offer to do the repairs at their expense, without requiring the return of it to the yard. Upon satisfactory completion of the remedial work, then their original bill is settled.

Although there's no legal requirement to offer the yard the opportunity to repair the damage. There was a contract for work to be done and the law is clear that the work must be done to an appropriate standard. If the work is not done to an appropriate standard, the yard have breached the contract and the innocent party can respond to that breach. If the innocent party has lost faith in the abilities of the yard as a result of the breach, then it's game over for the yard.

Richard

 

[Birdseye]

From the yards perspective it looks awfully like you skipped without paying and are now trying to wriggle. If you are to avoid this issue possibly getting more serious than it deserves you do need to convince the yard that the work is substandard. Finishing the work yourself leaves you in a position where you cant prove this either to the yard or to a court if it ever gets there. So either you need to start talking to the yard and getting them to visit and inspect with you present or to get another yard either to inspect and report or to repair.

Dont be distracted by the legalities - any involvement with the law and lawyers will be expensive and stressful. No situation is ever improved by getting near a lawyer. Focus instead on resolving the problems in a way that leaves you with a satisfactory boat and leaves the yard knowing they cocked up.

 

[ianj99]

Although there's no legal requirement to offer the yard the opportunity to repair the damage. There was a contract for work to be done and the law is clear that the work must be done to an appropriate standard. If the work is not done to an appropriate standard, the yard have breached the contract and the innocent party can respond to that breach. If the innocent party has lost faith in the abilities of the yard as a result of the breach, then it's game over for the yard.

Richard

Surely whenever work is done whether it be on your boat, car, home etc, if the work has not been completed to a satisfactory standard then you should allow them the opportunity to rectify the defects. Unless I've missed something, this has not happened so far, otherwise it could be implied that the OP may have made up or exaggerated the faults to justify not paying the outstanding balance.

Commonsense should prevail - the OP invites the yard manager to view the work, he agrees to rectify the faults, the op agrees to settle the account once the work has been done.

 

[pandos]

OP has now had many pieces of conflicting advice, from well meaning forumites,

In simple terms this advice can be divided between those who say he was entitled to take the boat and that the yard are responsible for the damage that arose from his doing so and those who believe that he was not entitled to take the boat and is responsible for the damage caused by his doing so.

As a matter of logic approximately half the advice is incorrect from a purely legal point of view,

But I am curious which tack the OP took and would like to know the outcome.

Tony

 

[EugeneR]

I am surprised nobody has picked up the requirements of the goods and services acts i.e. the work should be done to an acceptable level and be fit for purpose... using the wrong hose probably is not. Also, it sounds like they caused damage to the alternatior as a result of actions on their side, so get them to rectify the situation. A lot hinges on whether they told you the boat was ready, so get them to confirm that on the record somehow.

In practice, take detailed pictures before you change anything - as before, reputable places will not want to see shoddy examples of their work published.

In practice the legal route is too much hassle, give them a reasonable i.e. justifiable and fair way to remediate things. You do not want a discount, you want things properly fixed...

 

[ianj99]

I am surprised nobody has picked up the requirements of the goods and services acts i.e. the work should be done to an acceptable level and be fit for purpose... using the wrong hose probably is not. Also, it sounds like they caused damage to the alternatior as a result of actions on their side, so get them to rectify the situation. A lot hinges on whether they told you the boat was ready, so get them to confirm that on the record somehow.

In practice, take detailed pictures before you change anything - as before, reputable places will not want to see shoddy examples of their work published.

In practice the legal route is too much hassle, give them a reasonable i.e. justifiable and fair way to remediate things. You do not want a discount, you want things properly fixed...

+1 Matters are only made worse when the two sides stop communicating, heels are dug in and there is talk of legal action, in whatever form.

Referring to the opening post: The yard was entitled to ask for payment of the account believing the work to have been completed.

I'm sure the yard manager is as disappointed with the workmanship as the owner and will be more than happy to have repairs done.

It may well require the return of the boat to the yard for the repairs but personally, I would agree only after the yard visited the boat in its present location, inspected the defects, agreement has been reached as to exactly what the remedial work the yard will be doing and I would agree to settle the account before the boat is handed back, subject to the work having been done satisfactorily.

 

[Tranona]

Although there's no legal requirement to offer the yard the opportunity to repair the damage. There was a contract for work to be done and the law is clear that the work must be done to an appropriate standard. If the work is not done to an appropriate standard, the yard have breached the contract and the innocent party can respond to that breach. If the innocent party has lost faith in the abilities of the yard as a result of the breach, then it's game over for the yard.

Richard

The response you suggest is out of all proportion to the possible breach. If it comes to court you would need to show that you gave the supplier sufficient opportunity to remedy the supposed breach. Using the courts is a last resort and there is ample scope for a negotiated settlement.

 

[pandos]

Is it possible that the yard left the alternator unconnected pending payment??.

 

[RichardS]

The response you suggest is out of all proportion to the possible breach. If it comes to court you would need to show that you gave the supplier sufficient opportunity to remedy the supposed breach. Using the courts is a last resort and there is ample scope for a negotiated settlement.

All I am doing is stating the legal position to correct a previous posting. I am not advocating any particular course of action as I do not know the full facts.

If it comes to Court, you do not have to show that you gave the original supplier sufficient opportunity to remedy the supposed breach if their performance or behaviour is such that you have lost faith in their abilities but I am not advocating any particular course of action in this case.

Richard

 

[Tranona]

If it comes to Court, you do not have to show that you gave the original supplier sufficient opportunity to remedy the supposed breach if their performance or behaviour is such that you have lost faith in their abilities but I am not advocating any particular course of action in this case.

Richard

Suggest you read the advice on making a claim through the small claims track. You do have to give the supplier an opportunity to do the work properly, and the court will not look kindly on you if you made no effort to resolve the issue through negotiation.

 

[RichardS]

Suggest you read the advice on making a claim through the small claims track. You do have to give the supplier an opportunity to do the work properly, and the court will not look kindly on you if you made no effort to resolve the issue through negotiation.

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/dealing-with-dodgy-tradesmen-or-builders/#axzz3aIDpKJPO

If however the builder offers to redo the work, then the reasonable response would be agree, as long as it can be done ‘in reasonable time’. But what if you have lost complete faith in the builders and do not want them back at all? This is also a reasonable response, although you would have to have good grounds to claim a loss of faith. For this reason, it is always advisable to take photos and keep a diary when having any long term building work done, so you have evidence should it ever become a dispute.

Statement of the relevant consumer law which echoes almost exactly my post. Not bad for a "barrack room lawyer" like me! :encouragement:

Richard

 

[KellysEye]

I would take the boat back, get everything fixed and pay the bill. Why mess about, you risk with possible expensive legal action coming up for non payment.

 

[ianj99]

I would take the boat back, get everything fixed and pay the bill. Why mess about, you risk with possible expensive legal action coming up for non payment.

It makes you wonder why the OP did not simply do this and without hearing from the yard, we can only speculate as to why he didn't.

Removed the boat when the yard was closed and without having settled his account...
Doesn't want the yard to know where the boat is now located...
Doesn't want to return it to them to sort out....

 

[Heckler]

The forum at its best ..... surely? :encouragement:

Richard

Exactly, a load of barrack room lawyers chucking their strange ideas in. The only peeps I would take note of on here in this situation is JFM and Tranona.
S

 

[Heckler]

The best advice I can give at this point is to follow whatever jfm says

Pete

Exactly
S

 

[prv]

Removed the boat when the yard was closed

Nothing especially odd about that to my mind. Those of us who aren't retired old farts can often only get to our boats at weekends, most businesses don't work weekends, ergo the two would not overlap. Nothing unusual about arranging to collect the boat while the yard was closed. Of course we still don't know whether the OP actually did arrange that, or just took it unexpectedly, because he still hasn't come back and explained the details.

Pete

 

[JumbleDuck]

Exactly, a load of barrack room lawyers chucking their strange ideas in. The only peeps I would take note of on here in this situation is JFM and Tranona.

It's reminiscent of the pepipoo motoring forums, which are full of unqualified people urging others to try all sorts of strange defences, up to and including perjury, to motoring charges. While some of it may simply be stupidity, I fear that there are posters who actively enjoy encouraging people to dig themselves into deep holes.