Brand New boat - unfit for purpose - advice ?

[Lakesailor]

The offer seems very fair.
If you were to get full re-reimbursement of your transport and survey costs you would have a new boat (albeit with 1 year old motors) at the old price (assuming the boats have gone up in price) and had the use of a new hull for a year. Ok it's faulty but it hasn't failed you and under any other circumstances you would have had to pay hire or lease charges for the year's use.
The fact you transported it to the SoF is not really the dealer's responsibility. If you had taken it to Australia you wouldn't expect him to cover the transport costs. That was your choice. It seems that the seller should cover collection and delivery costs in the UK.

If the goods are over six months old but were item was faulty when bought you are entitled to a repair or replacement. (from the .gov website)
It would seem if you cut up awkward they would be entitled to undertake a repair, which you don't really want.

 

[Jim@sea]

I think that if I was going to buy a boat to use in the South of France I would buy a French one. The French make some superb boats. The only disadvantage is that if you buy a make of boat that nobody in the UK has ever heard of and bring it back to the UK you will find it very difficult to sell as I found after I bought a French Guy Couch Cabin Cruiser and brought it back.
Aparrently mine was the only one in the UK and I virtually gave it away compared to what I would have got for it if I had tried to sell it in France.

 

[Hurricane]

When negotiating a contribution to your transportation costs, remember that there is always a "different way to skin a cat".

For example, is there anythin that you would particularly like fitted to the replacement boat. Something that would cost you more than it would cost the boatbuilder. This way, the boatbuilder contributes at his cost rather than at your cost - if you know what I mean.

It sounds as though the boatbuilder is being reasonable so maybe he will be open to "throwing in" some extras????

 

[fergie_mac66]

I would get hold of the replacement boat as soon as possible - currently your asset is worth very little and if anything happened to the dealer or manufacturer, you would left with it!

+1 best to resolve as soon as possible

They seem to bee reasonable so should not be to hard . Regarding delivery guess it would depend if they delivered and if delivery was included in the purchase price.

lot of info here :-

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

if it you cannot resolve

 

[kcrane]

...and yet another vote for the offer being a fair one

 

[andyjcox1]

I would take the swap, and then work out a cheaper way to get the boat back. £3000 seems alot of money. Not sure how big it is, but being a RIB it can't be too difficult to tow. I know it is a pain to take time off etc, but would it not be worth popping it on a trailor, and towing it back to UK yourself, or a trusted friend who is going back to the UK?

 

[gjgm]

I would take the swap, and then work out a cheaper way to get the boat back. £3000 seems alot of money. Not sure how big it is, but being a RIB it can't be too difficult to tow. I know it is a pain to take time off etc, but would it not be worth popping it on a trailor, and towing it back to UK yourself, or a trusted friend who is going back to the UK?

At least he is losing use of it over winter, and not the summer...

 

[Boatbore]

Thanks to all

Many thanks to all who have responded. It has been valuable to hear the many variations on the theme, and indeed the general theme is crystal clear..... the offer is fair and reasonable and I should just get on with it, although it is probably worth trying to find some friendly compromise over the transportation and going to the trouble of having the new hull surveyed pre-delivery. Thanks again.

 

[thomshap]

The survey should be refunded with no quibbling but wouldn't expect them to pay any of the transport costs, £3000 sounds quite steep to ship a rib back from france, see if they can help you find a more reasonable deal.

 

[Boatbore]

Thanks. £3,000 is the estimate of the 2 way trip.... i.e. £1500 each way. It's about 900 miles.

 

[photodog]

Well.... I think you should get some help from them for the delivery...

The cost of the delivery is a upfront cost you will have to bear... you already financed the depreciation in the intial purchase, so the re-delivery is yet more cash that you are having to find due to the manufacturers fault.

The boat should not have needed to be replaced at one year old, so its not unreasonable for you to feel that financing additional cash due to the third parties failure is not really on.

In the end you will come out ok as you will not have one years depreciation(though this is arguable and will be dependant upon the length of time you own the boat, the condition you keep it in, the manufacturers reputaion, and the market at time of resale..)... but its the upfront cost of financing the delivery, plus the time and inconvenience involved, thats the issue.... you shouldnt have to be doing financing any of that at this time, and I feel that if the goods are faulty then the manufacturer should make some recompense for the additional costs that you bear as a result.

Its the Opportunity Cost that you will be forced to meet that is the issue.... and that is not compensated for by the lower depreciation I feel..

The manufacturer is admitting full liability by offering a new boat.... so why should you have to shell out to fix his problem??

 

[jfm]

Well.... I think you should get some help from them for the delivery...

The cost of the delivery is a upfront cost you will have to bear... you already financed the depreciation in the intial purchase, so the re-delivery is yet more cash that you are having to find due to the manufacturers fault.

The boat should not have needed to be replaced at one year old, so its not unreasonable for you to feel that financing additional cash due to the third parties failure is not really on.

In the end you will come out ok as you will not have one years depreciation(though this is arguable and will be dependant upon the length of time you own the boat, the condition you keep it in, the manufacturers reputaion, and the market at time of resale..)... but its the upfront cost of financing the delivery, plus the time and inconvenience involved, thats the issue.... you shouldnt have to be doing financing any of that at this time, and I feel that if the goods are faulty then the manufacturer should make some recompense for the additional costs that you bear as a result.

Its the Opportunity Cost that you will be forced to meet that is the issue.... and that is not compensated for by the lower depreciation I feel..

The manufacturer is admitting full liability by offering a new boat.... so why should you have to shell out to fix his problem??

That's your personal view of how it should be. But the law (in UK) says that Boatbore took the boat a thousand miles away and he should bear the risks associated with that. Imho the law has got this one right - customers who take goods a long way from the point of sale should bear all transportation costs of return in the case of fault. The wider policy objective behind this law is that we don't want to frighten people off starting up in businerss by the fear that they go bankrupt through being legally responsible to ship goods back from wherever they happen to be, eg top of Everest or the North Pole.

 

[photodog]

That's your personal view of how it should be. But the law (in UK) says that Boatbore took the boat a thousand miles away and he should bear the risks associated with that. Imho the law has got this one right - customers who take goods a long way from the point of sale should bear all transportation costs of return in the case of fault. The wider policy objective behind this law is that we don't want to frighten people off starting up in businerss by the fear that they go bankrupt through being legally responsible to ship goods back from wherever they happen to be, eg top of Everest or the North Pole.

And thats what makes it so much fun! But in reality I think the depreciation arguement is bogus..... what you are saying makes much more sense, as there has to be some sort of limitation on liability I would think... but I frankly think that a CE marked boat worth 45k should be reasonably expected to be used across the EU and its warranty met as such, including any opportunity costs that the purchaser has to meet to take advantage of that warranty....

I dont think that the geopgraphy in this case is excessive.... But I am from Canada, and If I bought a boat in Vancouver, and it broke in Calgary.... I would expect the dealer to sort it.

Oh, he also has rights under EU directive 1999/44/EC...... http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML

Under the EU legislation there is a two year warranty for all goods manufactured in the EU ....

Clause 10; Whereas, in the case of non-conformity of the goods with the contract, consumers should be entitled to have the goods restored to conformity with the contract free of charge, choosing either repair or replacement, or, failing this, to have the price reduced or the contract rescinded;
I would be interested to hear what your opinion was in relation to this..... as it appears to me that the OP is perfectly entitled to have the boat fixed at no cost to himself......

 

[mucklestone]

I agree. You had to have the survey to prove that the boat needed repair/replacement so I would be trying for a refund on that. The transport is fair enough. If I buy a TV from a store and it is broken when I get home, I have to return it to the store and I would never expect them to collect it.

I think they have been very fair with you and seem to have been apologetic and are trying to sort it for you. If you get snotty they may withdraw the offer and just repair it because that is all they are in titled to do. Repair or replace it is up to them which they do and obviously you want a new boat....

 

[jfm]

And thats what makes it so much fun! But in reality I think the depreciation arguement is bogus..... what you are saying makes much more sense, as there has to be some sort of limitation on liability I would think... but I frankly think that a CE marked boat worth 45k should be reasonably expected to be used across the EU and its warranty met as such, including any opportunity costs that the purchaser has to meet to take advantage of that warranty....

I dont think that the geopgraphy in this case is excessive.... But I am from Canada, and If I bought a boat in Vancouver, and it broke in Calgary.... I would expect the dealer to sort it.

Oh, he also has rights under EU directive 1999/44/EC...... http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML

Under the EU legislation there is a two year warranty for all goods manufactured in the EU ....

Clause 10; Whereas, in the case of non-conformity of the goods with the contract, consumers should be entitled to have the goods restored to conformity with the contract free of charge, choosing either repair or replacement, or, failing this, to have the price reduced or the contract rescinded;
I would be interested to hear what your opinion was in relation to this..... as it appears to me that the OP is perfectly entitled to have the boat fixed at no cost to himself......

That's a directive, which (incidentally) is not law in itself but rather an enforceable instruction to EU member states to enact local law that gives effect to the rules stated in the directive. The piece you quote does not require the at-fault seller to pay for shipping. In UK, our locally enacted law started out as the Sale of Goods Act and has had various bits added and a re-enactment and stuff but it too does not make the seller liable for the shipping costs.

The logic in not making seller liable for shipping costs is to avoid stifling enterprise: you gotta draw the line somewhere to allocate risks between seller and buyer. The EU directive plus UK parliament correctly (imho) draws the line so as to place the shipping risk on the customer responsible. That's the rules of the game Boatbore played when he bought his boat and shipped it 1000miles to France! He could have tried to negotiate a different risk allocation when he bought the boat but he didn't

Incidentally the piece you quote is one of those lovely bits of sloppy EU drafting that we have to live with here. The words "failing this" are incredibly sloppy, I'm sure you can see. Do they mean the customer can choose a refund? Or that customer only gets refund if seller fails to repair? Or what? Or that the seller can impose a price reduction (eg give back 25% of the money in the case of this broken boat). And the word "or" creates a choice, but whose choice is it? It's awful stuff!

 

[photodog]

Incidentally the piece you quote is one of those lovely bits of sloppy EU drafting that we have to live with here. The words "failing this" are incredibly sloppy, I'm sure you can see. Do they mean the customer can choose a refund? Or that customer only gets refund if seller fails to repair? Or what? Or that the seller can impose a price reduction (eg give back 25% of the money in the case of this broken boat). And the word "or" creates a choice, but whose choice is it? It's awful stuff!

You cant help but think that it was originally drafted in Lithuanian... and then translated by Google.....

I wonder if the builder delivers boats to a local distributor, and could provide a discounted delivery...... There must be some mileage in discussing the situation with the builder, who must have some mechanism in place for dstribution... even if its just a Disco and a trailor....

 

[Boatbore]

I don't want anyone coming to blows over this...... all of the views represented here have been valuable and helpful and the main problem is that the law is a bit grey on this. Transportation of course falls outside of a manufacturer's normal responsibility, but I think that doesn't apply if the goods were never fit for purpose as in this case...... i.e. if your TV breaks down inside its warranty then its your job to transport it, if it never works from the moment it comes out of the box then that is different............. at least I think so !!! (but we have already agreed the legislation is unclear !!)......

As an aside, my actual contract with the dealer (admittedly not the manufacturer) was for the boat to be delivered to my house in France..... the boat was neither owned nor insured by me until that point. So it was sold to me with the transport included (and paid for) in the original contract.

Any which way, I still think that there is some responsibility for the additional cost even if it is perhaps not a clear cut legal one, and I intend to negotiate accordingly with the manufacturer. A couple of posts have said that if I get "snotty" then I may find that the manufacturer will only offer to repair the boat, but of course I am entitled to deliver the boat back to him and demand a full refund as the boat has been deemed (by the surveyor) as unfit for purpose from the moment it left the mould ! So i don't have to be too worried about that..... However, having said all that, these situations are always better kept friendly and resonable and I fully intend to remain so. What I really want is to have a good boat, fit for the job I want it to do, in the place where I want it, working perfectly....... a bit of sunshine and a bottle of rose wouldn't go amiss either !

 

[photodog]

As an aside, my actual contract with the dealer (admittedly not the manufacturer) was for the boat to be delivered to my house in France..... the boat was neither owned nor insured by me until that point. So it was sold to me with the transport included (and paid for) in the original contract.
!

Well... I think thats pretty clear.... He should just drop off a replacement and pick up the dodgy one as he leaves... ask him when you can expect the new boat delivered... so you can have the new one ready to be taken away on the return load...

 

[jfm]

the if it never works from the moment it comes out of the box then that is different...

It's not different. The law gives you no right to shipping charges if you have taken the boat to Frnace even if it is faulty out of the box

my actual contract with the dealer (admittedly not the manufacturer) was for the boat to be delivered to my house in France..... the boat was neither owned nor insured by me until that point. So it was sold to me with the transport included (and paid for) in the original contract.

That could change things substantially. But the devil is in the detail. If seller's T+Cs are well written the delivery will be expressed as a separate contract and an activity done on your instruction etc. You may well be in good shape here, but it depends on the detial of the contract. Remember also that the boat (by the sound of things) was a NMT*at the point it was imported to France or it was a distnace sale into France both of which create a French VAT liability (more likely on seller than on you, but you'll be caught in the cross fire) which might not have been paid so you might not want to sing this one from the rooftops

*if it is over 7.5m long, which I guess is the case if £45k

of course I am entitled to deliver the boat back to him and demand a full refund as the boat has been deemed (by the surveyor) as unfit for purpose from the moment it left the mould ! So i don't have to be too worried about that.....

Yes, true, but look before you leap because a rejection of the goods in this manner leaves you an unsecured creditor of the seller so you want to be sure he is good for a £45k debt

 

[fergie_mac66]

dealer

Dont know law but its been advertised every where and on the martin lewis site.Your contract is with the dealer and as such its the dealers problem unless you make it otherwise .. err I think ?!

Edit but I suppose it would be whose name is on the contract