Can They Actually Do This?

[Andrew38]

Charisma is about to be moved to Sant Carles in Spain and the last of the winter work is just being finished off before the lift to transport on Friday morning.

The invoice for this work was emailed this morning with a little note saying that payment was required before the boat could be moved.

Now I've no problem paying them as the work I've seen has been fine. I have in fact paid the majority just holding a bit back until I inspect the work tomorrow and this company doesn't even control the cranes anyway but it made me think...

I thought years ago that it had been made illegal to hold on to someone's property when a small debt (less that 1% of the boat's value) was involved. I would have thought that a court order would at least be required to deprive somebody of their property.

Can anyone clarify this?

 

[Whitelighter]

Marine law is centuries old, and recent history is littered with examples if boats being padlocked to the pontoon over often quite small debts

 

[Davegriff]

Its called a contractual lien. At one time was only legal in Uk in respect of motor vehicles I believe. So many new laws under Labour its probably legal and would take a Court to sort out. Hardly worth arguing.

 

[prv]

Its called a contractual lien. At one time was only legal in Uk in respect of motor vehicles I believe.

Fairly sure it's been around on boats for hundreds of years, as Whitelighter says. At one time you had to put it in writing and nail it to the mainmast, and it was then illegal for the ship to leave the harbour.

Pete

 

[Elessar]

Charisma is about to be moved to Sant Carles in Spain and the last of the winter work is just being finished off before the lift to transport on Friday morning.

The invoice for this work was emailed this morning with a little note saying that payment was required before the boat could be moved.

Now I've no problem paying them as the work I've seen has been fine. I have in fact paid the majority just holding a bit back until I inspect the work tomorrow and this company doesn't even control the cranes anyway but it made me think...

I thought years ago that it had been made illegal to hold on to someone's property when a small debt (less that 1% of the boat's value) was involved. I would have thought that a court order would at least be required to deprive somebody of their property.

Can anyone clarify this?

hearsay alert we need someone who know what they're talking about but I THINK they can only do it if the boat is afloat, not ashore.

 

[Davegriff]

Fairly sure it's been around on boats for hundreds of years, as Whitelighter says. At one time you had to put it in writing and nail it to the mainmast, and it was then illegal for the ship to leave the harbour.

Well yes, that has, but that's a Writ, only obtained after a Court action. The action of what the OP refers to is a lien, not the same thing.

 

[djs]

found this.

http://www.doradelaw.com/cms/images/stories/dorade/downloads/marina_guidance01.pdf

one point it makes is that its not clear whether non payment of storage ashore or berthing charges on their own are enough to allow a lein to be attached to a vessel. so if the bill is itemised and the amount you have paid covers almost all of it - could you assert that the unpaid bit is the storage?

"For anyone who provides simple storage or berthing, without any element of harbour dues, there is one issue that must be noted; "storage" or pure "berthing
charges" do not, on the face of it, fall within the legal definition of 'dock charges and dues'. Equally it is not clear that hard-standing would amount to services
supplied to a vessel. There is little legal authority or guidance on this point but while yachts have frequently been arrest ed for unpaid berthing charges there is
some doubt whether this is legitimate in every case"

all hypothetical - i note you say its not an issue.
Dave

 

[Davegriff]

one point it makes is that its not clear whether non payment of storage ashore or berthing charges on their own are enough to allow a lein to be attached to a vessel. so if the bill is itemised and the amount you have paid covers almost all of it - could you assert that the unpaid bit is the storage?

OP says its for 'work done' which I think alters matters a bit. All appears another of those complicated bits of law that requires that some Lawyers get paid a small fortune to sort out I think.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

This is common in the marine industry and not just in the UK. I have come across the same demand in Italy and Spain. In fairness because a boat is moveable, you can't blame the company for insisting on it and I think you're being a bit prickly about it. After all, you wouldn't drive your car out of a garage after a service without first paying in full. Apart from that, effectively you're asking for credit terms and no company would give you that without thoroughly checking out your creditworthiness first. And also, did you agree upfront with the yard that you could withhold a % after completion of the work and the boat was moved? I'm assuming not so I don't really think you've got a leg to stand on here. Sorry
You do always have the option to visit your boat before Friday to check that all the work has been done to your satisfaction before making final payment and if you have any doubt about the quality of what has been done, I would suggest you do that

 

[jfm]

Assuming we are talking UK law, a repairman/marina/etc has the right to retain possession of your boat until bills are paid. No court order neeeded, and no "1% of boat value" de minimis etc

Sure there is the technical uncertainty about pure storage but normally the marina/yard cranes the boat and blocks it off, which is a service. And as to the idea you could "allocate" the unpaid part of the bill to pure storage, I'm afraid you can't. You could have done at the time you made the payment, but you cannot do it retrospectively. So you have no practical choice but to inspect the work done and pay the bill.

I reckon this is ok. You may consider it harsh but the fact is boats are mobile and the law has been developed to recognise this. If you dispute the bill, pay it but write "paid under duress; threat of lien. Prices not agreed" on the docket or cover letter with your cheque, thus ending their right of lien, then pursue the money afterwards

 

[Andrew38]

Assuming we are talking UK law, a repairman/marina/etc has the right to retain possession of your boat until bills are paid. No court order neeeded, and no "1% of boat value" de minimis etc

Sure there is the technical uncertainty about pure storage but normally the marina/yard cranes the boat and blocks it off, which is a service. And as to the idea you could "allocate" the unpaid part of the bill to pure storage, I'm afraid you can't. You could have done at the time you made the payment, but you cannot do it retrospectively. So you have no practical choice but to inspect the work done and pay the bill.

I reckon this is ok. You may consider it harsh but the fact is boats are mobile and the law has been developed to recognise this. If you dispute the bill, pay it but write "paid under duress; threat of lien. Prices not agreed" on the docket or cover letter with your cheque, thus ending their right of lien, then pursue the money afterwards

Please understand there is no dispute with the company doing this work and I am only being prudent in seeing the work done before paying the full amount and the company concerned is absolutely content with my doing this - which hopefully says that they are comfortable with the work done. The work concerned is all work on the boat such as antifouling, fitting new equipment etc. and does not relate to storage or mooring fees.

The phrase used simply caught my attention and made me wonder whether it was an empty phrase or actually had legal right behind it.

The funny thing about the whole situation is that in discussing the matter with the company's MD this morning he told me that he rarely had issues with private customers but much more often with boat dealers who regularly failed to pay!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

The funny thing about the whole situation is that in discussing the matter with the company's MD this morning he told me that he rarely had issues with private customers but much more often with boat dealers who regularly failed to pay!

Probably because he was stupid enough to give boat dealers credit

 

[volvopaul]

Probably because he was stupid enough to give boat dealers credit

They all want credit in this climate!!

Nice to hear jfm post as I'm under that category, not tha I've actually had anyone not pay me from the marine trade.

Andrew , if its only antifouling etc you can inspect the work prior to its launch and pay the bill, if it was engine work or drive work I can see your point as you or the said yard engineers should test there work and sign it off as satisfactory, then you pay the bill.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

They all want credit in this climate!!

There'll be a few forumites remembering that!

 

[jfm]

Nice to hear jfm post as I'm under that category, not tha I've actually had anyone not pay me from the marine trade.

Tricky one for you VP. If you visit a boat on its berth I doubt you are in law a bailee or have possession to begin with, and in that case you cannot exercise a lien. If you did, you might find yourself accused of taking possession without owner's consent. Tread carefully!

 

[ARA]

jfm are you saying that would make Volvopaul a pirate? if so does your "tread carefully" comment refer to the plank?