Dispute with a yard

[Fpm2023]

I don’t want to trawl over old ground, but find myself in a bit of a situation with a yard that has been working on my boat.

Without wanting to be overly specific, boat is commercial and coded, and was in a yard for 2 months for an engine out and check over, replacing of seals and cleaning of cooling system etc, drive off for a service and check over, along with replacing any parts on both that needed it.

Also decided to change the autopilot system and put in new electronics.

Total bill amounted to well into 5 figure territory. Work took 2 months, with a large part of that time as witnessed by myself, not a lot happening. I had some fairly frank exchanges with the yard via messages about the time being taken to do various things, perhaps bordering on rude but frankly I don’t consider them to be that bad, considering the costs involved and the flagrant approach being taken towards my boat and the works.

in the time it was there, I was given one quote, and that was predominantly for the installation and supply of the autopilot system and electronics. This was a brand new system that was quoted for. After 5 weeks, the yard realised the system that was quoted for and ordered was not going to fit in the space, and so they offered to upgrade this to a hydraulic system. I was shocked and amazed that after 5 weeks nobody had taken the time to measure the space and establish whether the intended items would fit, but as they had made this offer I was fine to just accept and move on.

Now the boat has been lifted back in, and on inspection it is apparent that the system that has been put in is second hand, and damaged at installation. The hydraulic cylinder used has pitting on it, and given the location of it behind my engine it cannot be accessed or removed without the boat coming out and engine coming out again, and in certain that the pitting will cause the seals to be damaged in time meaning they need replacing, which again cannot really be achieved given its location. Obviously this is a huge expense, and one I’m certainly not happy to front, because from my side of things I was quoted for a new system and supplied one that does not meet the standard.

What action would I be able to take? I understand trying to speak with them directly to resolve, but given communication has been dreadful already and has become strained when it’s happened, I’m not expecting them to be particularly receptive to my dissatisfaction. There are other issues too, but I have a lot more difficult in proving these through my own lack of documenting things in a proper fashion, and lack of communication through correct channels.

Any advice offered is be grateful for. Thanks all.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Where are you, ie which country are you in?

And, what if any written quotation did you receive, or written contract or order did you sign or agree for these works, have you anything in writing / emails? If this clearly documented then you are in a reasonable place, others if this is all verbal communication and word of mouth you may well find it’s going to be difficult or impossible to remediate. Either way I’d start with a letter detailing exactly what your complaint is, what you require to be done to address this, and require a written response within 7 days. If you’re a professional operator you may have legal cover in your insurance, worth checking, or an industry association that can assist.

 

[jfm]

Not going to get too deep into this because it's clear you are choosing what info to tell and not tell, but a few thoughts/questions:

1. Have they admitted/agreed the a/pilot is actually 2nd hand? Or is the new/2nd hand nature of it a point of dispute in and of itself?
2. how come you can get so close to see pitting yet you have to lift engine out to replace? Seems very implausible that something as small and simple as an autopilot ram needs boat out/engine out to replace.
3. Another point that's hard to digest: non hydraulic autopilot A was too big to fit, but hydraulic autopilot B would fit, right? Hard to imagine anything bigger than hydraulic, so what exactly was autopilot A? A big electric actuator run by J1939?

 

[Fpm2023]

Where are you, ie which country are you in?

And, what if any written quotation did you receive, or written contract or order did you sign or agree for these works, have you anything in writing / emails? If this clearly documented then you are in a reasonable place, others if this is all verbal communication and word of mouth you may well find it’s going to be difficult or impossible to remediate. Either way I’d start with a letter detailing exactly what your complaint is, what you require to be done to address this, and require a written response within 7 days. If you’re a professional operator you may have legal cover in your insurance, worth checking, or an industry association that can assist.

In the UK.

I have an email that I sent initially to set out the works I wanted to be carried out, and then I have an emailed quotation from them for part of this work. Nothing signed as far as a contract.

As far as writing a letter, that is what I had thought to do and will do if it is required. Definitely will check with insurance as well.

 

[Fpm2023]

Not going to get too deep into this because it's clear you are choosing what info to tell and not tell, but a few thoughts/questions:

1. Have they admitted/agreed the a/pilot is actually 2nd hand? Or is the new/2nd hand nature of it a point of dispute in and of itself?
2. how come you can get so close to see pitting yet you have to lift engine out to replace? Seems very implausible that something as small and simple as an autopilot ram needs boat out/engine out to replace.
3. Another point that's hard to digest: non hydraulic autopilot A was too big to fit, but hydraulic autopilot B would fit, right? Hard to imagine anything bigger than hydraulic, so what exactly was autopilot A? A big electric actuator run by J1939?

They haven’t admitted it, but it is very very obvious. I only raised this yesterday, when I discovered the pitting and had a closer look. I had asked for an entirely new system, new cable new wheel new helm unit, and that was all ordered, but obviously when the plan got changed to putting in hydraulic system all of the parts ordered were no good, and parts they had in stock were used. The helm pump is very clearly second hand with scratches and corrosion evident too.

I’m not getting very close to see it, it’s just evident on one end of the cylinder when it’s at extension. The boat is not big, the engine space is tiny.

Previous autopilot that used was a wheel drive system, not attached to any part of the tiller or drive.

Current system is now in the engine bay, attached to the tiller arm. The one they tried to fit would have been a linear drive with a secondary piggy back ram for the AP to run off, I was told there was an issue with space and connectivity. Perhaps it could be got out without the engine coming out, but I think it would be incredibly difficult, and putting a new one in would almost certainly get damaged.

 

[simonfraser]

Sounds like a nightmare dispute, does it affect the coding / use ?
If not I’d consider moving on and possibly part paying the bill

 

[Fpm2023]

Bill has been paid in full, boat wouldn’t be moved without that. I suspect that there is a coding element, I’m required to carry the documentation of all kit installed as a part of it, but I’m sure they can produce a manual for it.

I fear I’m in a position of not being able to do a great deal through my own mistakes, I.e. not documenting properly. I am aware of numerous issues with these people and others on here and people I have met, but they’ve been around a while and obviously make a business work doing it.

Honestly I’d rather not do anything, I’d rather that things were rectified satisfactorily and the boat to operate as it should.

 

[ashtead]

Presumably you can ask for evidence as to the origins of the parts - if they are new for you then I would expect their records would record purchasing - maybe they dispute its old used parts though ? Could it be a new part which has pitted in storage so this is just a cosmetic issue . I would have thought an experts view before what could turn into an expensive fight might be a way to clarify whether the parts are fit for purpose?

 

[benjenbav]

I think you should look back at the written correspondence and/or spoken conversations around the substitution of the autohelm unit.

What I would expect would be a discussion maybe/maybe not in writing covering the fact that plan A was not going to work and outlining plan B. This followed by written confirmation of the cost saving/increase for implementing plan B, broken down by parts and labour costings.

If the dispute were to be litigated the court would have to try to work out what the contract comprised and, absent an all-embracing document labelled ‘This is the Contract’ and which had not been varied, the actual contract would be made up of the original quote, your acceptance of same, any changes that were agreed and so on.

In your case identifying exactly what the contract was is probably going to be particularly important as you may well fall outside the definition of a consumer for the purpose of consumer rights legislation - if your boat is a business asset being used and repaired as such (you mention it is coded).

From what you have said there may also be a claim for unsatisfactory workmanship. Again, as a consumer you would have statute to support your case whereas a non-consumer will be more reliant on the terms of the contract.

 

[superheat6k]

Was an opportunity to examine the work provided before the boat was returned to you and before you paid the bill ? Or were you required to pay before you could establish your concerns ? If the latter then this may have placed you at a particular disadvantage to then discover that second-hand parts have been supplied.

"This was a brand new system that was quoted for."

I would be concentrating upon the term 'New'. But you did have other works done, so is there a clear definition between those other works and the NEW auto helm requirement. Unless there is a later contract variation, even with a hydraulic system the kit should be NEW also.

But your text states "New electronics"

If they have represented the job as New but have used secondhand parts then they might be guilty of passing off.

You will need to prove and show to a Court the contract for the auto helm system required 'New' and only 'New' and at no point was secondhand parts a consideration.

You will also need to be able to show that secondhand parts have been used. You will need written records to show this - ideally a written contract but at least emails showing what was quoted for and paid for.

If you can prove this then you should be OK, and the if you were held to pay in full before you could notice the issues should provide a considerable leverage.

I would be demanding a full refund of all costs for the auto helm including al associated works, because effectively it sounds like the entire job needs to be done again.

For a 5 figure job likely time to be consulting a lawyer. Remember advice on here is only worth what you are paying for it - including mine.

 

[Poignard]

[...]

Any advice offered is be grateful for. Thanks all.

[...] Either way I’d start with a letter detailing exactly what your complaint is, what you require to be done to address this, and require a written response within 7 days.[...]

 

[Fpm2023]

Presumably you can ask for evidence as to the origins of the parts - if they are new for you then I would expect their records would record purchasing - maybe they dispute its old used parts though ? Could it be a new part which has pitted in storage so this is just a cosmetic issue . I would have thought an experts view before what could turn into an expensive fight might be a way to clarify whether the parts are fit for purpose?

Yes I would have thought I can do that as well, and I will do so. To be honest at the moment there’s so many things wrong with the boat I’m incredibly sceptical of any of the work they claim to have done. Getting an independent professional opinion probably the way forward but again the cost of that and time it will take is not really palatable even if it is necessary

 

[Fpm2023]

I think you should look back at the written correspondence and/or spoken conversations around the substitution of the autohelm unit.

What I would expect would be a discussion maybe/maybe not in writing covering the fact that plan A was not going to work and outlining plan B. This followed by written confirmation of the cost saving/increase for implementing plan B, broken down by parts and labour costings.

If the dispute were to be litigated the court would have to try to work out what the contract comprised and, absent an all-embracing document labelled ‘This is the Contract’ and which had not been varied, the actual contract would be made up of the original quote, your acceptance of same, any changes that were agreed and so on.

In your case identifying exactly what the contract was is probably going to be particularly important as you may well fall outside the definition of a consumer for the purpose of consumer rights legislation - if your boat is a business asset being used and repaired as such (you mention it is coded).

From what you have said there may also be a claim for unsatisfactory workmanship. Again, as a consumer you would have statute to support your case whereas a non-consumer will be more reliant on the terms of the contract.

I think this yard probably has experience with all of these things, and I think that might be why the communication lines are so poor. There is very little written out anywhere that could be used against them, unresponsive to emails, everything is a message on WhatsApp and it’s sporadic and generally pretty useless I think.

I’m also fairly sure that I have some claims against them that are completely valid, I’ve found these issues having barely scratched the surface. Right now it’s not even in a moveable condition due to a problem with the gear shift. I didn’t have any trouble with it before, but am being told it’s a problem I’ve created and it couldn’t possibly be anything they have done. If it is gear shift linkage and not throttle, then boat has to come back out for that to be checked to the tune of another several hundred quid.

 

[Fpm2023]

Was an opportunity to examine the work provided before the boat was returned to you and before you paid the bill ? Or were you required to pay before you could establish your concerns ? If the latter then this may have placed you at a particular disadvantage to then discover that second-hand parts have been supplied.

"This was a brand new system that was quoted for."

I would be concentrating upon the term 'New'. But you did have other works done, so is there a clear definition between those other works and the NEW auto helm requirement. Unless there is a later contract variation, even with a hydraulic system the kit should be NEW also.

But your text states "New electronics"

If they have represented the job as New but have used secondhand parts then they might be guilty of passing off.

You will need to prove and show to a Court the contract for the auto helm system required 'New' and only 'New' and at no point was secondhand parts a consideration.

You will also need to be able to show that secondhand parts have been used. You will need written records to show this - ideally a written contract but at least emails showing what was quoted for and paid for.

If you can prove this then you should be OK, and the if you were held to pay in full before you could notice the issues should provide a considerable leverage.

I would be demanding a full refund of all costs for the auto helm including al associated works, because effectively it sounds like the entire job needs to be done again.

For a 5 figure job likely time to be consulting a lawyer. Remember advice on here is only worth what you are paying for it - including mine.

No not really. I work away on shift work, hence getting someone else to do the work in the first place as I struggle to find the time. Most of the work was done during periods of me being away, during all the time I was actually there nobody was doing anything to my boat. The day it was lifted in I came to the yard to try and look through a few things, but was told by the owner I wasn’t allowed to be there, and that I had to pay my bill and get out, but this was all verbal.

After launching, a few checks were made and we went on a sea trial. That sea trial lasted 5 minutes because the engine wouldn’t rev at all, I managed a top speed of 7 knots vs my usual 23/4. The auto pilot system hadn’t even been commissioned or set up properly and was completely inoperable. I could barely get the boat out of gear coming back to the pontoon and almost put it into the dock, as I have said above that’s a completely new problem, though the yard is saying it’s my throttle and not the gear linkage. Throttle is smooth as silk when the neutral button on control is engaged….only becomes rough when using the gears…but by this point the bill has been paid and as far as I can make out they are claiming the issues I’m experiencing are nothing to do with work they have done and I should have asked them to replace throttle, which incidentally I did ask for (purely from a cosmetic point of view) because I was replacing everything else and I thought it would be nice to have a new throttle along with a new helm!

But again, the biggest issue in all of this for me is the lack of documentation. They have been incredibly poor at communication, and it certainly isn’t a strong point of mine, and I now realise the folly of having not started putting everything in emails at the first instant that I suspect there would be any elements of foul play. This yard is, I have since established, quite well versed with shafting people.

I will be seeking legal advice tomorrow. I’d rather not go down that road but I think it will be required.

 

[Skipper Felice]

I’m also fairly sure that I have some claims against them that are completely valid, I’ve found these issues having barely scratched the surface. Right now it’s not even in a moveable condition due to a problem with the gear shift. I didn’t have any trouble with it before, but am being told it’s a problem I’ve created and it couldn’t possibly be anything they have done. If it is gear shift linkage and not throttle, then boat has to come back out for that to be checked to the tune of another several hundred quid.

My advice to your case: Only do all the communication, orders, offers, bills etc. over proper - legal proven - communication: This is E-Mail (with dates, replies, confirmation ... and printed out on paper) or exchange of written documents (pdf, coded data files ...) and for phone calls and direct communication do a small report with (written) confirmation of your partner.

Never ever use Social-Media, this all gaming whatsapp or whatever-apps or all the "apple-google-playstation apps from the digital kids" out there: I costs nothing - but it's nothing for any legal / business claim and it's noting for a court. As I can confirm by Swiss legislation or law.

 

[Fpm2023]

My advice to your case: Only do all the communication, orders, offers, bills etc. over proper - legal proven - communication: This is E-Mail (with dates, replies, confirmation ... and printed out on paper) or exchange of written documents (pdf, coded data files ...) and for phone calls and direct communication do a small report with (written) confirmation of your partner.

Never ever use Social-Media, this all gaming whatsapp or whatever-apps or all the "apple-google-playstation apps from the digital kids" out there: I costs nothing - but it's nothing for any legal / business claim and it's noting for a court. As I can confirm by Swiss legislation or law.

Yes I understand that better now, as I alluded to already I fear that my issues predominantly surrounds the fact that I did not communicate particularly well through appropriate channels. I am still hoping to rectify without needed to escalate further, but perhaps that won’t happen as the yard will know the position I am in is not particularly strong with regard to any recourse.

 

[volvopaul]

Sadly it sounds like you picked a yard that are totally incompetent to carry out the tasks you have instructed them to do .
I used to get involved in expert witness claims making reports for owners that were in exactly the same situation after poor works carried out .
I can tell you I have seen some shocking work over the years .
My advice would be to contact your insurance company to act for you, they will instruct a surveyor to inspect the work carried out and goods supplied .
As per your autopilot , if you think it's second hand just ask the yard for the warranty registration paperwork, if they start to stumble then you know you have them , that's when it's will get really messy for them .
Unfortunately I can tell you that on a couple of occasions when I carried out these inspections the said yards went into liquidation as the numbers being claimed would have bankrupted them anyway.
The last one suddenly invented a 3rd party company with no assets and passed the real one on to another director wife from memory .

As you have not given much info I cannot recommend anyone to inspect the work , contact your insurers .

 

[Fpm2023]

Sadly it sounds like you picked a yard that are totally incompetent to carry out the tasks you have instructed them to do .
I used to get involved in expert witness claims making reports for owners that were in exactly the same situation after poor works carried out .
I can tell you I have seen some shocking work over the years .
My advice would be to contact your insurance company to act for you, they will instruct a surveyor to inspect the work carried out and goods supplied .
As per your autopilot , if you thinks it's second hand just ask the yard for the warranty registration paperwork, if they start to stumble then you know you have them , that's when it's will get really messy for them .
Unfortunately I can tell you that on a couple of occasions when I carried out these inspections the said yards went into liquidation as the numbers being claimed would have bankrupted them anyway.
The last one suddenly invented a 3rd party company with no assets and passed the real one on to another director wife from memory .

As you have not given much info I cannot recommend anyone to inspect the work , contact your insurers .

I was hoping you would put a message up.

I will send a PM, if I can figure out how to do that.

 

[benjenbav]

As the work doesn’t appear to have been well-documented, I would also suggest that you spend some time - whilst everything is fresh in your mind - supplementing anything that is written down by making notes of who said what to whom and when.

For example, when the hydraulic autohelm unit was introduced did the yard say:

The one you ordered won’t fit. We’ve got something on the shelf that will.

Did you say ‘ok’ or ask for further details?

Was price discussed?

Etc

Or did they just fit it and tell you later.

All these things will seem much less clear in six months time when you get into a ‘they said/he said’ argument.

The poor workmanship needs to be verified by an independent expert. Again time is important because, as time moves on it will be less clear whether something isn’t working as a consequence of something done recently or there’s another cause.

 

[ylop]

Never ever use Social-Media, this all gaming whatsapp or whatever-apps or all the "apple-google-playstation apps from the digital kids" out there: I costs nothing - but it's nothing for any legal / business claim and it's noting for a court. As I can confirm by Swiss legislation or law.

That may be the case in Switzerland but as BenJenBav says in the absence of a nice clean contract the court will make its own mind up what the contract was. I would be very surprised if an English court just excluded social media as a basis for contract. But there is a reason lawyers write lots of words and get paid lots of money - to avoid unwanted ambiguity, and help make things easier to sort when it goes wrong.