feel i am being had

[ari]

I would be better if in a 12 month agreement there were break clauses, as you get in letting arrangements over a period, especially as some people in the current financial climate may have to sell their boats due to loss of work etc (which is out of their control). So the berthholder would still be liable for a sum relative to the terms but it wouldn't all be in favour of the marina co. Surely it's time to be a little more realistic,all things considered.

That would be great for the berth holder I agree!

'Thanks for the six months through the summer on your marina at 1/2 the annual berthing rate. Good luck letting it through the winter, I'm off now'.

They do normally do short term visitor berths if you want them (at a higher per week cost, obviously), but if you pay for a year at a price that reflects you've committed to a year, I don't think it is that unreasonable for them to expect to be paid, is it? Their annual costs remain.

 

[P4Paul]

I think the point you've missed is that all you did is change to paying for an annual berth in instalments instead of in one go - you were still paying for an annual berth (at annual berth prices, plus, no doubt a small surcharge for paying in instalments).

If you'd changed to paying for a short term visitor berth you could have simply stopped paying when you no longer needed the berth, albeit at probably three or four times the annual cost pro rata.

It's a bit like buying a car on HP - just because you no longer need it and are paying monthly for it doesn't mean you can stop paying and just hand it back. If you want to be able to do that you have to hire a car - which costs much more per week.

I can understand your frustration, but I can certainly see the marina's point of view. They sell weekly berths at one rate, and annual berths at a much lower rate. If they're sold the latter, they're perfectly entitled to be paid for it.

One compromise you could try is asking whether they'll convert your contract to a weekly or monthly rate - I know MDL used to do this. So if the monthly rate is twice as dear but you give it up after four months then they get four months of visitor rate and you get a lower cost than paying for the whole year.

I think the above pretty much sums up the position; the OP asked for, and purchased, 12 months of berthing.
The fact he agreed to pay off the invoice by making monthly rather than a single payment is irrelevant.

I can understand the OP's frustration but as they have already said, it's in the contract. I agree with Ari that they might get somewhere by asking to convert the four months into short term berthing but I doubt the savings will be huge.

 

[superheat6k]

The more I read about Marinas the more I am glad I am not in one. I still remember the public statements of MDL in the early 90's that they would squeeze their clients until the pips squeaked - no wonder so many berths sit empty year round, on the Hamble at least.

They also have to come up with imaginative schemes to offer anyone a deal, as any boat owner getting a better deal than his berth neighbour will soon have said neighbour storming up to the office !

When I sold Ocean Belle I had the choice to carry on paying or relinquish my berth and take my chances. As I expected to be boatless for around a year it was a no brainer, but when I turned up 4 months later with my new boat Foulkes have bent over backwards to accommodate me. OK I am in a temporary position for the Winter, but as I have always paid my bills on time I expect my custom is valued.

Terms at Foulkes are pay until the end of the current month and thats it, but then he is full and I am not surprised.

However, I can understand a 12 month contract being split into 12 equal parts for ease of payment calculation, when in fact it is arguable a rule of twelves similar to the tides could be fairly applied, after all the winter months for most users is just a boat park, whereby Summer month payments should perhaps be double that of Winter months, but perhaps too complex for a marine business to work out.

So I expect the OP has to pay what he has signed up for, but he obviously has a choice with his next boat.

 

[Momac]

I await your thoughts

I suspect you might read future contracts (of any sort) before signing them .

 

[Ian h]

However, I can understand a 12 month contract being split into 12 equal parts for ease of payment calculation, when in fact it is arguable a rule of twelves similar to the tides could be fairly applied, after all the winter months for most users is just a boat park, whereby Summer month payments should perhaps be double that of Winter months, but perhaps too complex for a marine business to work out.

So I expect the OP has to pay what he has signed up for, but he obviously has a choice with his next boat.

Southampton Dry stack hae a couple of options 1 is Summer launch April - End September then storage only for the winter , Or launches all year round. The all year round launch package is more expensive, With the summer launch only package you can boat outside of the summer, BUT you pay for each Launch and recover- Works out quite expensive!!

 

[beejay190]

In October 2013 I sold my boat which I kept at MDL ( Cobbs Quay ) and paid the annual berthing fee (year to 31 March 2014 ) by monthly instalments. The buyer took over my berth and took over the remaining monthly instalments.

In September 2015 I sold my succeeding boat also berthed at Cobbs Quay but I had paid the annual berthing fee( year to 31 March 2016 ) in one lump sum up front. The buyer took the boat away to a different marina. MDL gave me a refund calculated my multiplying the number of months in the year that the boat had been berthed by the monthly berthing rate , and deducting this amount from the lump sum . ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE BERTHING AGREEMENT.

No problem.

 

[rubberduck]

We have a similar situation in our business. As large trucks don't tend to sit around doing nothing, it is industry standard that if someone books one to move something & then has to cancel they still pay for it. We adopt the attitude that we try to re sell it, & if successfull as we generally are, then we make no charge (except for persistent offenders) This is one of the factors that has made us one of, if not the, fastest growing in the industry. People like FAIR.

 

[nickd]

Well I like FAIR as well
I have put my boat on the market and have renewed my berthing on a monthly rate, on the basis I hope to sell reasonably quickly and therefore will not be around in a years time. In order to have this flexibility I am now paying considerably more per month than 1/12 of an annual contract - I have read the contract and honoured it. I would consider it grossly UNFAIR if someone else was paying the annual contract at a a reduced rate to me and then dishonoured it. ~
Stop bleating and in future read your contract properly.

 

[Fantasie 19]

Perhaps you can sublet it, if the contract permits it.

You read my mind..

 

[benjenbav]

When I moved from Premier part way through an annual berthing licence I seem to remember the contract was that they would charge the lesser of the balance of the annual fee or pro rata the number of days actually used based on their monthly price. I didn't feel that was at all unfair.

 

[Nigelpickin]

We have a similar situation in our business. As large trucks don't tend to sit around doing nothing, it is industry standard that if someone books one to move something & then has to cancel they still pay for it. We adopt the attitude that we try to re sell it, & if successfull as we generally are, then we make no charge (except for persistent offenders) This is one of the factors that has made us one of, if not the, fastest growing in the industry. People like FAIR.

+1

That ethos is driving successful small/medium business. Of course we have to be protected by a contract but the contract is not a mandate for customer service; it's a set of parameters.
If the OP's Mariana took that view then at least he would be incentivised to:

Find them a replacement customer, hey even on this forum...
Recommend them and use them himself in the future.

The whole 'next time make sure you read the contract' reaction misses the point entirely; of course he is not entitled to anything other than a total loss but he should expect his service provider to attempt to mitigate that loss.

I think anyone who does see that must work in the public sector,l

 

[pmagowan]

Erm.....
Go have a look on holiday lettings/air bnb/owners direct/house trip et al and numerous other companies, inghams for example.
If you cancel post lock-in date you are doing them a huge favour in terms of margin.

We deal with around £150k of cancellations per season and the total loss to guests I believe sits at <£2k this year which all amounts to fire sale discounting to salvage as much money as possible for the customer.. Yes we re sell the holidays, (replace with berth), as a priority. We could chose to take the view that we have the money and will sell an unsold holiday instead, (vacant berth), but that's lazy and is not good business. Of course we deal in high occupancy levels so it's slightly different but it's a very short term and counter intuitive strategy from a customer service point of view.

Sorry for the drift....

You pay for the service. I have looked at a couple of their cancellation policies and by default they seem to be in favour of the traveller not the owner. Most rentals work on the basis of a non-refundable deposit to take the property off the market and a completion date 8 weeks or so before the holiday. If you cancel after this date they try and rebook and refund as much as is possible minus costs.

 

[ari]

The whole 'next time make sure you read the contract' reaction misses the point entirely; of course he is not entitled to anything other than a total loss but he should expect his service provider to attempt to mitigate that loss.

I think anyone who does see that must work in the public sector,l

Why? He bought a year of berthing and he's being charged for a year of berthing. How is that remotely unreasonable?

What's actually happened here is that the OP seems to have got confused in that, having taken the decision to pay for that annual berth over a year, for some reason he feels that he should be allowed to just stop, just because he has no use for it.

I can't imagine that the marina have much use for another empty finger berth through the depths of winter either, so why should they pick up the tab on his behalf because he's changed his mind and doesn't want it any more?

 

[ari]

Well I like FAIR as well
I have put my boat on the market and have renewed my berthing on a monthly rate, on the basis I hope to sell reasonably quickly and therefore will not be around in a years time. In order to have this flexibility I am now paying considerably more per month than 1/12 of an annual contract - I have read the contract and honoured it. I would consider it grossly UNFAIR if someone else was paying the annual contract at a a reduced rate to me and then dishonoured it. ~
Stop bleating and in future read your contract properly.

Precisely this!

 

[P4Paul]

The whole 'next time make sure you read the contract' reaction misses the point entirely; of course he is not entitled to anything other than a total loss but he should expect his service provider to attempt to mitigate that loss.

I think anyone who does see that must work in the public sector,l

I beg to differ, he shouldn't 'expect' his service provider to do anything other than what was in the contract.

What we don't know in this instance is the contract said and what the marina intends to do if they manage to relet the berth to a new customer.

My personal experience of moving marinas part way through a 12 month contract was that a month after moving I had a phone call from the original marina to say they had relet the berth and a cheque was in the post.

Nigel - I have re-read your comment and realise that the empathise was on 'attempt' not 'expect', I think we are saying the same thing in different ways - you are speaking Devonshire, I am speaking Cornish....

 

[Poignard]

... I feel a bit miffed that I will be paying for a hole in the water that they are likely to fill with another boat.

If they put another boat in your hole in the water, they will be in breach of contract. Perhaps you should keep an eye on it!

 

[Nigelpickin]

I beg to differ, he shouldn't 'expect' his service provider to do anything other than what was in the contract.

What we don't know in this instance is the contract said and what the marina intends to do if they manage to relet the berth to a new customer.

My personal experience of moving marinas part way through a 12 month contract was that a month after moving I had a phone call from the original marina to say they had relet the berth and a cheque was in the post.

Nigel - I have re-read your comment and realise that the empathise was on 'attempt' not 'expect', I think we are saying the same thing in different ways - you are speaking Devonshire, I am speaking Cornish....

Very good!

 

[ari]

If they put another boat in your hole in the water, they will be in breach of contract. Perhaps you should keep an eye on it!

Are you sure? Most marinas reserve the right to use empty berths even if they are let.

Good job really or we'd be turned away from marinas we're visiting in the summer as no berths are available even though there are empty berths of resident boats that are away cruising, which would be a bit mad.

 

[rubberduck]

If they put another boat in your hole in the water, they will be in breach of contract. Perhaps you should keep an eye on it!

Or will they, perhaps the terms of the contract allows them to do so, but then are those terms fair & reasonable. Keeps solicitors in beer vouchers, better in my opinion to try & be fair with customers. Perhaps offer a discount if they manage to re let the space, if not then the customer also needs to be fair.
Trouble with contracts is they are rarely bullet proof, hence my preference for fair play.

 

[BobnLesley]

...Perhaps offer a discount if they manage to re let the space...the customer also needs to be fair...

Methinks that Nov/Dec through March/April might not be a peak period for the marina when it comes to letting berths?
Aside from this I would also suggest that the OP's expectation of a 7/12ths refund for the winter/spring period of an annual contract after having taken the benefit of the berth during the summer peak-period would be unreasonable in any circumstances.