have a look...

[Will_M]

Are we allowed to post web address here? Apols in advance if not, but have a look at.

www.what-a-ripoff.com

I guess this sort of site had to appear sooner or later, I don't feel its of much help to any of the industries which are named, as for putting individuals names on site I think is disgusting..

But still have a look.

 

[tony_brighton]

I sympathise with what they are trying to do - be a consumer watchdog - but looks like they could be exposing themselves and their contributors to slander charges. I'd be interested to get an opinion from the lawyers out there.

 

[rogerroger]

Well there's a strange dig at Ancasta here - the only criticism levelled is that they failed to supply details to potential customers.

This may be bad business practice and poor customer service but I fail to see how this warrants inclusion as a rip off.

Roger Holden
www.first-magnitude.co.uk

 

[kingfisher]

Well, it is

It's bad practice towards a potential buyer, but it's a rip-off towards the owner/seller. As an owner, you pay the broker (via the comission) for the efforts made in selling the boat: placing advertisments, getting the boat in showroom state, guiding visitors, paperwork....INCLUDING the follow up of leads.
So if the broker is loosing potential buyers through inaction, he's ripping off the customer.
It's of course much cheaper to just place an add in a magazine and wait, then effectively hunt for the best deal for your client.

Obi-Wan

 

[kingfisher]

Well, for one it's a reversal of burden of proof. If Y mentions that company X did a shoddy job, and X wants to sue them, X has to prove that Y is untruthfull, and that they did perform according to standards. Good tactics.

Obi-Wan

 

[rogerroger]

Re: Well, it is

but presumably no commision is paid UNLESS the boat sells so where is the "rip off" element?

If I tried to sell my boat with a broker that made little effort I'd simply go elsewhere, no different from selling your house with an Estate Agent. Obviously had I paid up front I would have been ripped off but equally, probably would have deserved to be.



Roger Holden
www.first-magnitude.co.uk

 

[Guest]

The libel laws are actually quite different

When you sue for libel the onus generally falls on the defendant to prove their statements are true. Also, nothing eats cash like a libel lawyer.

Still a fun site.

 

[kingfisher]

Re: Well, it is

Let's say three buyers showed some interest, but the broker doesn't persue them. After a month, with no response, aren't you going to be temted to lower your price ?

Maybe the one prospective buyer the broker let go, was the one wiling to pay the highest price.

Obi-Wan

 

[kimhollamby]

Note of caution

A polite reminder to all users that it won't be helpful to see reports from sites of this nature reproduced in part or full within these forums.

The site in question seems to be carrying a lot of criticisms from one particular person with no apparent right of redress for the companies named. In some cases companies are named with no explanation at all, which seems legally terminal, let alone not being at all helpful for the rest of us.

At risk of launching straight into an explanation that lands me 20 replies saying I am trying to look after advertising revenue, objective reporting of valid complaints is one of the most costly and time-consuming jobs there is and the potential for getting it wrong, in a purely legal sense and factually as well, is high. Humperdink's view further down this thread regarding libel law is correct and we have to act accordingly.

Lawyers aside, I would also urge circumspection where only one view is represented. In my time as editor of a marine magazine I must have received at least one complaint about every significant company out there but to reach an automatic conclusion that the company is therefore rip-off and bad is very wrong, as any of you in business will know. In some cases the customer was not always entirely right, or could at least have exercised a degree of caution.

I think a lot of valid issues get aired in this forum in a way that is sensible because often you, the users, represent both sides of the argument. Wherever possible we allow those debates to continue unless they express views or facts that we fear might not be able to be substantiated and/or where the evidence is not in our hands.

That might not always come across as the equivalent of a genetically-crossed Esther Ransen and Nick Ross but I think it is more constructive and ultimately more useful for all parties concerned. Ironically, that of course includes complaints about IPC that are very publicly aired from time to time.

 

[rogerroger]

Re: Well, it isn\'t...

But why on earth would any broker who gets a commission from a sale, allow or advise the vendor to lower the price if he knew that there were potential buyers who might pay the full price and thus receive a higher commission.

I'm not arguing that some brokers aren't crap - I just don't see how it's a rip off.

I went to a well known brokers on the Hamble who found it very hard to hide thier contempt that I only had £15,000 to spend on a boat. It's all market forces - I just won't go there when I want to spend £50,000 on a boat in a few years time.

Roger Holden
www.first-magnitude.co.uk

 

[sleepy_2]

I like it!

Well, at least I like the idea of the site... as the owner of a part built boat with the builder gone bust I'm feeling extremely ripped off at the moment!!!!!!!