Clarky
Well-Known Member
The easiest way for you to have some redress is to phone your credit card company, as no doubt this how you paid the security deposit, and say you are unhappy with the situation.
Have we been conned ..... ?
- Thread starter MarcoinLondon
- Start date
MarcoinLondon
New Member
A little update. Below is some correspondence between my and the charer co.
So the damage occurred first week of August. So far I have not received any official paperwork. Instead I lost my deposit of £600.
First
So the damage occurred first week of August. So far I have not received any official paperwork. Instead I lost my deposit of £600.
First
MarcoinLondon
New Member
*** see earlier post ***
6/10
Even months later this case still bothers me. I have consulted a lot of
people in the sailing world on this particular incident and I have had some
interesting feedback.
Can I ask you to email me a copy of the final invoice and original quote
without further delay. I find it particularly bad practice that you have
taken £ 600 of my money without providing me with any official paperwork.
There is a very good chance that we will be in touch again regarding this
matter.
*** 26/10 - after no reply ***
I find it quite astonishing that you still have not send me a copy of the
final invoice and original quote. You have taken GBP 600 from me without
showing me any back up paperwork.
In the past few months I have showed the pictures of the damage to the
furler to a number of yacht surveyors and experienced skippers. From the
feedback I have received I get the feeling that you have taken advantage of
my inexperience. I hope we can sort this out in an amicable way. If I don't
receive the requested paperwork within two weeks I will take this matter to
the Small Claims Court.
*** 28/10 finally I hear from them ***
I am sorry you feel that I would take advantage of your inexperience I
thought you knew me better than that in addition it is not necessary to make
veiled threats about small claims courts albeit I regret you feel this way.
Unfortunately the French company who make the furling drum were out of stock
when the yard ordered the part.
Unfortunately I have not had the yards bill yet as soon as I do you can be
assured you will receive an invoice from us for the repair.
Their estimate was for c£700 for the part plus fitting ie well in excess of
your security deposit. Marco it is not only you who have lost money on this
but we are also out of pocket too which I tried to explain in my first mail
along with the photographic evidence of the damage.extraordinary happened
Should the repair be less than this I would be delighted to refund you as it
will also mean we dio not have to put our hand in our pocket
Marco I will be in touch in due course.
What do you all think? This all feels very suspicious to me.
6/10
Even months later this case still bothers me. I have consulted a lot of
people in the sailing world on this particular incident and I have had some
interesting feedback.
Can I ask you to email me a copy of the final invoice and original quote
without further delay. I find it particularly bad practice that you have
taken £ 600 of my money without providing me with any official paperwork.
There is a very good chance that we will be in touch again regarding this
matter.
*** 26/10 - after no reply ***
I find it quite astonishing that you still have not send me a copy of the
final invoice and original quote. You have taken GBP 600 from me without
showing me any back up paperwork.
In the past few months I have showed the pictures of the damage to the
furler to a number of yacht surveyors and experienced skippers. From the
feedback I have received I get the feeling that you have taken advantage of
my inexperience. I hope we can sort this out in an amicable way. If I don't
receive the requested paperwork within two weeks I will take this matter to
the Small Claims Court.
*** 28/10 finally I hear from them ***
I am sorry you feel that I would take advantage of your inexperience I
thought you knew me better than that in addition it is not necessary to make
veiled threats about small claims courts albeit I regret you feel this way.
Unfortunately the French company who make the furling drum were out of stock
when the yard ordered the part.
Unfortunately I have not had the yards bill yet as soon as I do you can be
assured you will receive an invoice from us for the repair.
Their estimate was for c£700 for the part plus fitting ie well in excess of
your security deposit. Marco it is not only you who have lost money on this
but we are also out of pocket too which I tried to explain in my first mail
along with the photographic evidence of the damage.extraordinary happened
Should the repair be less than this I would be delighted to refund you as it
will also mean we dio not have to put our hand in our pocket
Marco I will be in touch in due course.
What do you all think? This all feels very suspicious to me.
H
halfway
Guest
I would do it!
Clearly installed wrongly by the charter company. New rope fitted not per the instruction manual. No hitch either. See page 28 of installation manual. Even the picture in the "BAVARIA YACHTS - “MATCH“ MODEL" installation has the rope going through the guide. It describes it as a guide, not a barrier or blades.
http://www.facnor.com/uk/technical_.../fichiers/ls-lx-rs-rx_notice_-_manualuk06.pdf
I personally never threaten. Due to the law being against boat owners I always pay the bill, with a protest, and then I am free to issue a small claim. There is an initial procedure where by you can state the case and they respond.
If they continue to challenge it in light of the above evidence you can withdraw at that point with no costs (I think). Or go ahead. My go was against a high street company and they paid in full by return of mail. All I had to do was sign the withdrawal form to terminate the case. Look on the online small claims site for the procedures.
Worth investing a day, in anyone's life, to read it all.
Clearly installed wrongly by the charter company. New rope fitted not per the instruction manual. No hitch either. See page 28 of installation manual. Even the picture in the "BAVARIA YACHTS - “MATCH“ MODEL" installation has the rope going through the guide. It describes it as a guide, not a barrier or blades.
http://www.facnor.com/uk/technical_.../fichiers/ls-lx-rs-rx_notice_-_manualuk06.pdf
I personally never threaten. Due to the law being against boat owners I always pay the bill, with a protest, and then I am free to issue a small claim. There is an initial procedure where by you can state the case and they respond.
If they continue to challenge it in light of the above evidence you can withdraw at that point with no costs (I think). Or go ahead. My go was against a high street company and they paid in full by return of mail. All I had to do was sign the withdrawal form to terminate the case. Look on the online small claims site for the procedures.
Worth investing a day, in anyone's life, to read it all.
rivonia
Well-Known Member
I do not believe a word from the charter company. They all HAVE to have INSURANCE against damage, do not hesitate go to the small claims court with copies of all correspondence.
Peter
Peter
bedouin
Well-Known Member
I would write to them once more giving them seven days to reply saying that the damage was clearly caused by the furler being incorrectly installed.
I would head that as a "Letter Before Action" and state clearly that if you do not get a satisfactory response within 7 days you will begin legal action to recover the amount.
If they don't respond satisfactorily then you can issue the claim on line.
I would head that as a "Letter Before Action" and state clearly that if you do not get a satisfactory response within 7 days you will begin legal action to recover the amount.
If they don't respond satisfactorily then you can issue the claim on line.
Plevier
Well-Known Member
Without reading it all again, my guess was that by "blade" they meant the bottom disk of the drum, and they were suggesting that was bent although it didn't look it to me on the photos.
It is very hard to tell just from the photos, but I still find it hard to believe there is more damage than just a bent guard loop.
bobupanddown
Well-Known Member
It is totally clear from your photos that as already mentioned the furling line is incorrectly installed. This appears so be the sole reason that the wire guide has been bent out of true.
You have a stronh case for your money back!
You have a stronh case for your money back!
hoverjumper
Well-Known Member
Good attempt to blame the French! lol
How about sending your photos to the manufacturer of the furler and try and get a letter from them stating that it is incorrectly rigged?
H
halfway
Guest
H
Willow3: There are guides, blades and cages.
The guide stops twisting motion on the drum base supports. The idea is that the rope is distorted around the guide to align the drum axis with the fair lead of the reefing line. The force from the line is then through the wire/furler axis.
Think of the rope from the deck to the guide, all it can do is pull, it can not push sideways. The off axis forces cancel between the guide and the drum.
If you pull "off axis" the off axis twisting force has to be taken by the twist of the two supporting bars either side of the turnbuckle down to the deck. These are usually pinned with a cotter/split pin. Any twist puts undue force on the split pin. Which will lead to distortion and failure.
Cages are the type used on Schaefer furler and are supplemented by an arm type guide.
Blades are the floppy/springy pieces of stainless sheet that surrounded the drum on the old Hood designs.
Both Blades and Cages stop floppy turns, due to flogging sails, from falling outside the drum and wrapping around the turn buckle.
In the design of the Facnor unit they have combined the functions of cages and guides by creating a wire type guide. If however it is not used properly, with the rope placed outside the "holes", the rope can pass OVER the guide. This occurs when a sail flogs briefly and the furling rope is flicked around violently.
When the sail is then next furled the force is to pull the guide outwards until the rope again slips over the guide loop. Hence why it is bent more at the forward end.
The incorrect installation is a safety hazard. It would be interesting if their insurance company knew of this problem, of which they seem to have prior knowledge.
Willow3: There are guides, blades and cages.
The guide stops twisting motion on the drum base supports. The idea is that the rope is distorted around the guide to align the drum axis with the fair lead of the reefing line. The force from the line is then through the wire/furler axis.
Think of the rope from the deck to the guide, all it can do is pull, it can not push sideways. The off axis forces cancel between the guide and the drum.
If you pull "off axis" the off axis twisting force has to be taken by the twist of the two supporting bars either side of the turnbuckle down to the deck. These are usually pinned with a cotter/split pin. Any twist puts undue force on the split pin. Which will lead to distortion and failure.
Cages are the type used on Schaefer furler and are supplemented by an arm type guide.
Blades are the floppy/springy pieces of stainless sheet that surrounded the drum on the old Hood designs.
Both Blades and Cages stop floppy turns, due to flogging sails, from falling outside the drum and wrapping around the turn buckle.
In the design of the Facnor unit they have combined the functions of cages and guides by creating a wire type guide. If however it is not used properly, with the rope placed outside the "holes", the rope can pass OVER the guide. This occurs when a sail flogs briefly and the furling rope is flicked around violently.
When the sail is then next furled the force is to pull the guide outwards until the rope again slips over the guide loop. Hence why it is bent more at the forward end.
The incorrect installation is a safety hazard. It would be interesting if their insurance company knew of this problem, of which they seem to have prior knowledge.
Last edited:
Blueboatman
Well-Known Member
At this point, I would 'invite' the charterer to read this thread.
Especially the bits where so many concur that you have been taken for a ride and so many want to know who the name of the charterer is.
Nothing slanderous, libellous or unreasonable there. You are simply asking advice.
Crikey, who rents out a boat with a 'health warning' on the furling gear anyway? Absolutely bonkers, an accident waiting to happen.
Especially the bits where so many concur that you have been taken for a ride and so many want to know who the name of the charterer is.
Nothing slanderous, libellous or unreasonable there. You are simply asking advice.
Crikey, who rents out a boat with a 'health warning' on the furling gear anyway? Absolutely bonkers, an accident waiting to happen.
H
halfway
Guest
Stainless
Your quote from him: "problem being they are alloy".
Initially I missed the model number which is quite clear on the photo. So the real instruction book is:
http://www.facnor.com/uk/technical_support/installation_manuals/fichiers/sd_headsail_fur.pdf
Not that they are any different in this part of the design to make a difference.
HOWEVER it does say:
"Fit the furling line onto the drum so that it passes through the stainless guide."
So ask him which parts of "through" and "Stainless" he does not understand!
Your quote from him: "problem being they are alloy".
Initially I missed the model number which is quite clear on the photo. So the real instruction book is:
http://www.facnor.com/uk/technical_support/installation_manuals/fichiers/sd_headsail_fur.pdf
Not that they are any different in this part of the design to make a difference.
HOWEVER it does say:
"Fit the furling line onto the drum so that it passes through the stainless guide."
So ask him which parts of "through" and "Stainless" he does not understand!
Plevier
Well-Known Member
Halfway, I do agree with your analysis of what happened, in fact if you go back I'm almost sure I posted that analysis first and pointed out that it was wrongly rigged comparing it with the instructions for my Facnor. Re the blade question, I was just trying to make sense of what they meant as they appeared to be saying there was more damage other than the stainless guide loop.
It still doesn't add up. As far as one can see it just needed a new guard loop, or maybe just straightening.
H
halfway
Guest
Sorry willow3. I will get used to the multiple pages one day.
I saw the original post a while back, but then looked again recently and still saw he was getting nowhere. I was hoping to give him some more ammunition to go after this person bringing yachting into disrepute.
I am yet to go on a boat, that I have paid for, that did not fail due to poor maintenance. Why should we be teaching newbie's to yachting that it is OK to have boats that can not stand up to simple manoeuvres. One issue is that a lot of these boats arrive "packaged" and are never actually built up properly in the first place. Locals obviously can not read manuals as this case proves.
The key about axis alignment and guides (another issue than the 90degree axis issue) was the point I was trying to get across, and to highlight that he would win easily in court with a little help. (That is, if what we know is everything)
The shape of the bend is totally consistent with the theories and the whole event might not have had any human intervention. One large wave while sailing to windward with a slight reef could have bounced the foresail and as it snapped back into shape the rope would have, as you said, flicked and been dragged past the guide. As the sail set the force would have been all on the guide twisting it until it was laid backwards. As the rope rode up the incline the guide would have bent downwards. All without any human intervention.
I saw the original post a while back, but then looked again recently and still saw he was getting nowhere. I was hoping to give him some more ammunition to go after this person bringing yachting into disrepute.
I am yet to go on a boat, that I have paid for, that did not fail due to poor maintenance. Why should we be teaching newbie's to yachting that it is OK to have boats that can not stand up to simple manoeuvres. One issue is that a lot of these boats arrive "packaged" and are never actually built up properly in the first place. Locals obviously can not read manuals as this case proves.
The key about axis alignment and guides (another issue than the 90degree axis issue) was the point I was trying to get across, and to highlight that he would win easily in court with a little help. (That is, if what we know is everything)
The shape of the bend is totally consistent with the theories and the whole event might not have had any human intervention. One large wave while sailing to windward with a slight reef could have bounced the foresail and as it snapped back into shape the rope would have, as you said, flicked and been dragged past the guide. As the sail set the force would have been all on the guide twisting it until it was laid backwards. As the rope rode up the incline the guide would have bent downwards. All without any human intervention.
Last edited:
Doug_Stormforce
Well-Known Member
I have no idea who the charter company is but I hope it is not a company I work with as I don't want this reply to seem biased. I feel the charter company have been given a bit of a bashing on this thread and looking from the other side have a few observations
The boat was inspected and signed for at hand over (I assume), at hand back damage is discovered. What other conclusion is there other than the boat has sustained damage while in the charterers responsibility?
3 posters have alluded that the costs should come out of the charter company's insurance. This is not the case, the charter contract stipulates that damage caused by a charterer comes firstly form the security deposit. The security deposit is likely to be roughly in line with the insurance excess. In this case they claim the total bill is £100 or so more than the deposit and have no doubt decided it not worth an insurance claim. I notice the OP has not considered to compensate the charter company for the damage. Why would he, his liability is only the extent of the security deposit. The charter company however looses while the charterer walks away.
Some posters have suggested that the charter company should simply bend the piece back in to shape. This is a no win situation for the charter company as if they bodge the repair in order to save billing the charterer who has done the damage the problem will re appear and future charterers will complain. If this was your own boat of course you would try bending it back but you would know that one day it was likely to need repaired again.
Whatever happened the charter company will have put some time into ordering parts/organising repair and replying to the charter who did the original damage. You might think this takes a few minutes but hours can be spent on this kind of stuff.
As far as "Name and Sham" goes, I would advise against it. There is a liklyhood that the charterer has done nothing wrong. You should not publicly damage his business unless you are 100% confident he is guilty.
The meat of the thread really comes down as to whether or not you trust the charter company, his email reply to you suggests you have dealt with each other before.
The lesson here for everyone is inspect the boat thouroughly at hand over because you can't deny damage that is apparent at hand back.
As far as the cost of this repair goes it does not surprise me in the slightest. Boat repairs are generally considerably more than people think and parts are often difficult/slow to source. It not like ordering a replacment part for your Ford Focus.
I have no doubt that some of the forum hardliners will shoot down my post but my advice to the OP would be leave the poor charter company alone. You took responsibility for his boat and it got damaged. You are unsure how but it happened but you were in control. This is not his fault but he is now dealing with an angry customer demanding bills and threatening legal action. He will have to cover the difference of the damage cost. He has the hassle of organising repair and he has had to apologise to several customers since then that the boat is not in A1 working order.
Being in the charter game myself it never ceases to amaze me how often people try and cover up damage and how often they say things like " its only a little scratch", "will only take a few minutes to fix" and "I think it must have been broken already" These are of course the very same people who complain " the boat had a scratch in it", "the boat was poorly maintained" etc.
The boat was inspected and signed for at hand over (I assume), at hand back damage is discovered. What other conclusion is there other than the boat has sustained damage while in the charterers responsibility?
3 posters have alluded that the costs should come out of the charter company's insurance. This is not the case, the charter contract stipulates that damage caused by a charterer comes firstly form the security deposit. The security deposit is likely to be roughly in line with the insurance excess. In this case they claim the total bill is £100 or so more than the deposit and have no doubt decided it not worth an insurance claim. I notice the OP has not considered to compensate the charter company for the damage. Why would he, his liability is only the extent of the security deposit. The charter company however looses while the charterer walks away.
Some posters have suggested that the charter company should simply bend the piece back in to shape. This is a no win situation for the charter company as if they bodge the repair in order to save billing the charterer who has done the damage the problem will re appear and future charterers will complain. If this was your own boat of course you would try bending it back but you would know that one day it was likely to need repaired again.
Whatever happened the charter company will have put some time into ordering parts/organising repair and replying to the charter who did the original damage. You might think this takes a few minutes but hours can be spent on this kind of stuff.
As far as "Name and Sham" goes, I would advise against it. There is a liklyhood that the charterer has done nothing wrong. You should not publicly damage his business unless you are 100% confident he is guilty.
The meat of the thread really comes down as to whether or not you trust the charter company, his email reply to you suggests you have dealt with each other before.
The lesson here for everyone is inspect the boat thouroughly at hand over because you can't deny damage that is apparent at hand back.
As far as the cost of this repair goes it does not surprise me in the slightest. Boat repairs are generally considerably more than people think and parts are often difficult/slow to source. It not like ordering a replacment part for your Ford Focus.
I have no doubt that some of the forum hardliners will shoot down my post but my advice to the OP would be leave the poor charter company alone. You took responsibility for his boat and it got damaged. You are unsure how but it happened but you were in control. This is not his fault but he is now dealing with an angry customer demanding bills and threatening legal action. He will have to cover the difference of the damage cost. He has the hassle of organising repair and he has had to apologise to several customers since then that the boat is not in A1 working order.
Being in the charter game myself it never ceases to amaze me how often people try and cover up damage and how often they say things like " its only a little scratch", "will only take a few minutes to fix" and "I think it must have been broken already" These are of course the very same people who complain " the boat had a scratch in it", "the boat was poorly maintained" etc.
Last edited:
Plevier
Well-Known Member
Doug Stormforce - in general terms yes, but I think you are overlooking two points here.
First, the photos show that the charter co supplied the boat with the furler wrongly installed. You couldn't expect an average client to notice that. I only did because I have just installed a Facnor furler on my boat.
Second, the only damage apparent - and I admit it's conceivable that there is damge not showing in the photos - is the bent guard loop and again from having the same unit I know that piece can be replaced separately in less than 10 minutes. I don't know the cost of it, I can imagine maybe £50, but the £700 would correspond to a whole drum.
So the client did carelessly do damage, but that damage would probably not have happened if the charter co had supplied the boat correctly rigged; and it very much looks as though the charter company is overcharging the repair.
I don't agree with the more extreme posts, and I know the less obvious costs of running a business, but I think you're oversimplifying in favour of the charter co.
First, the photos show that the charter co supplied the boat with the furler wrongly installed. You couldn't expect an average client to notice that. I only did because I have just installed a Facnor furler on my boat.
Second, the only damage apparent - and I admit it's conceivable that there is damge not showing in the photos - is the bent guard loop and again from having the same unit I know that piece can be replaced separately in less than 10 minutes. I don't know the cost of it, I can imagine maybe £50, but the £700 would correspond to a whole drum.
So the client did carelessly do damage, but that damage would probably not have happened if the charter co had supplied the boat correctly rigged; and it very much looks as though the charter company is overcharging the repair.
I don't agree with the more extreme posts, and I know the less obvious costs of running a business, but I think you're oversimplifying in favour of the charter co.
hoverjumper
Well-Known Member
A charterer is certainly responsible for inspecting the boat on take over, but he cannot be expected to know how each piece of equipment on the charter company's boat should be rigged. He has a right to assume that the charter co is providing a boat already properly rigged for use. If damage is sustained due to a pre-existing problem as appears to be the case here then the charter co must be liable.
In this case it seems the dispute has arisen due to both parties not fully understanding how the furling gear should be rigged and operated. I doubt there is any real intent to exploit inexperience.