Help with boat yard dispute

[Hallberg-Rassy]

You'll probably find ...

And what's your follow up, your plan B when he says "no" or refuses to meet & instead tries to work through minions who are just following orders?

Morning guys.

I'm sorry to return and read the contractors & yardmen still putting bogeyman fears into the victim. There'll be no bailiffs banging on his door.

Where do things stand? How do they look for the original poster?

(I'm asking the original poster).

I forget, is the boat in the water?

 

[[178529]]

For me, life is too short to get dragged into a legal dispute over small sums. Put it down to experience and use it as a lesson for handling marine suppliers more carefully in the future.

 

[Hallberg-Rassy]

Any chance I can offer you some over-charged-for services?

"A fool and his money" comes to mind.

 

[Major_Clanger]

And what's your follow up, your plan B when he says "no" or refuses to meet & instead tries to work through minions who are just following orders?

Morning guys.

I'm sorry to return and read the contractors & yardmen still putting bogeyman fears into the victim. There'll be no bailiffs banging on his door.

Where do things stand? How do they look for the original poster?

(I'm asking the original poster).

I forget, is the boat in the water?

We are generally over-burdened with real drama in our lives. Probably best to explore my option A first and then make a plan based on the outcome.

No need to go searching for the negative aspect.

 

[Hallberg-Rassy]

That would be like playing chess, while only thinking one move ahead each time.

You are guaranteed to lose if you do.

What hope has the victim if asking advice from too wealthy rollovers on oneside, and contractors and yardsmen on the other?

 

[RichardS]

No thanks, it's fine as is.

You actually suggested he rolls over for £550 quid, without securing his position, and appeals to the reason of people who have proven themselves to be unreasonable.

I actually threw up in my mouth a little when I read that much. The CCJ stuff was merely the icing on the pie.

That's like asking a mugger to hold your wallet while you discuss how much they can take off you.

I do hope that you don't expect to be taken seriously on this forum? I would recommend "The Lounge" as being your natural home.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Your usual little knowledge demonstration. Even allowing for the fact that you profess to live in Scotland and the law there is different Maritime Liens are very different from land based ones and ' legal right of entry' is of little relevance, civil trespass not normally being a criminal matter for the police.

Keep posting though we need a good laugh. However, anyone who takes any actions on the basis of anything you post:
a) is daft,
b) deserves what's coming to them.

Another deserving candidate for "The Lounge" membership. Is there something in the water on PBO today?

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

What a horribly litigious country we have become.

Neither party are without blame so forget the notion of legal action.

To be fair, it doesn't sound as if the OP wants to sue, although there are several people standing a safe distance away urging him to do so and offering to hold his/her coat.

 

[Biggles Wader]

To be fair, it doesn't sound as if the OP wants to sue, although there are several people standing a safe distance away urging him to do so and offering to hold his/her coat.

I rather think thats the yards problem not the OP. They will have to take the OP to court to get the money they want from him, not the other way round.

As per previous

 

[Hallberg-Rassy]

I rather think thats the yards problem not the OP. They will have to take the OP to court to get the money they want from him, not the other way round.

It's not if they're holding this boat, it's the OP's.

Don't put me in the "rushing to court" camp.

In the first place, it's about strengthening his negotiating position.

FWIW, if a dispute arises, don't let them get away with threatening to ratchet up storage charges as leverage, which I image will be the next ploy. There's a legal argument why.

Another deserving candidate for "The Lounge" membership. Is there something in the water on PBO today?

Sorry, I can't remember you contributing anything of any use to this discussion, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

In fact, I don't remember if you even said anything.

 

[KompetentKrew]

You cannot take them to court for money you have not paid, ie the balance for the lift out. They can take you to court for not paying them. This doesn't mean that the bailiffs will call around though. You attend the court, tell your side of the story and the court decides if you have to pay and how much. Be aware though, if they take you to court and you "win" by getting the court to award the yard the original amount (£550) the judgement will still be awarded against you. this means you have a County Court judgement against you, which will affect your credit rating.

The County Court Judgement will be marked as satisfied if you pay within, I think, 30 days, and will then have no ill-effect on your credit record.

 

[PaulRainbow]

The County Court Judgement will be marked as satisfied if you pay within, I think, 30 days, and will then have no ill-effect on your credit record.

Yup, was corrected in post #65

 

[PaulRainbow]

Sorry, I can't remember you contributing anything of any use to this discussion, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Neither have you.

 

[Biggles Wader]

It's not if they're holding this boat, it's the OP's.

Don't put me in the "rushing to court" camp.

In the first place, it's about strengthening his negotiating position.

FWIW, if a dispute arises, don't let them get away with threatening to ratchet up storage charges as leverage, which I image will be the next ploy. There's a legal argument why.

Sorry, I can't remember you contributing anything of any use to this discussion, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

In fact, I don't remember if you even said anything.

The boat is back in the water.
I did not put you in the "rushing to court camp
They cant ratchet up storage charges as leverage because they are not storing the boat
Out to you.

 

[superheat6k]

It's not if they're holding this boat, it's the OP's.

Don't put me in the "rushing to court" camp.

In the first place, it's about strengthening his negotiating position.

FWIW, if a dispute arises, don't let them get away with threatening to ratchet up storage charges as leverage, which I image will be the next ploy. There's a legal argument why.

Sorry, I can't remember you contributing anything of any use to this discussion, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

In fact, I don't remember if you even said anything.

Er to be fair to RichardS he offered perfectly reasonable advice in post #3 on this thread - so his involvement in the discussion was established very early and both his contribution and opinion is perfectly valid here.

 

[pandos]

I find it interesting how many people like to contribute to legal dispute questions...

Many of the responses were predicated on the boat being held by the yard.

Law is the lowest common denominator. Once civility and fair play is dispensed with you are in for a monetary loss and probably a whole load of stress.

Op was lucky to get his boat out without paying his entire bill... (No cash no splash)..That suggests the yard may be fair and trusting (but may now review that attitude) or is historically successful at recovering monies owed.

Op should try to get his tradesmen and the yard to compromise so all three contribute a little to making things right.

This might involve getting a credit from the tradesmen for future work or from the yard for future lifting and storeage etc...

But he should stay out of court for a few hundred pounds...unless dragged in there by the yard in which case he should ensure that he can show reasonableness from the outset.

For the record... I am not a yard owner or a tradesman who works on boats for others... But I have a lot of experience of court as a plaintiff and a defendant...

I do not suggest compromising or even rolling over and paying up because it is the right thing to do.... I speak of this course because, in the absence of compromise, it is most likely the best course of action for the OP.

I hope he lets us know what he did and how it works out. If he does indeed pay and there is no compromise from the other parties, I hope he will come back here and name them to forewarn others.

 

[Poecheng]

Hallberg-Rassy:
Originally in your post #69, (see the quote in PR's post #71) [A],
[A]: The OP can safely ignore the twaddle.
So is the idea you can "steal" your own property because "theft" has a very specific definition.

later edited to:
Theft [R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901] would not apply in this case because the circumstances are completely different. Read it.
His intentions are not to not pay, but just to pay a fair amount. A dispute over how much is a civil matter. In R v Turner, it was the owner who acted dishonestly or in bad faith. It was the other way around.

Q1: Do you accept that the statement of law in A, namely that you cannot steal your own property, is incorrect?
Q2: Do you accept the case of Turner confirms the legal position that an owner of goods can steal from a person in possession of those goods, in particular when they hold a lien?

To steal something requires a very specific intention. I forget the very accurate definition but it is approximately, "to deny the rightful owner of their property in perpetuity". In the case of Turner, his intention was not to pay which is why he lost.
That isn't the case here.

Q3: Do you accept that your approximate definition of the offence of theft cannot be correct in the light of the decision in Turner? [If your approximate definition were correct, it would be in direct opposition to the decision in Turner, where the owner of the goods was convicted of theft when he dishonestly took back his own goods from a person in possession of them.

I've had some good experience in similar disputes with numerous professionals and resolved them in my favour by taking direct action. Exercising the act of sequestration is always a good one. Luckily, I was tutored by a good criminal lawyer. By which I mean, the lawyer was a bit of a crook! It does, however, require knowing your ground and having the confidence to stand up for your right, sometimes even - and I am not suggesting it will happen in this case - facing up against police.

Q4: Please can you explain how you, as a private citizen, 'exercis[ed] the act of sequestration' and why it is 'always a good one'. Can you explain the concept of sequestration and how it fits in with what, I presume, you mean as an act of self-help?

It's all about the legal process. The yard can't go to court without attempting to resolve it through other means first, so there's plenty of time to resolve it. Strategically, you just want to put the onus on them. Make them do all of the running.

Q5: Do you accept that a claimant need not attempt to resolve a dispute by non-court means if such is futile or they are willing to take a risk on part of their costs?

What hope has the victim if asking advice from too wealthy rollovers on oneside, and contractors and yardsmen on the other?

Q6: Do you accept that, in the light of the above and whatever the failings of "wealthy rollovers" etc, the victim should not take any legal advice from you?

 

[NotBirdseye]

Hallberg-Rassy:
Originally in your post #69, (see the quote in PR's post #71) [A],
[A]: The OP can safely ignore the twaddle.
So is the idea you can "steal" your own property because "theft" has a very specific definition.

later edited to:
Theft [R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901] would not apply in this case because the circumstances are completely different. Read it.
His intentions are not to not pay, but just to pay a fair amount. A dispute over how much is a civil matter. In R v Turner, it was the owner who acted dishonestly or in bad faith. It was the other way around.

Q1: Do you accept that the statement of law in A, namely that you cannot steal your own property, is incorrect?
Q2: Do you accept the case of Turner confirms the legal position that an owner of goods can steal from a person in possession of those goods, in particular when they hold a lien?



Q3: Do you accept that your approximate definition of the offence of theft cannot be correct in the light of the decision in Turner? [If your approximate definition were correct, it would be in direct opposition to the decision in Turner, where the owner of the goods was convicted of theft when he dishonestly took back his own goods from a person in possession of them.



Q4: Please can you explain how you, as a private citizen, 'exercis[ed] the act of sequestration' and why it is 'always a good one'. Can you explain the concept of sequestration and how it fits in with what, I presume, you mean as an act of self-help?



Q5: Do you accept that a claimant need not attempt to resolve a dispute by non-court means if such is futile or they are willing to take a risk on part of their costs?



Q6: Do you accept that, in the light of the above and whatever the failings of "wealthy rollovers" etc, the victim should not take any legal advice from you?

It's well known that you can break the law in a 'limited and specific way'.

 

[Bouba]

I would like to ask a question. If the boat is in the water then it is not in the boat yard. Very much like the analogy of the garage, if the garage owner parked your car in the street then, surely you have a right to drive it off because it’s your property in a public place and you are not committing trespass or breaking and entry.

 

[Quandary]

There is no doubt that the OPs boatyard let him down while operating with in the norms expected in that industry, crap service and communication has become so expected that many folk just know that is what they will get. Sadly what the OP experienced is normal boatyard practice and we are obviously all prepared to accept that.
In the real world of business your customers are not captive annd you competitors work to be efficient so you strive to compete with that. You do not make promises you won't or can't keep, if you do get caught out you work all hours to meet your obligations and you always communicate with your customer when promises may not be met. At least that is the way it was in the time up to my retirement.
Some businesses do operate like boatyards, they do not make much money or last very long, why is this? Because outside the marine 'service' industry customers are dependent on the service provided in order to meet their goals, the clients can walk and do.