Help with boat yard dispute

[steveeasy]

If the yard attempts to lift in adverse conditions and the boat is damaged or worse someone were injured you would say that they were liable as they should have known better
ss

Of course not. The weather was not an issue to the OP lift though, that was prior to his lift. all that was relevant to the OP was what happened on the day or subsequent day when his boat was lifted. Its the yards problem of having a backlog. same as its the OP issue of paying contractors fees. Edit. on reflection they would most certainly be liable. but that's nothing to do with the OPs agreement with them at all. What happened days before did not stop them picking up a phone telling the OP they could not fulfill their part of the agreement. its unreasonable and if they knew in writing he had contractors booked then it makes their actions most unreasonable. This is of course hypothetical as we simply don't know the actual facts of the matter just one side.
Steveasys

 

[oldmanofthehills]

The sums the OP reports are small beer compared with most boating costs. Yards are always slow, and he will know better than to arrange work in future before the boat is available.

Like others I would pay the contractors and query the bill with the yard. Little to be gained by a big row or the small claims court

 

[NotBirdseye]

This is basically where I’m at, I realise I’m not going to be able to pass liability for the tradesman costs onto the yard without significant court costs but I feel I shouldn’t pay the outstanding yard fees due to their incompetence and I’ll chalk the £720 to experience that yards are bloody useless and I have to babysit them and double check their work (not like you go around checking electricians have wired up sockets correctly it’s implied competence) but if that’s the norm so be it lesson learnt

but I feel I’m justified in not paying the remaining yard fees, they can keep the 20% deposit but that’s it. and I will obviously find a different yard in future.

This is on the basis that they didn’t provide the service (or a duty of care and level of competence) they were contracted for

It’s more out of principle, the hassle of filling in a few forms for small claims court isn’t Really a hassle these days, I’m sure there is an ombudsman who could step in too.

I’m surprised how many folk would just accept this behaviour from a business. outside of the marine industry it wouldn’t “float” at all.

Thankfully the boat is back in the water, I think I’ll send a final letter to them and give them 28 days to resolve my complaint, if not I’ll go to the small claims court or research for an ombudsman of some description out of principle.

Let them take you to the small claims court.

 

[steveeasy]

Let them take you to the small claims court.

Normally to resolve a dispute you have to give and take. You alone paid the contractors in full for not doing anything. out of interest did you pay them the second time they turned up and did the same work. I suspect no. You will probally be sued if you do not pay the agreed initial amount less deposit. If it was me, id assess the situation as the difference between the agreed amount and final lift out fee is minimal. the issue is the contractors excess fee for merely turning up. at least the yard eventually fulfilled their part, the contractors did not the way you explain and got paid.
Steveeasy

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

Only if he doesn't pay it. If the amount awarded is paid in full within a month it doesn't go on the public record and has no effect at all on credit rating.

What are CCJs and How Do They Work? | Experian

 

[PaulRainbow]

Only if he doesn't pay it. If the amount awarded is paid in full within a month it doesn't go on the public record and has no effect at all on credit rating.

What are CCJs and How Do They Work? | Experian

I stand corrected, thanks.

 

[steve yates]

This is basically where I’m at, I realise I’m not going to be able to pass liability for the tradesman costs onto the yard without significant court costs but I feel I shouldn’t pay the outstanding yard fees due to their incompetence and I’ll chalk the £720 to experience that yards are bloody useless and I have to babysit them and double check their work (not like you go around checking electricians have wired up sockets correctly it’s implied competence) but if that’s the norm so be it lesson learnt

but I feel I’m justified in not paying the remaining yard fees, they can keep the 20% deposit but that’s it. and I will obviously find a different yard in future.

This is on the basis that they didn’t provide the service (or a duty of care and level of competence) they were contracted for

It’s more out of principle, the hassle of filling in a few forms for small claims court isn’t Really a hassle these days, I’m sure there is an ombudsman who could step in too.

I’m surprised how many folk would just accept this behaviour from a business. outside of the marine industry it wouldn’t “float” at all.

Thankfully the boat is back in the water, I think I’ll send a final letter to them and give them 28 days to resolve my complaint, if not I’ll go to the small claims court or research for an ombudsman of some description out of principle.

Why do you need to bother with small claims? You have your boat if I read this right, back in the water. You are prepared to take the loss of the £750 and chalk that up to experience.
Were I you, I would write to the yard and tell them your seriously unhappy that their incompetence has cost you £750, and that you will pay nothing until you are compensated for their poor service.
The forget all about it and go sailing and do nothing else. Be prepared to pay the balance of the original deal at the most, but tell them you expect your deposit to cover it. Leave the yard to go to the hassle of small claims etc etc and if they do, then go along and state your case. You will get no more than if you just paid up at the worst, might be vindicated at best, but will probably settle for half way. In the meantime you will have had no stress and wasted no more time on this, let the yard do that if they feel inclined.

 

[steve yates]

They are providing a service, lift out , yard costs,their premises
They are is all respects a garage for boats
They are legally allowed to deny you entry or to take the boat away until all costs are met.
Pay the yard then sue them ,is the only way to avoid the risk of getting a criminal record

But have no recourse once the boat has been removed, they can only chase for the outstanding storage bill, not theft of your own bloody boat! They would have to win in court, not be paid and then have bailiffs come and slap a lien on the boat. Not going to happen is it? Cos at worst the op will just pay the bill.

 

[Hallberg-Rassy]

this means you have a County Court judgement against you, which will affect your credit rating.

This is completely wrong. There's so much wrong in the post, I can't be bothered breaking it all down.

Again, I find it fascinating how many people side with the yard, and try to put fear into the OP, and I have to wonder why?

My guess is they're tradesman or yardspeople, and this is the b/s or MO they use too.

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.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I stand corrected, thanks.

No problem. It's a common misconception.

 

[PaulRainbow]

This is completely wrong. There's so much wrong in the post, I can't be bothered breaking it all down.

The OP can safely ignore the twaddle.

So is the idea you can "steal" your own property because "theft" has a very specific definition.

Again, I find it fascinating how many people side with the yard, and have to wonder why?

Who said anything about stealing anything ?

How have i sided with the yard ?

 

[Hallberg-Rassy]

Who said anything about stealing anything ?

It was someone else who was posting about it being theft.

I was specifically referring to the CCJ stuff you wrote, and the general tone of other "but what if" fretting on this topic.

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.

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.

It's not impossible to beat lawyers at their own game. Many of them are pretty mediocre. Most of them just interested in the money.

Both can very often be total crapbags; lie, cheat and abuse their powers, and dishonestly representing the law, to intimidate victims in order to follow the guiding principle of (again approx) "always backing the established character".

 

[Hallberg-Rassy]

If the original poster was a frend, or local, I'd go and take it myself for them, so confident of the position that I am. It would be great fun. So if he can't, he should find mates who will. Then afterwards, or on the way out, I'd deliver the polite letter laying out the position of the dispute.

CPS would not be interested, it's purely a civil matter.

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.

 

[Tamar]

A yard worked on my boat, they took longer than they quoted because they ordered the wrong prop shaft, I missed a weekend away on the boat because of their incompetence, a two day job lasted 6 days
When I got the bill, which was as quoted, I politely enquired about the prop shaft, and the missing week end, and after a few friendly visits by me to the office they knocked off £200 as a good will gesture.
I was having other work done to the boat, so 200 quid was a drop in the ocean to them.
But I kept it friendly light hearted without threats.

 

[Wansworth]

A yard worked on my boat, they took longer than they quoted because they ordered the wrong prop shaft, I missed a weekend away on the boat because of their incompetence, a two day job lasted 6 days
When I got the bill, which was as quoted, I politely enquired about the prop shaft, and the missing week end, and after a few friendly visits by me to the office they knocked off £200 as a good will gesture.
I was having other work done to the boat, so 200 quid was a drop in the ocean to them.
But I kept it friendly light hearted without threats.

Especiallyifyoulook like Paul Newman I expect you can woo the secretary?

 

[FlyingGoose]

It was someone else who was posting about it being theft.

I was specifically referring to the CCJ stuff you wrote, and the general tone of other "but what if" fretting on this topic.

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.

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. 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.

Who very often can be total crapbags, lie, cheat and abuse their powers and dishonestly representing the law, to intimidate victims in order to follow their guiding principle of (again approx) "always backing the established character".

THe theft part was me ,and under English law a garage has the right to withhold the car until full payment , this law would also apply to a boat yard for any services they have done to the boat.
Also the boat is on private property of the yard,
If the yard asked you to pay your bill or no entry to their yard , then if you enter the yard you are breaking the law.
How is a boat yard diffrent to any workshop or garage ,one cannot just wander in and take your car without payment.
If you have been instructed by said yard not to enter their premises until full paymenT and you do and then take the boat which the yard can legally hold as collateral then it is trespass and theft .
Stop thinking of a yard as a right for you to enter, you are invited onto the yard you have no legal right of entry
My family business owned many garages and large workshops , if anyone was found in the yard , then they got my Uncle then the police

 

[PaulRainbow]

It was someone else who was posting about it being theft.

I was specifically referring to the CCJ stuff you wrote, and the general tone of other "but what if" fretting on this topic.

I have been made aware of the minor mistake regarding the CCJ judgement.

So the rest of your post, where you refer to "twaddle" is actually about something someone else typed ?

In that case yo might want to edit your offensive quote accordingly.

 

[Scapa86]

Think there needs to be some perspective from those advocating the op rushes to the small claims court. Even a cursory look at the news will show you the civil and criminal courts have been hit hard by covid. Remand time limits have more than doubled for those not granted bail. There is a backlog of thousands of cases that will take years to sort out. Any suggestion the op will have his day in court in the next 24 days is, I think, ridiculous.

 

[Scapa86]

I meant months not days!

 

[Biggles Wader]

Think there needs to be some perspective from those advocating the op rushes to the small claims court. Even a cursory look at the news will show you the civil and criminal courts have been hit hard by covid. Remand time limits have more than doubled for those not granted bail. There is a backlog of thousands of cases that will take years to sort out. Any suggestion the op will have his day in court in the next 24 days is, I think, ridiculous.

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.