Help with boat yard dispute

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think folk are getting carried away and reading too much into whats a very simple situation.
The yard let it's customer (op)cdown, but doesn't want to cop for it. The op probably overpaid the contractor who had turned up in good faith.
The yard has launched the customers boat and it is gone, the yard have no control over it or recourse to holding it hostage.
So the main problem now is really the yards.

The op can
a) go sailing and tell the yard to do one, the issue was of their making (in his opinion) and now they can pay the price.
b) tell the yard they have dropped the ball on this and gave him a real headache, offer £x as a compromise in full and final settlement, then forget about it and go sailing. Either they will accept or they will contest it, more hassle for them than the op to be honest and chances are they will get no more from court than the op's settlement. If the op wins, fine, if he loses, he pays up, chalks it to experience and goes sailing.
c) pay up, forget about it and go sailing.

Life's too short, c is the sensible option, but it would bug me personally, so I'd probably go for b, or even a if they really pissed me off :)
 
Letting a crapbag get away with crap is not sensible, it only emboldens them to do it more, and to more individuals. The sensible conclusion would be to pay no more than is due (cost minus their liabilities), and teach them a lesson so they don't do it to anyone else.

Has he removed the boat?
Bouba said:
... and you are not committing trespass or breaking and entry.
Click to expand...
Good point. It would not have been trespass anyway because the original poster had rights of access as part of his contract with them.

At least until any conflict kicked off.

That was one of the twaddles, along with big bad bogeymen bailiffs, that frustrated me.

Anyone forced to do things properly, will have to demonstrate reasonableness right up to door of the courtroom, ie work it out without wasting court's time. Therefore plenty of time to work things out through negotiation. If someone's never had any experience of legal action, it's understandable that they might feel afraid of the unknown, which is one of the reasons I was disgusted at basically interested parties putting more fear into the victim.

The first thing to know about it, is it takes a long time and, for anyone forced to do things properly (eg yard/their insurers etc), a lot of money. A small case such as this, probably no change from £10,000. Perhaps more. Hence, it's just not going to happen. Why would insurers pay £250 an hour (minimum), for a £750 claim? A DIY defence? Costs no more than making photocopies.

Therefore, you make them have to chase you, not you chase them.

re R vs Turner, what was being stolen was, in essence, the work not the car; and it was only a theft because of the intention not to pay anything. The garage had done no wrong. Turner lost because he had with a dishonest intention.
the Court of Appeal confirmed that the trial jury had been properly directed that it was essential for the prosecution to show that T had acted dishonestly
Click to expand...
In this case, it's the other way around and the victim wants to, and is willing to, pay a fair and reasonable sum for the work done, and is being robbed by the yard/contractors, and have them shoulder their liabilities.

That's very important to stress in any correspondence hence to avoid such an accusation.

I've not thought it through related to this case, but it's basically the difference between theft and sequestration. In sequestration, you're holding the goods/property, you're not stealing it. Stealing only arises where the intention to deny in perpetuity arises.

It's recognising there's a dispute, but you holding the goods instead of them. A civil, not a criminal matter.

Sorry, short of time to respond to the rest.
 
Last edited:
LadyInBed said:
I think that the OP was being a little naive putting the onus on the yard to phone. Better to be proactive and phone the yard the day before the contractors were due to arrive to confirm that the boat is out.
Click to expand...
When it comes to dealing with boatyards my motto is "Trust no one"! ;)
 
Hallberg-Rassy said:
I was disgusted at basically interested parties putting more fear into the victim.
Click to expand...

Who are these "interested parties" that have posted in this thread ?

The first thing to know about it, is it takes a long time and, for anyone forced to do things properly (eg yard/their insurers etc), a lot of money. A small case such as this, probably no change from £10,000. Perhaps more. Hence, it's just not going to happen. Why would insurers pay £250 an hour (minimum), for a £750 claim? A DIY defence? Costs no more than making photocopies.
Click to expand...

That's just utter nonsense, the yard can just do a simple money claim online, costs peanuts.

<snip> I've not thought it through <snip>
Click to expand...

That's plain to see.
 
steve yates said:
I think folk are getting carried away and reading too much into whats a very simple situation...

The op can
a) go sailing and tell the yard to do one, the issue was of their making (in his opinion) and now they can pay the price.
b) tell the yard they have dropped the ball on this and gave him a real headache, offer £x as a compromise in full and final settlement, then forget about it and go sailing. Either they will accept or they will contest it, more hassle for them than the op to be honest and chances are they will get no more from court than the op's settlement. If the op wins, fine, if he loses, he pays up, chalks it to experience and goes sailing.
c) pay up, forget about it and go sailing.

Life's too short, c is the sensible option, but it would bug me personally, so I'd probably go for b, or even a if they really pissed me off :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely! (b) is more or less what I suggested in my original post on this thread - adding a bit of arithmetic to help assess a compromise figure.
 
PaulRainbow said:
That's just utter nonsense, the yard can just do a simple money claim online, costs peanuts.
Click to expand...

You've not been paying attention to the detail. Some folks were putting the willies up the original poster saying how the yard would go to their insurers, and how they'd process the claim for them. I was responding to that.

Still doesn't change the outcome, only makes it even less likely they would win. I'd drop it down to a 10% chance or less doing it that way.

Again, why the majority of people posting are either backing the yard, encouraging the victim to rollover or thinking up new fear factor, I have no idea. Nor how it helps.

That's plain to see.
Click to expand...
How drôle. I see what you did there. You edited out what I wrote to take the comment out of context. Yes, yes, very witty.

OK, let's turn this around on you.

Say due entirely to your own negligence, you caused a client of yours a month's delay and a £1,000 loss, what would you do?​
​
How would you resolve it?​
 
Last edited:
Hallberg-Rassy said:
You've not been paying attention to the detail. Some folks were putting the willies up the original poster saying how the yard would go to their insurers, and how they'd process the claim for them. I was responding to that.
Click to expand...

No, you said
The first thing to know about it, is it takes a long time and, for anyone forced to do things properly (eg yard/their insurers etc), a lot of money. A small case such as this, probably no change from £10,000. Perhaps more. Hence, it's just not going to happen. Why would insurers pay £250 an hour (minimum), for a £750 claim? A DIY defence? Costs no more than making photocopies.

Therefore, you make them have to chase you, not you chase them.
Click to expand...

It's simple, they can start a claim for £60, they don't need a solicitor or anyone else, it's a simple online thing that takes no time at all.

Still doesn't change the outcome, only makes it even less likely they would win. I'd drop it down to a 10% chance or less doing it that way.

Again, why the majority of people posting are either backing the yard, encouraging the victim to rollover or thinking up new fear factor, I have no idea. Nor how it helps.
Click to expand...

I think most people are suggestion that the OP contact the yard and offer a compromise, certainly what i suggested. He's clearly liable for the original £550, so he may as well pay that and get on with his life. No way the yard is liable for the contractors charging him £720, which i don't think he should have paid.

How drôle. I see what you did there. You edited out what I wrote to take the comment out of context. Yes, yes, very witty.
Click to expand...

I did include the <snips> to indicate that i'd edited the quote :)

OK, let's turn this around on you.

Say due entirely to your own negligence, you caused a client of yours a month's delay and a £1,000 loss, what would you do?​
​
How would you resolve it?​
Click to expand...

It's never happened in over 40 years and i've never charged a customer because a job has been cancelled/postponed, unlike the contractor in the OPs post. But that's not what the thread is about.
 
Hallberg-Rassy said:
You've not been paying attention to the detail. Some folks were putting the willies up the original poster saying how the yard would go to their insurers, and how they'd process the claim for them. I was responding to that.

Still doesn't change the outcome, only makes it even less likely they would win. I'd drop it down to a 10% chance or less doing it that way.

Again, why the majority of people posting are either backing the yard, encouraging the victim to rollover or thinking up new fear factor, I have no idea. Nor how it helps.


How drôle. I see what you did there. You edited out what I wrote to take the comment out of context. Yes, yes, very witty.

OK, let's turn this around on you.

Say due entirely to your own negligence, you caused a client of yours a month's delay and a £1,000 loss, what would you do?​
​
How would you resolve it?​
Click to expand...
Sorry to intrude.
Just so that I and my fellow parishioners will be able better to judge the quality of your legal advice, I wonder if I could trouble you to respond to the questions I posed for you in post #117.
 
Luckily, I was tutored by a good criminal lawyer...
I am not suggesting it will happen in this case - facing up against police.

[/QUOTE]

I can’t comment on how good the lawyer was but, if they gave you the impression that the police would get involved in this, they were very wrong!!!
 
dslittle said:
I can’t comment on how good the lawyer was but, if they gave you the impression that the police would get involved in this, they were very wrong!!!
Click to expand...

You'd be very surprised what the police will get involved with and assist. Youtube is practically filled with Police who are meant to be there only to uphold the peace, seizing and arresting people out of their own homes and putting them into the backs of cars where Bailiffs with warrants from judges that do not exist are free to pillage away... and I don't mean high-court bailiffs either. The majority of these people are merely raising their voices and often trying to prevent someone from passing them (a debt collector is not allowed to force themselves past you).
 
Luminescent said:
You'd be very surprised what the police will get involved with and assist.
Click to expand...
Some years ago, it would have been surprising and remarkable to most members of the public to know the reality of what the police won't get involved in and haven't for the last decade.
However, as time has gone on, the only thing different is that the public are no longer surprised. Indeed they are surprised the police will do anything at all unless it suits them or it cannot be avoided eg murders and the like. It is only partly a resource issue.
The thought that the police would get involved in something such as this - assuming no personal connections - is absurd. You wouldn't even get to speak to anyone for more than three seconds (or at all) without the words "It's a civil matter" being the means of dismissing it from their view.
 
Poecheng said:
Some years ago, it would have been surprising and remarkable to most members of the public to know the reality of what the police won't get involved in and haven't for the last decade.
However, as time has gone on, the only thing different is that the public are no longer surprised. Indeed they are surprised the police will do anything at all unless it suits them or it cannot be avoided eg murders and the like. It is only partly a resource issue.
The thought that the police would get involved in something such as this - assuming no personal connections - is absurd. You wouldn't even get to speak to anyone for more than three seconds (or at all) without the words "It's a civil matter" being the means of dismissing it from their view.
Click to expand...

Yet having been on the receiving end of such treatment, the fact tell the opposite story. (Wasn't my debt, judge had a field day, yes the police had arrested me even though the judge confirmed it was an illegal warrant).
 
Poecheng said:
I wonder if I could trouble you to respond to the questions I posed for you in post #117.
Click to expand...

I did, pretty much. The short answer is, you were incapable to understanding the salient element of the judgement and difference, if indeed you read it in the first place.

Just to see if you were paying attention, what was the difference? How did the judge instruct the jury?

As to sequestration, it basically works like this. I make an over simplified example. Someone owes you £10. You take something of theirs worth as much, and hold it until they return what they owe you.

Now, and this is the important part, this is not theft as your intention is not deny the rightful owner of the property in perpetuity. You're intention is return it when the debt is settled. Funnily enough, if you ask a copper for the specific legal definition this is one they will know.

In my situation, I was not only advised of the course of action by a solicitor and how to execute it, but exercised it successful. Can't remember the specific amount but it was akin to a year's salary.

Something to remember about solicitors, is that they are just tools. Some are good tools, a lot of them are on a par with cheap Chinese imports, and that they're just as susceptible to personality traits as normal human beings, eg some are conservative authoritarians serving the status quo, others are militant trots, many are simply sloppy and lazy looking for easy pickings, prone to the safe option, and to cover their own asses first. And, of course, getting away with exploiting you for as much money as possible.

Therefore, my response to your disingenuous logical progression is, that you don't know what you are talking about.

You failed at the very onset because you were incapable of telling the difference between R vs Turner and this case.

Now, can you tell us what it is? (Clue: I don't you above).

 
BTW, what was your proposal, that he just pays up and slinks off hurt with his tail between his legs because that's easiest and most "sensible" response when faced with two bullies working together?

You see, what interests me is why someone like you would chose to disingenuously discredit the one person who's sticking up for the victim most.

What is it, would you'd be afraid to take the law into your own hands, or are you some kind of authoritarian-type backing the yard owner?
 
Last edited:
Hallberg-Rassy said:
I did, pretty much. The short answer is, you were incapable to understanding the salient element of the judgement and difference, if indeed you read it in the first place.

Just to see if you were paying attention, what was the difference? How did the judge instruct the jury?

As to sequestration, it basically works like this. I make an over simplified example. Someone owes you £10. You take something of theirs worth as much, and hold it until they return what they owe you.

Now, and this is the important part, this is not theft as your intention is not deny the rightful owner of the property in perpetuity. You're intention is return it when the debt is settled. Funnily enough, if you ask a copper for the specific legal definition this is one they will know.

In my situation, I was not only advised of the course of action by a solicitor and how to execute it, but exercised it successful. Can't remember the specific amount but it was akin to a year's salary.

Something to remember about solicitors, is that they are just tools. Some are good tools, a lot of them are on a par with cheap Chinese imports, and that they're just as susceptible to personality traits as normal human beings, eg some are conservative authoritarians serving the status quo, others are militant trots, many are simply sloppy and lazy looking for easy pickings, prone to the safe option, and to cover their own asses first. And, of course, getting away with exploiting you for as much money as possible.

Therefore, my response to your disingenuous logical progression is, that you don't know what you are talking about.

You failed at the very onset because you were incapable of telling the difference between R vs Turner and this case.

Now, can you tell us what it is? (Clue: I don't you above).
Click to expand...
In post #117 I asked six separate questions.
You have not answered any of them.
You are, I'm afraid, the living embodiment of the term 'barrack room lawyer'; anyone taking legal advice from you is a fool.
Over and out
 
Actually, I answered what were you doing directly. You just don't have sufficient grasp of the law to realise it. And what alternative advice are you giving to the victim?


BTW, wearing a tail between your legs really suits you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Other threads that may be of interest

MikeBz
Salty plywood
Replies
7
Views
297
Graham376
Graham376
Tim Good
Help: HFL Generator 8v output?
2
Replies
23
Views
347
geem
geem
MontyMariner
Battery failure
2
Replies
20
Views
812
Refueler
Refueler
Frogmogman
My next boat.
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
fredrussell
F

Share this page

Top