JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Re-entrance, I think you'll find. It's a rather familiar style and a rather familiar attitude.
Help with boat yard dispute
- Thread starter SailingEd
- Start date
- Status
Bouba
Well-Known Member
I agree with Hallberg-Rassy (and not just because his name sounds like a law firm). We should support a forumite when they feel they have been stiffed, I’ve been quite surprised that when I have come to the forum looking for support in a dispute how little positive backing I got. Of course I have absolutely no idea if the OP has a legal leg to stand on
NotBirdseye
Well-Known Member
The thing I took from this was...
someone hasn't done their Short distance radio course...
xyachtdave
Well-Known Member
Please don’t quote him, it makes the ignore feature worthless!
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
I think everyone supports the OP, just that some have different views as to how best to proceed (understandably) .
The sensible people are suggesting that he reach an agreement with the yard, others have different suggestions.
WoodyP
Well-Known Member
I have been stiffed in the past by a company that sold tractors. I got my money back after nearly a year of hassle, starting with offers for them to put it right, through a small claims court, which l won but they never paid. Bailiffs didn't collect but I got a third party debtor order which froze the amount in their bank until the judge gave me judgement in favour, when the bank paid me direct. It was a pain but glad that I won, as the same company can no longer trade following a Trading standards case to which I provided evidence amongst many others. QF tractors and their many other iterations if you are interested.
In this case l don't think either party has acted with bad faith, just charged too much. I am afraid this is one you must just suck up, don't forget but move on.
When I bought my boat ( see, not the lounge), I was held over a barrel in Brighton while l was rogered. The pain has subsided but the memory remains
In this case l don't think either party has acted with bad faith, just charged too much. I am afraid this is one you must just suck up, don't forget but move on.
When I bought my boat ( see, not the lounge), I was held over a barrel in Brighton while l was rogered. The pain has subsided but the memory remains
adamlang
Well-Known Member
Glad this thead is getting back on track, in terms of helping the OP.
My advice is to consider a compromise with the yard based on what you feel is fair, you can live with, and taking into account the likelihood that you’ll want to work with the yard again. I think unfortunately that this sort of thing is too common and we as a boating community wanting to improve things ought to consider our options in that context.
It seems fair to me to suggest a compromise based on how long the boat ‘should’ have been in the yard. I think it’s also fair to pay anything thing that is not in dispute and not hold that over them until resolution – i.e. the £550 less maybe any reasonable expenses that you paid the contractors when they weren’t about to work (more on that below).
As others have said, the OP can either settle the bill which gives him the ease to move on without any risks. If that seems sensible but maybe leaves a bad taste then maybe you’d like to name and shame those involved for the benefit of the rest of us. Keep it fair and fact based to avoid any claims of defamation. To be honest that might be the greatest power you have – a sort of Trust Pilot for the marine industry would be great.
Should the OP wish to leave an element of the bill unsettled, here is my analysis of the legal situation. Actually I add little to what’s been said by others – I like an essay, you might not want to read it.
I think the key issues are as follow:
1. What is the legal framework for reaching a decision? It’s a contract law situation, complimented by consumer law (assuming the OP wasn’t acting in the course of a business). This means that any Ts&Cs the yard may wish to rely on will be will be complimented with various implied terms from statute and case law which can override the Ts&Cs if they conflict. Consumer Rights Act, Sale of Goods and Services act. Lots will come down to questions of reasonableness.
2. What forms the relevant contract and its terms is the next question. You will have some sort of contract with the yard. This was established when you instructed them and paid the deposit (consideration) and is very different legally speaking from an informal verbal agreement which might be sufficient to agree a lift at a yard you work with regularly. Look carefully at the written order and anything else handed to you at the time the work was commissioned – attention may have been drawn to terms and conditions on the firm’s website – maybe something like these standard terms (Edit: I initially saw these as a suggested terms from a trade body that's clearly not the case, useful example though):
http://themarinegroup.co.uk/app/uploads/2019/09/Boatyard-Terms-Conditions-2019.pdf
If no other terms were provided or drawn attention to then these standard terms might become relevant as a sort of fall back as industry standard – if other terms were provided they will be considered to the extent they comply with the Unfair Contract Terms Act. A key point is the extent to which the agreed date forms a contract term. This will be apparent from the paperwork – what they agreed, not necessarily what you wrote down as there may be some dispute as to how the work was commissioned.
3. Is the yard liable for your additional costs incurred due to the delay of lifting the boat? The standard Ts&Cs certainly seek to limit liability at 2.1. Notice the phrase ‘unusually severe weather’. Does that cover the presiding situation reasonably? Otherwise I think is reasonable for the yard to factor in reasonably expected weather conditions in agreeing to lift your boat on or by a certain date – if that was agreed. Clause 2.8 talks about indirect or consequential loss – I think if you told the yard the purpose of the lift and that you had scheduled contractors then these costs become at least relevant. Depending on how it was agreed and written down, the request to be contacted if there were any changes to the timings maybe form a specific additional contract term. It would appear the yard has breached that term, and that could have consequences for then. You do have a general duty to mitigate your losses in such a situation and paying whatever the contractors asked for will likely go beyond that (as others have said). I think here at best you could get travel and time spent by the contractors, reasonably paid by the yard, not just what you appear to have paid them. You would have to work for that in terms of the court process, I think some sort of counter claim, and you should look into the process for that to get it right.
4. Looking at all the evidence, could it be argued that having missed the agreed time of lift, and not contacting you, and knowing that contractors were going to work on the boat during a specific time frame – the yard should have in all reasonableness contacted you to agree a new date and let you reorganise the contractors, rather than leaving you will more unnecessary time ashore.
Often the instruction is for a lift out at the next possible time, but you appear to have agreed and got them to write down a specific date? If that’s right I think you’re entitled to be asked when the date is changed, not simply lifted out at their convenience, and then charged extra for the storage. The Court should look through the email trails and any statements you issue to ascertain what was agreed over the two days that they were late. This would have been time to raise issues around your potentially loses and basically protect your interests.
5. Unlikely but worth considering. How was the quote structured and written, could a reasonable person look at and think any sort of fixed rate was being charged – or is it clear that a day/ month rate would be payable irrespective of any delays etc.
6. If you have possession of the boat and have moved it away from the yard and any mooring they own, then ultimately it’ll be for the yard to pursue you. I assume that they know your address and can contact you in order to pursue such claims and you’re not simply disappearing which would get close to law around theft as mentioned above. I’m not sure about the process of marine Lien but I think it goes though the Admiralty Division of the High Court and shouldn’t be relevant here. Small claims and a fairly simple process is more likely. Look into what that process involves and the likely length of time it’ll take to resolve in the current climate and think about whether you would be willing to go through that rather than settling.
7. It seems to me it’s the contractors have treated you most unfairly in this, albeit with the yard not helping. Have you paid them, can you negotiate etc. At the very least I would ask for evidence of the costs incurred. They also have a duty to mitigate any losses, and as already said would likely have other work they could fall back on. How has that been left, if all settled and you still feel aggrieved, contact them, try to get a credit or something (if there work was good). If no compromise there, then name and shame. A claim against them having paid seems a bit odd, but if you’ve not paid, apply the same principles, law, Ts&Cs to that situation and see where you get to.
I should add, that I am not a lawyer nor have any practice experience in this area.
Outside of the legal issues. As others have said it is more usual to instruct work once the boat is lifted if it’s going to take more than a few hours in a sling. That does put us in a bit of a bind around commissioning work but it’s our responsibly to basically project manage it all – and keep everyone appraised – i.e. checking the lift has happened then giving the contractors the ok – not hoping it’ll manage itself. Unfortunately. Certainly most contractor seem willing to work around these issues, suggest you get a few quotes next time and think about flexibility.
Again I think its important we all highlight good and bad experiences. Does the Yard have any reviews on google (linked to their google map entry) or other sites where your experience could be raised.
Good luck in resolving this dispute.
My advice is to consider a compromise with the yard based on what you feel is fair, you can live with, and taking into account the likelihood that you’ll want to work with the yard again. I think unfortunately that this sort of thing is too common and we as a boating community wanting to improve things ought to consider our options in that context.
It seems fair to me to suggest a compromise based on how long the boat ‘should’ have been in the yard. I think it’s also fair to pay anything thing that is not in dispute and not hold that over them until resolution – i.e. the £550 less maybe any reasonable expenses that you paid the contractors when they weren’t about to work (more on that below).
As others have said, the OP can either settle the bill which gives him the ease to move on without any risks. If that seems sensible but maybe leaves a bad taste then maybe you’d like to name and shame those involved for the benefit of the rest of us. Keep it fair and fact based to avoid any claims of defamation. To be honest that might be the greatest power you have – a sort of Trust Pilot for the marine industry would be great.
Should the OP wish to leave an element of the bill unsettled, here is my analysis of the legal situation. Actually I add little to what’s been said by others – I like an essay, you might not want to read it.
I think the key issues are as follow:
1. What is the legal framework for reaching a decision? It’s a contract law situation, complimented by consumer law (assuming the OP wasn’t acting in the course of a business). This means that any Ts&Cs the yard may wish to rely on will be will be complimented with various implied terms from statute and case law which can override the Ts&Cs if they conflict. Consumer Rights Act, Sale of Goods and Services act. Lots will come down to questions of reasonableness.
2. What forms the relevant contract and its terms is the next question. You will have some sort of contract with the yard. This was established when you instructed them and paid the deposit (consideration) and is very different legally speaking from an informal verbal agreement which might be sufficient to agree a lift at a yard you work with regularly. Look carefully at the written order and anything else handed to you at the time the work was commissioned – attention may have been drawn to terms and conditions on the firm’s website – maybe something like these standard terms (Edit: I initially saw these as a suggested terms from a trade body that's clearly not the case, useful example though):
http://themarinegroup.co.uk/app/uploads/2019/09/Boatyard-Terms-Conditions-2019.pdf
If no other terms were provided or drawn attention to then these
3. Is the yard liable for your additional costs incurred due to the delay of lifting the boat? The standard Ts&Cs certainly seek to limit liability at 2.1. Notice the phrase ‘unusually severe weather’. Does that cover the presiding situation reasonably? Otherwise I think is reasonable for the yard to factor in reasonably expected weather conditions in agreeing to lift your boat on or by a certain date – if that was agreed. Clause 2.8 talks about indirect or consequential loss – I think if you told the yard the purpose of the lift and that you had scheduled contractors then these costs become at least relevant. Depending on how it was agreed and written down, the request to be contacted if there were any changes to the timings maybe form a specific additional contract term. It would appear the yard has breached that term, and that could have consequences for then. You do have a general duty to mitigate your losses in such a situation and paying whatever the contractors asked for will likely go beyond that (as others have said). I think here at best you could get travel and time spent by the contractors, reasonably paid by the yard, not just what you appear to have paid them. You would have to work for that in terms of the court process, I think some sort of counter claim, and you should look into the process for that to get it right.
4. Looking at all the evidence, could it be argued that having missed the agreed time of lift, and not contacting you, and knowing that contractors were going to work on the boat during a specific time frame – the yard should have in all reasonableness contacted you to agree a new date and let you reorganise the contractors, rather than leaving you will more unnecessary time ashore.
Often the instruction is for a lift out at the next possible time, but you appear to have agreed and got them to write down a specific date? If that’s right I think you’re entitled to be asked when the date is changed, not simply lifted out at their convenience, and then charged extra for the storage. The Court should look through the email trails and any statements you issue to ascertain what was agreed over the two days that they were late. This would have been time to raise issues around your potentially loses and basically protect your interests.
5. Unlikely but worth considering. How was the quote structured and written, could a reasonable person look at and think any sort of fixed rate was being charged – or is it clear that a day/ month rate would be payable irrespective of any delays etc.
6. If you have possession of the boat and have moved it away from the yard and any mooring they own, then ultimately it’ll be for the yard to pursue you. I assume that they know your address and can contact you in order to pursue such claims and you’re not simply disappearing which would get close to law around theft as mentioned above. I’m not sure about the process of marine Lien but I think it goes though the Admiralty Division of the High Court and shouldn’t be relevant here. Small claims and a fairly simple process is more likely. Look into what that process involves and the likely length of time it’ll take to resolve in the current climate and think about whether you would be willing to go through that rather than settling.
7. It seems to me it’s the contractors have treated you most unfairly in this, albeit with the yard not helping. Have you paid them, can you negotiate etc. At the very least I would ask for evidence of the costs incurred. They also have a duty to mitigate any losses, and as already said would likely have other work they could fall back on. How has that been left, if all settled and you still feel aggrieved, contact them, try to get a credit or something (if there work was good). If no compromise there, then name and shame. A claim against them having paid seems a bit odd, but if you’ve not paid, apply the same principles, law, Ts&Cs to that situation and see where you get to.
I should add, that I am not a lawyer nor have any practice experience in this area.
Outside of the legal issues. As others have said it is more usual to instruct work once the boat is lifted if it’s going to take more than a few hours in a sling. That does put us in a bit of a bind around commissioning work but it’s our responsibly to basically project manage it all – and keep everyone appraised – i.e. checking the lift has happened then giving the contractors the ok – not hoping it’ll manage itself. Unfortunately. Certainly most contractor seem willing to work around these issues, suggest you get a few quotes next time and think about flexibility.
Again I think its important we all highlight good and bad experiences. Does the Yard have any reviews on google (linked to their google map entry) or other sites where your experience could be raised.
Good luck in resolving this dispute.
Last edited:
Poecheng
Well-Known Member
Ha, it was deliberate, I promise
ip485
Well-Known Member
I have not read all the posts other than the original question so apologies, but sometimes it is better to post afresh.
I have been in exactly the situation you describe. The result was the yard agreed to reduce the lift out fee by half which I felt was a reasonable compromise and I was able to get most of the work done, but didnt suffer any extra labour charges for the work that could not be completed.
If the failure to lift was due to weather (the first slot you had I think) then I dont beleive the yard is responsible.
If they promised to lift the next day, the weather was ok, and they failed to do so, then I think you can reasonably expect them to compensate you.
The amount of compensation will inevitably be subject to discussion.
Should disucssion not result in agreement, then I guess you will have to examine the contract you signed which no doubt will seek to absolve the yard of responsibility. If it does, you sill then need to consider whether the clauses on which they rely are reasonable. It probably isnt reasonable if the lack of a lift was not due to any of the reasons they give in the contract. For example, "we forgot" isnt going to leave them with much of a case, and you would probably be justified in having your costs covered. Staff illnes is another likely line that could be taken, and this will be more complicated, especially if the contract says lifts may be delayed for this reason.
I would add that most contractors are well aware they may not be able to get to work due to lift problems, and if they are satisfied it really wasnt your fault, I would be disappointed if they didnt accept the posiiton, not least because there reputation will suffer if they are known to enforce charges in these circumstances. Whether indeed you are legally bound to pay them is another legal issue of they are not willing to compromise.
I may have missed you covering this point, but also in my experience most yards will delay the return so work can be completed. Perhaps this was not possible?
Ultimately if you cant reach a satisfactory conclusion and are convinced you have a sound argument the small claims court and / or arbitration as part of this process is your best option.
I have been in exactly the situation you describe. The result was the yard agreed to reduce the lift out fee by half which I felt was a reasonable compromise and I was able to get most of the work done, but didnt suffer any extra labour charges for the work that could not be completed.
If the failure to lift was due to weather (the first slot you had I think) then I dont beleive the yard is responsible.
If they promised to lift the next day, the weather was ok, and they failed to do so, then I think you can reasonably expect them to compensate you.
The amount of compensation will inevitably be subject to discussion.
Should disucssion not result in agreement, then I guess you will have to examine the contract you signed which no doubt will seek to absolve the yard of responsibility. If it does, you sill then need to consider whether the clauses on which they rely are reasonable. It probably isnt reasonable if the lack of a lift was not due to any of the reasons they give in the contract. For example, "we forgot" isnt going to leave them with much of a case, and you would probably be justified in having your costs covered. Staff illnes is another likely line that could be taken, and this will be more complicated, especially if the contract says lifts may be delayed for this reason.
I would add that most contractors are well aware they may not be able to get to work due to lift problems, and if they are satisfied it really wasnt your fault, I would be disappointed if they didnt accept the posiiton, not least because there reputation will suffer if they are known to enforce charges in these circumstances. Whether indeed you are legally bound to pay them is another legal issue of they are not willing to compromise.
I may have missed you covering this point, but also in my experience most yards will delay the return so work can be completed. Perhaps this was not possible?
Ultimately if you cant reach a satisfactory conclusion and are convinced you have a sound argument the small claims court and / or arbitration as part of this process is your best option.
WoodyP
Well-Known Member
The op is out of pocket £720. He needs to get a view on how much he wants to spend wasting his life persuing this.
DownWest
Well-Known Member
Blimey!
My take on this, after dropping in for the occasional look... Is that the OP should offer to pay the original lift out charge and expected days on the hard. Pointing out that the yard had cost him some money because of their failure to tell him that they had not lifted on the revised day. This resulted in the extra days on the hard and he should not be charged for them. Enclose a cheque for the balance and say that is his final offer. (It would look good in any subsequent court barney too..)
As for paying the guys full time for a missed day... Like Paul, I work (occasionally ) on other peoples boats and if this happened, I would write it off and get back to something else. If it was far away, apart from checking things had happened before.. I might ask for basic expenses. Not happened yet.
My take on this, after dropping in for the occasional look... Is that the OP should offer to pay the original lift out charge and expected days on the hard. Pointing out that the yard had cost him some money because of their failure to tell him that they had not lifted on the revised day. This resulted in the extra days on the hard and he should not be charged for them. Enclose a cheque for the balance and say that is his final offer. (It would look good in any subsequent court barney too..)
As for paying the guys full time for a missed day... Like Paul, I work (occasionally ) on other peoples boats and if this happened, I would write it off and get back to something else. If it was far away, apart from checking things had happened before.. I might ask for basic expenses. Not happened yet.
DownWest
Well-Known Member
But, he is also out of pocket (potentialy) for the extra days on the hard.
WoodyP
Well-Known Member
This is pennies in the overall cost of boat ownership
pandos
Well-Known Member
Funnily enough I was thinking this as I read his rant... I think the powers that be need to do something to verify identities to prevent resurrections or multiple accounts...Back in #106 I suggested that HR might wish to visit The Lounge ..... but it now seems as if The Lounge has visited here.
I guess that the only question which remains is what was HR's previous username?
Richard
For the record I believe all of his legal advice to be fundamentally flawed and as I said earlier is likely to rachet things up.
barstool lawyer perhaps...
pandos
Well-Known Member
Support and bad advice are different things...
op sought help. One presumes this was help to resolve the situation as cheaply and as amicably as possible.
throughout the thread he got some good advice which could assist him and some terrible advice that if followed could lead to less than ideal circumstances.
Your honesty about your legal knowledge is refreshing...
Hadenough
Well-Known Member
The OP took on the role of a Project Manager and then didn’t perform. If you take it on yourself to line up disparate services who have no contractural synergy and probably have no idea of the sequence of events, then it is your (the OPs) responsibility to orchestrate the outcome. He then paid the contractor an extortionate amount for services not rendered and seems to want to get a proportion of this back from the boatyard /marina who for no fault of their own and not being aware of the plan of action, schedule, sequence, priorities, call it what you like, were called upon to provide additional services. IMHO his beef is with himself and his decision to pay the rip-off contractor rather than the Boatyard.
ip485
Well-Known Member
I had missed this point, and it is so important to keep things in perspective. Legal action is certainly not warranted. If sufficiently aggrieved its down to seeking a pragmatic compromise and putting it down to experience.
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
The thing is that he is so obviously a genoa short of a full sail locker that there is little chance of anyone taking him seriously. In fact if he wasn't so far off the planet Time Inc would, I suspect, be more concerned that they might get a call from Hallberg-Rassy Varvs AB (the yacht company) about allowing misrepresentation of their views.
As it is he's providing amusement in a Chimps tea party sort of way and can always be put on ignore if one gets bored.
Major_Clanger
Well-Known Member
Perhaps he'll consider making a sharp exit too?
RichardS
N/A
- Status
