Iron filings all over Play d'eau

I have nothing to add to this thread except to say that I really appreciate reading input from clearly very knowledgeable forumites - in the past I have always approached any legal argument with the belief that "logic shall prevail". I have learnt to my cost that this is invariably not true! As someone said here, every day is a school day, and I'm glad of that :encouragement:
 
Piers said:
Hi All,

Well, the marina's FD has taken control stating the marina is not accepting liability for their contractors workmanship and is placing matters into the hands of the marina's insurers. Just in case this has to go legal, is this the point at which we need to suspend dialogue until resolution is reached?

Meanwhile, works on Play d'eau have started to prevent further deterioration from rust seepage into the gel coat.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I can understand why the fd has done this, but I guess it feels like a kick in the teeth to you. Stay strong and work for the right resolution for you. I hope it all gets sorted before the season properly starts and you will be happy remaining in Beaucette when it's all over.
 
Thank you so much for all your encouraging comments. For what it's worth, not only is an Aquastar very badly covered, but I've been advised by repairers that a Princess 82 and two others have filing contamination as well.
 
Piers said:
Thank you so much for all your encouraging comments. For what it's worth, not only is an Aquastar very badly covered, but I've been advised by repairers that a Princess 82 and two others have filing contamination as well.
Click to expand...

Piers, is the marina still owned by the Carte Blanche guy? If so, i enjoyed a very pleasant evening drinking with him when we owned our previous boat. He was a serial Fairline owner too so has impeccable taste! I can imagine him wanting to help, but can easily see why his FD has reneged the offer.

What I find odd is that despite a couple of weeks passing since the incident, he hadn't been informed. Particularly as this will be distressing for affected owners and a repair bill that is likely to run into 6 figures.

I note that you are using some legal expenses policy to fund solicitors. Be aware that choice is solicitors is another minefield see http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/legal-expenses.html.

I do hope your boat is returned to perfect condition. But if there is any diminution in value then this may not be covered under your insurance and therefore more reason to claim against the marina / contractors.

Incidentally, how on earth will they repair the Aquastar?
 
Last edited:
petem said:
Piers, is the marina still owned by the Carte Blanche guy? If so, i enjoyed a very pleasant evening drinking with him when we owned our previous boat. He was a serial Fairline owner too so has impeccable taste! I can imagine him wanting to help, but can easily see why his FD has reneged the offer.

What I find odd is that despite a couple of weeks passing since the incident, he hadn't been informed. Particularly as this will be distressing for affected owners and a repair bill that is likely to run into 6 figures.

I note that you are using some legal expenses policy to fund solicitors. Be aware that choice is solicitors is another minefield see http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/legal-expenses.html.

I do hope your boat is returned to perfect condition. But if there is any diminution in value then this may not be covered under your insurance and therefore more reason to claim against the marina / contractors.

Incidentally, how on earth will they repair the Aquastar?
Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

Yes, it's Carte Blanch, and he's always really helpful. Your question about the Aquastar is interesting. The damage is extensive. The filings must have been hot when they landed since they're buried quite deep in the gel. My feeling is that must surely have a diminution issue.

The work already done on Play d'eau's topsides is excellent. Great care being taken. All areas are being done by hand to ensure the removal of filings is made with the utmost care.

I'll be having discussions with lawyers tomorrow (hopefully) and as long at they know Guernsey law and have no conflict of interest, we'll make a choice.

Thanks for your kind words.
 
When I had this on my boat quite a fews ago after marina maintenance used an angle grinder to remove some pontoon metal work, I had filings across the bow. All I did was use a product called wipeout then polish and wax, no problems at all long term. Probably not as extensive as you guys. The wipeout product has changed, so not as good as it was, but a new product (vistal) for others stain removal etc is very good.
 
What I am struggling to understand is why the marina authorised this work with boats in the vicinity. Anyone who works around boats would know the likely outcome of grinding steel near them. It's utterly crazy and dare I say 'negligent' (maybe not in the legal sense, I am not qualified to say, but certainly in the dictionary meaning)
 
jfm said:
Piers, don't let their insurers control this qua insurer. You have no nexus with their insurers. If the insurers and the marina confirm that the insurers are the marina's agent with full power to negotiate the position, that is fine, but get that agency relationship admitted and confirmed by them first before corresponding about the damage.
Click to expand...
Piers,
You asked my by pm to expand on this. I think it's better to do it on open forum than pm.

Many insurance policies contain an exclusion on 3P claims for anything that the insured concedes without the insurer's consent. Thus, the insurer often takes over the argument and the policy holder lets them.

You have no nexus with insurer. No contract with them, no claim for damages against them. Your relationship with another person's insurer is the same as your relationship with their florist. So your opening position to insurer could be "Listen sunshine, you're a great florist, but I buy my flowers elsewhere so please get lost". But don't do that- see below!

If the insurer really is the agent of the marina in settling this then it becomes ok for you to deal with their insurer. Establish the agency relationship and only then proceed. If you don't, then anything you say or concede can be used against you but anything the insurer says or concedes can be reneged on by the marina, who are the only party you have a claim against ( other than your own insurer). So if you're approached by insurance co, reply like this (adapted as needed - I'm flying blind to the fine details):

To abc insurer Ltd and xyz marina Ltd
I refer to the attached letter/email to me from abc insurer Ltd dated xxxxx. This reply from me is addressed to both abc insurer Ltd and xyz marina Ltd. As you know, I have no insurance or other contract with abc insurer Ltd. I have a claim against xyz Marina Ltd for negligence resulting in damage to my boat and I believe Abc insurer Ltd might be their insurer, but that doesn't change the fact I have no relationship with abc insurer Ltd . You will therefore appreciate that, prima facie, I have no reason to spend time corresponding with abc insurer Ltd.
However, if both abc insurer Ltd and xyz Marina Ltd confirm to me that abc insurer Ltd is xyz marina Ltd's agent with full authority in relation to my claim against xyz marina Ltd, then of course I will correspond with abc insurer Ltd and try to settle all this. Please can you both send me that confirmation?"
 
CLB said:
What I am struggling to understand is why the marina authorised this work with boats in the vicinity. Anyone who works around boats would know the likely outcome of grinding steel near them. It's utterly crazy and dare I say 'negligent' (maybe not in the legal sense, I am not qualified to say, but certainly in the dictionary meaning)
Click to expand...
Negligent in the legal sense too. There isn't a separate legal meaning!
 
:encouragement::encouragement:

Jfm. In the absence of a 'like' button, have a couple of thumbs up for post #92.

Edit: it's now post 86
Edit again: This is getting silly, its now post 88 :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks CLB
Let's not forget that the critical missing part of the jigsaw now is the berthing contract. It might contain limits on the marina's obligations, though obviously (Porto) I hope not.
 
CLB said:
Jfm. In the absence of a 'like' button, have a couple of thumbs up for post #92.
Click to expand...
It ain't the first time that jfm advise deserves gratitude, but thanking someone for a future post - which eventually didn't even materialize - is surrealistic!
Lakesailoring 2.0, sort of... :D :D

PS: all the very best to Piers for the claim outcome, of course.
But the fact that the results of the cleaning job are excellent is already great news. :encouragement:
I can't even start thinking how pixxed I would be in the boots of that Aquastar owner - regardless of any compensation!
 
Last edited:
MapisM said:
It ain't the first time that jfm advise deserves gratitude, but thanking someone for a future post - which eventually didn't even materialize - is surrealistic!
Lakesailoring 2.0, sort of... :D :D

PS: all the very best to Piers for the claim outcome, of course.
But the fact that the results of the cleaning job are excellent is already great news. :encouragement:
I can't even start thinking how pixxed I would be in the boots of that Aquastar owner - regardless of any compensation!
Click to expand...

It’s the Mods playing with space time...
 
MapisM said:
It ain't the first time that jfm advise deserves gratitude, but thanking someone for a future post - which eventually didn't even materialize - is surrealistic!
Lakesailoring 2.0, sort of... :D :D
Click to expand...

Lol, it's now post 86. At least until the mods mess around with it again :D
 
The mods are really pissing me off. They have deleted my post containing cease and desist in its entirety as well as the other posts lightheartedly suggested alternative meanings of cease and desist. We now have a thread containing real life legal advice that has important bits missing so it becomes a bit half baked. I'm pretty annoyed at the mods for doing this when they could - if their Victorian values were offended- have just deleted the "cease and desist" then the main part of the posts would have survived.

Meanwhile, the mods have PMed me awarding me "one point" of bad behaviour, which they say might or might not time expire, whatever the hell that means. Am I supposed to be contrite because I have "one point"? Anyone here with 2 or 3 points who can tell me how devastating that must be? OMG! I've been posting on here about 18 years using the odd bit of "pub conversational" English when appropriate (imho) to the context.

Mods, the one point you have awarded me really is quite barmy. Needless to say, it's your website and obviously you are entirely free to ban me. But I'm registering here a complaint against your deletion of whole posts containing (imho) useful info to share among boaters about real life situations.
 
Last edited:
jfm said:
Mods, the one point you have awarded me really is quite barmy. Needless to say, it's your website and obviously you are entirely free to ban me.
Click to expand...

FWIW (that's an abbreviation not acronym btw Porto), I rather hope that they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top