Is this another new rip off for for buyers

[Refueler]

I wonder how many sites are left that allow old boats to reside .... I know when I was selling up my Mobile - sites that accepted old mobiles were getting few and far between ...
The site I was on - had been sold and previous owner - close friend still today - told me straight that Local Councils and Insurance Co's were tightening the 'screws' to remove old mobiles ... he also had interest in a number of marine berths ... he reckoned similar there.
The new owner gave the management to her son - who turned out to be a nasty piece of work. Eventually she had to step in and deal with us all as his attitude was for us to pay up and f*** off. Even the Club House and long term operator stuck two fingers in the air and left.
Sorry for thread drift.

 

[peter gibbs]

I am sorry I jumped with both feet without looking to closely although I still think there is some room for exploration. As far as I understand residential caravans on residential sites are bought through the site with very specific tenure and sale terms. If the residential boat was purchased through the site owners like the caravan scenario then the law as applied to the caravan sites may equally well apply to the boat However if it is a marina that allows people to bring their own boats and reside on them then it may not and will be like the case I outlined.

Once again and apologies to Refueler

What part do they claim to be playing in the transaction?

Are they providing some service out of the ordinary?

Are they a party to some contract that entitles them to this commission?

Quite right. A commission cannot be extracted from a bystander position. That would conform to the definition of a tax which is the prerogative of government. But if the mooring is part of the boat transaction that cannot be argued, although why it should be related to boat value is without basis and could fail the test of proportionality. If payment is an obligation in the mooring agreement the marina's position is clearer notwithstanding the above but does not prevent a negotiated settlement on reasonable terms if the vendor wishes to retain a mooring in the future. The purchaser's concern might be that de facto a sales tax is passed on in the price he pays compared with another vendor not subject to the condition.
"Nowt for owt" still rules.

 

[Tinto]

Not a tax, just a condition of the lease for the berth which you either accept of don't take the berth. Berths like that are scarce and the owner obviously aims to maximise his income from them.

My comment was not that it was a tax but it was “like a tax” as Peter Gunn describes

 

[clyst]

Just meet the vendor in another marina as a visiting boat and do the purchase there .

 

[Tranona]

Most of the boats in the marina in question are not mobile and if they are would have great difficulty finding somewhere else to berth even as a visitor. That is one of the reasons why the marina is able to impose this condition. Expect most owners are very happy to pay if it helps them sell the boat!

 

[Jim@sea]

Rip off - yes. New - no.
They're all at it in many walks of life. All trying to make extra bucks. For example, google McCarthy Stone retirement apartments and look at the unsavioury contractual terms and conditions where people have lost thousands on resale and other restrictions being applied. Not trying to derail the thread, but the small print nowadays is often more financially threatening than the headline contract T&C.

Yes, about Mc Carthy & Stone, I read that when one lady needed to go in a home she wanted to sell her apartment, she had been there for nearly 20 years and it had gone up in value by around £130,00 and when she sold it aparrently Mc Carthy & Stone took the lot. (Near one of the terraced houses I rent out there are quite a few elderly ladies who have bought the terraced house a few years ago for around £100,000 and now they are worth over £130,000... A better investment.)