Marina charging fees for a yacht they impounded?

If the vessel is taking up mooring space, why should the marina operator not charge for it? I suppose the amenity provided is less if the vessel cannot be moved, but the vessel owner can fix that by paying what's due. Difficult position for the vessel owner if there is a genuine dispute, but it's a risk you run when renting space on somone else's property.
 
If the owner is liable for the reason that the marina has impounded the boat... then he is gonna be liable for any charges as a result of his liability... including storage of the boat.

Why should he get free moorings just becaust he hasnt paid his bills???

(That would be a great deal wouldnt it??? If you know that your not gonna need the boat for 6 months... dont pay for last months mooring... Marina puts a lein on.... you get free moorings for the next few months... then pay the original bill and viola... drive away with the boat having saved 4 or 5 months moorings!)
 
Are the marina operating within their rights to impound the boat?

It is highly unlikely that they are unless there is explicit provision for it in the contract (and even then it would be contestable).

The best approach would be to move the boat and then sort the issues out.
 
Malthouse said:
Surely this cannot be right, if a marina refuses to let the owner of a boat move said boat then they cannot charge moorings while the issue is resolved?
Click to expand...

So what is your interest in this? I notice that you have not come back to answer some of the queries raised here - most appear to think it is perfectly reasonable, if they are due money.

Perhaps you would clarify your point, as your question is pretty pointless without more info.
 
Chris_Robb said:
So what is your interest in this? I notice that you have not come back to answer some of the queries raised here...
Click to expand...

I apologise, after posting the thread I was quite busy for the four hours since checking back now. The next time I post I shall make sure I have the rest of the day set aside!

My broad interest in this is primarily as a broker, but I do have a personal interest in the specifics.

The marina do indeed claim that money is owed for previous mooring fees, however the claim has not been made properly: There is no single figure being claimed and none of the figures can be supported or make any real sense. No notice was given of the lien, the boat was sold and only when the new owner tried to move it did they announce that they would not allow it.

The owner would like nothing better than to move the boat, but it is the marina that are preventing him from doing so and being very slow indeed about their process. Only several months into the dispute did they announce "oh and but the way, the bill has now gone up since you have been keeping your boat here."

Yes it is fair to charge for services rendered, but when an owner cannot get at his boat or use his boat then those services are of little value.

It is also worth noting that during the dispute there has been a sweeping change of management, it is not hard to imagine there being a large financial black hole that is now being filled by some dubious practices. Perhaps.
 
Last edited:
bedouin said:
Not without going to court they can't - unless there is explicit provision for it in the contract.
Click to expand...
I don't claim any legal expertise, but I think they can. My club had a boat left on the pontoon and ended up seizing it and, eventually, selling it to recoup mooring fees and I'm pretty sure that, while they took legal advice, they didn't get a court order. There are hoops to jump through, but I think the law allows seizure of ships a lot easier than other property.
 
Stemar said:
There are hoops to jump through, but I think the law allows seizure of ships a lot easier than other property.
Click to expand...

As far as I have been able to find out the hoops are described as:

"To exercise a lien it is necessary to inform the owner that this is being done. Any estimate of costs should be as accurate as possible. A claim may be later dismissed by a court if it is wrongful."

Quoted from here: http://www.doradelaw.com/cms/index.php

Sadly in this case the above guidelines were not observed.

In more detail:

"For anyone who provides simple storage or berthing, without any element of harbour dues, there is one issue that must be noted; "storage" or pure "berthing charges" do not, on the face of it, fall within the legal definition of 'dock charges and dues'. Equally it is not clear that hard-standing would amount to services supplied to a vessel. ... For anyone who ploughs ahead to arrest a vessel there is always a theoretical risk of liability for damages for wrongful arrest. Generally such a liability will arise only if the Court finds that there has been bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the Claimant."
 
Last edited:
Malthouse said:
I apologise, after posting the thread I was quite busy for the four hours since checking back now. The next time I post I shall make sure I have the rest of the day set aside!

My broad interest in this is primarily as a broker, but I do have a personal interest in the specifics.

The marina do indeed claim that money is owed for previous mooring fees, however the claim has not been made properly: There is no single figure being claimed and none of the figures can be supported or make any real sense. No notice was given of the lien, the boat was sold and only when the new owner tried to move it did they announce that they would not allow it.

The owner would like nothing better than to move the boat, but it is the marina that are preventing him from doing so and being very slow indeed about their process. Only several months into the dispute did they announce "oh and but the way, the bill has now gone up since you have been keeping your boat here."

Yes it is fair to charge for services rendered, but when an owner cannot get at his boat or use his boat then those services are of little value.

It is also worth noting that during the dispute there has been a sweeping change of management, it is not hard to imagine there being a large financial black hole that is now being filled by some dubious practices. Perhaps.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info - sorry to be a little aggressive in my post! Some people do actually have to work!

I think this is a most awkward situation for the buyer, who presumably signed a contract with the seller, that conformed that the boat was unencumbered by any debts.

Did I not see a similar posting months ago? Is this the same case?

Not a lawyer, but I do not think there is any requirement to have a clause in the contract re liens, to have the right to keep the boat if bills have not been paid. I think that is a common law right. They delivered services - berthing - or what ever, and they have not been paid.

I presume the previous owner has done a bunk?

I cannot see how the owner can get out of paying the original costs. The yard will have to provide proper details together with contracts and correspondence to prove this. I cannot help believing that in the absence of doing this, they could not charge fees until this evidence was presented, otherwise the yacht is being detained illegally. They have a duty to act in reasonable time, otherwise I would have thought that the use of reasonable force (non violent) could be used to remove the yacht if they do not present the evidence. Possession being 9/10ths of the law.....

I think that the new owner should seriously get proper legal advice. His household insurance contract may well cover this, or even his yacht insurance.
 
Doesnt the agent have some responsibility to pass good title? Seems to me that he has sold a boat but cant deliver. certainly when I bought a boat recently, the agent held back the consideration from his client until he was clear that all charges against the boat had been paid. He also gave me some week or two to make sure that everything listed in the inventory was there and everything said by the purchaser abnout the condition was correct.
 
Last edited:
Malthouse said:
Surely this cannot be right, if a marina refuses to let the owner of a boat move said boat then they cannot charge moorings while the issue is resolved?
Click to expand...

To quote certain clauses out of the berthing contract of the leading marina group in the UK:

"3.1 The Company is entitled to charge interest on any amount which is overdue by more than 14 days at the rate of 4% above barclays Bank Plc base rate from time to time.
.....
8 RIGHTS OF SALE AND OF DETENTION
8.3 The Company reserves a general right ("a general lien") to detain and hold onto the Boat or any other property pending payment by the Owner of any sums due to the Company.If the Agreement is terminated or expires while the Company is exercising this right of detention it shall be entitled to charge the Owner at the Company's 24 hour rate for overnight visitors for each day between termination or expiry of this Agreement and the actual day of payment by the Owner..."

Now I do not know if a Court would rule this clause onerous, but on the face of it if you get behind on your berthing fees, not only will they charge you interest on the overdue sum, but when you get to the end of your contracted berthing period you will be additionaly charged at the highest berthing rate even though by then they have seized your boat. The moral must be: avoid seizure at all costs.
 
Chris_Robb said:
I think that the new owner should seriously get proper legal advice. His household insurance contract may well cover this, or even his yacht insurance.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris, thanks for your detailed response.

The current owner has sought legal advice and this suggests that the marina have not behaved properly, most recently in deliberately slow to respond to any points they raise together with not making it clear that they were being charged all the while.

The previous owner is in close contact with them and they are working together to show that the marina's figures are grossly exaggerated, sadly this does not seem to be enough.
 
Malthouse said:
Hi Chris, thanks for your detailed response.

The current owner has sought legal advice and this suggests that the marina have not behaved properly, most recently in deliberately slow to respond to any points they raise together with not making it clear that they were being charged all the while.

The previous owner is in close contact with them and they are working together to show that the marina's figures are grossly exaggerated, sadly this does not seem to be enough.
Click to expand...

I wish him all the best. However, having been reasonable up to now, and given the yards slowness to respond, he might find it better to remove the boat by stealth and argue later.
 
Malthouse said:
No notice was given of the lien, the boat was sold and only when the new owner tried to move it did they announce that they would not allow it.
Click to expand...

It sounds potentially very dodgy that the marina would trespass against the property of person B in order to recover a debt owned by person A. I think the new owner should get onto a nasty solicitor asap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top