NNE gale in Guernsey

[Powersalt]

Don't forget Piers the Jersey Tennerfest.........you could treat yourself to a good meal ashore

 

[Piers]

Don't forget Piers the Jersey Tennerfest.........you could treat yourself to a good meal ashore

I'd forgotten! Excellent idea - thank you.

 

[MapisM]

Well, the trip to Jersey was magnificent.
...
It appears there's been no damage, even none to or around the cleats.

Great to hear that! :encouragement:
I guess you deserved such positive outcome, after all the bad luck with those iron filings... :ambivalence:

 

[Piers]

Great to hear that! :encouragement:
I guess you deserved such positive outcome, after all the bad luck with those iron filings... :ambivalence:

Thanks so much for the kind words. I intend to give Play d'eau a good bath today to clean and sparkle her up.

The second dose of iron filings damage has yet to be repaired. The insurance claim has been agreed in principle (with Y-Yacht) but a second survey by M&G is crucial to firm up their quote and remove the caveats. Once this is done she'll be booked in for her plastic surgery.

Meanwhile, we'll stay away from Beaucette until all the metal works have been completed. The marina's re-vamp includes some new pontoons, new walkways, new railings around the car park, restaurant and Harbour office. It will look good when it's done. Having had two insurance claims already, a third would be just crazy.

 

[benjenbav]

Thanks so much for the kind words. I intend to give Play d'eau a good bath today to clean and sparkle her up.

The second dose of iron filings damage has yet to be repaired. The insurance claim has been agreed in principle (with Y-Yacht) but a second survey by M&G is crucial to firm up their quote and remove the caveats. Once this is done she'll be booked in for her plastic surgery.

Meanwhile, we'll stay away from Beaucette until all the metal works have been completed. The marina's re-vamp includes some new pontoons, new walkways, new railings around the car park, restaurant and Harbour office. It will look good when it's done. Having had two insurance claims already, a third would be just crazy.

Piers, I’m glad that all’s well now, after a horrid couple of days.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Thanks so much for the kind words. I intend to give Play d'eau a good bath today to clean and sparkle her up.

The second dose of iron filings damage has yet to be repaired. The insurance claim has been agreed in principle (with Y-Yacht) but a second survey by M&G is crucial to firm up their quote and remove the caveats. Once this is done she'll be booked in for her plastic surgery.

Meanwhile, we'll stay away from Beaucette until all the metal works have been completed. The marina's re-vamp includes some new pontoons, new walkways, new railings around the car park, restaurant and Harbour office. It will look good when it's done. Having had two insurance claims already, a third would be just crazy.

We’ve been in SPP in nasty E gales and it’s not pleasant! Pleased to hear that no damage has been sustained.

I guess it must be very frustrating that you feel that you can’t return to Beaucette whilst the metal,works are continuing. I trust that they are not charging you in your absence.

 

[Piers]

I guess it must be very frustrating that you feel that you can’t return to Beaucette whilst the metal,works are continuing. I trust that they are not charging you in your absence.

At the end of the day, whilst Beaucette will advise about the metal works, it's my choice whether to return or not. I just can't bear the thought of a third covering. So I still have to pay for the berth, and although the insurers pay for the repairs I lose any applicable excess, plus the costs of accomodation, etc, etc.

I'm advised the metal works should be completed by the middle of this month, but seeing how much these have been overrunning, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them continue way past that.

Hence, I'm somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place - return, run the filings risk and more insurance claims and ancilliary costs, or stay away, suffer the morring costs, but stay clean.

 

[CLB]

At the end of the day, whilst Beaucette will advise about the metal works, it's my choice whether to return or not. I just can't bear the thought of a third covering. So I still have to pay for the berth, and although the insurers pay for the repairs I lose any applicable excess, plus the costs of accomodation, etc, etc.

I'm advised the metal works should be completed by the middle of this month, but seeing how much these have been overrunning, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them continue way past that.

Hence, I'm somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place - return, run the filings risk and more insurance claims and ancilliary costs, or stay away, suffer the morring costs, but stay clean.

How are all the other bertholders dealing with the problem? Have lots left? Have there been many other claims? Are they just not bothered?

 

[Piers]

How are all the other bertholders dealing with the problem? Have lots left? Have there been many other claims? Are they just not bothered?

Yes, other boats have had filings on them. One in particular was really bad but had costs covererd be their insurers. Others have cleaned their boats themselves using products such as Y-10. Some don't seem to care and I suspect others haven't realised.

It just happens that Play d'eau's mooring is right under where much of the work was being done, and/or in the path of the wind on the day.

 

[longjohnsilver]

At the end of the day, whilst Beaucette will advise about the metal works, it's my choice whether to return or not. I just can't bear the thought of a third covering. So I still have to pay for the berth, and although the insurers pay for the repairs I lose any applicable excess, plus the costs of accomodation, etc, etc.

I'm advised the metal works should be completed by the middle of this month, but seeing how much these have been overrunning, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them continue way past that.

Hence, I'm somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place - return, run the filings risk and more insurance claims and ancilliary costs, or stay away, suffer the morring costs, but stay clean.

Hmm, what if anything, have the Beaucette management had to say about this?

 

[Piers]

Hmm, what if anything, have the Beaucette management had to say about this?

The key issue according to the UK lawyers, is that in Guernsey law the employer has no liability for their sub-contractors. The sub-contractor requires witnessed proof from someone who actually saw the sparks being creatd by them and physically landing on the boat. If no witnesses, I'm advised there's no case.

 

[jrudge]

The key issue according to the UK lawyers, is that in Guernsey law the employer has no liability for their sub-contractors. The sub-contractor requires witnessed proof from someone who actually saw the sparks being creatd by them and physically landing on the boat. If no witnesses, I'm advised there's no case.

Wow.

I used to run the Channel Islands offices so I know that local law ( and custom) can be odd but that is surprising. If lots of boats are covered in Iron Filings and they have been cutting the rails ... where on earth My Lord have they come from ?

Regardless of the marinas legal responsibility ( which has some logic I suppose - I employed you - you sort it out) you would assume that allowing them to do this must be bad for business.

 

[jfm]

hoping all our lines and covers have survived the strong winds

Your boat is in great shape tetleys. I'm in penthouse directly across from it . Photos this morning from my terrace. Jersey weather was glorious today.

In the first pic above eagle eyed viewers might spot the brand new silver Pershing 70 (with the "wings") that replaces the Pershing 62 that crashed/sunk November 2017. Edit- the resolution is too low in that pic. It's the top left most boat in the pic right by the marina entrance.

The key issue according to the UK lawyers, is that in Guernsey law the employer has no liability for their sub-contractors. The sub-contractor requires witnessed proof from someone who actually saw the sparks being creatd by them and physically landing on the boat. If no witnesses, I'm advised there's no case.

Piers there's a lot in that worrying me. Bjb might chip in too but my thoughts are:

1. Why get gsy law advice from uk solr?
2. This isn't about employer (marina) being liable for subcontractor. It's about marina's liability in contract to you under your berthing contract (and as a minimum their liability to zero your mooring fees for the iron filings period). IIRC they had a limitation of liability clause in thr contract but I seem to remember we decided in another thread that it didn't limit you too much. I might not be remembering that point well.
3. And it's about the subcontractor's tortious liability (in negligence and nuisance) to you. Who gives a fig about what the "sub contractor requires"? The only question is what the Gsy court requires. Clearly you have to prove your claim, but I really struggle to believe that the evidence threshold in Gsy is that only eye witnesses count, and other evidence (like, in this case, many boats incl P d'E had iron filings all over and the contractors were wielding angle grinders and no-one else was).

I don't want to interfere but I don't see how your position is as weak as you say. Happy to catch up over a beer. I'm 500m from you

 

[Piers]

Piers there's a lot in that worrying me. Bjb might chip in too but my thoughts are:

1. Why get gsy law advice from uk solr?
2. This isn't about employer (marina) being liable for subcontractor. It's about marina's liability in contract to you under your berthing contract (and as a minimum their liability to zero your mooring fees for the iron filings period). IIRC they had a limitation of liability clause in thr contract but I seem to remember we decided in another thread that it didn't limit you too much. I might not be remembering that point well.
3. And it's about the subcontractor's tortious liability (in negligence and nuisance) to you. Who gives a fig about what the "sub contractor requires"? The only question is what the Gsy court requires. Clearly you have to prove your claim, but I really struggle to believe that the evidence threshold in Gsy is that only eye witnesses count, and other evidence (like, in this case, many boats incl P d'E had iron filings all over and the contractors were wielding angle grinders and no-one else was).

I don't want to interfere but I don't see how your position is as weak as you say. Happy to catch up over a beer. I'm 500m from you

PM sent but your mail box is full...

 

[Piers]

Bathed Play d'eau yesterday so she's now clean and sparkling! Could almost feel her shudder with enjoyment after being abused so much by the gales, swell and surging.

 

[tetleys]

Thanks jfm much appreciated

 

[jfm]

PM sent but your mail box is full...

Sorry- I've cleared it. This forum software doesn't tell you when your PM box is full :ambivalence:

 

[benjenbav]

Your boat is in great shape tetleys. I'm in penthouse directly across from it . Photos this morning from my terrace. Jersey weather was glorious today.

In the first pic above eagle eyed viewers might spot the brand new silver Pershing 70 (with the "wings") that replaces the Pershing 62 that crashed/sunk November 2017. Edit- the resolution is too low in that pic. It's the top left most boat in the pic right by the marina entrance.

Piers there's a lot in that worrying me. Bjb might chip in too but my thoughts are:

1. Why get gsy law advice from uk solr?
2. This isn't about employer (marina) being liable for subcontractor. It's about marina's liability in contract to you under your berthing contract (and as a minimum their liability to zero your mooring fees for the iron filings period). IIRC they had a limitation of liability clause in thr contract but I seem to remember we decided in another thread that it didn't limit you too much. I might not be remembering that point well.
3. And it's about the subcontractor's tortious liability (in negligence and nuisance) to you. Who gives a fig about what the "sub contractor requires"? The only question is what the Gsy court requires. Clearly you have to prove your claim, but I really struggle to believe that the evidence threshold in Gsy is that only eye witnesses count, and other evidence (like, in this case, many boats incl P d'E had iron filings all over and the contractors were wielding angle grinders and no-one else was).

I don't want to interfere but I don't see how your position is as weak as you say. Happy to catch up over a beer. I'm 500m from you

@ Piers - I took the liberty of going back through the iron filings thread to check the 'choice of law' clause in the Beaucette berthing contract, which does specify Guernsey. Hence, I'd want advice from a Guernsey lawyer on the contractual issues. Equally, the tortious claims will be founded in Guernsey law, although I would comment that the sub-contractor's statement sounds at this distance as if they are saying that "if you didn't see us do it, you can't prove anything". This is technically known as 'poppycock'. It may be more difficult to find compelling evidence if they weren't witnessed in the act, but that's a different matter entirely.

@JFM - That's not a shabby outlook at all from your terrace. :encouragement:

 

[MapisM]

It may be more difficult to find compelling evidence if they weren't witnessed in the act

Note to self: whenever I'll decide to kill someone, bring him/her to Guernsey first, and then just find a place with nobody around - job done. :ambivalence:

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Note to self: whenever I'll decide to kill someone, bring him/her to Guernsey first, and then just find a place with nobody around - job done. :ambivalence:

Out of interest who do you have in mind?