Phantom Phantom 42

[petem]

A close shave but RichardC has been robbed of the opportunity of losing £145k and gaining a lot of sleepless nights.

But I can't remeber if we ever got to the bottom of why someone would try to disguise the hull number.

Are cruising boats ever stolen? You hear of trail boats, especially high volume sellers being stolen.

But would anyone steal a Fairline? Not that there's anything wrong with them. But surely there are too few sold and two few outlets. I imagine it wouldn't be hard to trace the history of any recently manufactured boat.

My guess is that the defaced hull number is to hide the fact that there's a load of finance still on the boat. Anyone got a better idea?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by petem on Tue Dec 4 21:00:21 2001 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

I saw an advert asking for information leading to recovery of a 150'+ boat in Boat international, which does seem a bit careless. Perhaps the thief hotwired it?

But seriously I think you're right. He wants a separate transaction. Divorce perhaps? The mind boggles.

 

[petem]

Congrats on prize. Though I was in there with my separated at birth posting. Ah well, there's always next month.

 

[Guest]

Re: No!

That's it, unfortunately. The fabuolous end-of-line-raytheon-badged vhf were only on offer till november. So very tough cheese for you. However, I spect they'll have some fireworks, easter eggs or maybe even a christmas tree (only used once) for december tho...

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Maybe it was a bargain?

I cant help thinking we just might have helped Richard turn down a bit of a bargain but, on the basis of the information we had, I know I would certainly have walked away from it. £150k is a lot of dosh
You're right about cruising boats being stolen. If this one was a ringer, why has'nt there been any publicity?

 

[Guest]

Re: Maybe it was a bargain?

Ringer, maybe see my C claims post, are they still operating I wonder, big help to buyers if they are.

Paul js.

 

[Guest]

Re: Maybe it was a bargain?

The decision was all ours, don't worry! People here have merely confirmed that our decision was correct.

It was the apparent bargain price that attracted us. Just too good to miss. Remember that this would have been our first boat so we had no experience (we've got more now!). We knew the boat had been with a Spanish broker at a higher price, then reduced. Then it was advertised in an English magazine by the English owner at 8% less than the reduced broker price. It was the cheapest P42 we'd ever seen and a very full spec (incl passerelle and genny). So we quickly checked all we could. Company search of owner's company, visit to owner at his home. Everything said: no problem.

But everything was wrong when we looked at the boat from the one recent small leak declared to the six leaks we found. Numerous other faults found including generator that wouldn't start. The much talked about HIN and the owner's response to awkward questions ('I don't know' every time).

We're naturally cautious but positive when things look right. Here they didn't.

I've had a private message to name the boat and the marina but that could cause problems for me and IPC. If there's nothing wrong with the boat, it could wrongly taint any future sale. So far as the HIN is concerned, we now know it's easy to see and that the owner should know where the internal HIN is. If anyone thinks they might be buying this P42, it'll be easy to spot from the HIN problems. All other P42s should be OK so far as this is concerned. If anyone is seriously considering buying a P42 and thinks they might have come across this one and needs to talk further, they can always send me a private message but this one should be easy to spot. I presume all makes of boats have a HIN on the stern and another inside. Perhaps owners of other makes of boats can confirm.

 

[Guest]

Re: Maybe it was a bargain?

I think petem's idea of outstanding finance means that the boat is dodgy altho not technically "nicked".

 

[Guest]

Re: Maybe it was a bargain?

Presumably it's the same result for any unfortunate purchaser: he loses his money?

 

[Guest]

Re: Flames!

Your company enjoys conventional limited liability, but you have covertly (ie such that it needs to be "pointed out") changed your own sales terms and conditions circumvent the same limited liability of other companies, yes?

and

You ask lots of questions about boats, and also about a specific boat, but when invited to publish even the name of the boat so as to forewarn others of the findings at that time (hence not libellous "opinion" or "heresay") who might consider the same purchase your answer is effectively " sod them"

Nice bloke eh? comments?

 

[Guest]

Re: Flames!

The first bit of your posting is from another thread and as I've answered in that thread, there's nothing been done covertly. It's extremely open. Yes it is done to circumvent limited liabilty but, remember, it's used to overcome the directors of phoenix companies that were mentioned in the other thread. Are you objecting to honest companies getting their own back on these company directors that set out to get credit with no intention of paying? Surely not!

As for the second part of your post and which refers to this thread, as I've explained in a private message to you, I'd discussed this with Kim before deciding not to agree to your request to publish the name of the boat. We felt that there was more than enough information about the HIN problem to warn anyone about not just this boat but any other boat with a similar problem. I can't believe that anyone who's read this thread will now ever buy a boat without checking the HIN.

I'm sure that everyone else who's read this and the other threads will not have come to the conclusion that I've effectively said 'sod them' to other prospective purchasers. But people reading these threads can choose: they can agree with you or me, they'll form their own opinions.

 

[Guest]

Re: More Flames!

The vast majority of companies honestly intend to trade, and keep trading. However, amongst all those who do try some enterprise, pay vast taxes, prop up all the public services and generate jobs, there'll be some that fail. Then, up pops RichardC demanding payment from you personally. Is it "jointly and severally" amongst all directors? And how the hell would he prosecute it? Firstly by getting the contract enforced in court, and then by pursuing someone personally, to bankruptcy. And then by repeated court orders to enforce payment....some hope.

And so it goes with boating, eh? RichardC just can't face the risk of buying a boat, so only looks at the really cheap ones, and then finds that they're a bit dodgy. So after lots of questions, still no boat.

There's an awful phrase which sometimes crops up when catching up with old friends, who perhaps remark on how others are doing; "Yes", they say "He's done really well for himself". I hate this phrase, as it so clearly implies that an individual's success and prosperity has been won without regard for others, indeed at the expense of others if at all necessary or possible.

Beware, dear readers, there are strange contracts out there, and strange boats for sale. RichardC knows all the details. But he won't tell you. He's going to buy a boat, you know. "He's done really well FOR HIMSELF". Not for others though, quite the reverse.

 

[kimhollamby]

Enough!

<<<You ask lots of questions about boats, and also about a specific boat, but when invited to publish even the name of the boat so as to forewarn others of the findings at that time (hence not libellous "opinion" or "heresay") who might consider the same purchase your answer is effectively " sod them">>>

If you want to dig Matt then blame me. I've checked and IMO the "findings" cannot be retrospectively substantiated; not all of the points made about possible identity problems (in effect an accusation of fraud) have been recorded as findings and for that reason there is good reason for not naming. Richard saved me the job of deleting the post you are encouraging him to make.

It is my opinion also that the threads have very adequetely aired the subject to the extent that any forum user who read them and subsequently bought a secondhand boat of any make or model without checking history (and HIN if the boat is new enough) could not exactly claim not to have been forewarned.

Richard, get out there and find yourself a boat you can trust so you can find out there is fun to be had as well as frights.

 

[BarryD]

Re: More Flames!

On Contracts: It's quite simple I read contract small print (how sad of me) and if I don't like a clause I won't sign. What is the name of your company Richard, it's unlikley we've got any contracts with you but I'd like to know.

On the Phantom: I'm not in the market at that level this year, maybe next, maybe never - but telling the board the name of the boat would be handy. Agreed you made the decision yourslef and nothing the board said influenced you. Tell us what the boat was called please. I didn't buy a twin engine SunFury 'cos one of the engines blew up on the trial - "Illusioninst" out of Chichester. Now the owner has fixed it and it's still for sale - but I'd hate for a board member to buy it and then have it fail on them just 'cos they didn't know historically that the port engine had blown. It's not slander or defamation (can't spell) but the truth.

Re: "He's Done Well For Himself" - agreed that's a choker, but I really hate the "Gosh, you were lucky" one. Yep - the harder I work the luckier I am...

Come onRichard - 'fess up what is the boat called?

 

[kimhollamby]

and again I say enough!

...and you wonder why people lurk and don't come in to play? Sounds like you are having the kind of day I had yesterday. Can we leave it there?

 

[kimhollamby]

Illusioninst?

Was the boat really called <Illusioninst>. Because if it wasn't you've just illustrated why I am asking for caution here.

In your case there would be little debate about what actually happened (although you would still need to be careful if straying into the area of why it happened) but in Richard's case quite a few pf the posts strayed well into the area of speculation and there are no records of some of the obervations. Good enough reason not to name especially as buying a Fairline Phantom is hardly like Ford Escort territory in terms of numbers, is it?

 

[BarryD]

Re: Illusioninst?

Kim - Prehaps my spelling is out but that is her name. The engine did fail during the trial in a rather spectacular way. Lots of smoke and steam out of the engine hatch and from under the dashboard. We (self, SWMBO and short person) were taken off by a passing Sea Start launch. We stood by whilst the hired skipper attempted to re-start the starboard engine which had been stopped so that we could effect a transfer - once he was happy he continued at a slower pace back to Chicester.

I won't speculate again on the cause of failure, or on the viability of the subsequent repair. I don't know. All I do know is that I would not buy that boat unless the price reflected my viewpoint on the engine. Another trial with no problems could make someone happy - it's a good price for the boat, and the rest of the fit out is fair. Just not for me.

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Illusioninst?

And as said before, no problems with that (save for the fact you were put through the experience in the first place).

But to explain my point a little better, I have been on the end of a solicitor's letter thanks to an apostrophe appearing in the wrong place, so it shows how the little things can matter.

 

[Guest]

Re: That Solicitors Letter!

FROM THE SUPREME CHAMBERS

The Hanging Gallows Building
Bleeding Heart Yard
Plague Lane
Lincoln's Inn Fields
London EC2



Dear Sirs

We act for the Mr Jimmy "Mad Nailgun" McVicar, whos has informed us that you are guardian and responsible for an internet site published by yourself and others entitled Motor Boat Chat. This forum contains wholly and deliberately misleading, scurrilous and defamatory of our client. The reason for the missing Hull marks are innocent and entirely reasonable, these being that my client accidentally used a powered sanding machine at the rear, and that the wardrobe floor collapsed due to the weight of his wife's shoes. Unless it is immediately withdrawn, and the other steps set out below complied with, our instructions are to commence a libel action against you with immediate effect.

1. That you say sorry
2. That we all forget about it
3. That you replace your underpants
4. That you understand our fees are £900 per hour plus Extended Disbursements

etc etc.

 

[Guest]

Re: okay

sorry m'lud, mumble mumble mutter....