robp
Active member
Re: Aah DAF, I remember the ads!
"Forward to go forward - Back to go back". They don't write them like that any more..
"Forward to go forward - Back to go back". They don't write them like that any more..
Qualified Or Not, What Would You Do?
- Thread starter firstspirit
- Start date
andy_wilson
New member
Forgive the tone....
..but here goes anyway.
In short answer, what would I do? Check the crew are all intact, then ascertain which part of the hull has made contact with the sea bed and check that that is intact too. Then I would check tankage for splits, the engine to ensure it isn't shedding oil, and other general stowage. Then the question of what happens when she floats off. Do lines need rigging to control the mast movement reference other vessels in the viscinity. I take it we are not alone in this problem.
As the question of who is to blame is raised below, I may have missed an important point.
Was the marina locked / controlled in some way?
If so then the fault seems to lie very firmly with the marina operative / other boat owner / vandal that caused a sudden and dramatic loss of water. However, on a stinking night, sleeting, there would almost certainly be some movement of the vessel whilst berthed. At some point that would have stopped, and caused alarm bells in any skippers mind, and allowed time to rig further lines etc. to prevent a fall-over.
If however it was a tidal marina berth, then perhaps one should look within. Firstly any sailor worth his cap would be more than aware of the tidal range for the port, for the day, and the amount of rise at the time of berthing, and the depth from the sounder before it was switched off! A cursory thought to these would tell you whether you would be left with the curory 2m or so over datum, or, as in this case, zero or less.
In this case it sounds like said boat was parked on the green (in the almanac), or the yellow (on the chart), in which case I would resolve not to make the same mistake again.
(Some years ago I was crewing on a charter boat from Conwy, and the skipper berthed over the green in Peel IOM. I did point this out to him but he still buggered about doing sums until a port official suggested we moved, and quick, if we weren't stopping for a full shift. On return to Conwy - this was whilst the new sill was under construction - the marina attendant put us on a waiting pontoon as the regular berth was taken, due to the considerable amount of shuffling around being done. Skipper never checked and at 7 am I was the first up having noticed a slight lean, and busied myself kicking fenders under the diminishing gap between pontoon and the turn of the bilge. I guess it's an easy mistake to make).
There but for the grace of God etc.....
..but here goes anyway.
In short answer, what would I do? Check the crew are all intact, then ascertain which part of the hull has made contact with the sea bed and check that that is intact too. Then I would check tankage for splits, the engine to ensure it isn't shedding oil, and other general stowage. Then the question of what happens when she floats off. Do lines need rigging to control the mast movement reference other vessels in the viscinity. I take it we are not alone in this problem.
As the question of who is to blame is raised below, I may have missed an important point.
Was the marina locked / controlled in some way?
If so then the fault seems to lie very firmly with the marina operative / other boat owner / vandal that caused a sudden and dramatic loss of water. However, on a stinking night, sleeting, there would almost certainly be some movement of the vessel whilst berthed. At some point that would have stopped, and caused alarm bells in any skippers mind, and allowed time to rig further lines etc. to prevent a fall-over.
If however it was a tidal marina berth, then perhaps one should look within. Firstly any sailor worth his cap would be more than aware of the tidal range for the port, for the day, and the amount of rise at the time of berthing, and the depth from the sounder before it was switched off! A cursory thought to these would tell you whether you would be left with the curory 2m or so over datum, or, as in this case, zero or less.
In this case it sounds like said boat was parked on the green (in the almanac), or the yellow (on the chart), in which case I would resolve not to make the same mistake again.
(Some years ago I was crewing on a charter boat from Conwy, and the skipper berthed over the green in Peel IOM. I did point this out to him but he still buggered about doing sums until a port official suggested we moved, and quick, if we weren't stopping for a full shift. On return to Conwy - this was whilst the new sill was under construction - the marina attendant put us on a waiting pontoon as the regular berth was taken, due to the considerable amount of shuffling around being done. Skipper never checked and at 7 am I was the first up having noticed a slight lean, and busied myself kicking fenders under the diminishing gap between pontoon and the turn of the bilge. I guess it's an easy mistake to make).
There but for the grace of God etc.....
RupertW
Well-known member
Re: The joy of being right
I'd love to have seen their faces.
You can see the dockies checking their little chartlet (circa 1980-something) with marked off depths and sending boats into berths as if it must still be true. I know they dredge now and again but I'd bet anything that they don't check off the LAT depths against each berth afterwards to see whether the chartlet has been made vaguely accurate.
It's only happened to me once at Salterns and never at any other marina apart from my (then) home one, so I can't really complain.
I'd love to have seen their faces.
You can see the dockies checking their little chartlet (circa 1980-something) with marked off depths and sending boats into berths as if it must still be true. I know they dredge now and again but I'd bet anything that they don't check off the LAT depths against each berth afterwards to see whether the chartlet has been made vaguely accurate.
It's only happened to me once at Salterns and never at any other marina apart from my (then) home one, so I can't really complain.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Beetle does NOT float
It was actually proven by a certain TV presenter that VW Beetles do NOT float, they are NOT airtight as the story goes etc.
It was actually proven by a certain TV presenter that VW Beetles do NOT float, they are NOT airtight as the story goes etc.
Caronia
New member
Re: Beetle does NOT float
What about the VW Schwimmwagen then?
What about the VW Schwimmwagen then?
steveh
New member
Taking the situation to the extreme, if the marina operators had let all the water disappear and it had affected all the bertholders I am sure with the might of the majority they would
have had to accept responsibility. The problem is it has only affected you ( you do not mention it affecting anyone else) so losing one berthholder is worth a fight to them.
have had to accept responsibility. The problem is it has only affected you ( you do not mention it affecting anyone else) so losing one berthholder is worth a fight to them.
jimi
Well-known member
Sailing Beetles
I was under the impression that one had been 'sailed' across the Channel?
Jim
I was under the impression that one had been 'sailed' across the Channel?
Jim
firstspirit
New member
Re: Forgive the tone....
Thenk you for your posting Andy Wilson,
In answer to your points which are quite valid.
The vessel in question was moored in a 'safe', pontoon berth, UK marina mooring.
The vessel weighs in at a little under 40 tonnes. Fitted with steel banded keel and two bilge keels configuration.
The marina operator welcomed this vessel into the marina some years earlier, (plenty of time to have planned for such eventualities as a water draw-down) stating that it was no problem to bring this specific vessel into their marina.
When conscious of an event about to happen, or a situation closing in on you, I would agree with your comments that any skipper would be daft not to notice, boat movements, or the lack of them. This was different don't forget. No notice or warning was given by the operator.
Next time your watching the box, listening to radio, reading a book, can you honestly tell me that you are 100% aware of the boat movements. I think not. Like most of us, pre-occupied, we get our sea legs and we become so unaware of movements and it's only when you have visitors to your craft that they keep squeeling at you, how much the boat moves.....and you're only too ready to tell them...."Oh that's nothing...you should have seen it.....".
Any more questions or points of view most welcome.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
Thenk you for your posting Andy Wilson,
In answer to your points which are quite valid.
The vessel in question was moored in a 'safe', pontoon berth, UK marina mooring.
The vessel weighs in at a little under 40 tonnes. Fitted with steel banded keel and two bilge keels configuration.
The marina operator welcomed this vessel into the marina some years earlier, (plenty of time to have planned for such eventualities as a water draw-down) stating that it was no problem to bring this specific vessel into their marina.
When conscious of an event about to happen, or a situation closing in on you, I would agree with your comments that any skipper would be daft not to notice, boat movements, or the lack of them. This was different don't forget. No notice or warning was given by the operator.
Next time your watching the box, listening to radio, reading a book, can you honestly tell me that you are 100% aware of the boat movements. I think not. Like most of us, pre-occupied, we get our sea legs and we become so unaware of movements and it's only when you have visitors to your craft that they keep squeeling at you, how much the boat moves.....and you're only too ready to tell them...."Oh that's nothing...you should have seen it.....".
Any more questions or points of view most welcome.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
firstspirit
New member
Re: In that case, the owner\'s responsible.
Thank you Twister Ken for your posting,
Keep at it, you have the mind for it!
This vessel was indeed the only one so 'heavily' affected due to the following reasons.
The vessel weighs just under 40 tonnes, the draught is 6.05feet approx. The vessel was berthed in a dock basin farthest away from the harbour locks, which in turn was less likely to have been effectively dredged, over the years.
You mention damage Twister Ken, how would I know it's not damaged?
Lets remember, we are just telling you as it is without the specifics, names and company details. At the moment we have to for 'technical reasons'. I am looking for a sense of who's right and who's wrong. I can assure you that the skipper of the vessel has reason to believe that this post is being followed intensely by the Marina Manager, Operations Director and details of your postings passed to the Managing Director.
It is even possible that Firstspirit may disappear of an instant, but that depends on the sense of right and wrong, posters on this thread display.
Please keep it coming, more questions please, if I can, I will answer.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
Thank you Twister Ken for your posting,
Keep at it, you have the mind for it!
This vessel was indeed the only one so 'heavily' affected due to the following reasons.
The vessel weighs just under 40 tonnes, the draught is 6.05feet approx. The vessel was berthed in a dock basin farthest away from the harbour locks, which in turn was less likely to have been effectively dredged, over the years.
You mention damage Twister Ken, how would I know it's not damaged?
Lets remember, we are just telling you as it is without the specifics, names and company details. At the moment we have to for 'technical reasons'. I am looking for a sense of who's right and who's wrong. I can assure you that the skipper of the vessel has reason to believe that this post is being followed intensely by the Marina Manager, Operations Director and details of your postings passed to the Managing Director.
It is even possible that Firstspirit may disappear of an instant, but that depends on the sense of right and wrong, posters on this thread display.
Please keep it coming, more questions please, if I can, I will answer.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
firstspirit
New member
RupertW,
Can't help noticing that word DREDGING in your post.
The vessel in the original posting has a draught of 6.05Feet Approx. The official marina operators' response was that they didn't guess how much water was under this vessel. It has silted up was another explanation.
So, silted up dock, not dredged for years, large draught vessel, locks open -water out, boat big bang.
Let's please move on in our questions sweet people. What do you think you would do next?
I'd love to hear it!
Regards,
Firstspirit.
Can't help noticing that word DREDGING in your post.
The vessel in the original posting has a draught of 6.05Feet Approx. The official marina operators' response was that they didn't guess how much water was under this vessel. It has silted up was another explanation.
So, silted up dock, not dredged for years, large draught vessel, locks open -water out, boat big bang.
Let's please move on in our questions sweet people. What do you think you would do next?
I'd love to hear it!
Regards,
Firstspirit.
dk
Well-known member
I don't consider myself a 'sweet person', and neither do I want to play this game until FS tells us what really happened. Is this some kind of lateral thinking excercise, or is it currently sub-judice? Whatever it is it is grossly patronising!
If you want our help, tell us what really happened.
If you want our help, tell us what really happened.
charles_reed
Active member
Now we have the picture
It sounds as though serious money is involved.
Sufficient to warrant getting counsel's opinion - Admiralty and Marine is a very esoteric branch of the profession.
Prima facie, the marina operators would appear to be liable. However the master's duty-of-care could well cover this apparent negligence and, if I were the Marina operators and their insurers I'd stick at that and stonewall.
The only way to break out of that is:
Get the vessel surveyed.
Claim on the vessel's insurers for the full cost of rectification.
Let them bear the cost of Counsel's opinion.
Let them sue the Marina Operators' insurers.
By the way, Duncan, why go all the way round the Wrekin and suffer reams of portentous sermonising to get to this simple question?
It sounds as though serious money is involved.
Sufficient to warrant getting counsel's opinion - Admiralty and Marine is a very esoteric branch of the profession.
Prima facie, the marina operators would appear to be liable. However the master's duty-of-care could well cover this apparent negligence and, if I were the Marina operators and their insurers I'd stick at that and stonewall.
The only way to break out of that is:
Get the vessel surveyed.
Claim on the vessel's insurers for the full cost of rectification.
Let them bear the cost of Counsel's opinion.
Let them sue the Marina Operators' insurers.
By the way, Duncan, why go all the way round the Wrekin and suffer reams of portentous sermonising to get to this simple question?
firstspirit
New member
Re: Now we have the picture
Dear Charles Reed,
Thank you for bringing this discussion miles forward.
Firstly, I am interested in your view, that the Master's duty of care may be up for accountablity here. Please tell me what you think a master's duty is.
MONEY? Possibly, but should it be the skippers?
Survey? The skipper consulted with the marina operator (in principal) to lift the vessel for that very purpose, in the previously designated emergency lifting area. Since this incident, the area has been withdrawn.
Survey? Where? No lift out possible in the marina due to the above, no facility is known to exist in close proximity to the marina, remember we are talking just under 40 tonnes.
Insurance? This skipper made application through the consultant who sold him his insurance for the vessel, as advice was needed imediately and this was the first time any such incident had occurred. At the time of the claim being opened the insurance consultant was positive, some time on now, the same consultant expresses, in writing, "bury the marine insurance approach", and gives personal opinion, "if you are fighting a battle to remain in situ, you should drop the grounding incident."
Marine Law may well be difficult to understand but the picture is getting bigger.
Good working relationship between insurance consultant and marina operator, skipper 'invited' to leave marina, no lift out facility available, prospect of survey will probably necessitate moving vessel to another port perhaps, but then who in their right minds would insure a vessel known to have grounded so heavily, to make that trip? And finally... what about re-entry into this same marina...back where it all happened.... I don't think so do you? The marina operator wants to forget the whole matter, but this skipper has a rgiht to be concerned that there is no damage to the underside wetted area of the vessel.
If, in principal, RAW opinion does not reflect the difference between right and wrong, what chance would this skipper have of going public?
At this moment this skipper and crew live in fear. The process involved of court, expense, 'expert' opinions been sought, all adds up to one night-mare scenario. This skipper, first mate and crew seek only justice, what's fair and nothing else. Given the pressure being imposed on them at present by the marina operator and the insurance consultants, that's not what is happening here.
Hope to keep you posted, any more thoughts, are welcome.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
Dear Charles Reed,
Thank you for bringing this discussion miles forward.
Firstly, I am interested in your view, that the Master's duty of care may be up for accountablity here. Please tell me what you think a master's duty is.
MONEY? Possibly, but should it be the skippers?
Survey? The skipper consulted with the marina operator (in principal) to lift the vessel for that very purpose, in the previously designated emergency lifting area. Since this incident, the area has been withdrawn.
Survey? Where? No lift out possible in the marina due to the above, no facility is known to exist in close proximity to the marina, remember we are talking just under 40 tonnes.
Insurance? This skipper made application through the consultant who sold him his insurance for the vessel, as advice was needed imediately and this was the first time any such incident had occurred. At the time of the claim being opened the insurance consultant was positive, some time on now, the same consultant expresses, in writing, "bury the marine insurance approach", and gives personal opinion, "if you are fighting a battle to remain in situ, you should drop the grounding incident."
Marine Law may well be difficult to understand but the picture is getting bigger.
Good working relationship between insurance consultant and marina operator, skipper 'invited' to leave marina, no lift out facility available, prospect of survey will probably necessitate moving vessel to another port perhaps, but then who in their right minds would insure a vessel known to have grounded so heavily, to make that trip? And finally... what about re-entry into this same marina...back where it all happened.... I don't think so do you? The marina operator wants to forget the whole matter, but this skipper has a rgiht to be concerned that there is no damage to the underside wetted area of the vessel.
If, in principal, RAW opinion does not reflect the difference between right and wrong, what chance would this skipper have of going public?
At this moment this skipper and crew live in fear. The process involved of court, expense, 'expert' opinions been sought, all adds up to one night-mare scenario. This skipper, first mate and crew seek only justice, what's fair and nothing else. Given the pressure being imposed on them at present by the marina operator and the insurance consultants, that's not what is happening here.
Hope to keep you posted, any more thoughts, are welcome.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
firstspirit
New member
Dear dk,
Thank you for your posting, I do not intend to offend anyone, I am very sorry if I have caused offence.
THIS IS NOT A GAME! You are already helping with your questions and answers, it is much appreciated. You are already part of what is actually going on, and I will try constantly to keep you updated as to what really did and is happening.
This situation is LIVE, it is happening NOW in a UK marina. The skipper and first mate are faced with a dilemma. Do nothing, say nothing, claim for nothing and hope that there is no damage to their vessel (which at a later date perhaps may be more of a financial catastrophe than other options) or, shout it out on the rooftops, perhaps thru this forum, thus possiblly naming and shaming all concerned.
I accept that you may be frustrated or annoyed by the lack of company details or vessel or location, but that is the way it has to stay for the moment.
I am sure that you and other boat users have a 'home' port which you make your own, so to speak, this skipper is trying to get some fair play here and remain in a 'home port'.
I feel that I must advise you that this forum is being closely monitored by the marina operator. In this respect the who's right, who's wrong view, posted by forum users is very valuable, and I am sorry if you feel patronised by this post.
I trust you accept my explanations and I would still hope to hear from you again with any other considerations you may have.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
Thank you for your posting, I do not intend to offend anyone, I am very sorry if I have caused offence.
THIS IS NOT A GAME! You are already helping with your questions and answers, it is much appreciated. You are already part of what is actually going on, and I will try constantly to keep you updated as to what really did and is happening.
This situation is LIVE, it is happening NOW in a UK marina. The skipper and first mate are faced with a dilemma. Do nothing, say nothing, claim for nothing and hope that there is no damage to their vessel (which at a later date perhaps may be more of a financial catastrophe than other options) or, shout it out on the rooftops, perhaps thru this forum, thus possiblly naming and shaming all concerned.
I accept that you may be frustrated or annoyed by the lack of company details or vessel or location, but that is the way it has to stay for the moment.
I am sure that you and other boat users have a 'home' port which you make your own, so to speak, this skipper is trying to get some fair play here and remain in a 'home port'.
I feel that I must advise you that this forum is being closely monitored by the marina operator. In this respect the who's right, who's wrong view, posted by forum users is very valuable, and I am sorry if you feel patronised by this post.
I trust you accept my explanations and I would still hope to hear from you again with any other considerations you may have.
Regards,
Firstspirit.
charles_reed
Active member
Re: Now we have the picture
Let's take your points one by one:- the second first.
We're surely looking here, not at who is to blame but who's going to pay.
Back to the first point - I put myself in the marina operators' shoes and that is precisely the tack that they and their insurers will take, "Master's negligence". Let's face it, my opinion of a shipmaster's responsibilities is irrelevant: with 400 years of case law the whole thing is a labyrinth of conflicting positions. Hence the need for a specialist.
The very fact that the offer of a lift has been withdrawn suggests that the marina operators are very much on the defensive and have been/are being advised by their insurers.
The picture you are painting is one where squeeze is being put on the vessel's crew and skipper - it's unlikely, unless one can get a national forum (not a specialist one like this) that the injured party can bring sufficient pressure to bear on the guilty? parties, who clearly have might on their side.
Side issues:-
1. With whom is the insurance written? If, as I fear, the same company or syndicate are covering both parties (hence the consultant changing his tune) we do have a major difficulty. If that is the case and if obfuscation is occuring from that quarter the insurance ombudsman is probably the best means of approach. The skipper could always approach his insurers directly if he suspects the broker's motives.
2. Surely, even without a lift-out survey it is possible for a friendly and sympathetic "expert" to produce a, preferably extreme, list of damage occuring as a result of the grounding. This should then be used as a promise (not a threat) of the costs the marina will have to cover in due course - if they want to minimise it they'll well advised to pull the boat out. In fact continued non-cooperation will add to their bill - just think of the full salvage fee for a tug to take the vessel to the nearest facility - just to prove no damage?
At present the operators have nothing to lose and everything to gain by stonewalling. They've got to be convinced that co-operation will be cheaper than non-cooperation.
Unless the skipper comes out of his corner fighting, and fighting shrewdly with lots of force and independent authority, he's bound for the bin.
"faint heart never court action won" - and it won't be done for nothing.
Justice is only for those who can afford it.
Let's take your points one by one:- the second first.
We're surely looking here, not at who is to blame but who's going to pay.
Back to the first point - I put myself in the marina operators' shoes and that is precisely the tack that they and their insurers will take, "Master's negligence". Let's face it, my opinion of a shipmaster's responsibilities is irrelevant: with 400 years of case law the whole thing is a labyrinth of conflicting positions. Hence the need for a specialist.
The very fact that the offer of a lift has been withdrawn suggests that the marina operators are very much on the defensive and have been/are being advised by their insurers.
The picture you are painting is one where squeeze is being put on the vessel's crew and skipper - it's unlikely, unless one can get a national forum (not a specialist one like this) that the injured party can bring sufficient pressure to bear on the guilty? parties, who clearly have might on their side.
Side issues:-
1. With whom is the insurance written? If, as I fear, the same company or syndicate are covering both parties (hence the consultant changing his tune) we do have a major difficulty. If that is the case and if obfuscation is occuring from that quarter the insurance ombudsman is probably the best means of approach. The skipper could always approach his insurers directly if he suspects the broker's motives.
2. Surely, even without a lift-out survey it is possible for a friendly and sympathetic "expert" to produce a, preferably extreme, list of damage occuring as a result of the grounding. This should then be used as a promise (not a threat) of the costs the marina will have to cover in due course - if they want to minimise it they'll well advised to pull the boat out. In fact continued non-cooperation will add to their bill - just think of the full salvage fee for a tug to take the vessel to the nearest facility - just to prove no damage?
At present the operators have nothing to lose and everything to gain by stonewalling. They've got to be convinced that co-operation will be cheaper than non-cooperation.
Unless the skipper comes out of his corner fighting, and fighting shrewdly with lots of force and independent authority, he's bound for the bin.
"faint heart never court action won" - and it won't be done for nothing.
Justice is only for those who can afford it.
Sinbad1
New member
Re: Some simple advice...
If the approaches to the marina owners has been similar to the written comments made on this forum I can understand that they may be less than happy at having first spirit around to antagonise them.
The negligence principal in english law is well established. If someone does an action which causes physical harm or material damage to another person or property then the causor has to pay the relevant costs to put that person back in the position they were in before the act of negligence.
Your simple solution, instead of expecting your insurance broker/consultant to fight this 3rd party battle on your behalf (which he won't cos you haven't paid him for this and as he only makes approx 12.5% of the premium you paid via him, so he won't be using that commission to fight your battle) is to get your insurer to sort your boat out. They can then decide if they want to recover from the marina and they have their own in-house legal team to do this.
If however you are not insured for damage to your own vessel (and I suspect that this is in fact the case) then you do not have an insurer to repair the damage and you are left with no alternative other than to accept the position or fight it yourself. If you are a masochist and wish to antagonise your marina and staff to the point that they will make your life miserable...then I suggest the following. Get hold of a commercial diver to do a damage assessment of your hull and appendages. If any damage is reported get a yard to give an approx quote for the remedial work. Send this to the marina manager and ask him to forward it on to his insurers. Wait three weeks and if nothing heard then phone the marinas insurers.
You will not be able to make a claim for having the pants scared off you/crew etc unless you can show some serious long term harm and you will need a solicitor for this. All us sailing types spend at least one nite a weekend being scared. I awoke at anchor on the river Ore last weekend with the tide running at 5 knots.....now thats scary, I think I'll sue someone.....does god have a postal address?
If the approaches to the marina owners has been similar to the written comments made on this forum I can understand that they may be less than happy at having first spirit around to antagonise them.
The negligence principal in english law is well established. If someone does an action which causes physical harm or material damage to another person or property then the causor has to pay the relevant costs to put that person back in the position they were in before the act of negligence.
Your simple solution, instead of expecting your insurance broker/consultant to fight this 3rd party battle on your behalf (which he won't cos you haven't paid him for this and as he only makes approx 12.5% of the premium you paid via him, so he won't be using that commission to fight your battle) is to get your insurer to sort your boat out. They can then decide if they want to recover from the marina and they have their own in-house legal team to do this.
If however you are not insured for damage to your own vessel (and I suspect that this is in fact the case) then you do not have an insurer to repair the damage and you are left with no alternative other than to accept the position or fight it yourself. If you are a masochist and wish to antagonise your marina and staff to the point that they will make your life miserable...then I suggest the following. Get hold of a commercial diver to do a damage assessment of your hull and appendages. If any damage is reported get a yard to give an approx quote for the remedial work. Send this to the marina manager and ask him to forward it on to his insurers. Wait three weeks and if nothing heard then phone the marinas insurers.
You will not be able to make a claim for having the pants scared off you/crew etc unless you can show some serious long term harm and you will need a solicitor for this. All us sailing types spend at least one nite a weekend being scared. I awoke at anchor on the river Ore last weekend with the tide running at 5 knots.....now thats scary, I think I'll sue someone.....does god have a postal address?
nicho
Well-known member
Thanks - I believe you!
G
Guest
Guest
The facts please
Dear Firstspirit,
Are you any relation to Freespirit the cat holed below the waterline in january as detailed in August PBO (p13)
Aparently a warp broke loose and she Tboned herself against the stern of a steel yacht berthed next to her.
If I'm wrong then I apologise to both freespirit /firstspirit, but your reluctance to confirm any detail (which I doubt would prejudice any case you may or may not have anyway) leads one to speculate.
The sleet and gale sounds very much like january, watching a vid is an activity much more likely to occur on a cat. Loud banging and clumping, everything being thrown sideways and a deafening bang sounds like a pretty good description of swinging on a warp and being holed above the waterline.
Also, at risk of sounding rude, I find it difficult to believe you were the ony one in the marina affected even a little bit.
Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. Even so, am I the only one who has found these (multiple) threads a bit patronising?
Next time you have a problem why not ask a straight question? I'm sure the members of the forum would be more than happy to help if given the facts rather than illusions and vague inferences.
Who knows, you might be able to acheive a solution without multiple threads, and postings into the hundreds.
Regards
Jim
Dear Firstspirit,
Are you any relation to Freespirit the cat holed below the waterline in january as detailed in August PBO (p13)
Aparently a warp broke loose and she Tboned herself against the stern of a steel yacht berthed next to her.
If I'm wrong then I apologise to both freespirit /firstspirit, but your reluctance to confirm any detail (which I doubt would prejudice any case you may or may not have anyway) leads one to speculate.
The sleet and gale sounds very much like january, watching a vid is an activity much more likely to occur on a cat. Loud banging and clumping, everything being thrown sideways and a deafening bang sounds like a pretty good description of swinging on a warp and being holed above the waterline.
Also, at risk of sounding rude, I find it difficult to believe you were the ony one in the marina affected even a little bit.
Again, if I'm wrong, sorry. Even so, am I the only one who has found these (multiple) threads a bit patronising?
Next time you have a problem why not ask a straight question? I'm sure the members of the forum would be more than happy to help if given the facts rather than illusions and vague inferences.
Who knows, you might be able to acheive a solution without multiple threads, and postings into the hundreds.
Regards
Jim
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
Re: The facts please
I have been following this thread - and quite franky, I still have absolutely no idea what was supposed to have happened! did she fall over (she has bilge keels), did the water rush out of the marina (why was no-one else affected).
Sorry - in reading it seems like one of those dreams one has when nothing makes sense at all!
Tell us what happened and where and we may be able to tell you what we all feel would be a reasonable response
I have been following this thread - and quite franky, I still have absolutely no idea what was supposed to have happened! did she fall over (she has bilge keels), did the water rush out of the marina (why was no-one else affected).
Sorry - in reading it seems like one of those dreams one has when nothing makes sense at all!
Tell us what happened and where and we may be able to tell you what we all feel would be a reasonable response
david_e
Active member
Re: The facts please
Like you I am a little unsure as to the whole picture. I think that Sinbad and Charles have more or less summed up the situation, it would be nice to get the whole story but it is understandable that FS is cautious about going too public. It is useful to have back up by way of services like the RYA legal team (very helpful, imho) and Legal expenses cover on your insurance for this type of scenario.
I wonder if the Marina could not post a non commital response. From experience this forum is not automatically consumer biased and as FS indicates there is alot experience herein.
Like you I am a little unsure as to the whole picture. I think that Sinbad and Charles have more or less summed up the situation, it would be nice to get the whole story but it is understandable that FS is cautious about going too public. It is useful to have back up by way of services like the RYA legal team (very helpful, imho) and Legal expenses cover on your insurance for this type of scenario.
I wonder if the Marina could not post a non commital response. From experience this forum is not automatically consumer biased and as FS indicates there is alot experience herein.