Gludy
Well-Known Member
I have today received this email from Tony Chappel and I am pleased with the answer.
Below is the email and my response to it.
Email from Tony Chappell
[ QUOTE ]
Attention Paul Burgess
Re your recent email about the Fine Align Ltd invoice. Subject to sight of the bill, which you say is under £1,000, I agree to credit this against your outstanding unpaid invoice of circa £15,000 which covered extra work carried out to your instructions in the Spring of this year.
James Course is continuing to be your point of liaison with the obvious benefits of having a central point of contact we will continue, as always, to honour our warranty obligations.
Regards
Tony Chappell
[/ QUOTE ]
My answer and the next point to deal with:-
[ QUOTE ]
Attention Tony Chappel
Thank you for your response.
I am pleased that you agree to accept liability for the Fine Align bill - that is progress.
As regards the £15,000 invoice which I dispute, I wrote to you both on its receipt from Emsworth Shipyard and when you later invoiced it from Tarquin.
In this latter letter sent to you when I received the bill I went through the long history of attempted double charging and informed you that I would deal with all the points in the bill. You have never answered this email. It was also copied by letter enclosing proof of payment of the first item. I suggest you answer this letter which leaves you little choice but to accept that you have double charged on the fire pump and I shall then proceed to the next few items and again provide proof. Given that I have responded to this invoice pointing out that I do not accept it and providing background and evidence of a duplication of charge, and not had a response from you - the matter has been in your court for some time. I am more than willing to work through the points and resolve them. I think at the end of the day you will find I genuinely owe very little on that invoice but that is a matter that can be shown to you by reading my letter and responding.
The important point for me is that you have accepted liability for the bill.
To extend that point there are yet more direct bill I have incurred to date. Not to chew off too much at one time here are details of the next one.
When I first tried to take the boat on its very first trail trip from Emsworth I was horrified to find that the starboard gearbox had no oil showing on its dipstick and there were no engine anode left etc. All this is well recorded. As a result of that you promised, in writing, to carry out an oil analysis and told me that the sample had been sent away. Week after week I chased that in writing and you always told me the results were coming soon ..... they never came and all the promises on this were broken.
So within a few days of leaving with the boat on May 13th part of the survey I had done was an oil analysis and the results showed water content in that starboard gearbox. As a result of this and being in transit I was strongly advised to call in Caterpillar to drain all the oil from engines and gearboxes and fit new oil filters. This was carried out by Caterpillar and the total bill was in the region of £331.37 plus VAT. I was then to have the oil analysed again at Swansea. The good news was that no water was found in the oil at Swansea.
I now believe that the fact that you drained this oil and left it standing in an open plastic jar in the engine room and then re-used that oil was the problem. I had requested that new oil be used but in an attempt to obviously save money you used the old oil that had been standing.
I therefore think you should be liable for this bill because firstly you had been negligent in handing the boat over without oil not even showing on the dipstick and then secondly you had breached our agreement, all in writing, that you would have the oil test done.
The really sad part about this is that you only ordered the oil test well after I had left Emsworth and only after hearing of my sage from me when I emailed you. So all that time I was waiting for the results, none could come because the sample had never been sent away.
So do you accept liability of that direct expense I incurred as a direct result of your negligence, broken agreement and failure in your duty of care?
Paul Burgess
[/ QUOTE ]
So real progress is being made. It is taking James some time to go through all the reported faults etc which is fair enough. I would rather them spend the time, query as needed and then resolve the issue.
I hope all this is not too boring, you are seeing an issue being dealt with in reality - a sort of Reality Forum!
Below is the email and my response to it.
Email from Tony Chappell
[ QUOTE ]
Attention Paul Burgess
Re your recent email about the Fine Align Ltd invoice. Subject to sight of the bill, which you say is under £1,000, I agree to credit this against your outstanding unpaid invoice of circa £15,000 which covered extra work carried out to your instructions in the Spring of this year.
James Course is continuing to be your point of liaison with the obvious benefits of having a central point of contact we will continue, as always, to honour our warranty obligations.
Regards
Tony Chappell
[/ QUOTE ]
My answer and the next point to deal with:-
[ QUOTE ]
Attention Tony Chappel
Thank you for your response.
I am pleased that you agree to accept liability for the Fine Align bill - that is progress.
As regards the £15,000 invoice which I dispute, I wrote to you both on its receipt from Emsworth Shipyard and when you later invoiced it from Tarquin.
In this latter letter sent to you when I received the bill I went through the long history of attempted double charging and informed you that I would deal with all the points in the bill. You have never answered this email. It was also copied by letter enclosing proof of payment of the first item. I suggest you answer this letter which leaves you little choice but to accept that you have double charged on the fire pump and I shall then proceed to the next few items and again provide proof. Given that I have responded to this invoice pointing out that I do not accept it and providing background and evidence of a duplication of charge, and not had a response from you - the matter has been in your court for some time. I am more than willing to work through the points and resolve them. I think at the end of the day you will find I genuinely owe very little on that invoice but that is a matter that can be shown to you by reading my letter and responding.
The important point for me is that you have accepted liability for the bill.
To extend that point there are yet more direct bill I have incurred to date. Not to chew off too much at one time here are details of the next one.
When I first tried to take the boat on its very first trail trip from Emsworth I was horrified to find that the starboard gearbox had no oil showing on its dipstick and there were no engine anode left etc. All this is well recorded. As a result of that you promised, in writing, to carry out an oil analysis and told me that the sample had been sent away. Week after week I chased that in writing and you always told me the results were coming soon ..... they never came and all the promises on this were broken.
So within a few days of leaving with the boat on May 13th part of the survey I had done was an oil analysis and the results showed water content in that starboard gearbox. As a result of this and being in transit I was strongly advised to call in Caterpillar to drain all the oil from engines and gearboxes and fit new oil filters. This was carried out by Caterpillar and the total bill was in the region of £331.37 plus VAT. I was then to have the oil analysed again at Swansea. The good news was that no water was found in the oil at Swansea.
I now believe that the fact that you drained this oil and left it standing in an open plastic jar in the engine room and then re-used that oil was the problem. I had requested that new oil be used but in an attempt to obviously save money you used the old oil that had been standing.
I therefore think you should be liable for this bill because firstly you had been negligent in handing the boat over without oil not even showing on the dipstick and then secondly you had breached our agreement, all in writing, that you would have the oil test done.
The really sad part about this is that you only ordered the oil test well after I had left Emsworth and only after hearing of my sage from me when I emailed you. So all that time I was waiting for the results, none could come because the sample had never been sent away.
So do you accept liability of that direct expense I incurred as a direct result of your negligence, broken agreement and failure in your duty of care?
Paul Burgess
[/ QUOTE ]
So real progress is being made. It is taking James some time to go through all the reported faults etc which is fair enough. I would rather them spend the time, query as needed and then resolve the issue.
I hope all this is not too boring, you are seeing an issue being dealt with in reality - a sort of Reality Forum!
