what would you have done ??

When I used to fit central heating systems/boilers once the kit was fitted we could not legally remove it if in dispute with the customer without going legal. I don't know if the same applies to boats but I would have thought so.
 
Giblets said:
When I used to fit central heating systems/boilers once the kit was fitted we could not legally remove it if in dispute with the customer without going legal. I don't know if the same applies to boats but I would have thought so.
Click to expand...

Will stop thread drift now, but on the subject of insurance companies, professionals, and police.

I do recall the time Midshipman Giblets sensed the presence of gas outside my house. I didn't really get it, called the number he gave, the van came out, blokes dug a hole, lots of worried faces after which a man in a suit suggested people leave their houses while a repair was carried out :ambivalence:.

Only person peeved with Giblets that day was oil-fire-guru Red Adair ;)
 
The OP will find that practically speaking, possession is 9/10ths of the law. The Police will not be the slightest bit interested in a Civil dispute "trespass" on a boat. If it goes to court judges will not treat removal of the cover as anything other than insignificant. In the meantime the OP and the company will have to find a way of resolving the dispute and removal of the cover might focus the OP's mind on doing so.
 
"Possession is 9/10th of the law"
it isn't even law.

A contract exists as does proof of a big deposit that shows the op's intention to pay for goods.

A couple of letters outlining your intentions and if he chooses to ignore then off to court you go.

IMHO.

Everything appears to be a civil matter unless damage was caused during the removal of goods.
 
Last edited:
prv said:
It was the cover maker, he's admitted it. Trying to misrepresent a contract dispute to the police as ordinary theft is only going to muddy the waters.



Lying to the insurance company doesn't seem very helpful either.

Pete
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest lying to anyone.

Cant say I expect the Police would do much about it. Other than take a report.

Would an insurance company cover the loss. Who knows. The OP did say there was damage to some of the boats gear which was a direct result of the cover being removed and taken away without the boat owners knowledge or permission.
 
RichardS said:
But by that definition anything that comes before the Small Claims Court is likely to be insignificant. The clue is in the name. ;)

Richard
Click to expand...

I suppose small claims are insignificant. Or at least small.

Its obviously a dispute between the boat owner and the cover maker over the terms of their contract.

Shouldn't the cover maker have filed a small claim against the boat owner. For the amount outstanding.
 
What would my actions be?

Pick the phone up and talk to him. Has this been removed "maliciously" or has an apprentice gone down there and removed it to bring it back to be sorted, and will be in for a "chat" from the boss for leaving your other stuff exposed? And relax...I'm sure your other bits are marine grade and will be perfectly ok. Also, bear in mind whenever I've ordered a new piece of canvaswork, it says "this will leak along the seams until the stitching swells when it gets wet"...this is normal...be patient.

I'm sorry to hear about your wife, but take a deep breath, keep unrelated stuff unrelated, and keep the dialogue open and it will all be fine.
 
Iain C said:
I'm sorry to hear about your wife, but take a deep breath, keep unrelated stuff unrelated, and keep the dialogue open and it will all be fine.
Click to expand...

That is very good advice. In fact I would go one step further, I'd say forget it. Concentrate on your wife. Focus in. Everything else can and will wait.
 
It seldom helps in the long run to get aggravated by these sort of glitches, so I would endorse Iain C's approach, but we don't have enough data here to advise properly.
How long has the dispute been running? This is very relevant as the Consumer Rights Act has specific time periods for (a) outright rejection of faulty goods and (b) right to demand repair or replacement of faulty goods.
Has the OP told us all significant communications between him and the canvas company? Did the original contract have any special terms relating to delivery, ownership and payment?
The canvas company does not have any T&Cs on its website but were they displayed somewhere else that a customer would be expected to have seen them?

Looks to me like both parties have lost their cool a bit and got into a stand-off from which neither will benefit. Time to reflect.
 
The out come of the saga ....... The father of Pure Canvas phoned me and suggested he and I could resolve it all by bypassing his son and deal with it as two adults . He said he had spoken to his son and that he had agreed to address the issues raised and the enclosure should now be ok ........ SInce I have other,more important things on my mind at present Iv just paid the remainder and taken procession of the cover taking him at his word . If it hasn't been resolved I will employ another canvas worker to rectify .
The thing that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth is the way Pure Canvas sneakily boarded my boat removed the cover and left everything exposed and not having the decently to inform me of his intentions . Subsequent tele con indicated that he had no intentions of resolving the issues and infact verbally informed me that he was taking ME to the SCC !!
Would I use Pure Canvas again ? ...Not likely !!
 
I think the Sale of Goods Act is the relevant legislation.

The usual position is that ownership passes on delivery, unless there is a retention clause.

Did you sign a contract and if so, what did the contract say?

In the absence of a contract it is theft, trespass and there would be a potential libaility to damages.
 
ip485 said:
I think the Sale of Goods Act is the relevant legislation.

The usual position is that ownership passes on delivery, unless there is a retention clause.

Did you sign a contract and if so, what did the contract say?

In the absence of a contract it is theft, trespass and there would be a potential libaility to damages.
Click to expand...

SOGA is now obsolete replaced by the Consumer Rights Act which is much more explicit about the process for dealing with defects. There does not need to be a signed contract - of course a contract existed as the very act of agreeing a product, price delivery etc even verbally creates all the necessary conditions for a contract. As the supplier is a trader the contract is automatically (unless agreed otherwise) covered by the CRA.

While he still has the right in law to get the supplier to correct any faults or replace, probably wise to just accept it as he has lost faith in the supplier and there are other suppliers who could make any necessary changes.
 
ip485 said:
I think the Sale of Goods Act is the relevant legislation.

The usual position is that ownership passes on delivery, unless there is a retention clause.

Did you sign a contract and if so, what did the contract say?

In the absence of a contract it is theft, trespass and there would be a potential libaility to damages.
Click to expand...
No there was no contract neither written nor verbal .
 
steveeasy said:
Very decent of you to pay them prior to checking everything is ok. Good luck with everything.

Steveeasy
Click to expand...

I just can't be bothered anymore Steveeasy . I for one will not be promoting Pure Canvas in the future . All I would say is Buyer Beware !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

steved
Batteries......what would you do
Replies
3
Views
257
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top