is the boat too wide or not??

[paul851]

You may remember the case between a couple who bought a boat that they said was too wide at 7' 1/16"

the case went to court and they won the case with the judge saying "it is worth substancial damages" as they stated in sworn evidence that the boat wont fit in some 30 locks on various canals, and as it was " their cherished dream to travel the canal system" the boat fitter who sold the boat was forced in to paying an undisclosed but substancial damages..

 

 

you can read their experts report at the link below.

 

 

https://acrobat.com/#d=YOYSleWtqda7mUMPWHIfdw

 

you will notice that he states the boats was worth at the time of sale at £36000, and that british waterways lock keeper said it is dangerous and unadvisable to navigate hurlstoon locks..

 

HOWEVER, the very same boat has now turned up for sale at a well known brokerage for ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wait for it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,£50 000..

 

to be fair, the brokers first words are "i have to tell you its 7' wide" however he then states that the boat has been up the llangollen so there should be no problem, a complete contradiction to three years of legal battle, where they said it was far too dangerous to navigate narrow locks.

 

here is a reminder of the case and also the judges report..

 

http://www.grannybuttons.com/granny_button...oats-width.html

 

 

NOW TELL ME THE LAW IS NOT AN ASS

[Guest]

Stuff like this will always go on I'm afraid. It probably would go up Hurleston if the operator knew what they were doing. Personally I would always want a 6-10 boat. I measured ours in build and it was 6-9 1/2. Do I sue for being conned out of 1/2 inch of boat? Multiply that by 57ft and the height, and I have been conned out of a fair volume. I jest of course.

 

It does seem naughty selling it in this manner if some kind of court ruling has been made, and that BW said it was dangerous to navigate these locks.

[Laurence Hogg]

NOW TELL ME THE LAW IS NOT AN ASS

 

"However knowing the boat is substantially overwidth" Statement from Mr Hopley in the report.

 

This is utter rubbish as almost every historic boat still on the system is over 7ft wide, many were built to 7ft 1" and 7ft 1/2". This so called expert is totally ignoring historical dimensions of craft which have and still do navigate through Hurleston locks. I would like to see him put on the spot as all of using or owning historic boats have no chance of going up the Llangollen!

[carlt]

Welcome back Paul.

 

Presumably this is the same boat you described as:

 

BEWARE, If this is a ********/******* boat, its not fit for purpose!!

 

also to add to the story ********,who did fit the engine,which, after 250 hours broke free from its mountings, after apparently, being crow barred into alaignment with the prop shaft.

 

When I was purchasing the boat in 2006, there was a boat returned to stirlings yard after most of its trims buckled and either fell off or twisted beyond repair.

 

get a survey on this boat,inc width, it could land you in trouble in the future.

It seems to me that you bought a hull, described above, then fitted it out then sold it on.

 

You acknowledge that the hull is substandard "Not fit for purpose" so what is the problem?

 

I would have thought that the judgement now gives you leverage over the builder, who supplied you with this sub-standard hull.

 

You, from the above quote, are obviously unhappy with the quality of the hull so why shouldn't your customer be?

 

 

 

I have deleted the hull builder's name, btw.

[romarni123]

NOW TELL ME THE LAW IS NOT AN ASS

 

 

"However knowing the boat is substantially overwidth" Statement from Mr Hopley in the report.

 

This is utter rubbish as almost every historic boat still on the system is over 7ft wide, many were built to 7ft 1" and 7ft 1/2". This so called expert is totally ignoring historical dimensions of craft which have and still do navigate through Hurleston locks. I would like to see him put on the spot as all of using or owning historic boats have no chance of going up the Llangollen!

I have seen a few boats get stuck in the first lock at hurleston but i think its more to do with the brickwork ours is a normal size boat and it is tight

[magnetman]

Welcome back Paul.

 

Presumably this is the same boat you described as:

 

 

It seems to me that you bought a hull, described above, then fitted it out then sold it on.

 

You acknowledge that the hull is substandard "Not fit for purpose" so what is the problem?

 

I would have thought that the judgement now gives you leverage over the builder, who supplied you with this sub-standard hull.

 

You, from the above quote, are obviously unhappy with the quality of the hull so why shouldn't your customer be?

 

 

 

I have deleted the hull builder's name, btw.

 

I guess this may be the background to the OP:

 

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...t=0&start=0

[Laurence Hogg]

I have seen a few boats get stuck in the first lock at hurleston but i think its more to do with the brickwork ours is a normal size boat and it is tight

 

It most certainly is the brickwork, Barnet and birmingham have been through, both were built in excess of 7ft. Mr Hopley is the person who is wrong in this.

[magnetman]

when I tried googling bits of Carl's quote from paul851, because I'm too curious about the boatbuilder it came up displaying the 'lo-fi' version of Canalworld.

 

I wonder if that version of the site uses less download or bandwidth or whatever than the normal version and might be better for people on pay-per-gigabyte connections?

 

 

edited to remove confsuion

Edited April 2, 2010 by magnetman

[NB Alnwick]

I guess this may be the background to the OP:

 

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...t=0&start=0

 

Well spotted . . .

[Guest]

I am a boat fitter. I buy boats and fit them out and sell them on, to a high standard.

 

Two and a half years ago I sold a boat to a couple new to boating, who were going to live on it. Eventually they sailed up the Llangollan Canal, found the locks at Hurleston very tight, had the boat measured and it came out at 7' 1/16". They took me to court, saying it was unsafe to use, even though the boat has been up and down the locks at least once.

 

From the very first post.

 

The boat actually fit the locks in question. I'm not getting why the buyers have/had a case.

[Timleech]

It most certainly is the brickwork, Barnet and birmingham have been through, both were built in excess of 7ft. Mr Hopley is the person who is wrong in this.

 

Bit of a grey area really, I've been through with the Themis (and other Narrow Boats more than 7' wide) but can't claim it was everyone's idea of a pleasure cruise.

I'd heard the case was going back to court again last autumn, what was the final result?

 

Tim

[Guest]

Bit of a grey area really, I've been through with the Themis (and other Narrow Boats more than 7' wide) but can't claim it was everyone's idea of a pleasure cruise.

I'd heard the case was going back to court again last autumn, what was the final result?

 

Tim

 

Sorry but again

 

I've been through with the Themis (and other Narrow Boats more than 7' wide)

Tim

 

Tim

Edited April 2, 2010 by MJG

[paul851]

Bit of a grey area really, I've been through with the Themis (and other Narrow Boats more than 7' wide) but can't claim it was everyone's idea of a pleasure cruise.

I'd heard the case was going back to court again last autumn, what was the final result?

 

Tim

 

 

they won undisclosed damages, thousands of pounds!! after changing their evidence on the morning of the case, and that evidence winning the case.

 

the compensation was supposed to be the difference in the value of a 7' boat and a 6' 10" boat, so how can they sell for full value??

[carlt]

What matters is that the customers were dissatisfied with their purchase, went to court and won.

 

One can only assume that, following that judgement, Paul would have a strong case against the shell builder.

 

He acknowledged that the shell he fitted was sub-standard, when criticising the shell builder therefore, surely, he must acknowledge that his customers had every justification in seeking compensation from the person/company they had a contract with.

 

I do sympathise with paul but he needs to take up his grievance with the person/company who sold him a shell that a court has deemed unfit for purpose.

[Guest]

What matters is that the customers were dissatisfied with their purchase, went to court and won.

 

One can only assume that, following that judgement, Paul would have a strong case against the shell builder.

 

He acknowledged that the shell he fitted was sub-standard, when criticising the shell builder therefore, surely, he must acknowledge that his customers had every justification in seeking compensation from the person/company they had a contract with.

 

I do sympathise with paul but he needs to take up his grievance with the person/company who sold him a shell that a court has deemed unfit for purpose.

 

Sorry Carl but what actually matters to me is that the boat fits through the locks in question.

 

A legal victory, of course...

 

a moral one????

 

No way...

[carlt]

Sorry Carl but what actually matters to me is that the boat fits through the locks in question.

 

A legal victory, of course...

 

a moral one????

 

No way...

I'm not suggesting it is a moral victory except the OP started this story, way back, by criticising the shellbuilder for producing a sub-standard shell.

 

When the liability was found to rest with him he switched to saying that the shell was fine.

[Dominic M]

Sorry Carl but what actually matters to me is that the boat fits through the locks in question.

 

A legal victory, of course...

 

a moral one????

 

No way...

I remember this too. I think, on the face of the evidence presented, that the builder was very hard done by.

[carlt]

I remember this too. I think, on the face of the evidence presented, that the builder was very hard done by.

I agree but not, necessarily by his customers.

 

I did not attend court and I haven't seen the court transcripts so I am basing my comments solely on what the OP has posted.

[paul851]

What matters is that the customers were dissatisfied with their purchase, went to court and won.

 

One can only assume that, following that judgement, Paul would have a strong case against the shell builder.

 

He acknowledged that the shell he fitted was sub-standard, when criticising the shell builder therefore, surely, he must acknowledge that his customers had every justification in seeking compensation from the person/company they had a contract with.

 

I do sympathise with paul but he needs to take up his grievance with the person/company who sold him a shell that a court has deemed unfit for purpose.

 

 

 

carl ,you have obviously got hold of the wrong end of the stick, all along I said in court that there is nothing wrong with the boat, the reply you have quoted is after the judge deemed it unfit, I was meerly warning that if they buy a .........boat it may well be deemed unfit, as this one was.

 

the boat builder went bust as soon as he heard there was a problem, however is re trading under another name.

 

I think you are all missing the point, its been judged by a crown court judge as worth thousands less than a simular "thinner" boat, how can it be sold at 50k.

[Biggles]

This sort of case really highlights the problem on civil law in that you only have to prove "balance of probability" not "beyond all reasonable doubt".

 

The judge will have hopefully been selected or put himself forward as he / she has some interest in the subject or a background that would at least partially qualify hi to make an informed judgment.

 

That aside the judge then has to make a ruling based on the evidence place before him. Now this is the key........ The better (read more convincing) the expert witness/s is/ are the more likely the result will be based on the better story, not necessarily evidence.

 

One would hope that full legal process and disclosure was carried out.

 

So on the day even if the judge is personally not convinced he has to go on the better expert witness.

 

Sadly this very often comes down to who has the biggest pot of money to throw at the case.

 

Would be interesting to find out if the plaintiff did this left right and center, as often they do as a way of supplementing their income or lifestyle, even as an amusement.

 

IMO civil law like this is just a big game of brag.

 

Biggles

[carlt]

I think you are all missing the point, its been judged by a crown court judge as worth thousands less than a simular "thinner" boat, how can it be sold at 50k.

If the boat is successfully sold for its full value have you no right of appeal?

 

I agree with you that this appears unjust but, at the end of the day, things sell for what a purchaser is prepared to pay.

 

I do have every sympathy for your situation and, if I was in your position, I would be fuming if someone had successfully sued me and then went on to sell the product for its full market value.

[Dominic M]

P Hopley's report is a bit dubious. He records the boat as being a 2005 build, with a BW index No of 51335. That number places it around 1991 or 1992 (without looking it up). Either the boat is "fit for purpose" or it is not. I don't know who the broker is, but if they do not make that clear, someone might like to inform Trading Standards.

 

Although the HIN recorded in the report makes it Nov 2005.

 

Reading through P Hopley's report I think what he writes is fair. BW state a maximum width at Hurleston and the boat exceeds that width. What else can he record other than the boat is unfit to travel through those locks? He then writes down the value of that boat to £36,000 for that reason. Is any potential buyer being made aware of that valuation? They should be, and there is in my view a legal duty on the broker to reveal P Hopley's report to any interested party.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Dominic M

[Guest]

P Hopley's report is a bit dubious. He records the boat as being a 2005 build, with a BW index No of 51335. That number places it around 1991 or 1992 (without looking it up). Either the boat is "fit for purpose" or it is not. I don't know who the broker is, but if they do not make that clear, someone might like to inform Trading Standards.

 

Although the HIN recorded in the report makes it Nov 2005.

 

So how does this affect the ability to go through the locks as described?

[alan_fincher]

P Hopley's report is a bit dubious. He records the boat as being a 2005 build, with a BW index No of 51335.

It seems to be a typo for the number 513335.

 

Jim Shead shows the following........

 

SKYLARK Built by P.WILLIAMS BOATS - Length 17.38 metres (57 feet ) - Beam 2.09 metres (6 feet 10 inches ) - Draft 0.01 metres ( ) Metal hull, power of 47BHP. Registered with British Waterways number 513335 as a Powered. Last registration recorded on 19-May-09.

 

Mind you Jim Shead data also has it as 6' 10" beam !

 

I'm not sure I've fully followed the whole thing, but if I have, my take on this would be as follows....

 

The court appears to have accepted a valuation by Hopley that the boat would have been worth £60K if it had been 6' 10", but was only worth £36K at 7' 0 1/16",

 

The purchasers have (presumably) been compensated for this shortfall, to the detriment of the fitter /supplier ?

 

If so, if the boat is sold for more than £36K, then I would say that Hopley was wrong, and any excess made above this amount should be repaid to the fitter.

 

That may not be how our laws actually work, I understand, but it would seem "just" to me.

[Dominic M]

So how does this affect the ability to go through the locks as described?

I've edited my post so perhaps this answers your question. I hope.

 

It seems to be a typo for the number 513335.

 

Jim Shead shows the following........

 

SKYLARK Built by P.WILLIAMS BOATS - Length 17.38 metres (57 feet ) - Beam 2.09 metres (6 feet 10 inches ) - Draft 0.01 metres ( ) Metal hull, power of 47BHP. Registered with British Waterways number 513335 as a Powered. Last registration recorded on 19-May-09.

 

Mind you Jim Shead data also has it as 6' 10" beam !

 

I'm not sure I've fully followed the whole thing, but if I have, my take on this would be as follows....

 

The court appears to have accepted a valuation by Hopley that the boat would have been worth £60K if it had been 6' 10", but was only worth £36K at 7' 0 1/16",

 

The purchasers have (presumably) been compensated for this shortfall, to the detriment of the fitter /supplier ?

 

If so, if the boat is sold for more than £36K, then I would say that Hopley was wrong, and any excess made above this amount should be repaid to the fitter.

 

That may not be how our laws actually work, I understand, but it would seem "just" to me.

 

Indeed. And that the broker, being in possession of or aware of Hopley's report, should make any potential buyer aware of same.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Dominic M