PoplarBoater

I'd like to see Mr. Newton's answer to your question. I mention him because he wrote the Termination Notice, and in any case the buck stops with him as MD of BWML. My own answer is that I don't accept the binary choice - it's a matter of social justice. Nit-picking over legal niceties is avoiding the fact that Rod followed the prescribed complaints procedure, and is being evicted because of this.

Hi Madcat, I'm sorry that I misread your post in the first place. I should have looked back to see how the thread developed, but was catching up on a lot of posts. Happy to shake hands, in a virtual sense, and put that behind us. Thanks for your other comments - knowing Rod as I do, you're right that the emphasis should be on BWML's customer engagement skills. Rod is not an aggressive person at all, and he's been very upset by this comment by Derek Newton.

Just because BWML say so doesn't mean it's enforceable in law - that's the theme of the case law I mentioned.

£9450 up to 18m, then per metre rate (9450/18) on extra length - it's at the bottom of the page. The 30% widebeam charge isn't mentioned on the price list - and yet it's already being charged to existing and new customers. Probably hidden in the Berth Definitions/T&C's. Trades Descriptions Act? Rates will go up in April, but they haven't even informed us what they'll be.

There is case law relating to this, and you're incorrect. A company can't change contractual terms in mid-contract, as BWML is doing in the way it's applying the widebeam surcharge. It can't offer a contract when it is, a priori, unable or unwilling to uphold its own contractual obligations. But as individuals or as a small community, we cannot afford the legal costs to test this particular issue in court.

Many of the smaller boats WILL move out if BWML/C&RT won't see sense. But does anyone seriously think there's a big queue of people willing to pay nearly £13,000 to berth my example above of a 12m x 3.05m boat? Even London prices do not support this - as shown objectively by the PLA Consultation I quoted above. So the marina ends up 70% occupied, which is roughly BWML's average across their marinas - is it good business to alienate all your customers, destroy a functioning and supportive community with strong local links and jobs/businesses, only to realise in a couple of years that you're making less money than previously, and destroyed the 'National Trust of the Waterways' brand in the process ? BWML IS different to other marinas - it was handed a nationally-owned asset to play with, but still can't make a decent profit because it is badly managed, wasteful and inefficient, and is supposedly bound by a complaints procedure. It's different because it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of C&RT - even if it's a commercial arm of the charity, it has to conform to the charitable aims and uphold the brand's good name.

The letter is 'on the record' and will be forwarded up through C&RT, or produced in court, in due course. When our MP has written in the past to BWML, C&RT and the DEFRA Minister, an early intimation (or downright lie), through several reiterations, seems to become an established fact.

BWML's T&C's and Berth Conditions - all available at www.bwml.co.uk/customer-info classify certain marinas as inland, others as coastal. The classifications seem arbitrary. They allow themselves to charge an extra 30% widebeam charge _for boats taking up more than one mooring_. In Coastal marinas, the threshold is 4.5m (eg. Limehouse - connected to 2 canals and the Thames). In Inland Marinas, the threshold is 3m (eg. Poplar - 2m downriver from Limehouse, 1m on land, connected to the Thames and totally disconnected from the inland network by 2miles of fast-flowing tidal river...). Also, the Waterways Ombudsman stated that it was clear that not a single boat in Poplar was taking up more than one mooring. 3m is not a wide beam for a sea-going or estuary boat. A lot of boats in Poplar are not capable of accessing the inland network - due to draft, air draft, length etc. - but by no means are the majority large boats. The maximum length in Poplar is around 22m, whereas the neighbouring Blackwall Basin (C&RT-managed) has 38m x 6m Dutch barges paying, in some cases, less than a 12m x 3.05m cruiser in Poplar. If £12,000 to £15,000 per annum is a fair market rate, why is it that nobody can sell their boat in Poplar? The issue comes down to BWML having the right to dictate whatever T&C's they choose, but to ignore them when they see fit.

I'm a neighbour of the couple in question. I've read the comments above - some are misinformed, some ill-informed, some potentially libellous. Firstly, please don't suggest that Rod has mental health issues. He doesn't. Derek Newton's use of the word 'aggressive' in his Termination Notice was a lie to back up a shaky case. We have suggested in a response to him that the word is potentially defamatory, and the comments here will make for useful evidence if there is a final court case to evict Rod and Annie. This issue boils down to the reason that Newton gave for evicting the couple. His letter states that this is purely because they followed the prescribed complaints procedure, through to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman ruled that it was not in his brief to rule on certain issues, and recommended that a court, or the Office of Fair Trading, were the only place to resolve some of the issues raised. Rod took the case to the Small Claims Court, represented himself, and lost. The Judge explicitly stated that there were valid questions to consider, and that the case was not vexatious. Rod lost the case - but before he'd even had time to consider whether to follow up his right to appeal, he received the Termination Notice. The reason given was Rod's complaint, pure and simple. The Ombudsman case that people have been quoting above is a different case. If people want to make this about market forces, please explain why Limehouse Marina is 30% cheaper than Poplar for 80%+ of Poplar boats. For an extra £500 per annum, Poplar boaters were offered residential use of their boats in 2006 when BWML had recently taken over the marina. At this time, the marina had existed since 1999 WITH NO PLANNING PERMISSION WHATSOEVER after BW withdrew its original application, built the marina anyway, and neveer paid a penny in Section 106 payments to the local authority. When BWML received Planning Approval for Change of Use of 50% of berths to 'Residential' - on the grounds stated in their application that this "provided much needed low cost housing in the area", they promptly informed the 'residents' that a NEW residential flat berth fee would be introduced. Ignoring a PLA Consultation into Residential rates in London, they set a price which almost tripled the cost for smaller boats. On top of this, they piled on a further 30% widebeam surcharge on the basis that Poplar Dock is "inland' when it is clearly a sea-going dock. They lied to the Ombudsman that this inland classification was because boats with masts couldn't access the dock. The surcharge was in breach of their own contractual terms and conditions, as was ruled by the Ombudsman - and yet they haven't taken the simple measure of changing these T&C's - such is their contempt for their customers and for due process. Ultimately, after 3 years of our community trying unsuccessfully to reason with BWML, Rod's court case, supported by his neighbours, was in response to the Waterways Ombudsman's recommendation, and was a test case on all the issues above, and more. He lost the case - he has to accommodate the repercussions of this - ie, higher mooring fees against a litany of broken promises and dishonoured contractual agreements by BWML over the years. Should he also be evicted, simply for holding BWML to account ? C&RT control the moorings market in London, and, as Robin Evans stated to a Parliamentary Committee, there is no elasticity in this market. At the same time, as BW was being transferred to C&RT, he made an assurance that moorings would not rise, in the 15yr Business Plan, substantially more than inflation. All the facts above are documented. This case, and the real fear of Poplar residents, is that there is no protection for people who live on boats. We have a '28 days notice - no reason needed' clause in contracts. C&RT and BWML can evict any of us at any time - if we complain, we get the chop. And they accuse Rod of being aggressive?