Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
MRBear

buying a brand new narrowboat

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But here it doesn't say "upgraded", it just says "95 kgf Bow thruster   £3,120". 

 

I'd suggest the dispute is that you have a 55kg bow thruster costing perhaps £2,500, instead of the claimed £95kg bow thruster so your 'loss', might be seen by a court as less than £3,210.

 

 

I wouldn't have a problem with that, I just believe I've paid for 1 thing and got something different, basically, I simply want what I've paid for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MRBear said:

I wouldn't have a problem with that, I just believe I've paid for 1 thing and got something different, basically, I simply want what I've paid for

 

I know this doesn't address your dissatisfaction, but wanting a 95kg bow thruster when the 55kg bow thruster probably works just fine seems perverse. 

 

What are you actually asking them for? A 96kg bow thruster? Or a refund of some money? If the latter, how much are you asking for back?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MRBear said:

the £3120 is the price on the advertising , it says, upgraded 95kgf bow thruster....£3120

this is the text

 

60’ Shearwater    £89,950                                                        
Long cruiser with seats either side £1,200                              
42hp Engine upgrade     £1,560                                               
95 kgf Bow thruster   £3,120                                                   
3 kva Victron combi inverter charger upgrade   £1,800         
Stern seat cushions     £660                                                     
Off white interior cabin sides  £960                                         
Off white interior ceiling £720

Total £99,970 inc VAT

When you agreed to buy the boat, presumably they whipped out a standard contract identifying that you were buying the specific boat you were looking at, at the show, with the price agreed, along with the fact that you had paid the deposit?

 

If that is the case, you have a contract which specifies what they had agreed to sell, along with, (presumably), their terms and conditions.

 

Did the contract say anything about you buying the basic boat at the "from £89,950" price, with a provision for extras, or something along those lines?

 

Does the basic boat include a 55kgf bowthruster, suggesting that £3120 is the price for upgrading from one to the other?

 

There are so many questions about how this all happened, and things tend to get a bit confused on a forum like this. However, the contract you signed on the day is your agreement, and is the document upon which you can sue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Does the basic boat include a 55kgf bowthruster, suggesting that £3120 is the price for upgrading from one to the other?

 

I'd suggest the 'basic' price for a base level specification boat never includes non-essential stuff like a bow thruster. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

There are so many questions about how this all happened, and things tend to get a bit confused on a forum like this. However, the contract you signed on the day is your agreement, and is the document upon which you can sue

 

Seconded. Unless you can convince a court of verbal conversations, whatever is written on the contract is what the court will accept you are entitled to get.  What does the contract actually say?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I'd suggest the 'basic' price for a base level specification boat never includes non-essential stuff like a bow thruster. 

A quick google of shearwater 60 produces a few links which suggest that the 55kgf bowthruster is part of the basic model. I obviously cant be certain, but that's the way it looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But here it doesn't say "upgraded", it just says "95 kgf Bow thruster   £3,120". 

 

I'd suggest the dispute is that you have a 55kg bow thruster costing perhaps £2,500, instead of the claimed £95kg bow thruster so your 'loss', might be seen by a court as less than £3,210.

 

 

I think that’s the issue but the OP reads to me that the buyer thought they had secured the whole package for £89,950 when actually it seems they have secured it at the going rate plus show discount notwithstanding the bow thruster problem. Surely that can be resolved amicably particularly as others have pointed out the one fitted is the appropriate one for the boat.

 

As for potential financial difficulties in relation to the vendor I think that’s a red herring.

 

JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

The way they seem to be behaving, I could guess that they will have to receive the court summons before they even begin to give way. I would write a letter outlining what you agreed at the show, what they subsequently added to the price, the fact that the Bowthruster is 55, rather than 95 as agreed and paid for and that, if you dont receive the full amount of the upgrade cost in full within 7 days, you will be issuing a summons for the full amount plus costs.

 

It sounds like you have evidence from them showing that a 95 Bowthruster was part of the deal, and you have evidence that the Bowthruster fitted is a 55..... shouldnt be a problem for a judge to find in your favour, (although you can never say never with judges and the law).

 

If you do this, you then have to follow through and issue the summons on the 8th day. This will cost you but, until they know you mean business, they can continue to fob you off until the cows come home.

 

Add to the letter a date, say 30 days for them to rectify the situation. Send the letter mentioned above recorded delivery, so that it becomes a matter of record. That way it can be presented to the court as evidence that you have tried to find a reasonable outcome before it reached court.

 

Details of how to make a claim in the Small Claims Court here.

 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court/

Edited by cuthound
To add the last paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I think that’s the issue but the OP reads to me that the buyer thought they had secured the whole package for £89,950 when actually it seems they have secured it at the going rate plus show discount notwithstanding the bow thruster problem. Surely that can be resolved amicably particularly as others have pointed out the one fitted is the appropriate one for the boat.

 

As for potential financial difficulties in relation to the vendor I think that’s a red herring.

 

JP

My quick google suggested that the price of the standard boat without a show discount is £89950. A few extras including the 95kgf bowthruster seem to take it up to just under £100k.

 

So there doesn’t seem to have been any “show discount”, offered.

 

From the OPs point of view, there seems to have been a boat show price of £89950 for “the boat show boat, with all of its extras”, including a bowthruster which was said to be the upgrade to 95kgf.

 

There then seems to have been the dealers price, which was the standard price plus extras, which was a bit over £99k.

 

The OP then expressed concern at what looked like an attempted rip off, and a final price of about £95k was agreed.

 

The boat was delivered, all is fine, except the bowthruster is a 55kgf not a 95kgf.

 

We only have one side of the story, but it seems very much like a complete con job which the dealer has probably pulled off on multiple occasions. It might not be, but it sounds like it.

 

As above, the contents of the contract are the key. When you buy a new car, a standard contract is produced, identifying the car, the spec, the extras, and the price. It’s hard to believe that a boat dealer would do anything different - particularly with a completed, in stock, boat.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Add to the letter a date, say 30 days for them to rectify the situation. Send the letter mentioned above recorded delivery, so that it becomes a matter of record. That way it can be presented to the court as evidence that you have tried to find a reasonable outcome before it reached court.

 

Details of how to make a claim in the Small Claims Court here.

 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court/

 

Trouble with this is, if the company is accustomed to being sued in disputes like this, they will be in the habit of refusing to sign for recorded delivery letters. Recorded delivery letters never contain good news and are always rejected as a matter of policy by any organisation in the habit of dicking customers about. 

 

To counter this, just get a receipt of posting. I understand a court nowadays will accept this as proof of delivery as recorded deliveries are routinely rejected. Nigel Moore might be able to clarify this, if he reads this thread.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be silly to take this to court. Simply drive up and talk to them at the office.

 

The family have built boats for decades and are, on the whole, reasonable. So just go direct, phone email is always a waste of time, best to talk face to face.

 

Side note, Stan died towards the end of last year, which was a big thing for the family, I do believe Collingwood is simply Liverpool Boats (etc). But back in the day Liverpool had a seperate 'fully fitted' boat business that ran seperate to the shell side. But that was a very long time ago, not sure how things panned out over the subsequent years. They probably decided to merge everything into one and why not.

 

They have probably built the most shells of any builder ( by far, probably), so know the building side very well. Stan used to dive with John White, he told me, it was over that they fell out. I think they started building as a team very early on, not sure, just going from our conversations and the impression I got. Stan would never tell you everything. ;)

 

Overall I liked Stan a lot, even though I did get on the wrong side of him occasionally (you don't want to do that, well not with Stan). But we had a very good friendly working relationship, even having drinks at the 'Yacht' club of which he was a member.. (Yacht club in Liverpool.. what next..)

I was sad to hear of his death, it was an end of an era in boatbuilding for many people in the industry, from way back anyway. The boats they have produced, well, I just wonder where all these boats go sometimes, think of all the steel going onto the canals in the UK..

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

So the shell was by Collingwood.

 

Is Collingwood the phoenix firm that rose from the ashes of Liverpool Boats? LB used to play fast and loose with agreed specifications in exactly this way, in my experience when we use to sell them at T&K Marina in Reading. They went bust. 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlike yourself I only dealt with them once, but I actually had the opposite experience with LB and on my sailaway I received a few extra things that weren't even mentioned in the agreed specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

It looks rather like a misunderstanding to me. Perhaps @MRBear would care to confirm or correct the way I read the situation below.

 

A demonstrator was displayed by a seller at a show at a base price with a range of individually priced optional extras. The demonstrator happened to have some of the extras fitted. The buyer bought the demonstrator itself and believed they had secured the boat at base price including the extras that were fitted. The seller thinks they are selling it at base price plus extras minus show discount. The bow thruster fitted is the correct one for the boat but not the one listed in the agreed specification. It is unclear whether the OP has paid the correct price for what is fitted.

 

JP

That will be the case for the defence, absolutely.

I don't think the boat builder was selling the boat. I may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clues in the posts above and a bit of research about who was showing a 60’ “Shearwater” at Crick will tell you that the vendor in question is not Collingwood or Narrowboats Ltd.

 

The telling thing to me is that the OP has not confirmed that they signed a document confirming the sale price. The show discount was subsequently applied as per the OPs information above.

 

Without that I can’t see how anyone can conclude there is a con going on here. Would anyone care to directly approach the vendor with that accusation?

 

JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This press article is illuminating:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/canal-boat/20190801/282600264401036

5 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Without that I can’t see how anyone can conclude there is a con going on here.

Are you assuming the issue is about the increased price? The OP has already stated that they accepted that. The issue is over the 95kgf bowthruster that was not only mentioned in his documentation but also in the press release which turns out to actually be a 55kgf bowthruster. 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WotEver said:

This press article is illuminating:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/canal-boat/20190801/282600264401036

Are you assuming the issue is about the increased price? The OP has already stated that they accepted that. The issue is over the 95kgf bowthruster that was not only mentioned in his documentation but also in the press release which turns out to actually be a 55kgf bowthruster. 

The OP clearly takes issue with the overall price - which is more than £3,120 in excess of the base price - in their initial post. It’s only under challenge as to the whether there is a contract selling the whole package at base price that they then say it’s really about the bow thruster. So I’m not at all clear what the buyers absolute beef is. I agree the only real issue seems to be about the bow thruster.

 

JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The OP clearly takes issue with the overall price - which is more than £3,120 in excess of the base price - in their initial post. It’s only under challenge as to the whether there is a contract selling the whole package at base price that they then say it’s really about the bow thruster. So I’m not at all clear what the buyers absolute beef is. I agree the only real issue seems to be about the bow thruster.

 

JP

That’s not how it reads to me. 

 

In the OP they say, with reference to the >£5000 price increase “... but we loved the boat so we thought what the hell, we'll wait for a year to get our solar system...”

 

They then ask if they should expect a refund of the cost of the 55 to 95 uplift, seeing as they don’t have that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My notes from the Crick Show say that the Shearwater (built by Collingwood but ‘presented’ by New and Used Boat Co) start at £89,950 — but that the one on show had extras taking the price to £99,970.  So that price must have been on display at the show.  I also noted that it had a 95kgf bow thruster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The clues in the posts above and a bit of research about who was showing a 60’ “Shearwater” at Crick will tell you that the vendor in question is not Collingwood or Narrowboats Ltd.

 

The telling thing to me is that the OP has not confirmed that they signed a document confirming the sale price. The show discount was subsequently applied as per the OPs information above.

 

Without that I can’t see how anyone can conclude there is a con going on here. Would anyone care to directly approach the vendor with that accusation?

 

JP

So you think a dealer at a boatshow agreed to sell a particular boat, (the one at the show), took a deposit, and didnt produce a standard contract signed by both parties/ Highly unlikely but, if it happened, it says more about the company than we have already heard. A court would decide what was in the contract if there isnt one.

 

On the con thing, I made sure I said it might not be, but the story and the outcome, suggest it was. The press release states that the boat show boat has a 95kgf bowthruster. I dont think there can be any doubt at this point that they have been charged for the upgrade to a 95kgf thruster, but only provided with a 55kgf. Hardly a typo when it is repeated at several points.

 

Like I've said, a few times, if we knew what was in the actual contract, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WotEver said:

That’s not how it reads to me. 

 

In the OP they say, with reference to the >£5000 price increase “... but we loved the boat so we thought what the hell, we'll wait for a year to get our solar system...”

 

They then ask if they should expect a refund of the cost of the 55 to 95 uplift, seeing as they don’t have that. 

Can’t disagree with that but perhaps if they wanted to make a single clear point it may have been best not to hide it in amongst a whole load of other moans. Someone did offer advice of that ilk in respect of how to approach their complaint.

 

JP

1 minute ago, Richard10002 said:

So you think a dealer at a boatshow agreed to sell a particular boat, (the one at the show), took a deposit, and didnt produce a standard contract signed by both parties/ Highly unlikely but, if it happened, it says more about the company than we have already heard. A court would decide what was in the contract if there isnt one.

 

On the con thing, I made sure I said it might not be, but the story and the outcome, suggest it was. The press release states that the boat show boat has a 95kgf bowthruster. I dont think there can be any doubt at this point that they have been charged for the upgrade to a 95kgf thruster, but only provided with a 55kgf. Hardly a typo when it is repeated at several points.

 

Like I've said, a few times, if we knew what was in the actual contract, 

No I don’t which is why I think the lack of response from the buyer is key and accusations of a con are premature at best. Anyway with the clarity that @WotEver gives in relation to the actual gripe it’s perhaps not the key issue anyway.

 

JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I suspect the uplift from 55kg to 95kg is only a few hundred quid. 

1100€ Difference on Vetus’s site. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The OP clearly takes issue with the overall price - which is more than £3,120 in excess of the base price - in their initial post. It’s only under challenge as to the whether there is a contract selling the whole package at base price that they then say it’s really about the bow thruster. So I’m not at all clear what the buyers absolute beef is. I agree the only real issue seems to be about the bow thruster.

 

JP

They had a big beef to start with, being the increase of ten grand over what they believed they had agreed. This was sorted by a compromise where they met in the middle.... so that beef is over.

 

Then, when the boat is delivered, a boat that the whole world believed had a 95kgf bowthruster, turned out to have only a 55kgf bowthruster. Investigation suggests that the standard model comes with a 55kgf thruster, and an upgrade to 95kgf is £3120. So their beef is now that they don't have the bowthruster that they have paid for in the above compromise. The dealer knows very well that they had been telling the world that the particular boat has a 95kgf thruster but, when confronted, seem to fob the OP off with "it was a typo".

 

Whether they have enough evidence, and whether it is actually worth the hassle of going to court, is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

My notes from the Crick Show say that the Shearwater (built by Collingwood but ‘presented’ by New and Used Boat Co) start at £89,950 — but that the one on show had extras taking the price to £99,970.  So that price must have been on display at the show.  I also noted that it had a 95kgf bow thruster.

All of which is in line with that article I pasted a link to in post #64. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Can’t disagree with that but perhaps if they wanted to make a single clear point it may have been best not to hide it in amongst a whole load of other moans. Someone did offer advice of that ilk in respect of how to approach their complaint.

 

JP

No I don’t which is why I think the lack of response from the buyer is key and accusations of a con are premature at best. Anyway with the clarity that @WotEver gives in relation to the actual gripe it’s perhaps not the key issue anyway.

 

JP

Hardly a lack of response? Their last post was a couple of hours ago. They might have gone shopping or boating or something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.