buying a brand new narrowboat

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, WotEver said:

1100€ Difference on Vetus’s site. 

 

So about £1,000 roughly then.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

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.

 

 

This seems a pretty accurate analysis to me. If you have it right, the beef is over the £1k difference between the two sizes of bow thruster. This is how a court will see it anyway.

 

The trouble appears to be that the OP actually wants the bigger size thruster (god knows why), and want to return the boat to have what he thought he was buying, fitted. This will cost the seller a whole tonne more money as Collingwood probably sold it to them honestly with the 55kg thruster, and the listing for the show was erroneously compiled. So to put it right, the retailer (i.e. NOT Collingwood) will have to pay to lorry the boat to Collingwood, pay perhaps £2,500 for a 95kg thruster, and pay Collingwood maybe another £1k to swap it over. Then the retailer is lumbered with a 55kg thruster they have no use for. 

 

No wonder they are resisting. They won't get much change out of £5k.

 

 

 

[cuthound]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So about £1,000 roughly then.

 

 

 

 

This seems a pretty accurate analysis to me. If you have it right, the beef is over the £1k difference between the two sizes of bow thruster. This is how a court will see it anyway.

 

The trouble appears to be that the OP actually wants the bigger size thruster (god knows why), and want to return the boat to have what he thought he was buying, fitted. This will cost the seller a whole tonne more money as Collingwood probably sold it to them honestly with the 55kg thruster, and the listing for the show was erroneously compiled. So to put it right, the retailer (i.e. NOT Collingwood) will have to pay to lorry the boat to Collingwood, pay perhaps £2,500 for a 95kg thruster, and pay Collingwood maybe another £1k to swap it over. Then the retailer is lumbered with a 55kg thruster they have no use for. 

 

No wonder they are resisting. They won't get much change out of £5k.

 

 

 

 

Which is why I said in post #2 to threaten to take them to the Small Claims Court, and at that point the seller will probably capitulate and refund the difference in cost between the two bowthrusters.

[blackrose]

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

...Collingwood probably sold it to them honestly with the 55kg thruster, and the listing for the show was erroneously compiled. So to put it right, the retailer (i.e. NOT Collingwood) will have to pay to lorry the boat to Collingwood, pay perhaps £2,500 for a 95kg thruster, and pay Collingwood maybe another £1k to swap it over. Then the retailer is lumbered with a 55kg thruster they have no use for. 

 

Might even cost more than that given that they would have to cut out the smaller diameter tunnel and weld in a bigger one for the 95kgf, not just swap the unit over.

[MtB]

41 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Which is why I said in post #2 to threaten to take them to the Small Claims Court, and at that point the seller will probably capitulate and refund the difference in cost between the two bowthrusters.

 

 

Given the OP's confusing account and their tendency to lump all manner of stuff in rather than stick to the core point, if I were the seller I'd be sorely tempted to submit a solid and logical defence to the court. The consumer does NOT always win in the Fast Track channel or whatever it is called this week. 

 

Not that I'd have allowed the confusion to arise in the first place. I'd have declined their order unless I was certain both of us were crystal clear on what they were getting and what I was supplying at what price, with a written contract proving it.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Mike the Boilerman
Fiddle with it

[Captain Pegg]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Given the OP's confusing account and their tendency to lump all manner of stuff in rather than stick to the core point, if I were the seller I'd be sorely tempted to submit a solid and logical defence to the court. The consumer does NOT always win in the Fast Track channel or whatever it is called this week. 

 

Not that I'd have allowed the confusion to arise in the first place. I'd have declined their order unless I was certain both of us were crystal clear on what they were getting and what I was supplying at what price, with a written contract proving it.

 

 

I’m glad it’s not just me. Anyway I’ve been to watch a rugby match this afternoon so maybe the OP has returned from their shopping trip now and can enlighten us.

 

With reference (not by you for clarity) to the issue of “misleading” the buyer - and apparently the world - that the boat was fitted with a 95kgf bow thruster I wonder if the optional extra is that it is fitted with a bow thruster at all and the literature stated it as 95kgf in error when it should have said 55kgf. I don’t think that’s a heinous crime or something to go court over. Surely it can be sorted?

 

I do think the general annoyance at perhaps not having recognised they hadn’t bought the boat at the base price has clouded the view of the OP to a genuine problem created by the seller. If so maybe posting it here and thrashing it out will end up helping. I hope so.

 

JP

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Captain Pegg

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I do think the general annoyance at perhaps not having recognised they hadn’t bought the boat at the base price has clouded the view of the OP to a genuine problem created by the seller. If so maybe posting it here and thrashing it out will end up helping. I hope so.

 

 

Yes very true. Unpacking and rehearsing all the arguments on here and exposing the weaknesses in the case is FAR better than doing it in court and possibly wasting a lot of time of time of the vendor. If they genuinely feel they are right and have the paperwork to prove it I would expect them to put up a spirited defence if only from a sense of being wronged.

 

Reading another thread I see the motor on a bow thruster is simply bolted on top. It "could" turn out that the tube and propeller are the same on the two sizes and a new, bigger motor is all that it required to upgrade it, rather than a whole new BT and a bigger tube welded in to carry it. I know nothing about BTs though. Prefer to boat without one as they prevent one's boating skills developing beyond 'beginner'. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I don’t think that’s a heinous crime or something to go court over. Surely it can be sorted?

IMHO it can only be sorted by the dealer fitting a 95kgf, or refunding the cost difference between the two BTs, which could be £3120, or a grand.

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I do think the general annoyance at perhaps not having recognised they hadn’t bought the boat at the base price has clouded the view of the OP to a genuine problem created by the seller. If so maybe posting it here and thrashing it out will end up helping. I hope so.

There is a lot to be said for drawing a line under something and getting on with enjoying your life. It could be worth a few thousand quid not to have the stress/hassle/whatever of taking it to court.

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It "could" turn out that the tube and propeller are the same on the two sizes and a new, bigger motor is all that it required to upgrade it, rather than a whole new BT and a bigger tube welded in to carry it.

Not according to the Vetus web site. 180mm tube for the 95 and 150mm tube for the 55. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Not according to the Vetus web site. 180mm tube for the 95 and 150mm tube for the 55. 

 

Ok so if the OP can prove with paperwork he was sold a 95kg BT, the cost of getting one fitted is gonna be serious money. Refunding the difference in cost won’t really cut it given the OP believes he needs an unusually powerful BT. 

 

Most boaters manage just fine without one at all. 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ok so if the OP can prove with paperwork he was sold a 95kg BT, the cost of getting one fitted is gonna be serious money. Refunding the difference in cost won’t really cut it given the OP believes he needs an unusually powerful BT. 

 

Most boaters manage just fine without one at all. 

 

 

The first issue would be to establish if they paid the price for a 95kgf or a 55kgf bow thruster. If they have been sold something that’s fit for purpose at the right price but that was incorrectly described is it such a big issue?

 

JP

[cougie]

Is there any advantage to the bigger bow thruster ?

 

Seems to me that this point is spoiling the enjoyment of a new boat and it doesn't actually make any difference in the real World. 

[MtB]

50 minutes ago, cougie said:

Is there any advantage to the bigger bow thruster ?

 

Seems to me that this point is spoiling the enjoyment of a new boat and it doesn't actually make any difference in the real World. 

 

Sort of, yes. 

 

The OP feels cheated not having it, as he feels he's paid for it. THIS is what is spoiling his first taste of NB ownership. 

 

The trouble is, he is bringing his newfangled and modern expectations of high standards of advertising accuracy and customer service with him onto the cut, where such standards are still stuck firmly in the 1950s. 

 

 

[BruceinSanity]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The trouble is, he is bringing his newfangled and modern expectations of high standards of advertising accuracy and customer service with him onto the cut, where such standards are still stuck firmly in the 1950s. 

Boat fitters have three modes of operation:

 

1) Sales mode, ends when the customer signs the contract

2) Design mode, ends when the customer takes the boat out on the shake down cruise

3) Excuse mode, ends at the end of the warranty period.

 

[Sea Dog]

6 hours ago, cougie said:

Is there any advantage to the bigger bow thruster ?

 

Seems to me that this point is spoiling the enjoyment of a new boat and it doesn't actually make any difference in the real World. 

I think if you need the more powerful thruster in a narrowboat you're either woefully short on the ability to be driving one or you're using it in waters where you probably shouldn't be - see my post #4. Best result would be a refund should it be true that he's paid for a big 'un and only received a little 'un and, in the meantime, get on with enjoying the boat. 

[MRBear]

guys, thanks for the interest, but lots are reading this wrong, we were happy to pay the price for the boat, it was our mistake regarding the 89,950, we simply read it wrong, our beef is this, the literature at the show and the literature we received stated the bow thruster to be 95kgf, with a price of 3120, but, we have a 55kgf bow thruster. I have researched a little and from what I can see there is a difference in price of the 55 and 95 of about £1000, so what we actually want is either, the bow thruster that was advertised at show and confirmed again via email to be 95kgf which is what we believe we have paid for or a monetary refund reflecting the difference in price for the actual units

[Captain Pegg]

10 minutes ago, MRBear said:

guys, thanks for the interest, but lots are reading this wrong, we were happy to pay the price for the boat, it was our mistake regarding the 89,950, we simply read it wrong, our beef is this, the literature at the show and the literature we received stated the bow thruster to be 95kgf, with a price of 3120, but, we have a 55kgf bow thruster. I have researched a little and from what I can see there is a difference in price of the 55 and 95 of about £1000, so what we actually want is either, the bow thruster that was advertised at show and confirmed again via email to be 95kgf which is what we believe we have paid for or a monetary refund reflecting the difference in price for the actual units

I’m more than happy to apologise for reading your post wrongly, sorry.

 

From what I see on the website of the company you bought the boat from - assuming it is indeed New & Used - the bow thruster is an optional extra and not part of the base specification. If that is indeed the case have you established that they normally sell the 55kgf thruster at less than £3,120 and that is indeed the correct price for the 95kgf thruster?

 

It does seem that you’ve done indirect research but have you actually asked them straight? They should be able to demonstrate that. It would explain why you think you’ve been done and they think it’s just a typo.

 

JP

[MRBear]

I thought I would update all those that were gracious enough to comment on my last post.

On the final day of the notice period, the company in question agreed to a partial refund to cover the difference in the cost of the equipment from that advertised and what is actually fitted.

Thankfully this issue is now resolved

 

[Boater Sam]

47 minutes ago, MRBear said:

I thought I would update all those that were gracious enough to comment on my last post.

On the final day of the notice period, the company in question agreed to a partial refund to cover the difference in the cost of the equipment from that advertised and what is actually fitted.

Thankfully this issue is now resolved

 

If that is a happy outcome for you, well done.

Sometimes there is little point in arguing but then occasionally its the right thing to do.

[BruceinSanity]

42 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

If that is a happy outcome for you, well done.

Sometimes there is little point in arguing but then occasionally its the right thing to do.

Exactly. And thank you for the update, all too often we’re left in the dark after this sort of discussion.

[Laurie Booth]

On 21/09/2019 at 07:32, Athy said:

According to the internet, they re a division of a company called Narrowboats Ltd. operating from Wincham Wharf. Their web site suggests a thriving company, and displays a range of narrowboats and widebeams. Does this not give an accurate impression?

Over £200k cash in bank, so seem OK

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Laurie.Booth said:

Over £200k cash in bank, so seem OK

 

 

That depends on turnover to a degree, and in particular the current assets Vs current liabilities on the balance sheet.

 

For a company building 240 boats a year (from another thread) this is perhaps a £20m a year turnover so 1% of turnover at the bank seems reasonable but not generous. The telling figure is if current liabilities exceed current assets, and if so, by how much. 

 

 

[MRBear]

during this thread a few advised me that I was bringing my expectations of service to the cut and that I was misguided as the cut is stuck in the 50's but, I hope this demonstrates, that unless the waterway users demand and expect better than they're used to from these people that make a good living from peoples dreams then the lack of proper customer service will continue and more importantly, unless we hold people to account when they break the consumer credit act of 2008 and use blatant false declarations of specifications on craft, then there will always be unhappy boaters who have allowed their dream to be stolen from beneath them for a few quid

 

thankyou to all those who contributed to my issue, I appreciated ever word and found you all inspiring, the folk of our beautiful waterways are, and will continue to be, the very reason I have returned to the community

 

thankyou once again

 

[Sea Dog]

19 hours ago, MRBear said:

I thought I would update all those that were gracious enough to comment on my last post.

On the final day of the notice period, the company in question agreed to a partial refund to cover the difference in the cost of the equipment from that advertised and what is actually fitted.

Thankfully this issue is now resolved

 

Pleased to see you had a decent outcome. I offered earlier that the standard bow thruster really ought to be enough for anyone able to drive a narrowboat, so I'd say this is all good news.  I'd be interested to hear how you get on with the smaller one and whether, with experience, you'd agree the upgrade was an unnecessary one anyway. I hope so, because that means you will be happy with the spec you ended up with.

 

[Laurie Booth]

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

That depends on turnover to a degree, and in particular the current assets Vs current liabilities on the balance sheet.

 

For a company building 240 boats a year (from another thread) this is perhaps a £20m a year turnover so 1% of turnover at the bank seems reasonable but not generous. The telling figure is if current liabilities exceed current assets, and if so, by how much. 

 

 

Their turnover is less than £2 million. Assets far out way liabilities. 

 

[MtB]

30 minutes ago, Laurie.Booth said:

Their turnover is less than £2 million. Assets far out way liabilities. 

 

 

Collingwood are claiming only £2m turnover????????!!!!!!!

 

???