Challenger Syndicates (In Liquidation)

[Hairy-Neil]

The 4% could be a reality, or an imaginary construct invented to exert control in an argument, It will all become clear soon enough.

 

The 'unfair contract terms' legislation would take care of this, allbeit at a cost....

[Keeping Up]

I fail to see how the liquidators owning 4% is alone, going to be a problem for any sindicate (assuming their members actually own the boat).....its 47% short of having a controlling interest in any one boat.....

It depends which 4% of the boat they lay claim to. (Gets coat)

[rallyfan]

It depends which 4% of the boat they lay claim to. (Gets coat)

 

Bit of a bugger if it's below the waterline

 

Kamper, that says it all about Mr R

Edited January 10, 2008 by rallyfan

[Timleech]

It depends which 4% of the boat they lay claim to. (Gets coat)

 

I seem to remember that when Black Prince went bust, there was much scurrying around to take possession of boats because of doubts over who really owned some of them, as I believe that some were 'sponsored'. I haven't a clue as to whether, when the dust settled, there were genuine ownership issues or maybe it was just fear of Gary and his Repo men

 

Tim

[ALFIE15]

According to Narrowboatworld a 4% stake was retained by Challenger with at least some of the boats.

 

Ner, told you so

 

Sadly old news that was the case when they set up, then they reallied that by selling off the remaining 4 % (two week share) it increased there profit and brought in more management fee's. If they retain any stake in the boat it is because they had not sold it yet or they bought back to sell on helping the owner out. Just because an organization has a nice web site does not mean they are correct. Administrators are in and will be writing to individuals as soon an assessment has been carried out. They are of the same opion the boats are not owned by Challenger

So who ever "Ner" is he didn't tell me anything that is correct

[Tim]

Sadly old news that was the case when they set up, then they reallied that by selling off the remaining 4 % (two week share) it increased there profit and brought in more management fee's. If they retain any stake in the boat it is because they had not sold it yet or they bought back to sell on helping the owner out. Just because an organization has a nice web site does not mean they are correct. Administrators are in and will be writing to individuals as soon an assessment has been carried out. They are of the same opion the boats are not owned by Challenger

So who ever "Ner" is he didn't tell me anything that is correct

 

As an exowner of the Norfolk syndicate, I can say that while I was a member, Challenger held a share in this boat. I was always intrigued to know if they paid their (4%) share of the running costs?

 

Tim.

[NB Alnwick]

I met Sandy from Hillmorton today - a very useful mechanic who used to do a lot of the engine and general maintenence for Challenger. He confirmed just how bad things have been.

 

He is now working for Midland Chandlers at Braunston.

[challenger_33]

I'm quite surprised at the venom aimed at the Challenger owners in some of the replies. Seems like mass stereotyping.

 

On our most recent trip - admittedly in 2004 - we found it was impossible to predict who would be friendly and who would be ...errr.... grumpy and arrogant. It's not about the boat, it's about the person.

 

 

Well i can honestly say that when we take ours out i do go slow past moored boats, but the amount of private owners who seem to have 1 speed on throttle control is quite surprising, and also the shareholders so own all of the boat in our case with us having 13 shares one of which is 4%.

[AMModels]

I suppose that much of this comes down to the validity of the certificate. I was sent a certificate by Challenger that states that I own a 1/7th share in a power boat, but I honestly wouldn't consider it worth the paper that its printed on, nor do my solicitors, nor do 3 specialist marine lawyers that Ive discussed this with.

 

The problem is of course, that "share certificate" is basically a piece of paper, you can buy packs of those things from Staples and print whatever you like on them. In contrast there are various official asset registers, such as a shipping register to ensure that problems of this nature do not occur. If for example the shipping register stated that the boat was owned by Challenger Syndicateships, then a receiver could probably argue that that took precedence over a homemade certificate.

 

My contract states that the registered owners will be the individual syndicate owners. On a number of occasions I asked Challenger to confirm that this was actually the case, as my research had indicated the the boat was registered to Challenger Syndicateships. My research also indicated that they where not the most stable of businesses, and I wanted to be sure my position was covered when the **** hit the fan.

 

After approximately 18 months, I did receive confirmation via Challengers solicitors that the company has no interests in my boat, and that the boat belongs 100% to the syndicate (I have no idea who my fellow syndicate members are as Challenger have refused to supply details), however, all I actually have is someones word, with not a single shred of documentary evidence to back up that claim. Sure I have a contract, but contracts are breeched all of the time. You can take legal action, throw 30,40,50 thousand at an action, and the company simply slips into liquidation. Thats exactly whats happened in my case with Challenger. I have share certificate somewhere, but thats certainly not the same as owning a boat :-) I suppose I could make a paper boat and sail it in the bath, but thats as close as I've come to a sailing experience with Challenger LOL

 

I have actually witnessed a vehicle that belonged to an insolvency practitioner visiting a client in liquidation, being repossessed by another insolvency practice hired by the landlord of the companies premises. If its not bolted down, they'll have it, and if it is bolted down, they'll rip it up and take it.

 

If I actually knew the location of my boat, Id be taking steps to safeguard it, as I don't I can only hope there are other syndicate members who will.

 

 

Two things I find difficult to comprehend, one that you dont know the other people in the syndicate with you at least by name and address and two that you have no idea where your boat is, it sounds as if Challenger kept you in the dark about too much for your own good.

[rallyfan]

Sadly old news that was the case when they set up, then they reallied that by selling off the remaining 4 % (two week share) it increased there profit and brought in more management fee's. If they retain any stake in the boat it is because they had not sold it yet or they bought back to sell on helping the owner out. Just because an organization has a nice web site does not mean they are correct. Administrators are in and will be writing to individuals as soon an assessment has been carried out. They are of the same opion the boats are not owned by Challenger

So who ever "Ner" is he didn't tell me anything that is correct

What I did tell you that was correct is that Narrowboatworld said etc etc

[Westyman]

Re Challenger "owners" the last one I came across had VERY shapely legs in a short skirt, I really wasn't bothered it was a slow filling lock - sorry O/T rather

Edited January 10, 2008 by Westyman

[petro]

I thought that was a really good post, and to be honest, if I'd read it a few years ago, I would have probably purchased from Challenger much sooner than I did, its a glowing and genuine testimonial, and I'm sure there are many more out there who feel exactly the same.

 

As you quite rightly point out, occasionally there'll be dissent and dissatisfied customers, but a well managed company, will have it's supporters and advocates, and the marketplace will get more of a balanced view.

 

The main issue for me is that customers should be able to openly discuss the experiences that they've had with a supplier, both good and bad, but when steps are pro actively taken to prevent that happening, through bullying and coercion, at some point the dam will burst and they'll suffer from a back lash. That's all we are witnessing now.

As for misconceptions, Challenger have to take some responsibility in this regard.

[rallyfan]

Re Challenger "owners" the last one I came across had VERY shapely legs in a short skirt, I really wasn't bothered it was a slow filling lock - sorry O/T rather

Thats all very well, but you failed to tell us if was a he or a she

[petro]

Thanks Kamper

 

I felt quite strongly about much of the invective being splashed around and wanted to put the records straight as far as possibel. I think your points have great validity and your last para is undoubtably true. Glad also to read that the issue of share ownership is being quickly clarified.

 

Petro

[Hairy-Neil]

or they bought back to sell on helping the owner out.

 

Businesses seldom do anything to 'help the owner out'..... What they do is done foremost with profits in mind.....

 

Thats all very well, but you failed to tell us if was a he or a she

 

Or perhaps even a he-she......

Edited January 11, 2008 by Hairy-Neil

[Westyman]

Thats all very well, but you failed to tell us if was a he or a she

 

 

Oh quite definitely a she - I may be getting on a bit but I can still tell the difference

[Andy Bell]

He and his wife were on a house makeover programme a couple of years back and it looked as if he had done very nicely out of his chequered business career.

 

 

 

Paul

[Eastern]

Two things I find difficult to comprehend, one that you dont know the other people in the syndicate with you at least by name and address and two that you have no idea where your boat is, it sounds as if Challenger kept you in the dark about too much for your own good.

 

Not too difficult to understand. Challenger sent a list of all co-owners in a syndicate to all other co-owners. This list included address, fixed and mobile telephone numbers and email address.

 

Of course you know where your boat is. How else could you pick it up for your four weeks a year?

 

On the issue of the 4% share. Each boat has 2 weeks winter maintence each year. That allows the boat to be taken out of service every year without going into somebodys 4 weeks cruising.

[Kamper]

Not too difficult to understand. Challenger sent a list of all co-owners in a syndicate to all other co-owners. This list included address, fixed and mobile telephone numbers and email address.

 

Of course you know where your boat is. How else could you pick it up for your four weeks a year?

 

On the issue of the 4% share. Each boat has 2 weeks winter maintence each year. That allows the boat to be taken out of service every year without going into somebodys 4 weeks cruising.

 

 

You may well have been provided with these details, however I didn't. You may well have got to use your boat, however I didn't. From the information I have in my possession, in comparison to some, I got away very lightly indeed.

 

I acknowledge that many customers had a problem free and enjoyable experience, but behind the scene's there are a group of people including customers, investors and suppliers who don't quite see things in the same light as yourself.

[Eastern]

You may well have been provided with these details, however I didn't. You may well have got to use your boat, however I didn't. From the information I have in my possession, in comparison to some, I got away very lightly indeed.

 

I acknowledge that many customers had a problem free and enjoyable experience, but behind the scene's there are a group of people including customers, investors and suppliers who don't quite see things in the same light as yourself.

 

I'm sorry that you seem to have had a bad experience. As a co-owner I meet the other 11 members of my syndicate every year for the AGM, and four times a year I meet owners of other boats loading and unloading their personal possesions after their holiday.

 

No one has ever said anything, good or bad about the administration of the boats. It was just done and we enjoyed our weeks cruising.

 

So are you telling me you bought a share in a Challenger boat for many thousands of pounds and never used it? Never attended an AGM? Never met your co-owners? And you still paid your admin fee, share of the licence and maintenance?

 

With the greatest respect I think you are on another planet. And I'm on Earth.

[Kamper]

So are you telling me you bought a share in a Challenger boat for many thousands of pounds and never used it? Never attended an AGM? Never met your co-owners? And you still paid your admin fee, share of the licence and maintenance?

 

With the greatest respect I think you are on another planet. And I'm on Earth.

 

Yes, that is what I am telling you. I purchased a share in one of the med power boats, subject to transferring to a sail boat which was supposed to become operational in 2007.

 

I have never used the boat. I have never attended an AGM, I have never met my co owners, in fact I have no idea who the co owners are or if they even exist (and I am aware that there are others in the same situation)

 

I and my solicitors have repeatedly asked for dates when the boat is available for use. We have had no response. I and my solicitors have written to the company requesting an AGM be called. We received no response. I and my solicitors repeatedly wrote requesting details of my fellow syndicate members, and we received no response.

 

Eventually, we applied for a court order, to force Challenger to provide this information, and Challenger fought tooth and nail against providing basic details such as proof of title, or details of fellow syndicate members. Challenger's solicitor, informs me that they would be breaking data protection legislation if they where do provide me with that information.

 

Whilst Andrew Barton was happy to cite data protection legislation as an excuse for failing to meet his contractual obligations, he now seams perfectly comfortable accessing the customers details of a company in administration, and contacting them soliciting for business.

 

I am very quickly coming to the conclusion that many of Challengers customers, and indeed the companies management simply do not live on planet earth. For example, who in their right minds would buy a share from a company, when the title to ownership was actually held by an investor. You would have to be barking mad to do so. Again, who would sign a contract which contains a clause forbidding them from contacting other share owners, or mentioning the companies activities on websites or forums. Those people are definitely not living on planet earth.

 

I have in my possession MP3 files, containing a number of telephone conversations that occurred between myself and various senior managers and directors in the Challenger operation. I assure you, anyone listening to these will soon determine who's on planet earth and who isn't.

 

Maybe its me who isn't on planet earth, but I console myself that my business is going from strength to strength, whilst Ed & Jill Rimmer are having a cosy chat with the administrators over tea and biscuits. The legal process isn't the most efficient means of sorting out these types of problems, but you'll get a solution of sorts in the end.

[Eastern]

Yes, that is what I am telling you. I purchased a share in one of the med power boats, subject to transferring to a sail boat which was supposed to become operational in 2007.

 

I have never used the boat. I have never attended an AGM, I have never met my co owners, in fact I have no idea who the co owners are or if they even exist (and I am aware that there are others in the same situation)

 

I and my solicitors have repeatedly asked for dates when the boat is available for use. We have had no response. I and my solicitors have written to the company requesting an AGM be called. We received no response. I and my solicitors repeatedly wrote requesting details of my fellow syndicate members, and we received no response.

 

Eventually, we applied for a court order, to force Challenger to provide this information, and Challenger fought tooth and nail against providing basic details such as proof of title, or details of fellow syndicate members. Challenger's solicitor, informs me that they would be breaking data protection legislation if they where do provide me with that information.

 

Whilst Andrew Barton was happy to cite data protection legislation as an excuse for failing to meet his contractual obligations, he now seams perfectly comfortable accessing the customers details of a company in administration, and contacting them soliciting for business.

 

I am very quickly coming to the conclusion that many of Challengers customers, and indeed the companies management simply do not live on planet earth. For example, who in their right minds would buy a share from a company, when the title to ownership was actually held by an investor. You would have to be barking mad to do so. Again, who would sign a contract which contains a clause forbidding them from contacting other share owners, or mentioning the companies activities on websites or forums. Those people are definitely not living on planet earth.

 

I have in my possession MP3 files, containing a number of telephone conversations that occurred between myself and various senior managers and directors in the Challenger operation. I assure you, anyone listening to these will soon determine who's on planet earth and who isn't.

 

Maybe its me who isn't on planet earth, but I console myself that my business is going from strength to strength, whilst Ed & Jill Rimmer are having a cosy chat with the administrators over tea and biscuits. The legal process isn't the most efficient means of sorting out these types of problems, but you'll get a solution of sorts in the end.

Well Mr or Mrs Kamper I can only speak of Challanger's narrowboat operation of which I was very happy with.

 

As to " who in their right minds would buy a share from a company, when the title to ownership was actually held by an investor. You would have to be barking mad to do so. Again, who would sign a contract which contains a clause forbidding them from contacting other share owners, or mentioning the companies activities on websites or forums."

Apparently you yourself are such a person!

 

Strange that you only joined the forum to post the demise of Challenger though.

 

Perhaps you have a hidden agenda (that you might like to share with us)?

[carlt]

Yes, that is what I am telling you. I purchased a share in one of the med power boats, subject to transferring to a sail boat which was supposed to become operational in 2007.

 

I have never used the boat. I have never attended an AGM, I have never met my co owners, in fact I have no idea who the co owners are or if they even exist (and I am aware that there are others in the same situation)

 

I am very quickly coming to the conclusion that many of Challengers customers, and indeed the companies management simply do not live on planet earth. For example, who in their right minds would buy a share from a company, when the title to ownership was actually held by an investor. You would have to be barking mad to do so. Again, who would sign a contract which contains a clause forbidding them from contacting other share owners, or mentioning the companies activities on websites or forums. Those people are definitely not living on planet earth.

I don't quite understand which category you're in, Kamper. You say you are a Challenger customer, who bought a share in one of the boats and then go on to categorise said customers as not living on planet earth??

 

Did you have a different contract to the other Challenger shareowners?

[Kamper]

Well Mr or Mrs Kamper I can only speak of Challanger's narrowboat operation of which I was very happy with.

 

As to " who in their right minds would buy a share from a company, when the title to ownership was actually held by an investor. You would have to be barking mad to do so. Again, who would sign a contract which contains a clause forbidding them from contacting other share owners, or mentioning the companies activities on websites or forums."

Apparently you yourself are such a person!

 

You are wrong in your assumption, I am not such a person at all.

 

My contract does NOT contain a clause preventing me from contacting other share owners. If it had contained such a clause I would not have done business with the company. However, many of the contracts for canal boats did contain the clause, and indeed if you read my previous posts, Mr Rimmer believed that the clause was in my contract, and he threatened to sue due to breech.

 

Similarly with regards to title. Prior to purchasing a share I conducted due diligence, that highlighted the problem with regards to investors holding title. I therefore sought assurances that the boat that I was purchasing was owned 100% by Challenger and was free from all loans, liens and mortgages. I had that clause put in the contract, and Ive also got that in writing from Challengers Solicitors. I also discussed this with HSBC who at the time held a debenture over the companies assets.

 

So in short, yes, I signed a contract that was rather different to those purchasing narrow boats from the company.

[Dave45]

Well nearly, one of (possibly the?) original Blue Ribband is my town Class Woolwich, not much was built better than that [but i might be biased ]

Simon.

yes....i think you are