when is a narrowboat not a narrowboat

[johnjo]

Thanks all for making me welcome.

This boat was not ordered by the customers, it was already completed when they purchased it. It was launched in April 2006 and put up for sale. They saw it and purchased it in July 2006. it was not ordered to any size, it was purchased as a narrowboat.

 

Thanks, Paul

 

Then I can't see the problem, if I buy a washing machine off the shelf in a store and get it home, unpack it and then can't get into my house, whos problem is that, surely not the stores. I could take it back but they have a right to refuse it as there's nothing wrong with machine. It was my fault for not measuring it up in the first place.

 

Edit, just out of curiosity, do you have any pics of this 'fat' NB that you could post on here?

Edited April 22, 2009 by johnjo

[chris w]

Then I can't see the problem, if I buy a washing machine off the shelf in a store and get it home, unpack it and then can't get into my house, whos problem is that, surely not the stores. I could take it back but they have a right to refuse it as there's nothing wrong with machine. It was my fault for not measuring it up in the first place.

 

Edit, just out of curiosity, do you have any pics of this 'fat' NB that you could post on here?

I don't feel that's an equivalent analogy. What if the washing machine had totally non-standard inlet pipe sizes, as compared to the norm in the UK, and it wouldn't fit your standard taps. THEN, you might go back to the store and say that it is not "fit for purpose".

 

Chris

 

It took this couple more than two years to complain and take the supplier to court. The boat was out of any common right of guarantee.

Not so......................regardless of the actual makers/sellers warranty with any item, under EU Law, specifically the Treaty of Rome, one can bring an "unfit for purpose" or "not of satisfactory quality" claim up to 6 six years from the date of purchase.

 

Chris

Edited April 22, 2009 by chris w

[johnjo]

QUOTE (johnjo @ Apr 22 2009, 09:02 PM) Then I can't see the problem, if I buy a washing machine off the shelf in a store and get it home, unpack it and then can't get into my house, whos problem is that, surely not the stores. I could take it back but they have a right to refuse it as there's nothing wrong with machine. It was my fault for not measuring it up in the first place.

 

Edit, just out of curiosity, do you have any pics of this 'fat' NB that you could post on here?

 

 

I don't feel that's an equivalent analogy. What if the washing machine had totally non-standard inlet pipe sizes, as compared to the norm in the UK, and it wouldn't fit your standard taps. THEN, you might go back to the store and say that it is not "fit for purpose".

 

Chris

I would agree, if that was my analogy, but you have done what you do so well, twisted that that I didn't write. What I did write was 'get it home, unpack it and then can't get into my house' and my point was, that would be my problem not the suppliers.

 

What was the point of your post, I'm afraid it passed me by

[plhoug]

Then I can't see the problem, if I buy a washing machine off the shelf in a store and get it home, unpack it and then can't get into my house, whos problem is that, surely not the stores. I could take it back but they have a right to refuse it as there's nothing wrong with machine. It was my fault for not measuring it up in the first place.

 

Edit, just out of curiosity, do you have any pics of this 'fat' NB that you could post on here?

Will dig out a pic from Paul if I can.

The skylark has sat on visitor moorings at the Trooper Inn in Chester for a year without being moved on by BW until a section 8 notice was issued, Two months ago it was moved to the visitor moorings opposite the Barbridge Inn where it has been abandoned again if anyone wants to see it in passing (lime green and red with canopy and cratch), lets see how long it stays there! Grannybuttons.com has just published the court documents if in PDF form if anyone wants to read them.

Edited April 23, 2009 by plhoug

[magpie patrick]

Just read the judgement, and one things occurs to me. Are there any residential moorings at Fron, and were the Preeces allocated one if there are. If not, they could not (legally) have been going to live on the boat in Fron

[Speedwheel]

It says the boat was bought 2.5 years ago. So it has not taken them over 2 years to complain. The court case will have taken months, possibly years with legal wranglings, expert witnesses etc

[plhoug]

Just read the judgement, and one things occurs to me. Are there any residential moorings at Fron, and were the Preeces allocated one if there are. If not, they could not (legally) have been going to live on the boat in Fron

I know when Paul took the deposit on the boat they where officially going to continously cruise (but unofficially they where going to live on visitor moorings at the trooper which he and I weren't happy about) but a few weeks later they said that they couldn't get the mortgage without having moorings, BW then gave them some at Fron. It was after the purchase that they informed Paul they where going to live at Fron and not at the time of purchase as stated in court.

[magpie patrick]

I know when Paul took the deposit on the boat they where officially going to continously cruise (but unofficially they where going to live on visitor moorings at the trooper which he and I weren't happy about) but a few weeks later they said that they couldn't get the mortgage without having moorings, BW then gave them some at Fron. It was after the purchase that they informed Paul they where going to live at Fron and not at the time of purchase as stated in court.

 

erm, I'm beginning to get the picture...

 

Point is, are the moorings at Fron residential or simply leisure moorings? If they are only leisure moorings, they have based their case on something that they are not legally allowed to do.

[plhoug]

It says the boat was bought 2.5 years ago. So it has not taken them over 2 years to complain. The court case will have taken months, possibly years with legal wranglings, expert witnesses etc

It came to court 3 times before the trial took place and each time they tried to present new evidence or change something without Pauls side having chance to look at it. for example the first one they presented a survey with width which the judge dismissed, adjourned the case and ordered a joint survey so both parties could agree on size.

The cost of the first three trial has fallen to the Preeces because of their incompetent barrister (which they sacked for the 4th trial), these costs will far far outway any compensation they will receive. A hollow victory with no winners apart from the lawyers and barristers, also when this boat is sold on at some point it is going to have to be sold as, and I quote "NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE". Who the hell is going to buy that!

 

 

erm, I'm beginning to get the picture...

 

Point is, are the moorings at Fron residential or simply leisure moorings? If they are only leisure moorings, they have based their case on something that they are not legally allowed to do.

Good point. not something I thought of. I remember sailing past and seeing a few live aboards there I think they might be residential. They didn't want these moorings because as a manager of a chemical plant he has to be within 45 mins from his work in an emergency and Fron puts him about 90 mins away.

Edited April 23, 2009 by plhoug

[plhoug]

I have put a pic of Skylark in the gallery under general interest if anyone wants to have a look at it because I am having a bit of difficulty uploading it to the forum.

Just out of curiosity and to go back to the original post by Paul Williams, what would you value a 7ft wide boat at (percentage wise) that supposedly wouldn't cruise this one canal.

2400 miles of waterway (aprox) and the court says it cant make the 24 miles to Llangollen, that to me says 1% less in value. What does everyone else think?

[denboy]

How about running down the gunnels with a grinder to get rid of the extra 1/16 inch then its the right size surely

[magpie patrick]

Just out of curiosity and to go back to the original post by Paul Williams, what would you value a 7ft wide boat at (percentage wise) that supposedly wouldn't cruise this one canal.

2400 miles of waterway (aprox) and the court says it cant make the 24 miles to Llangollen, that to me says 1% less in value. What does everyone else think?

 

Depends where you sell it, I'll bet if you used the brokerages at Devizes and Saltford Marinas it would make sod all difference, if you sold it from Swanley Marina...

[carlt]

I have put a pic of Skylark in the gallery under general interest if anyone wants to have a look at it because I am having a bit of difficulty uploading it to the forum.

 

Looks a bit on the tall side, to me

[Nightwatch]

That's because it was 8' wide and they had to squash it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joke by the way.

[Speedwheel]

Looks a bit on the tall side, to me

 

Come on Carl, I think it looks just like your sort of thing. You know you want it really!! 40% off - Bargain!!

 

 

 

That's because it was 8' wide and they had to squash it.

 

Edited April 23, 2009 by Satellite

[alan_fincher]

Come on Carl, I think it looks just like your sort of thing. You know you want it really!! 40% off - Bargain!!

Nah,

 

When Carl's boats won't fit through a lock, he just has to get his plane out, not an angle grinder!

[carlt]

Come on Carl, I think it looks just like your sort of thing. You know you want it really!! 40% off - Bargain!!

If it was given to me I'd sell it, restore Usk and then give Usk away.

 

I don't do metal and I no longer do canals (though the F&C is looking likely, in the summer).

[Speedwheel]

(though the F&C is looking likely, in the summer).

 

Forth and Clyde?

[Hairy-Neil]

Looks a bit on the tall side, to me

 

I think that's only because the green extends down to the top guard.

[carlt]

Forth and Clyde?

Yes I'm taking a mooring in Barmouth and I don't fancy the Channel.

[Tam & Di]

It came to court 3 times before the trial took place and each time they tried to present new evidence or change something without Pauls side having chance to look at it. for example the first one they presented a survey with width which the judge dismissed, adjourned the case and ordered a joint survey so both parties could agree on size.

The cost of the first three trial has fallen to the Preeces because of their incompetent barrister (which they sacked for the 4th trial), these costs will far far outway any compensation they will receive. A hollow victory with no winners apart from the lawyers and barristers, also when this boat is sold on at some point it is going to have to be sold as, and I quote "NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE". Who the hell is going to buy that!

 

We had one very similar case taken against us many years ago, that the customer won. That was in fact an ex-working GUCC motor that we converted, and which proved to be 7'2" when measured. We had not measured it, and it had never occurred to us to do so. The customer came to us to buy a "real" boat, and to us in particular as we did good work. We did not "market" the vessel as suitable for anything very specific, though we did fit it to his spec. We argued that as he bought an ex-working boat he should accept any occasional limitations that might involve as well as the kudos he presumably thought it gave him. He certainly owned it for many years after this, and may even do so now for all I know.

 

We did present expert witnesses, as did the customer. We lost the case, and to our minds the judgement was dubious. But in our case the customer had Legal Aid, while we had to pay our own way. It was ultimately preferable to pay up than to become a martyr to a cause.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Tam & Di

[Grasshopper]

I'm afraid that the outcome of neither case surprises me. Anyone who has attended several merchantable quality cases (as I have) knows that the courts bend over backwards to side with the 'consumer' if he presents anything approaching a case. I have seen some completey fatuous arguments upheld in my time.

 

Which is why large companies will settle MQ cases out of court if they can most of the time. And why prudent small companies are wise to carry adequate liability insurance and pay strict attention to checking out the financial stability of their suppliers (in case you need to join them into the action as the OP really needed here).

 

Unfortunately a lot of small companies just rely on the fact that they 'do good work'. Which doesn't in practice protect them. Unfair but a fact of life.

[kienik]

Well it seems this topic has gone quiet again

 

(or is it that Paul & Paul are having a p**s up in the Shady Oak for Pauls (the boat fitters) birthday , hope you guys have a fantastic night, am glad i wont have a head as thick as yours in the morning

 

just read the "notes" on the court case and my thoughts are..........hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

well i hope Paul gets it all sorted soon and doesnt have to go down the Ba****ptcy road!!

 

good luck Paul and keep us posted on here

 

Nik

[Bobo]

Nip down to the offending locks and survey them. There is a good chance the walls have bulged due to lack of maintenance by BWB. Then appeal

 

Robin

[chris w]

What was the point of your post, I'm afraid it passed me by

The fact it passed you by is not my fault - you don't need a brain the size of Jupiter to be able to see the bigger picture.

 

Your analogy, about the size of the washing machine, would of course be your fault if it didn't fit the space available.

 

However, where size of a narrowboat is concerned, I guess most of us assume that its width is "fit for purpose", ie: it will fit into all standard locks. So my analogy is closer to that, I feel. When you buy a washing machine, I bet you don't check the thread size on the inlet pipes. You probably assume they will fit the normal UK tap and will therefore be "fit for purpose". If you got it home and discovered the size of the threads were incorrect, I bet you would go rushing back to the store complaining.

 

There, now I've explained it for you. Simples

 

Chris

Edited April 28, 2009 by chris w