Full Boat Survey

[iteldoo4me]

Today the surveyor came and has done a full boat survey,this because my boat built by ***** BOATS was a complete sham,.it leaks,its bent,its twisted and its a nightmare,and with the lack of any real legislation for boat builders,allowing any old tom dick or mr rip off to go and build boats.its about time something is done and not just talked about,so I am doing something now.

 

Watch this space.

 

Anyone interested here to join forces with me?,please get in touch,a court case is about to blow up in the face of one Boat builder,(or he proffesses to be one,I can confirm he is not)and i will make such a noise about it that anyone who is suffering at the hands of the few who mess it for the majority so called boat builders,will want to speak up.its time to get noticed,I cant do it on my own,it needs to be lobbied in parliament,noise always gets attention,although swinging about on St Pauls cathedral dressed in a batman suit is as of yet not intended,perhaps someone could advice me on a suitable attention seeking prank.I will do whatever it takes.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Bernie

[gaggle]

Post edited - Jon

Edited December 17, 2005 by Jon

[lymmranger]

Woah gaggle ...

 

I should imagine they are kicking your door in right now

 

- never mind its quite warm in cuba right now!!!

[NB Willawaw]

I hope orange is your colour senor !

 

Quote removed - Jon

Edited December 17, 2005 by Jon

[lymmranger]

suppose there will be another strange unaccounted aircraft movement in and out tonight...

[gaggle]

well he said he wanted attention

 

the fathers for justice lads,i had one of them in my b&br/fast house,fine fellow.

[nigel carton]

Nice fancy web site

[Jon]

I'm not really sure that's the most appropriate course of action. In the current climate I'd be very careful about posting things like that.

 

Sorry, but I've removed the post because I value my job, and that comment my be misconstrued.

 

 

Jon

[gaggle]

well if anyone could not see the joke in the comment made they be brain dead, so a comic book representation of a bomb can now be censored.

mind blowing stuff.

 

boo

edit that as well its just as scary

 

 

edit.i have just seen what time it was when edit was done,now i understand.

Edited December 17, 2005 by gaggle

[Jon]

It's not that gaggle. You know what my job is, and you know how touchy people are about that sort of thing at the moment. It's not censorship, I'm just protecting my backside!

[Guest]

Today the surveyor came and has done a full boat survey,this because my boat built by ***** BOATS was a complete sham,.it leaks,its bent,its twisted and its a nightmare,and with the lack of any real legislation for boat builders,allowing any old tom dick or mr rip off to go and build boats.its about time something is done and not just talked about,so I am doing something now.

 

Watch this space.

 

Anyone interested here to join forces with me?,please get in touch,a court case is about to blow up in the face of one Boat builder,(or he proffesses to be one,I can confirm he is not)and i will make such a noise about it that anyone who is suffering at the hands of the few who mess it for the majority so called boat builders,will want to speak up.its time to get noticed,I cant do it on my own,it needs to be lobbied in parliament,noise always gets attention,although swinging about on St Pauls cathedral dressed in a batman suit is as of yet not intended,perhaps someone could advice me on a suitable attention seeking prank.I will do whatever it takes.

I can only offer you my sympathy-it must be a real nightmare I am sure. There just seem to be more and more rogues in this game; it used to be quite rare I think for NB's to be turned out in this way. Plastics could be different I have seen a few lemons. I honestly thought that the builder you mention was quite reputable, but there you go. It is hard to advise you given the poor legislation within the industry, but press and TV coverage spring to mind.

 

edited again to remove boatbuilders name.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Guest

[gaggle]

you have made a start by naming them on here.

i have been on the cut this morning and at the water pipe several people were waiting,they now know that a person is about to take against this builder.i could only relate the brief details you gave out.

keep the site posted about further happenings so the truth gets around.

 

your story can be the warning that saves someone else from dealing with the firm.

[John Orentas]

Much as I sympathise with the buyer of such a boat, I really don't think we need any more legislation. A dud boat is just the same as a dud pair of shoes or washing machine but as in all these matters it is for the buyer to take action against the vendor, there is lots of existing consumer protection. Good luck with your case.

Edited December 17, 2005 by John Orentas

[gaggle]

i dont know that the legislation in place is enough,i dont know what is in place but it does not appear to have been much use to the people in the condemned boat thread.

 

the real answer to the cowboys is in the hands of ourselves.

 

name them and drive them from the marketplace.

 

make known to all so that prospective customers are not left in ignorance.

[iteldoo4me]

you have made a start by naming them on here.

i have been on the cut this morning and at the water pipe several people were waiting,they now know that a person is about to take against this builder.i could only relate the brief details you gave out.

keep the site posted about further happenings so the truth gets around.

 

your story can be the warning that saves someone else from dealing with the firm.

 

My main concern over my obvious anger is simply that.That no one goes through what I have.Thank you for your support.I will be posting the most sensitive contents of the report as soon as I get it,without mentioning names,as it will only get removed,pity really,as their name is about to get plastered over the tabloids !

[lymmranger]

I was quite pleased that this topic was started by a genuinely "agrieved party" with the guts to name the "offending party". I am now quite dissapointed to note that the name of the cheating little toe rag has been edited out...

 

For goodness sake jon show a little backbone...

 

editing out references to things that go bang I can applaud in the current world climate.

 

Surely this is a big mistake which only goes to further protect swine like this?

 

Come on reinstate the name... after all you didnt write it...

 

Ho ho ho and all that

 

[Crazy Scheme]

I was quite pleased that this topic was started by a genuinely "agrieved party" with the guts to name the "offending party". I am now quite dissapointed to note that the name of the cheating little toe rag has been edited out...

 

For goodness sake jon show a little backbone...

 

editing out references to things that go bang I can applaud in the current world climate.

 

Surely this is a big mistake which only goes to further protect swine like this?

 

Come on reinstate the name... after all you didnt write it...

 

Ho ho ho and all that

 

 

Not a good idea AFAIK - especially if a legal case is going on. Can be seen as libel can't it? If you really want to know, send him a pm..........

[lymmranger]

Not a good idea AFAIK - especially if a legal case is going on. Can be seen as libel can't it? If you really want to know, send him a pm..........

 

Actually no because;

1/ It is true and backed up by a professionally qualified surveyor.

2/ Liable/defamation law is obscenely expensive to pursue and pointless against a private individual who in all likely hood is impecunoius anyway.

 

Further it is very unlikely to prejudice a civil court action as only facts were stated...

 

If anything it adds weight to the action as it is likely to attract further evidence from other "agrieved" parties

 

In any case the thread was posted in all its glory for some time and so the potential "libel" has already occurred.

 

It would be an interesting case as you do not get much more public than the internet.

 

By the way what does AFAIK mean? (I`m a bit blonde tonight)

 

Just for your information, the last potential libel case I was involve with, stalled because the solicitor wanted £20k upfront and predicted estimated costs of over £150k if it went to court. I cant see a dodgy boat builder raising that sort of cash, and no he will not get a no win no fee deal!!!!!

 

P.S. I saw the original unedited post and already know who it is. I feel everyone else has a right to know as well

 

Edited December 17, 2005 by lymmranger

[Guest]

I think that Jon has to be careful from a career point of view-lets not be too hard on him. He could possibly put himself in a bad psoition I fear if he allowed such namings. It is a pity though as I feel very sorry for the person who has been stung, and nothing but contempt for the builder, who I believed to be reputable. I for one would have bought a shell off this builder.

[anhar]

Much as I sympathise with the buyer of such a boat, I really don't think we need any more legislation. A dud boat is just the same as a dud pair of shoes or washing machine but as in all these matters it is for the buyer to take action against the vendor, there is lots of existing consumer protection. Good luck with your case.

 

Hello John

 

Although a dud boat is the same in principle, it is not the same in practice for the obvious reason that a canal boat costs just a little more than a pair of shoes or a washing machine. Consequently the potential loss to the buyer of a dud boat is going to be of far greater impact than the other items. It could be ruinous.

 

The "consumer protection" in which you appear to have so much faith is of no use whatsoever if in the worst case the boat vendor goes bust, not exactly an unknown occurrence. Shoe or washing machine vendors, which tend to be large retailing companies, are far less likely to go bust in the event of a dissatisfied customer taking action.

 

I can tell you also that having to take action against a vendor can be very expensive, time consuming and worrying for the buyer particularly if there are many thousands of pounds at stake as there is likely to be with a faulty boat. Furthermore there is no certainty of a positive outcome for the hapless buyer in this situation. Clearly the decent thing for a boat supplier in this situation is for the vendor to rectify the faults. If they refuse, then this tells us the sort of business they are.

 

I am appalled at the experiences of itldoo4me, particularly as I am in the position of looking for a new boat myself and these kinds of stories scare the crap out of me. Furthermore I find it rather mean spirited of you to belittle what has happened in this case by comparing it to buying faulty but comparatively low priced consumer goods like shoes and washing machines, when there is likely to be a substantial amount of money at stake here.

 

regards

Steve

[david and julie]

 

By the way what does AFAIK mean? (I`m a bit blonde tonight)

 

 

As far as i know/knew

[John Wood]

To Itledooforme

 

Really sorry to hear about your experience with you boat. Its just not fair being ripped off like that.

I don,t know if this is of any use, but check your house insurance policy if you are taking the builder to court.

My policy covered me up to £50000 legal costs. This has proved very usefull in providing a solicitor to deal with my situation regarding Anthony M.

 

I hope in the near future that someone can set up a website, where builders can be named and shamed. This builder MUST be named to prevent anyone else parting with hard earned money.

 

I wish you success in your court case.

 

 

 

Regards

 

John Wood

[david and julie]

 

I am appalled at the experiences of itldoo4me, particularly as I am in the position of looking for a new boat myself and these kinds of stories scare the crap out of me. Furthermore I find it rather mean spirited of you to belittle what has happened in this case by comparing it to buying faulty but comparatively low priced consumer goods like shoes and washing machines, when there is likely to be a substantial amount of money at stake here.

 

regards

Steve

 

Well I agree with John on this one. Its no good having law after law enacted to cover every potential eventuality. What you need is the lazy suits in the town halls to get of their fat a***s and use the power they have, instead of taking our money, in salaries and bloated pensions, under false pretences.

[Bernie]

Just for information, I deleted the builders identity and not Jon. I also PM'd itldoo4me who has accepted the decision with grace and understanding.

[bottle]

Lets get the editing right, Jon edited Gaggles post, which I did not see, but did not edit the name out of the original post.

Bernie has edited the name out at a much later time, Bernie has edited 'itlldooforme' three times to my knowledge every time he has mentioned H***n.(my edit) Perhaps Bernie did it on Jons 'orders' so why did he not do it himself.

 

Bernie did explain the first edit as she was worried about the repercussions on the site.

 

I see Bernie has replied while i was typing, must learn to type quiicker.

Edited December 17, 2005 by bottle