Rougue Builders

[Yellowback]

Without mentioning any particular builder (and most of us know most of them) can someone from the waterways press please comment on why they give bland to favourable rewiews for rogue traders and builders.

 

WRT advertising, I can remember one builder who has gone under a few times having adjacent adverts for one company which folded and it's replacement on the same page of one well read Waterways magazine.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q

[by'eck]

A few points regarding a new boat build.

 

You theoretically get the opportunity to have something built uniquely to your exact requirements but:

 

Have you the knowledge & experience to know what will work in your detailed spec & what won't or is not practical?

 

It doesn't matter if you've lived on boats for 50 years & think you know everything, unless you have built & fully fitted out several boats from bare steel upwards, how can you possibly have that fullness of knowledge.

 

Don't use a builder who says I will build you exactly what you want.

 

Better tender and outline your requirements to a proven builder & have him build as close to that spec as possible using his tried & tested methods, dimensions, materials etc. If his experience allows him the confidence to build something a little unusual that you would like in your spec, so much the better.

 

An established builder with a good reputation will not want to damage it by building a boat that just doesn't work in some respect or other.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Without mentioning any particular builder (and most of us know most of them) can someone from the waterways press please comment on why they give bland to favourable rewiews for rogue traders and builders.

 

We aim not to. If we know a boat-builder to be rogue, we won't review their boats; there are certainly builders whose boats we have steered clear of for exactly that reason. That said, I don't know everything about everyone: I didn't see the collapse of OwnerShips coming, for example, and I wish I had. We do on occasion get tip-offs from readers who are having problems, and that can and does influence who we choose to approach for reviews.

 

Richard

[ditchcrawler]

We aim not to. If we know a boat-builder to be rogue, we won't review their boats; there are certainly builders whose boats we have steered clear of for exactly that reason. That said, I don't know everything about everyone: I didn't see the collapse of OwnerShips coming, for example, and I wish I had. We do on occasion get tip-offs from readers who are having problems, and that can and does influence who we choose to approach for reviews.

 

Richard

Will you be doing a review of Waiouru?

[Richard Fairhurst]

I believe Andrew (news editor) was on the phone to Tom and Jan this morning.

[Speedwheel]

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=4355&f=22

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10952

 

And a picture - http://www.grannybuttons.com/granny_buttons/WindowsLiveWriter/Ben%20Harp%20on%204Evermoore.jpg

Edited July 26, 2011 by Speedwheel

[ditchcrawler]

I believe Andrew (news editor) was on the phone to Tom and Jan this morning.

Good news that, if its all true and other threads on here it needs exposing and now the N of W has gone there is only you left

[Ally]

Reading the new installments of the saga Tom and Jan have been through on their blog.....this will make interesting reading.

I wonder if the Harp's are following the blog??

If it were us, I'd be closing the business now!

[Mick and Maggie]

I have just read the entire blog. I think it is only fair to say I think BH Narrowboats are despicable evil B*st*rds.

 

Please don't mince you words, you must always say exactly what you feel about the Harpys.

 

In Greek mythology, a Harpy was a winged spirit best known for constantly stealing.

 

Nice little beasties are Harpys.

 

Edited to add, there are three blogs extolling the benefits of Harp Narrowboats

Edited July 27, 2011 by Mick and Maggie

[starman]

Eeek indeed!

 

Anyway this is yet another reason NOT to have a boat built. Far better in my opinion to buy second-hand. That way you get to see the boat before you part with cash AND all the build faults will have been ironed out by the vendor. Hopefully. Choose one close to your requirements then have it modified to be exactly what you want. We have done this with every boat we've owned so far and it seems a successful formula :-)

 

 

Mike

 

Possibly so but, equally, the best surveyor will not be able to spot many hidden faults - poor wiring behind panelling, some bad plumbing, poorly applied insulation etc etc. Only a strip-down would reveal these. And a previous owner will have had his own opportunity to add extra levels of bodging to the builder's efforts.

I think the Ben Harp saga is appalling. There are no easy answers to preventing it happening on a new build but a rock solid contract, payment after rather than before stages are completed and hiring an independent surveyor to supervise the build would all help.

[Ally]

Just read the TrudyAnn blog...well, some of it...and I am continuing to be quite amazed. Firstly at the 'workmanship' (?) involved, and got away with, but also, that from things like the inwardly leaking outlets, showing that not only was it non-conforming as outlets are clearly not 10" above water line, it also means nothing like a Heel test was undertaken by the company.

As a general observation, surely customers for new builds should have suspicions raised if they can't visit THEIR boat freely during build, and the builder is not happy to have the build inspected by not just the customer but a surveyor at any time? After all, if you are paying stage payments, it is your property.

Edit: Starman got in before me.......completely with you on the independant surveyor....it shouldn't be necessary, but often is!

Edited July 27, 2011 by Ally

[Ex- Member]

Just read the TrudyAnn blog...well, some of it...and I am continuing to be quite amazed. Firstly at the 'workmanship' (?) involved, and got away with, but also, that from things like the inwardly leaking outlets, showing that not only was it non-conforming as outlets are clearly not 10" above water line, it also means nothing like a Heel test was undertaken by the company.

As a general observation, surely customers for new builds should have suspicions raised if they can't visit THEIR boat freely during build, and the builder is not happy to have the build inspected by not just the customer but a surveyor at any time? After all, if you are paying stage payments, it is your property.

Edit: Starman got in before me.......completely with you on the independant surveyor....it shouldn't be necessary, but often is!

 

 

As a general observation, surely customers for new builds should have suspicions

raised if they can't visit THEIR boat

freely during build, and the builder is not happy to have the build inspected by

not just the customer but a surveyor at any time? After all, if you are paying

stage payments, it is your property.

Edit: Starman got in before

me.......completely with you on the independant surveyor....it shouldn't be

necessary, but often

is!

 

 

 

 

Absolutely! our builder said we could visit any time without appointment if we wished, and occasionally we did, we observed most stages of the construction. The other thing we were allowed to do was speak to other customers having their boats built there as well. This meant we spoke to other clients who were in different stages of build progress, some even showed us around their new boat as it was being fitted out. If a boat builder won't let you inspect other craft he may have on the go then to me makes me wonder what they've got to hide.

 

We were quite often steered away from boats being fitted out when first searching for a builder with excuses like health and safety, however some boat builders would clear the workforce from the boat and let you aboard answering any questions you posed.

 

 

A priority question to any builder would be can we speak to the last 3 customers who had their boat built by you. A recommendation from a customer who had their boat built there 2 or 3 years ago is next to useless as a lot could have happened in that time.

[Dank]

It has been mentioned several times about only being able to visit by appointment. In my case I put it down to another H&S regulation wherby people cannot enter a worksite unaccompanied. I of course now know that in the Harps case regulations and contracts are only quoted when it suits.

 

David.

[Ally]

Absolutely! our builder said we could visit any time without appointment if we wished, and occasionally we did, we observed most stages of the construction. The other thing we were allowed to do was speak to other customers having their boats built there as well. This meant we spoke to other clients who were in different stages of build progress, some even showed us around their new boat as it was being fitted out. If a boat builder won't let you inspect other craft he may have on the go then to me makes me wonder what they've got to hide.

 

We were quite often steered away from boats being fitted out when first searching for a builder with excuses like health and safety, however some boat builders would clear the workforce from the boat and let you aboard answering any questions you posed.

 

 

A priority question to any builder would be can we speak to the last 3 customers who had their boat built by you. A recommendation from a customer who had their boat built there 2 or 3 years ago is next to useless as a lot could have happened in that time.

Excellent, and how it should be.

We have an 'open workshop' policy, so any customer, old/current or future booked, can visit when they please and see whichever build is happening. We had one customer used to drop by after work every day!! (and bring ice cream, bless!) Another once visited 3 times in one day!! It slows us down admittedly, but isn't that part of 'customer service'????

We always offer to let potential customers meet past customers, see how their boats are several years on....without us in tow!.....and of course they can watch the builds before theirs as they wait for their slot. And we employ an independant (and very reputable, some say over picky) surveyor to oversee every build, and are more than confident should a customer want their own in aswell.

(edit) If a customer isn't blogging and is happy for us to do it, we show progress on our facebook page too, for all the world to see!)

Glad you found a good one!

Edited July 27, 2011 by Ally

[Ellie]

I've been reading this thread and the accompanying blogs with interest/horror. How many people are going to get turned over by rogue builders before the boat building industry gets sorted out? It is surely in the interest of any reputable builders out there (there must be some surely?) that the industry is cleaned up. I have met so many people now who say they would not buy a new boat because of all the problems with builders going bust, customers losing money and so on and so on.

 

Seems to me the problem is with the stage payments, the BMF contract and the complete lack of regulation in the industry. The customer has handed over thousands of pounds and so can't afford to walk away from a rogue builder even though s/he knows that s/he is probably throwing good money after bad. The claim that the payment means ownership has passed to the customer is utter bull - how many times have customers gone to claim "their" property only to find that it has disappeared, they are denied access or other customers have also paid for the same boat?

 

Isn't it time that staged payments were done away with? If the builder cannot afford the fund the cost of building the boat maybe they should not be in the business. If the boat is very bespoke (Whitfield? ) then provision could be made to lodge payments in a third party solicitor's account until both parties are satisfied.

 

Rogue builders are ruining the lives of people who set out with a dream and find it turns into a Kafkaesque nightmare. Only to discover then that the builder has gone bankrupt and then rises, phoenix like, from the ashes, to start again, and apparently with no problem with suppliers happy to trade with them.

 

The narrowboat building industry needs legal regulation and soon, if people are going to have any confidence in it at all.

[Utu]

I will continue to post the full story to our blog (nb Waiouru)not only so people will know what happened, but also in an effort to ensure others don't get deceived by this contemptible couple whose actions have the potential to bring fear and uncertainty to potential purchasers of new boats.

 

We have been greatly heartened by the comments of support since we made our situation public on our blog. Whilst with hindsight you can look a fool being deceived; I think it's more important others be aware of this nefarious couple.

[Tony Brooks]

I've been reading this thread and the accompanying blogs with interest/horror. How many people are going to get turned over by rogue builders before the boat building industry gets sorted out? It is surely in the interest of any reputable builders out there (there must be some surely?) that the industry is cleaned up. I have met so many people now who say they would not buy a new boat because of all the problems with builders going bust, customers losing money and so on and so on.

 

Seems to me the problem is with the stage payments, the BMF contract and the complete lack of regulation in the industry. The customer has handed over thousands of pounds and so can't afford to walk away from a rogue builder even though s/he knows that s/he is probably throwing good money after bad. The claim that the payment means ownership has passed to the customer is utter bull - how many times have customers gone to claim "their" property only to find that it has disappeared, they are denied access or other customers have also paid for the same boat?

 

Isn't it time that staged payments were done away with? If the builder cannot afford the fund the cost of building the boat maybe they should not be in the business. If the boat is very bespoke (Whitfield? ) then provision could be made to lodge payments in a third party solicitor's account until both parties are satisfied.

 

Rogue builders are ruining the lives of people who set out with a dream and find it turns into a Kafkaesque nightmare. Only to discover then that the builder has gone bankrupt and then rises, phoenix like, from the ashes, to start again, and apparently with no problem with suppliers happy to trade with them.

 

The narrowboat building industry needs legal regulation and soon, if people are going to have any confidence in it at all.

 

 

These problems really have nothing specific to do with the boating industry. Look at every industry that deals with ordinary people and you will see a cavalier attitude towards the little people. Energy companies demanding money with threats when their customer is well over £100 in credit, a major "high service" chain store doing substandard work and trying to pass off apparently fire damaged goods as perfect, look at the regular problems that crop up with cars - both the manufacturers' and the garages. Lets not get into the financial services industry.

 

Company law is badly skewed in favour of the company. The various "ombudsmen" and regulators seem to side with the companies (I had a reply from the ASA admitting that a galvanic isolator's adds were untrue but said they are OK because customers were unlikely to be mislead. Another complaint about an internet site admitted a valid comparison of products could not be made but said the offending site was OK because some other body had approved the comparison software. Then there was the insurance company who refused to supply details of remedial work to be undertaken and this was upheld by the ombudsman as acceptable. These example are from my own experience so multiply that by the UK population and the size of the problems becomes huge.

 

I am afraid its a political problem and it will never be solved in the UK whilst big business and leading politicians are in each other's pockets. I say if there are problems with an organisation and on the balance of probability that organisation acted unreasonably, told lies, or APPEARED negligent than lets have the organisations principles in court facing a massive fine and prison. Can't see Fred the shred being overjoyed with being fined several million pounds and facing 10 years in jail. Of course the fat cats would threaten to move elsewhere but others who are happy to operate in an ethical manner would fill their shoes so good riddance to them. It would also help if company law placed a duty on directors to consider the good of the community/customers on an equal footing to maximising returns for shareholders.

 

Have you noticed how the sales in the high street seem to indicate goods are now priced at the price the company think customers will pay rather than cost plus reasonable profit?

 

The boat thing is just another manifestation of "Rip off Britain".

[Dominic M]

These problems really have nothing specific to do with the boating industry. Look at every industry that deals with ordinary people and you will see a cavalier attitude towards the little people. Energy companies demanding money with threats when their customer is well over £100 in credit, a major "high service" chain store doing substandard work and trying to pass off apparently fire damaged goods as perfect, look at the regular problems that crop up with cars - both the manufacturers' and the garages. Lets not get into the financial services industry.

 

Company law is badly skewed in favour of the company. The various "ombudsmen" and regulators seem to side with the companies (I had a reply from the ASA admitting that a galvanic isolator's adds were untrue but said they are OK because customers were unlikely to be mislead. Another complaint about an internet site admitted a valid comparison of products could not be made but said the offending site was OK because some other body had approved the comparison software. Then there was the insurance company who refused to supply details of remedial work to be undertaken and this was upheld by the ombudsman as acceptable. These example are from my own experience so multiply that by the UK population and the size of the problems becomes huge.

 

I am afraid its a political problem and it will never be solved in the UK whilst big business and leading politicians are in each other's pockets. I say if there are problems with an organisation and on the balance of probability that organisation acted unreasonably, told lies, or APPEARED negligent than lets have the organisations principles in court facing a massive fine and prison. Can't see Fred the shred being overjoyed with being fined several million pounds and facing 10 years in jail. Of course the fat cats would threaten to move elsewhere but others who are happy to operate in an ethical manner would fill their shoes so good riddance to them. It would also help if company law placed a duty on directors to consider the good of the community/customers on an equal footing to maximising returns for shareholders.

 

Have you noticed how the sales in the high street seem to indicate goods are now priced at the price the company think customers will pay rather than cost plus reasonable profit?

 

The boat thing is just another manifestation of "Rip off Britain".

All well and good, but I can't see that this is really an apt comparison, any more than jailing Fred Goodwin for 10 years for the crime of negotiating a highly favourable salary and bonus package would do anything other than cost the taxpayer an additional £450 a week to keep him there unjustly.

 

The practice of going bust leaving people private individuals seriously out of pocket may not be unique to the inland boat building industry, but if it happened to a greater number of people it would have been tackled now by various consumer watchdogs. Trading Standards in particular seem very poor at enforcing consumer rights when it comes to canal boat building and selling. And let's face it, there are a handful of boat builders out there who are serial bankrupts. There are others who sign Declarations of Conformity for their product which doesn't conform at all. It is their questionable practices that have seriously damaged the honest builders, such as G&J Reeves to name one.

[Ally]

Ellie.......

Where I completely understand your point, and agree very much with some of it, look at it from the other point of view as well.

Say a builder...a good one...agrees a very bespoke or even bespoke-ish boat with a customer, who then pays zero till finished. That builder would be in just the same situation. Putting their own money into a boat completely, then watching the customer disappear and being left with a boat that is not many peoples cup of tea perhaps. That might take who knows how long to sell.

Builders are not bottomless pits of money and if they could do that, would be unlikely to be able to keep doing that, and thus would then let down the next customer whilst waiting for the first to sell.

We risked our own money on one build when the customer's house sale fell through, it was a very hard few months, believe me, and a very specific taste boat which could have taken a while to find someone else who wanted it....especially when hand signwritten for that place and person.

I agree it needs tighter regulating, and the BMF need to be much more active with builders, customers and regulating, but there are bad customers like there are bad builders, and of course, good of each aswell.

[mick1964]

Ally

 

Yes, I agree there is a risk to the builder which is why I mentioned the possibility of a third party holding account for bespoke orders. The customer would deposit the money with a third party (maybe a regulatory body or similar) which would protect the builder from a disappearing customer. If the builder had fulfilled their side of the contract by building the boat to specification then the builder would get their money.

 

Most boats are not terribly bespoke though, as most builders seem to build to a set pattern, and so I would have thought there should not be too much problem in modifying the boat for the next customer.

 

It is a concern I think that boat builders are building boats costing up to £100K, a considerable sum, and yet are still claiming to be a "cottage industry" and unable to bear the loss of even one bad customer.

 

If I were a boat builder I would be furious at the damage these builders are causing to the whole industry and would be actively suggesting ways to reassure customers that their money is safe. An independent regulatory body would be one way (an effective body not one which is effectively a trade organisation).

 

I would also not be very happy with suppliers who seem to have no qualms about continuing to supply these people (and they know who they are) with shells, parts etc.

 

It is interesting to note Dominic's comment that Trading Standards do not seem very keen to deal with this issue and I wonder why that might be?

 

Ellie

[Ally]

Ellie: Agreed, and we work as transparently as I think any builder could. AND we only pay ourselves at the end of the build once launched/settled/all happy.

As for not very bespoke..........erm..........i have to say many of ours really are quite personal...it's what we aim for, and thus the heavy involvement we encourage from our customers. We only go for stuff that is going to work where we can...where the customer will take on what we say, and we will draw lines if not compliant to any regs, but we do bend over backwards to give people what they want...I know that varies hugely in the industry though.

I don't know how much more visible we could make our builds to be honest!

We could build one from our own money, yes, but it would put a great strain on if anything went in the slightest bit wrong at the end, or we had a rogue customer....it does happen!

I believe the general boat population think we earn loads, but you'd be shocked if you knew how little I earn for a minimum 9 hours a day, sometimes 6-7 days a week. My work partner does 12 hours a day on average!

[FredDrift]

Maybe the process of buying a new boat should be split into two distinctly seperate parts:

 

Customer buys the shell from preferred builder and pays:

1. - £nominal amount to reserve build slot

2. - £balance paid promptly and in in full on satisfactory completion - ownership of the shell passes fully to the customer

 

Customer then buys the fit-out from preferred suppplier (which may or may not be the shell builder)

1. - £nominal amount to reserve build slot (perhaps not required if it is the original shell builder)

2. - £balance paid promptly and in in full on satisfactory completion - ownership of the fit-out / boat passes fully to the customer

 

With no cash up front, the shell builder / boat fitter has an incentive to deliver good quality / on time to get payment. With the project split into two seperate builds the cash flow problem is significantly eased for the builder(s).

 

The customer probably should engage a surveyor of good repute for both build stages to determine adherence to spec, quality of work etc.

 

Merits? The only significant project I have engaged in is our (major) house renovation where each trade was paid on satisfactory completion of their works - or in one instance, re-completion. Never had a boat built so I may be way of the plot trying to compare the two things.

 

HN

Edited July 28, 2011 by happynomad

[Ally]

Maybe the process of buying a new boat should be split into two distinctly seperate parts:

 

Customer buys the shell from preferred builder and pays:

1. - £nominal amount to reserve build slot

2. - £balance paid promptly and in in full on satisfactory completion - ownership of the shell passes fully to the customer

 

Customer then buys the fit-out from preferred suppplier (which may or may not be the shell builder)

1. - £nominal amount to reserve build slot (perhaps not required if it is the original shell builder)

2. - £balance paid promptly and in in full on satisfactory completion - ownership of the fit-out / boat passes fully to the customer

 

With no cash up front, the shell builder / boat fitter has an incentive to deliver good quality / on time to get payment. With the project split into two seperate builds the cash flow problem is significantly eased for the builder(s).

 

The customer probably should engage a surveyor of good repute for both build stages to determine adherence to spec, quality of work etc.

 

Merits? The only significant project I have engaged in is our (major) house renovation where each trade was paid on satisfactory completion of their works - or in one instance, re-completion. Never had a boat built so I may be way of the plot trying to compare the two things.

 

HN

Just one main issue....for some....doing it this way would make the 'customer' of the companies, the 'builder' and thus the customer would then be responsible for RCD'ing it and producing the manual etc.....amongst other responsibilities. That wouldn't suit everyone. And then....not everyone uses other peoples shells, some are 'in house' from base plate to signwriting.

[Chalky]

Having read the thread so far I like the idea of lodging the capital with a 3rd party (e.g. solicitor) and cash being released to the builder / fitter upon successful completion of contract stages. The builder / fitter gets to see that the cash is available and the buyer knows that they're safe because the cash is released upon completion of each stage.

 

From my own professional experience what's missing is a good and clearly defined set of clear and rigidly defined unambiguous requirements that all parties agree to before work is started and can be used to determine if the contract has been successfully delivered. They also help prevent cost creep and mean that late changes have to be agreed and managed. Statements of work, requirements and specifications can be a pain in the **** to write and agree between all parties, but when they're in place it makes it easier to sort out who's responsible for what and where liability lies.

 

I must add that the industry I work in we're set up to make in volumes of 10,000's / 100,000's per year so we have to get it right because the costs of getting it wrong are horrific.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Chalky

[Guest]

The narrowboat building industry needs legal regulation and soon, if people are going to have any confidence in it at all.

 

The deciding factor in us buying used.

 

If one buys a used boat and find it doesn't suit your needs, things can be changed around, OK it may cost but set against losing £100K - no contest.