NB Waiouru

[RLWP]

I see, I suppose we should say 'watch this space...'

 

Don't hold your breath. I'd expect some threats to Daniel, perhaps a lawyer's letter and this thread disappearing

 

Richard

[kitman]

Don't hold your breath. I'd expect some threats to Daniel, perhaps a lawyer's letter and this thread disappearing

 

Richard

As you say

[Ellie]

This goes from bad to worse. Robbery, theft, assault of a court official? Surely criminal charges must be next.

[larkshall]

This goes from bad to worse. Robbery, theft, assault of a court official? Surely criminal charges must be next.

 

A high court order, and the Tipstaff making an appearance would appear to be the order of they day, bloody expensive though. Oh and a 'cease trading order' as well

[BelgiumBrit]

A high court order, and the Tipstaff making an appearance would appear to be the order of they day, bloody expensive though. Oh and a 'cease trading order' as well

 

Is it just me ?I find reading ALL of this quite uncomfortable. I am genuinely sorry for this couple, if they have got into a situation where it would appear that they have lost money in good faith etc. But they have recourse through the courts, and appear to be actively gathering evidence.

 

A forum is no place to be discussing such litigational issues. If you are engaged in 'litigation' your 'legal advisor'would i'm sure, suggest you desist from this practise and address your claim through 'normal' channels.

 

If you have been genuinely wronged, i wish you the best , i really do, but to a Civil Recorder/ Judge, these on-line rantings will not go down well!

 

Proceed through 'Judicial Channels' and nowhere else is my advice.

 

Best of Luck.

[Ex- Member]

Is it just me ?I find reading ALL of this quite uncomfortable. I am genuinely sorry for this couple, if they have got into a situation where it would appear that they have lost money in good faith etc. But they have recourse through the courts, and appear to be actively gathering evidence.

 

A forum is no place to be discussing such litigational issues. If you are engaged in 'litigation' your 'legal advisor'would i'm sure, suggest you desist from this practise and address your claim through 'normal' channels.

 

If you have been genuinely wronged, i wish you the best , i really do, but to a Civil Recorder/ Judge, these on-line rantings will not go down well!

 

Proceed through 'Judicial Channels' and nowhere else is my advice.

 

Best of Luck.

 

Totally disagree, the information they have divulged will probably save someone else from getting ripped off. Secondly they have already gained court orders and high court writs, these are public records that could be used by the press or any other individual if they so wished.

 

Thirdly even disregarding the above anyone has the right to complain about a company on a public forum weather hosted by them selves or any other forum as long as they are truthful in what they say. Appreciated forums like this have the right and will possibly remove unsubstantiated posts. In this case though it's clear that the owners of the boat have already taken the legal steps they required to get their boat back, so reporting the circumstances of that procedure is wholly legitimate in the same way as if the article on their web site was written by a journalist and published in the press.

 

I would also urge them to continue with their Blog unless advised not to do so by their legal representatives, at the end of the day if what ever you print is the truth and can be substantiated then you can write away with little fear of redress. I actually think they have been very reserved and patient in what they have reported and more than likely took legal advice on any risks in doing so.

 

I will be following their story and wish them the best of luck in pursuing this rogue trader.

 

And in all fairness Ben Narrowboats have a right of reply here and even on the couples own blog, should they not choose to reply is a matter for them. I just hope this forum in light of the legal writs etc will continue to take posts on the issue as it's now clearly a matter of public interest.

 

Not even BBC watchdog wait for legal action against companies or individuals to expose rogue traders.

 

 

 

[Utu]

Might I state that as the affected couple we are not the only "victims" and will become apparent in a future blog post. After spending £25,000 on legal expenses just to get what remains of our boat we see little point in pursuing the limited liability company which; from it's financial records at Companies House; is insolvent. However we want to ensure there is sufficient material this time to warn the potential customer should this couple re-appear in the industry.

 

As for shell builders not supplying to this type of boat fitters. Well, they also get burned! We know; because it has happened to the customer after us!

[Spesh]

Might I state that as the affected couple we are not the only "victims" and will become apparent in a future blog post. After spending £25,000 on legal expenses just to get what remains of our boat we see little point in pursuing the limited liability company which; from it's financial records at Companies House; is insolvent. However we want to ensure there is sufficient material this time to warn the potential customer should this couple re-appear in the industry.

 

As for shell builders not supplying to this type of boat fitters. Well, they also get burned! We know; because it has happened to the customer after us!

Utu, first things first, this sounds utterly horrific. I very much hope you manage to make the best of a horrible situation.

 

Secondly, I suspect you'll already know this given you are working with solicitors, but if the company has continued to trade whilst the directors knew (or ought to have known) there was no reasonable prospect the company could avoid going into insolvent liquidation the directors can be required to contribute to the company's assets. Mr and Mrs Harp are the two directors, and presumably have a house, vehicles etc which could potentially be up for grabs to settle the company's debts.

[Ellie]

Might I state that as the affected couple we are not the only "victims" and will become apparent in a future blog post. After spending £25,000 on legal expenses just to get what remains of our boat we see little point in pursuing the limited liability company which; from it's financial records at Companies House; is insolvent. However we want to ensure there is sufficient material this time to warn the potential customer should this couple re-appear in the industry.

 

As for shell builders not supplying to this type of boat fitters. Well, they also get burned! We know; because it has happened to the customer after us!

 

 

I appreciate it is stressful but what was the point in going this far if you aren't intending to pursue it? Another thousand pounds for a winding up petition would at least close the company.

If the liquidator decrees the company was wrongfully trading, which seems quite possible given the conduct of the company, then the directors lose the protection of limited liability and are personally liable. The directors would have to make a personal contribution without limit as the court sees fit. Plus a possible disqualification from acting as a director for up to fifteen years.

 

That really would protect decent people from being robbed in the future.

[saladdays]

Utu, first things first, this sounds utterly horrific. I very much hope you manage to make the best of a horrible situation.

 

Secondly, I suspect you'll already know this given you are working with solicitors, but if the company has continued to trade whilst the directors knew (or ought to have known) there was no reasonable prospect the company could avoid going into insolvent liquidation the directors can be required to contribute to the company's assets. Mr and Mrs Harp are the two directors, and presumably have a house, vehicles etc which could potentially be up for grabs to settle the company's debts.

 

A long shot,It's a limited company and sounds like another rouge one with no cash and no prospect of the bank lending it any money. So what they do is use customers money to fund themselves.It really is important to check that businesses have cash in the bank before doing business with them.

[Spesh]

A long shot,It's a limited company and sounds like another rouge one with no cash and no prospect of the bank lending it any money. So what they do is use customers money to fund themselves.It really is important to check that businesses have cash in the bank before doing business with them.

Yes, but for the reasons given (Ellie and I must have replied at the same time), in a wrongful trading situation the fact that it is a limited liability company is irrelevant, the directors would be personally liable. Given the amounts spent so far it must be worth considering.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Spesh

[larkshall]

Yes, but for the reasons given (Ellie and I must have replied at the same time), in a wrongful trading situation the fact that it is a limited liability company is irrelevant, the directors would be personally liable. Given the amounts spent so far it must be worth considering.

 

Hold it directors are not necessarily liable unless a court of law convicts them of fraud.. Assuming they were convicted, the court maybe able to strip them of some/all of their assets as well as any other punishment imposed. This does not help the plaintives though. As far as sueing via the civil courts, I would not, as you would be attempting to gain redress from 'a man of straw' Also the courst has very limited teeth in terms of extracting the debts, bailiffs?, hmm add cost, and a very uncertain outcome.

 

I assume that the company leases the premises (check on land registry), therefore no asset there.

 

I'm afraid BH appears to be the type who probably needs to meet someone up a back alley. Alas

 

I am in a similar situation with a financial advisor at the moment.. A civil and contract law barrister friend has advised me to write off losses and forget it... So heh-ho . At least I can offset against taxes to an extent.

Edited July 31, 2011 by larkshall

[Graham Davis]

Don't hold your breath. I'd expect some threats to Daniel, perhaps a lawyer's letter and this thread disappearing

 

Richard

 

As the details of the Harp's misdemeanors have been published in the Court Papers and are therefore in the Public Domain they can't really stop it being published here.

[Spesh]

Hold it directors are not necessarily liable unless a court of law convicts them of fraud.

Not true - you may be thinking of fraudulent trading. We are talking about wrongful trading (section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 on the off chance that anybody is interested - http://www.legislati.../45/section/214).

 

Requirements are:

 

(a)the company has gone into insolvent liquidation,

 

(b)at some time before the commencement of the winding up of the company, that person knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation, and

 

( c) that person was a director of the company at that time;

 

Simple incompetance would suffice, there is no need for fraud. It's therefore an awful lot easier to prove. If this applies, it's the assets of the directors as well as the company that are relevant. Whether it is worth persuing depends on facts we don't have relating to the personal positions of the directors and the finances of the company, but if I'd already spend £80,000 I'd certainly be getting some advice on whether persuing a liquidation and wrongful trading order was worthwhile.

[Utu]

I will not go into specifics but as far as we are concerned this isn't the end. It's not even halfway to the end! However the advice from our solicitors is not to throw good money after bad!

[WotEver]

It's not even halfway to the end!

Good for you!

 

I look forward to each new thrilling instalment each morning.

 

Tony

[Ally]

I may have missed it in earlier parts of the blog, but what was the original falling out over the build? It seems there must have been some reason for the hostility from the harps....or was it all about their insolvency?

[Helga]

Condensed version

We were in australia and had paid £81,000. Delivery date was Feburary. Our surveyor wasn't able to visit the boat when it was in the Harp's possession. In April the Harp's claimed £91,000 had been spent on the boat (75% complete). We offered to pay the additional £10,000, plus interest, if our surveyor could visit and confirm the boat was 75% complete. They refused and demanded a further £18,000 in damages, etc. We went to our solicitors. Harp's told our solicitor they wanted £20,000 plus a confidentiality clause to release the boat. Harps then ignored all the High Court orders and told our solicitors they had already sold our boat. At the same time they were stripping and modifying it to sell as a sailway. We then got a High Court order to seize the boat before they could sell it. Then the boat was maliciously damaged in few days between the final court order and when we collected it. In two days I'll post on our blog about the six other "victims" I have identified to date!

[Guest]

Condensed version

We were in australia and had paid £81,000. Delivery date was Feburary. Our surveyor wasn't able to visit the boat when it was in the Harp's possession. In April the Harp's claimed £91,000 had been spent on the boat (75% complete). We offered to pay the additional £10,000, plus interest, if our surveyor could visit and confirm the boat was 75% complete. They refused and demanded a further £18,000 in damages, etc. We went to our solicitors. Harp's told our solicitor they wanted £20,000 plus a confidentiality clause to release the boat. Harps then ignored all the High Court orders and told our solicitors they had already sold our boat. At the same time they were stripping and modifying it to sell as a sailway. We then got a High Court order to seize the boat before they could sell it. Then the boat was maliciously damaged in few days between the final court order and when we collected it. In two days I'll post on our blog about the six other "victims" I have identified to date!

 

Any one's worst night mare - not a lot of use in this situation I know but really do feel for you...

[churchward]

I am appalled at the state of affairs you find yourself in and the behaviour of the builder is jaw dropping, I guess you couldn't make it up, it is too extreme!

 

I hope that you finally get a satisfactory outcome and at some point able to enjoy the boat and boating with it.

[Ally]

I don't see where the £18,000 'damages' could come from!! At that stage you weren't printing the story!

The more I read the worse it gets! good luck to you with it....have you found a new someone to re-build for you yet?

[Windfola]

I do hope it comes right in the end. Can you sue the Harps for the balance due back from your £80,000?

 

All this has totally put me off commissioning a new build. I think I'll go back to looking at nearly new, or at least ready completed boats.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Windfola

[Guest]

I do hope it comes right in the end. Can you sue the Harps for the balance due back from your £80,000?

 

All this has totally put me off commissioning a new build. I think I'll go back to looking at nearly new, or at least ready completed boats.

 

I feel similarly hence we bought a used (4 year old) boat- but be aware these types of situation being described are the minority of the many successful new builds tha complete hitch free every year.

 

You will have to compromise in some areas in terms of what you want unless you are very lucky and find a used or ready built boat that you can honestly say you would have had it built that way - we didn't.

 

 

 

 

Ed to correct fat finger typos..

Edited August 1, 2011 by MJG

[Helga]

I don't see where the £18,000 'damages' could come from!! At that stage you weren't printing the story!

The more I read the worse it gets! good luck to you with it....have you found a new someone to re-build for you yet?

 

That's exactly what the High Court judge said. There was nothing in the contract that enabled them to claim damages! However the builders were very selective about the contents of the contract and ignored anything they didn't like!

 

I do hope it comes right in the end. Can you sue the Harps for the balance due back from your £80,000?

 

All this has totally put me off commissioning a new build. I think I'll go back to looking at nearly new, or at least ready completed boats.

 

You can only sue the company rather than individuals. The company is limited liability and basically has no assets so you could sue and win but failed to get any money or have your legal expenses reimbursed.

 

Don't be put off a new build. The vast majority of boat builders are very honest and love what they are doing. Don't make payments in advance and employ a surveyor to check the quality of the work.

 

Part of our problem was unique to us because we were attempting to have the boat built from the far side of the world. If we had been in the UK we would have been visiting far more frequently and been able to minimise our loss.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Helga

[Ally]

Helga...I think that is correct, being on site regularly is always a good thing...for many reasons and for both parties (well, I think so anyway, BH may disagree!)