Barby Moorings and the Trade Description Act!!!!??

[Trevor S]

Well, good luck - I, too, have an e-mail stating "I will refund your money". It's dated 27th September.

 

The rest of your post smacks of trolling as, unless you have any evidence to the contrary, the comments which you object to have been made by folk who have either lost money or have gone through Hell and high water to get it back, and have genuine grievances against Barby Moorings Ltd which are currently being investigated by the appropriate authorities.

 

I do wonder if you are trying to provoke a reaction which you hope will result in the thread being closed by the moderators.

 

It would be interesting, at this juncture, to have some idea of who have been promised refunds (and when) and if (and when) they have actually had their cash back - and I also seem to recollect that at least one person mentioned that they had received a rubber cheque...

 

To my mind it there is not only the 'money' problem but also the fact that McMaster has lied through his teeth about what he has claimed to be supplying in return for that money - such as fully serviced moorings on invisible pontoons AND that there is no problem with live-aboards staying over the winter.

 

He really ought to change his name to 'Walter Mitty' as it truly appears to me that they are both inhabiting the same dream world.

[Laurie Booth]

He really ought to change his name to 'Walter Mitty' as it truly appears to me that they are both inhabiting the same dream world.

Walter Mitty was a nice bloke.

[i love my narrowboat]

Seems your information may be correct: freehold of 22 West End Road, Silsoe sold on 03-Oct-2011 for £287,000

 

 

WOW that is seriously bad news if they sold the house to plough the proceeds into that shambles

 

I really do take exception to this comment.

 

Had you been party to any of my conversations with Mr McMaster or read any of the letters I've written you would know I've never been rude, offensive or used language that would be inappropriate in a Covent.

 

Consider yourself fortunate that you got your deposit back and don't make judgments based on conjecture

 

 

 

 

Frank

 

 

Here Here, I was not and never have been rude to Tony or his wife and yet he spoke to me as if I were something on the bottom of his shoe, yes I got all my money back (£1,200) but he still was very rude to us.

 

It would be interesting, at this juncture, to have some idea of who have been promised refunds (and when) and if (and when) they have actually had their cash back - and I also seem to recollect that at least one person mentioned that they had received a rubber cheque...

 

To my mind it there is not only the 'money' problem but also the fact that McMaster has lied through his teeth about what he has claimed to be supplying in return for that money - such as fully serviced moorings on invisible pontoons AND that there is no problem with live-aboards staying over the winter.

 

He really ought to change his name to 'Walter Mitty' as it truly appears to me that they are both inhabiting the same dream world.

 

 

I received the rubber cheque, which cleared 2nd time round.

 

I have not got my deposit back yet but at least he says he will refund.

By a more polite approach I was refering to some of the comments on this thread/board and in particular one calling him a scoundrel and a blaggard. Sorry I dont know how to include quotes but if you scroll back you will find the comment, which was made by someone who got their deposit back.

 

 

I called him a scoundrel and a blaggard, having been on the receiving end of his nasty bullying tactics I earned that right to call him that

[ditchcrawler]

WOW that is seriously bad news if they sold the house to plough the proceeds into that shambles

 

 

Or to move the cash to where it can't be got at.

[i love my narrowboat]

Or to move the cash to where it can't be got at.

 

 

When we went originally to look round, Mcmaster said the marina was 'my son's inheritance', if that is the case then he will inherite nothing!!

[Charlie Boy]

When we went originally to look round, Mcmaster said the marina was 'my son's inheritance', if that is the case then he will inherite nothing!!

 

The way he speaks to his poor down trodden son I would be surprised if he even stuck around. There's a limit to anyones tolerence. I think he bully's the pair of them dreadfully and I do believe that others have witnessed the not so happy family.

 

Did you read the post about his mum buying the house? I wonder if any money actually changed hands permanently

[ditchcrawler]

 

Did you read the post about his mum buying the house? I wonder if any money actually changed hands permanently

Hence my post

[Graham Davis]

Is there any proof that he sold the property to his mother/family member, or is this just conjecture?

[Offcumden]

Is there any proof that he sold the property to his mother/family member, or is this just conjecture?

An earlier post suggests its the freehold thats been sold

[Graham Davis]

That is what I saw, but no-where can I see details of who to. Therefore I presume the family member is conjecture.

[DaveG]

I'm not overly interested in who he sold his house to, for how much or under what circumstances - anyone who wants to know can pay the Land Registry fee and they'll tell you who the new owner is.

 

At the same time, and assuming there was any equity left in the property after the sale, the fair and decent thing to do (in my view, anyway) would have been to repay those who paid deposits against recurrent commitments and promises which, it now turns out, Barby Moorings knew they were never in a position to construct or provide. The majority of these creditors have effectively given this company an interest-free loan for anything up to eighteen months. Given the history of the partners, however, any fair and decent restitution is unlikely to happen. It also appears the boater evictions were necessitated by the fact that the company (according to their press statements) had taken deposits for at least 95 moorings by the end of 2010, and probably taken more since then - but only had 17 part-completed "bankside" berths available. Obviously, 17 divided by 95 represents some tricky logistics, not least as these 17 were priced at up to £5,500 per annum but, because of the failure to install them, were being taken up by boaters who had only reserved pontoons at the less profitable rate of up to £3,200.

 

I notice the website is still saying two types of mooring are available, even though there are still no pontoons, and that they are all fully serviced with electric, water, digital TV and wired internet, so two separate ASA judgements still don't seem to have deterred them from the ongoing deceit that has resulted in so many losing money and shows the contempt with which the company obviously holds the regulatory authorities.

Edited December 3, 2011 by DaveG

[Tony Brooks]

I'm not overly interested in who he sold his house to, for how much or under what circumstances - anyone who wants to know can pay the Land Registry fee and they'll tell you who the new owner is.

 

At the same time, and assuming there was any equity left in the property after the sale, the fair and decent thing to do (in my view, anyway) would have been to repay those who paid deposits against recurrent commitments and promises which, it now turns out, Barby Moorings knew they were never in a position to construct or provide. The majority of these creditors have effectively given this company an interest-free loan for anything up to eighteen months. Given the history of the partners, however, any fair and decent restitution is unlikely to happen. It also appears the boater evictions were necessitated by the fact that the company (according to their press statements) had taken deposits for at least 95 moorings by the end of 2010, and probably taken more since then - but only had 17 part-completed "bankside" berths available. Obviously, 17 divided by 95 represents some tricky logistics, not least as these 17 were priced at up to £5,500 per annum but, because of the failure to install them, were being taken up by boaters who had only reserved pontoons at the less profitable rate of up to £3,200.

 

I notice the website is still saying two types of mooring are available, even though there are still no pontoons, and that they are all fully serviced with electric, water, digital TV and wired internet, so two separate ASA judgements still don't seem to have deterred them from the ongoing deceit that has resulted in so many losing money and shows the contempt with which the company obviously holds the regulatory authorities.

 

 

I have no wish to take this off topic but I think you are wrong about that. It shows the contempt with which the regulatory authorities, councils and government hold consumers.

 

The other fraud thread would not have happened if the outfit concerned had been properly dealt with years ago. The cold phone calls mentioned would not happen if the teleco was held to be jointly libel for the use made of its network and so on. The same goes for phoenix companies and "pre-packs".

 

I recently had cause to deal direct with my local trading standards office because Consumer Direct i so useless. It involved a watch that was clearly sold in an unfit for sale condition. They advised that I should just buy another watch or go without for an unknown time while the company got it repaired because a failed 10 week old watch was a "grey area". I got bloody minded and went for the company concerned and it did not even go to court. We later learn that local TS officers are giving paid advice to the companies.

 

I very much doubt many people will get their deposits back and I expect the marina will end up in the hands of those who own it now - after bankruptcy! I fear that the early comment about pick helvs or some such will be the only way many people will get any satisfaction, but you can bet those same authorities who seem to condone the behaviour would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Tonka]

The adverts are not telling lies. They clearly state "SOMEWHERE DIFFERENT"

And looking at this post that is what they hvae achieved

[Mick and Maggie]

Did any of the moorers pay by credit card? If so, phone them up to get your money back. Its one of the plus points of using credit cards is that your covered for situations like this.

 

Its the same with debit cards as well, but you must claim within 120 days of making the transaction. Its called chargeback. As long as total price of your purchase is between £100 and £30,000 you should be ok.

[sebrof]

Its the same with debit cards as well, but you must claim within 120 days of making the transaction. Its called chargeback. As long as total price of your purchase is between £100 and £30,000 you should be ok.

 

It is not the same with debit cards.

[Robbo]

It is not the same with debit cards.

 

Looks like main difference is that Credit is under law, whilst Debit isn't..

 

Chargeback is not enshrined in law like section 75, but is part of Scheme Rules, which participating banks subscribe to. It applies to all debit cards, although exact rules may vary between the Visa, Maestro and American Express networks.

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/consumer-credit-act-1974/

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/consumer-credit-act-1974/

 

Reading most of that, I would still use Credit Cards for anything over £100, you get better protection. If it's under £100 you can use the chargeback scheme for both credit and debit cards. Oh and don't use PayPal.

[i love my narrowboat]

My colleague at work, buys everything on her credit card and pays it off with her wages at the end of the month, maybe she has the right idea about protecting herself

[DaveG]

There is a rather strange piece on "the site whose name shall not be mentioned" claiming that if the incumbent boaters who moor on Barby Straight had been turfed off their moorings and BW's on-line mooring policy "had been correctly applied" then all would have been well at Barby Moorings. An interesting perspective considering that it was claimed by the operators of Barby Moorings Ltd over a year ago there were only 10 moorings left in the marina. I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the moorings on the Straight are owned by the boaters themselves. Seems a bit draconian of the author to suggest they should be evicted off their own land by BW before the marina was built, and then forced into a place where a small part-complete bankside mooring with fewer facilities and situated directly adjacent to property they already own would thereafter cost them £5,500 per year.

 

Stranger still, nowhere in the article is Starcoaster quoted.

[dor]

There is a rather strange piece on "the site whose name shall not be mentioned" claiming that if the incumbent boaters who moor on Barby Straight had been turfed off their moorings and BW's on-line mooring policy "had been correctly applied" then all would have been well at Barby Moorings.

 

I did see this piece. Quite a rant against on-line moorers and actually poorly informed as BW has implemented its "1 in 10" policy in a number of places.

 

What is extraordinary is his view that if the on-line moorers had been turfed off, they would all have signed up for the marina.

 

The falacy of this is clearly illustrated in the case of Tattenhall Marina, near which there is a large number of on-line moorers. Now if the builders of Tattenhall Marina knew anything about boating, they would have known that maybe 1% of those on-line moorers might have considered the marina. There are plenty of marina moorings available; people moor on-line because that is what they want to do. It might be financial - BW on-line moorings are usually half the cost of a local marina - but it might just be that people don't want to moor in what is effectively a glorified car park. I uhderstand that Tattenhall Marina is up for sale again. Not surprising as it must be losing money hand-over-fist. A marina of that size should never have been built there in the first place, but presumably the original developers didn't have a clue about boaters and didn't think to ask anyone local. Otherwise they would have been told that a marina of that size there was a waste of time. Presumably they were taken in by the BW build-a-marina sales team.

[adam1uk]

I did see this piece. Quite a rant against on-line moorers and actually poorly informed as BW has implemented its "1 in 10" policy in a number of places.

 

Yes, and they've also said that the closures are done by natural wastage (ie becoming vacant and not relet) rather than forced closure. And BW can only close online moorings they control.

 

But (OT) this is from a site which has today published a report about Gloucester, in which one of it's main writers confesses to passing on completely unverified rubbish dressed up as news.

[WotEver]

As an aside, I note that since the title of this thread has been edited, it now appears on Page 1 of a Google search for "Barby Moorings".

 

Tony

[DaveG]

I "googled" it yesterday and another thread on the same subject from late last year came up on top of this one. Oh, how I wish I had seen it then as people were already questioning the owners' claims and time frames!!

[mayalld]

Yes, and they've also said that the closures are done by natural wastage (ie becoming vacant and not relet) rather than forced closure. And BW can only close online moorings they control.

 

Are you sure?

 

I believe that they can withdraw permission from any site.

[adam1uk]

Are you sure?

 

I believe that they can withdraw permission from any site.

 

Technically, you could well be right. But the list of closures so far all look like BW moorings. And I can imagine the farmers who have mile after mile of offside moorings on the Shroppie, for example, not standing for enforced closures without a fight -- a fight which BW probably don't want to have.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Technically, you could well be right. But the list of closures so far all look like BW moorings. And I can imagine the farmers who have mile after mile of offside moorings on the Shroppie, for example, not standing for enforced closures without a fight -- a fight which BW probably don't want to have.

BW policy since January 2007 is to close one online mooring for every ten berths created in a new marina. The radius for closure is within 30 miles of the marina.

 

Whilst the policy was to close complete sites this has now changed to natural wastage. BW say that this was due to representations by liveaboard boaters but it is almost certain that money is the main driver.

 

The Network Access Agreement the new marina owners sign up to give BW 9% of the mooring fees and assumes the marina is full.

 

As such, BW does not suffer financially closing an occupied berth or site, indeed it makes money. However, closing an unoccupied berth, perhaps one that has previously failed to sell at auction, makes more money.

 

I think some marina operators do not like this because they see BW making a mockery of the agreement to 'force online moorers into marinas'.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)