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

[Bob18]

Ah, so that's what its called today.

[DaveG]

There is nothing odd or suspicious about this at all.

Okay, happy to accept this is more normal than I would have hitherto thought.

 

However, "acting oddly" is, I feel, a little generous given that they are taking out big advertisements in the press complete with false statements as to facilities and what seem to now be faked-up photos. Anyone who arrives and complains is ordered to leave and then has to fight for their "non-refundable" deposit. I'm afraid I can't describe this as "odd", it's outright dishonest. Let's not forget, this marina was originally supposed to open in July 2010.

[bargemast]

Okay, happy to accept this is more normal than I would have hitherto thought.

 

However, "acting oddly" is, I feel, a little generous given that they are taking out big advertisements in the press complete with false statements as to facilities and what seem to now be faked-up photos. Anyone who arrives and complains is ordered to leave and then has to fight for their "non-refundable" deposit. I'm afraid I can't describe this as "odd", it's outright dishonest. Let's not forget, this marina was originally supposed to open in July 2010.

 

 

That's exactly what I think about these people, they are for sure outright dishonest.

 

Peter.

[Bob18]

Might the activities of Barby Marina/Moorings/Nextweeksname be heading into the territories covered by "fraud"?

I don't know where the line between dishonest and fraud lies, but both are certainly the wrong side of good.

[ditchcrawler]

Might the activities of Barby Marina/Moorings/Nextweeksname be heading into the territories covered by "fraud"?

I don't know where the line between dishonest and fraud lies, but both are certainly the wrong side of good.

I thought there may have been comment from a member of the RN owners as they had a sin ding there in September

[sebrof]

Okay, happy to accept this is more normal than I would have hitherto thought.

 

However, "acting oddly" is, I feel, a little generous given that they are taking out big advertisements in the press complete with false statements as to facilities and what seem to now be faked-up photos. Anyone who arrives and complains is ordered to leave and then has to fight for their "non-refundable" deposit. I'm afraid I can't describe this as "odd", it's outright dishonest. Let's not forget, this marina was originally supposed to open in July 2010.

 

I was using British under-statement!

[Robbo]

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.

[Laurie Booth]

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.

Very good point.

[i love my narrowboat]

If the cheque is a rubber ball then get in touch with the Small claims court (or whatever they are called this week). In hte first place for guidance, but probably in the very near future to get an order. Failure to pay against the court order can then lead to an application for you (or your agent) to seize and dispose of goods to cover the initial debt plus your incurred costs. As far as I can work out this seizure can be from any address where the business is trading, not restricted just the registered office...

 

 

I wrote in my letter to him that I would use legal system to recover my money, which is why I think he paid up. however with the rumours of them being insolvent I think it would have been a waste of my money and time!!

[grey tug]

Oh dear, another one seems to be heading this way -http://nbwrensnest.wordpress.com

I hope that this all gets sorted out soon

[i love my narrowboat]

When we were there, Tony was boasting that they were 85% full, so with £400 deposit from each boater that makes £36,720.00 that they have of innocent peoples money and no way will they get it back!! OUTRAGEOUS

 

I have received a letter from Trading Standards this morning which states they are "monitoring the activities of this business".

 

They also ask that anyone who has any complaint, information or experience of Barby Moorings/Barby Marina to ring Consumer Direct (which is the government sponsored Trading Standards organisation) on :

 

08454 040506. The reference for this case is NW4359282.

 

 

great stuff, will make contact...

[DaveG]

Oh dear, another one seems to be heading this way -http://nbwrensnest.wordpress.com

I hope that this all gets sorted out soon

Great - hopefully with the three months advance he takes from them he will have no excuse not to refund what he owes me.

[14skipper]

Was due to visit a new build marina next month at one of their open days at which there will be special offers for first in line moorers Hmm think l will be waiting till its finished next year before parting with my cash ( feel sorry though for the honest owner who will now get treated with mistrust because of a few scumbag owners )

14Skipper

[Guest]

Was due to visit a new build marina next month at one of their open days at which there will be special offers for first in line moorers Hmm think l will be waiting till its finished next year before parting with my cash ( feel sorry though for the honest owner who will now get treated with mistrust because of a few scumbag owners )

14Skipper

 

Difference here is the special offers offered to the first timers. Barby expected as far as I understand full wack from day one.

 

Depending on what special offers are being offered it may be worth a look, if it's staged to take account of reduced but increasing facilities it might be a good business model...

[DaveG]

Barby expected as far as I understand full wack from day one.

 

More than that, he actually put his prices UP in June.

 

They smile in your face.......

[Bob18]

It looks as if the ASA are taking my complain to them seriously - I'm had a couple of communications asking me to confirm details of the ads and my perception of the ads against what's really there...

[DaveG]

It looks as if the ASA are taking my complain to them seriously - I'm had a couple of communications asking me to confirm details of the ads and my perception of the ads against what's really there...

Unlike one of the advertisers I contacted this week who state they have a contractual obligation to publish details of the marina facilities even though the advert is deliberately false. So, once again the law seems to fall on the side of the dishonest.

[Bob18]

The ASA deals with both the advertiser and the publication.

I've extended my complaint to cover adverts appearing in WW as well. This makes it more likely that the ASA will deal with the advertiser rather than the publication.

[Slocomo]

Unfortunately I am another of those who has paid my £400 deposit to Barby Moorings and do not now expect to see it again. We signed up at Crick in May 2010, at which time Barby was due to open in "Autumn 2010". We really liked the concept and what was being offered, as well as the location - and we still do, but it is increasingly clear that it is not going to happen under current ownership. As we live fairy nearby, we visited regularly but by July 2011 we were starting to hear the same stories but with dates extended every time "the pontoons are arriving in June / July / August etc". The problem with telling untruths is that they catch up on you.

Finally, in early July we had seen that the website now said "Now Open" and so as we were cruising past, we moored up to take a look; we were amazed to find about a dozen boats all lashed together on the future, but as yet unsurfaced service dock; they were without electricity which was promised daily and had only a makeshift set of hoses to provide water. The marina was unfenced, there were no pontoons, no diesel, no pump-out, nor was there any sign of a start being made to foundations for the service building which would be essential to providing most of the services then and still now being advertised.

We spoke to several of those moored there, and all were unhappy that they had been asked to pay full rate fees despite the lack of services; clearly they must have had reasons for wanting to be there, but I am afraid that in no circumstances could we have been persuaded to do so. We decided that we would now simply wait to be told that the marina had been completed before visiting again or contemplating moving - perhaps in the faint hope that the value from our deposit would eventually be delivered! What is clear is that almost nothing has changed in the last 3 months, and I share the concerns of all who have posted here that the continued advertising breaches both Trading & Advertising Standards.

I will certainly now add my complaint to those of others by contacting those bodies, but I have no expectation whatever that we will now see our deposit again.

[Bob18]

When contacting the ASA do so in a factual, non-emotional way. Be prepared to send them copies of adverts, by email. They will act sooner, and harder if there is a body of FACTUAL evidence that the advertisements are not telling the truth about a product or service. The question in their mind will be based on the manner in which people are being invited to spend money, not that money is not being managed properly, and is that service being offered actually as described.

 

 

 

However with Trading Standards, who look at the legality of the contracts for services, you can be more emotional they want to know about the money trail, and how that trail is affecting you and others.

 

 

And to get your money back there is always the "small claims" court procedures, which have been discussed earlier in this thread, and with links provided in this thread. Experience has shown that using this route is very much in the small person's favour. Get in quickly with claims, as, if the person you are claiming from decides bankruptcy is a good escape hatch, then, with a court order in your favour, you will be a minor creditor and get the floor sweepings that are left after the big-boys have had their fill - with a court order in your favour you join the very big boys (I think only HMRC are ahead of you)

[i love my narrowboat]

Oh dear it is awful that so many people have paid their deposits and unable to get them back, my friend went Friday to get her deposit back and Mcmaster said he would post her a cheque, it begs the question as to why he could not write it there and then and postdate it for next week. when he shows you round he promises you the world but upset him and you soon feel the sharp end of his tongue.. good luck to all wanting their money back and I will be contacting the ASA and Trading Standards..

[Bob18]

I've just relaised my fingers weren't working correctly - I missed a very important word, now in BOLD

And to get your money back there is always the "small claims" court procedures, which have been discussed earlier in this thread, and with links provided in this thread. Experience has shown that using this route is very much in the small person's favour. Get in quickly with claims, as, if the person you are claiming from decides bankruptcy is a good escape hatch, then, without a court order in your favour, you will be a minor creditor and get the floor sweepings that are left after the big-boys have had their fill - with a court order in your favour you join the very big boys (I think only HMRC are ahead of you)

Edited October 15, 2011 by Bob18

[DaveG]

A County Court judgement in itself will not grant you the status of a secured creditor. If you win a County Court judgement against someone and they fail to pay up you have to then take out a "Charging Order" which gives you a charge or lien over the debtors property. However, these orders are much harder and more costly to get than a basic CCJ.

 

Barby Moorings Ltd's accounts would indicate there were already debts of quarter of a million 15 months ago. There have been two subsequent mortgages taken by RBS in June this year so it is probably safe to assume the debt has increased but, given that cheques are now bouncing and McMaster is, at the same time, stalling payment to other creditors, it is probably the case that they are also failing or, at best, struggling to service the debt let alone meet their other creditors. After VAT and Income tax, the bank would be the first creditor in the queue and obviously have the advantage of having first charge over any assets. Other than the land and the hole that has been dug in it, the only assets appear to be an ageing JCB and dumper, a rather dilapidated portakabin, and probably some sundry hand tools. As first creditor the bank need only sell the assets for what it is owed, and don't forget they will also be now piling charges and fees on top of the debt, especially if Barby is put into liquidation. The other difficulty, of course, would be finding a buyer in the current economic climate who could themselves raise finance.

 

The other issue is that they do not have permission for residential moorings yet most of the handful of people there seem to be liveaboards. The planning permission from the council is that an owner can stay on their boat for a maximum of three days. McMaster is telling folk that this means you simply have to get off your boat onto the pontoon, turn round, and then get back on again. This is obviously cobblers and unfortunately all these other shenanigans risk attracting attention from the local authority.

 

If the owner had taken a more reasonable attitude with customers this would probably not have escalated but his bullying and dishonesty have left a lot of anger amongst those affected. These factors apart, the other sad aspect is that if the company does go bust and nobody buys it we will be left with something of an eyesore until it reverts to nature.

Edited October 15, 2011 by DaveG

[Allan(nb Albert)]

A County Court judgement in itself will not grant you the status of a secured creditor. If you win a County Court judgement against someone and they fail to pay up you have to then take out a "Charging Order" which gives you a charge or lien over the debtors property. However, these orders are much harder and more costly to get than a basic CCJ.

 

Barby Moorings Ltd's accounts would indicate there were already debts of quarter of a million 15 months ago. There have been two subsequent mortgages taken by RBS in June this year so it is probably safe to assume the debt has increased but, given that cheques are now bouncing and McMaster is, at the same time, stalling payment to other creditors, it is probably the case that they are also failing or, at best, struggling to service the debt let alone meet their other creditors. After VAT and Income tax, the bank would be the first creditor in the queue and obviously have the advantage of having first charge over any assets. Other than the land and the hole that has been dug in it, the only assets appear to be an ageing JCB and dumper, a rather dilapidated portakabin, and probably some sundry hand tools. As first creditor the bank need only sell the assets for what it is owed, and don't forget they will also be now piling charges and fees on top of the debt, especially if Barby is put into liquidation. The other difficulty, of course, would be finding a buyer in the current economic climate who could themselves raise finance.

 

The other issue is that they do not have permission for residential moorings yet most of the handful of people there seem to be liveaboards. The planning permission from the council is that an owner can stay on their boat for a maximum of three days. McMaster is telling folk that this means you simply have to get off your boat onto the pontoon, turn round, and then get back on again. This is obviously cobblers and unfortunately all these other shenanigans risk attracting attention from the local authority.

 

If the owner had taken a more reasonable attitude with customers this would probably not have escalated but his bullying and dishonesty have left a lot of anger amongst those affected. These factors apart, the other sad aspect is that if the company does go bust and nobody buys it we will be left with something of an eyesore until it reverts to nature.

 

I can not see Barby returning to nature.

 

BWML has already purchased two marinas this year and is keen to buy more due to the weak market. Indeed rumours existed earlier this year that they would acquire Barby.

 

BWML has over £10.5m of public money already provided or guaranteed as equity. BW's board approved a business plan in January for expansion of BWML by acquisition.

[Bob18]

Given Allan's comment about BWML's activities, the apparent parlous state of Barby Mooring's finances, along with BW's continued attempts to reduce the amount of linear mooring I can't see the marina at Barby being allowed to slip back to nature. But I do have a question about BWML's desire to take on an incomplete marina and bring it up to even a fairly basic modern standard without some recourse on the current owners to get those basics in place (pontoons, water, basic wharf facilities) as part of the conditions of purchase.

(Obviously if the current owner has gone into liquidation by the time of purchase then its a different story.)