Is this legal?

[SteveS]

This is about contracts.

 

The OP's insurer has a contract with the OP not with the boat yard and probably will not pay anyone else. If the OP chooses to use the money to pay the boatyard that is his decision.

The OP has entered into a contract with the boatyard so therefore the boatyard has a lien on the boat against the OP.

 

There is no contract between the repairer and the insurance Co.

 

Usually the only time the insurance pays the repairer direct is when a contract exists between them. Ie. The insurance instructs the repairer not the insured.

 

The repairer can still exercise a lien after the goods have left the yard but it is much harder to enforce. Especially if the OP is living on board.

Not good news for the OP but that is the law.

 

Hope this clears this up.

 

P.S. unless the matter was raised before the start of the work the repairer would expect to be paid on completion

[Doodlebug]

My 2p's worth although i'm repeating what others have said to an extend.

 

You own the boat, it is your property.

 

He owns the cost of the work, so you owe him money.

 

Just because you owe him money doesn't mean he can 'own' your boat until you pay.

 

He would need to take you to court and prove you are not going to pay the bill to be able to even think about holding onto the boat, although it would be a debt collectors job to do, so no you can do what you like with the boat, as long as he has your details and proof of ID

 

I would point out to him that it is impossible for you to run away, and that if you were to not pay, he has your details and would be able to take you to court.

[Neil2]

 

Usually the only time the insurance pays the repairer direct is when a contract exists between them. Ie. The insurance instructs the repairer not the insured.

 

 

Quite - the original post refers to the boatyard owner requesting payment direct from the insurer by BACS transfer...

 

I was under the impression that this was always going to be the arrangement which implies an agreement between the boatyard and the insurer.

[Darren72]

Just like your car, a garage rarely lets you take your motor until payment is made unless you have an account or other arrangement or understanding.

 

We won't even undertake a removal unless payment in full is received and cleared to our account 3 days prior, and we certainly wouldn't release goods in storage until payment is made in full.

 

I would say though that a written conformation from an insurance company would satisfy me that payment would be received and release goods & services, we quite often do work for insurers and the deal is sometimes directly with the insurer and not through the customer.

 

Nothing stopping you driving away with your car from the car park using spare keys.

[Tuscan]

Unless agreed seperately before the work started I would expect to be paid on completion of the work.

[mayalld]

My 2p's worth although i'm repeating what others have said to an extend.

 

You own the boat, it is your property.

 

He owns the cost of the work, so you owe him money.

 

Just because you owe him money doesn't mean he can 'own' your boat until you pay.

 

Nobody has suggested that the repaired OWNS the boat. He cannot act as the owner (for example he can't sell the boat), but he does have a lien on it and can detain it until his bill is paid.

 

The OP has received two kinds of advice here; bloke down the pub "that can't be right" based upon no evidence whatsoever and correct advice (not wishing to blow any trumpets here, but I will venture to suggest that if Nigel and I actually agree on any legal point it is very likely that this is sound advice)

[Darren72]

Be very careful. I have known cases where people have "recovered" their car from a garage in similar circumstances and have been charged with theft (or TWOC).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Taking without owners consent(TWOC). You are the owner. Maybe not of the new parts but the car is yours. If you are not happy with the service and wish to contest it, you are within your rights to take your car. If you have ordered a meal and you have an issue with it, you are within your right to refuse to pay anything for it.

[Phil Ambrose]

I still say that as you are going to pay why not do it sooner rather than later and safe yourself a load of stress, then go boating

Phil

[NigelMoore]

The OP has received two kinds of advice here; bloke down the pub "that can't be right" based upon no evidence whatsoever and correct advice (not wishing to blow any trumpets here, but I will venture to suggest that if Nigel and I actually agree on any legal point it is very likely that this is sound advice)

 

Indeed. Not only can the boatyard retain the boat until paid, but even where the owner’s contact details have been lost, it can put the owner on public notice after a certain period of time, and if not paid by a certain date it can sell the boat, take the monies due from that, and hold the remainder [if any] in trust for the owner’s collection. It would be rank insanity to listen to the ‘blokes down the pub’ in such a situation.

[Dave_P]

I still say that as you are going to pay why not do it sooner rather than later and safe yourself a load of stress, then go boating

Phil

Your signature seems strangely apt here.

 

You've now said the same thing twice and I can't quite believe I'm going to go to the trouble of stating the bloody obvious in replying but...

 

don't you think if I had the money, I would just pay him??? We're not all rolling in it! I need the insurance company to cough up the money. Why on earth would I have even started this thread if I had 2k in my back pocket to hand over???

[Guest]

Scrubbed as a result seems to have been found.....

Edited September 19, 2013 by The Dog House

[Dave_P]

Dave and NIgel - I tend to think that you're correct under the law so I have my answer, thanks.

 

I do also think that the question of expediency also must be considered. I work for a LA in an enforcement role and take forward prosecutions for under very different legislation. On a daily basis, I must use my professional judgement to consider whether there is a more practicable alternative to formal action. 99% of the time, using legal powers is not the most sensible way of proceeding, for either party. Luckily for me, the boatyard seems to think this way too and after a few phone calls it seems that an assurance from the insurance company that the money is on it's way has been enough for me to be allowed to leave.

 

Incidentally, the insurance company are quite happy to make the cheque out to the owner of the boatyard and send it to him direct.

Just as an aside - is there anything else you could leave with him by way of security such as a car or motorbike? thus allowing you to go cruising while the ins. co. get their act together?

 

Fair point and I had considered this. The claim is just shy of £2000. I bought my car earlier this year for £300. The only thing of value I own is my boat. I've always tended to spend my money on doing things rather than owning things.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Dave_P

[NigelMoore]

99% of the time, using legal powers is not the most sensible way of proceeding, for either party. Luckily for me, the boatyard seems to think this way too and after a few phone calls it seems that an assurance from the insurance company that the money is on it's way has been enough for me to be allowed to leave.

 

Incidentally, the insurance company are quite happy to make the cheque out to the owner of the boatyard and send it to him direct.

 

 

Perfectly correct, and you have done exactly the right and sensible thing - with a happy result with an understanding and pragmatic businessman. Going the self-help route would have been calamitous for both parties;this way everyone's a winner. Well done, enjoy some well earned boating!

[Phil Ambrose]

DaveP, glad you have resolved your issue,sorry if I misunderstood your post. I thought your issue was in the fact that the yard wanted paying rather than the fact you were temporarily unable to rustle up the cash.

Phil

[Dave_P]

Phil - Sorry if I was a bit 'short' in replying to your post.

 

As a final aside - My insurance broker is Collidge & Partners, The claim was handled by Navigators & General. Both of these companies have been fantastic. In these days of routinely poor customer service its been genuinely refreshing to deal with such efficient, professional and helpful people. Well done all round!

 

I'm not 'connected' to either company.

 

Best of all, my boat is whole again, just in time for winter

[Neil2]

The OP has received two kinds of advice here; bloke down the pub "that can't be right" based upon no evidence whatsoever and correct advice (not wishing to blow any trumpets here, but I will venture to suggest that if Nigel and I actually agree on any legal point it is very likely that this is sound advice)

 

To be fair I don't think my advice fell into either category, it was neither a "bloke down the pub" reaction, nor was it an informed legal opinion, it was an explanation of what is normal business practice in these situations based on my experience of carrying out insurance claim work.

 

And, dare I say it, what I suggested should happen is in fact what has happened.

[mayalld]

 

To be fair I don't think my advice fell into either category, it was neither a "bloke down the pub" reaction, nor was it an informed legal opinion, it was an explanation of what is normal business practice in these situations based on my experience of carrying out insurance claim work.

 

And, dare I say it, what I suggested should happen is in fact what has happened.

 

To be fair, your opinion was that the boatyard was on dodgy ground saying that they wanted paying before they would release the boat. That was plain wrong.

 

Your opinion was also that the boatyard was being unreasonable. Again, you were wrong.

 

Until such time as the boatyard is CERTAIN that they will be paid, they are being entirely reasonable in retaining the boat.

 

Do keep in mind that even though they know that this is being dealt with by the insurance company, that doesn't give them certainty until they hear from the insurer that the OP has agreed to them being paid direct.

 

I have seen cases where the insurer has paid a claim to the insured party, the payment has cleared into their account, clearing an unauthorised overdraft, and the insured party was unable to pay the workman,

[Neil2]

 

To be fair, your opinion was that the boatyard was on dodgy ground saying that they wanted paying before they would release the boat. That was plain wrong.

 

Your opinion was also that the boatyard was being unreasonable. Again, you were wrong.

 

Until such time as the boatyard is CERTAIN that they will be paid, they are being entirely reasonable in retaining the boat.

 

Do keep in mind that even though they know that this is being dealt with by the insurance company, that doesn't give them certainty until they hear from the insurer that the OP has agreed to them being paid direct.

 

I have seen cases where the insurer has paid a claim to the insured party, the payment has cleared into their account, clearing an unauthorised overdraft, and the insured party was unable to pay the workman,

 

What Dave P said originally was that the boatyard wouldn't release the boat until he had been fully paid. In this respect he was being unreasonable, - that was my argument.

 

Given that everyone seems to agree he is now being reasonable, I rest my case.

[tommytelford]

I think that the situation here is really quite clear.

The boat owner instructed the boatyard to institute repairs,

the boatyard has done the repairs,

The owner is responsible or paying the boatyard

It is now up to the owner to pay the boatyard, the fact that it is the subject of a claim against the insurers is of no interest to the repairer

The owner has 2 choices, he either pays the repairer directly or waits for the insurer to pay, which they will no do until a satisfaction note is signed, in my experience this could take some time so said owner should not make any plans for the near future.

Just as a matter of interest insurance companies have been known to go out of business so until that money is safely in his account it is quite reasonable that he doesn't release the boat

[Guest]

I think that the situation here is really quite clear.

The boat owner instructed the boatyard to institute repairs,

the boatyard has done the repairs,

The owner is responsible or paying the boatyard

It is now up to the owner to pay the boatyard, the fact that it is the subject of a claim against the insurers is of no interest to the repairer

The owner has 2 choices, he either pays the repairer directly or waits for the insurer to pay, which they will no do until a satisfaction note is signed, in my experience this could take some time so said owner should not make any plans for the near future.

Just as a matter of interest insurance companies have been known to go out of business so until that money is safely in his account it is quite reasonable that he doesn't release the boat

 

Indeed - it's quite clear you need to go back over the thread as not only is it sorted but the general opinion seems to be it is an arrangement between the ins. co and the yard.

 

No claim is being made against the insurers - they are willfully paying up.

 

Now that the ins. co have confirmed payment is on it's way the owner is good to go.

[MtB]

TT, nice analysis. Just how it is.

 

 

MtB

[Guest]

TT, nice analysis. Just how it is.

 

 

MtB

 

 

??? - or are you trolling again?

[MtB]

u r v perceptive...

[tommytelford]

Never yet come across an insurance company that paid up willingly, but point taken

[Guest]

Never yet come across an insurance company that paid up willingly, but point taken

 

There have been a couple of positive reports on here about ins. co.s paying up so perhaps they are not all the thieving bar stewards that they are so often portrayed.