Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
sueb

Another eviction

Featured Posts

Then your suspicions are wrong as I demonstrated her consistency over the years up to this point.

I have no "agenda" and frequently quote all sorts of people to illustrate a point.

Do you mean "up to this point" including her post in this thread? In which case, it does seem a little pointless and I do hope you aren't going to fill up the forum with similar proofs of consistency for all forum participants. It would be very dull.

If you mean to highlight some inconsistency between her previous line and that in this thread, then I don't see that you have achieved that. However, others seem to feel that you had, and were happy to jump on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean "up to this point" including her post in this thread? In which case, it does seem a little pointless and I do hope you aren't going to fill up the forum with similar proofs of consistency for all forum participants. It would be very dull.

One post is hardly going to "fill up the forum" and, as you concede, others appear to think differently to you.

 

I have no intention of changing my manner of posting merely because someone whose opinion I have zero respect for finds it "dull" but your input has been noted and dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One post is hardly going to "fill up the forum" and, as you concede, others appear to think differently to you.I have no intention of changing my manner of posting merely because someone whose opinion I have zero respect for finds it "dull" but your input has been noted and dismissed.

Jolly good. I can always tell when you have run out of argument - the insults start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jolly good. I can always tell when you have run out of argument - the insults start.

Indeed and yours evidently ran out as soon as you called me "very dull".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed and yours evidently ran out as soon as you called me "very dull".

It would have seemed that way if I had called you "very dull", but I didn't. I said it would be very dull if you filled up the forum with multi quote proofs of the consistency of all the participants. You haven't done that (yet).

 

But you are quite capable of reading what I wrote and not unintelligent so I presume that your misreading of my words is intentional as a means to deflect the argument away from the point you were losing. A shame. I live in hope that one day you will be able to graciously lose or draw an argument instead of constantly being on the attack, to win the point at all costs, regardless of whether the point has any merit if not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have seemed that way if I had called you "very dull", but I didn't. I said it would be very dull if you filled up the forum with multi quote proofs of the consistency of all the participants. You haven't done that (yet).

Actually Nick I was referring to your earlier post that described me as "Very dull" not that one.

 

I am not "on the attack" Nick, I was merely making an observation that you chose to attack at which point I chose to defend.

 

I have no hope that you will change your manner, nor do I wish you to. You are just not that important.

 

I am, however, flattered that you hold me in such regard that you "live in hope" that I will change mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Nick I was referring to your earlier post that described me as "Very dull" not that one.

 

I see. It would be a fair point if I had described you as very dull, but it was the concept of spontaneously proving the consistency of someone's posts that is dull, not you yourself.

 

You are just not that important.

I am not that important, but flattered to see that you enjoy engaging with me and dragging out prolonged arguments about nothing. Shall we get a room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would we see the same degree of outraged journalism if the caravan owners of this world started to form linear encampments on the hard shoulders of the nations motorways ?

I think they are what me old mum used to call tinkers and travellers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well yes - it's quite simple actually.

 

Complaint 1 - valid in so far as he says he didn't get the letter - accepted and payment deferred.

Complaint 2 - "That's not good enough". Rejected.

Complaint 3 - Rejection upheld

Complaint 4 - Rejection upheld again.

 

Seems like a definition of "continued reluctance" to accept the hard truth to me.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are talking about a completely different Ombudsman's case...

I thought I had made that clear when I gave you the date of the one relevant to this eviction and the fact it is too recent to have been published yet.

 

Please try again using the information / timeline I provided.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're clearly in danger of having your own argument.

 

I have no intention of encouraging you, and retain my position. I hesitate to point out the obvious, but whether anyone has read any ombudsman's report or not is irrelevant. If his complaint hadn't been rejected by them he wouldn't have felt the need to go to court would he?

 

Edited to make sense instead of gibberish.

Edited by Pen n Ink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned the Ombudsman case as you were referring to it and it was the wrong one. If you start with the wrong information you will inevitably reach the wrong conclusion.

 

I will set it out line by line as you did:

 

Level 1 Complaint sent to BWML - Rejected

 

Level 2 Complaint sent to BW (CRT did not exist when this started) - Offer made regarding residential licence. Remaining issues rejected

 

Level 3 Complaint sent to Ombudsman - BWML prevented from changing contracts mid term. Ombudsman advised that widebeam issue would need to be determined by a court.

 

Small Claims Court Case - Pre hearing judge determined that a full day was required - At the actual hearing the Judge declared that he would be unable to determine the status of the marina re: Inland or Coastal, that would require a higher court.

 

The Judge ruled in BWML's favour and that would have been the end of it had BWML not decided to issue an eviction notice.

 

At which point do you feel Rod was being vexatious?

 

Andy

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy - I do apologise.

 

I must have been writing in my sleep again. I have no recollection of ever referring to any specific ombudsman case, nor can I find any evidence that I have done so. Perhaps you could enlighten me? As far as I'm aware my stance has been based on an entirely hypothetical reading of a seemingly similar commercial situation which might happen (but thankfully hasn't!) to my business...

 

What I have said is that if I had a customer who was determined to be a PITA then I would seek the earliest opportunity to remove them from my list. My choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small Claims Court Case - Pre hearing judge determined that a full day was required - At the actual hearing the Judge declared that he would be unable to determine the status of the marina re: Inland or Coastal, that would require a higher court.

 

I'm confused by this one. Inland and Coastal are categories used by BWML themselves, so they get to decide. How is this the business of a higher court?

 

It's like Tesco calling their stores Express, Extra or Metro

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm confused by this one. Inland and Coastal are categories used by BWML themselves, so they get to decide. How is this the business of a higher court?

 

It's like Tesco calling their stores Express, Extra or Metro

 

Richard

 

 

And then a customer complaining that he is being charged Tesco Metro prices in a Tesco Metro, which he thinks ought to be a Tesco Express.

 

MtB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we all argue on points a couple in poor health are being evicted on what seems to be somewhat shaky grounds. I don't think that there would be so much support from people who know them if they were aggressive vexatious characters.

 

Market forces are a blunt instrument in managing demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we all argue on points a couple in poor health are being evicted on what seems to be somewhat shaky grounds. I don't think that there would be so much support from people who know them if they were aggressive vexatious characters.

Market forces are a blunt instrument in managing demand.

Yes it's sad. However I think you are using emotive language with the word "eviction". That word is normally used to mean someone being removed from their home, whereas in this case they are merely having to move their home to a different location, with quite a bit of notice so to do. This is something that happens all the time in private marinas but it doesn't make the "front page". Neither you nor I know whether they were aggressive, but let's face it normally mild mannered folk can sometimes get aggressive when frustrated. Vexatious? Well at first glance they do seem to be, in that they want the marina operators to bend to their will and haven't taken a "no" gracefully.

 

If they were not being a pita why would BWML go to the trouble of evicting them?

Edited by nicknorman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worryingly I think that it's just a case of deciding somebody is a nuisance because they disagree and are willing to follow due process to the end. BML hold all the cards and are using their biggest one.

I stand by my view that CRT cannot bury their heads in the sand about the issue of customer care. They have a responsibility just like any other business and should also behave in an ethical manner as they are a charity.

 

 

Even I'm not idealistic enough to expect a government dept to behave in an ethical manner.

 

Edit for spilling

Edited by madcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy - I do apologise.

 

I must have been writing in my sleep again. I have no recollection of ever referring to any specific ombudsman case, nor can I find any evidence that I have done so. Perhaps you could enlighten me? As far as I'm aware my stance has been based on an entirely hypothetical reading of a seemingly similar commercial situation which might happen (but thankfully hasn't!) to my business...

 

What I have said is that if I had a customer who was determined to be a PITA then I would seek the earliest opportunity to remove them from my list. My choice.

Pen n Ink, by freak coincidence you started your hypothetical scenario with "Complaint 1 - valid in so far as he says he didn't get the letter - accepted and payment deferred."

This just happened to be exactly what happened in a completely different Ombudsman case that was posted to this thread as possibly the case in question.

I apologise for jumping to conclusions :)

 

Andy

madcat you have pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

It turns out CRT do actually have a procedure in place for warning customers who they feel are acting in a vexatious manner of the consequences if they continue.

Regrettably they have not shared this with their subsidiary and still insist that the two companies are completely independent...

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worryingly I think that it's just a case of deciding somebody is a nuisance because they disagree and are willing to follow due process to the end. BML hold all the cards and are using their biggest one.

I stand by my view that CRT cannot bury their heads in the sand about the issue of customer care. They have a responsibility just like any other business and should also behave in an ethical manner as they are a charity.

 

 

Even I'm not idealistic enough to expect a government dept to behave in an ethical manner.

 

Edit for spilling

 

Madcat. I think you are making more of CRT charitable status than there is. They are under no obligation to provide any social care or housing.

 

In this case I would say they have acted more than fairly. If I had taken our marina to court I wouldnt still expect to be moored there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to comment on specific cases but one thing is clear to me. The "individual giving manager" and his team are going to continue to have difficulties getting the general public and boaters to become friends and to be chugged when the charity has bad publicity on a month by month basis.

 

CRT need to be free to enforce regulations but they must also be aware of The need to manage the PR and social issues that are associated with cases like these.

 

This is why I have been advocating for a welfare manager who can step in and try and ensure that the relevant agencies are engaged at an early stage. It may not effect the end result but could potentially ensure that some support is available. There is a growing number of continuous cruisers and an ageing boater population so the need is likely to increase.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression from some that because the owners of bwml are owned by a charitable trust, that this somehow means they should be more charitable to their moorers.

Why should they be ? they are a business arm of the trust and are there to make a profit.

14skipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.