Why Choose A BMF Member Company?

[Raz]

Having recently gone through a bit of a nightmare with a British Marine Federation Member Marina in Cheshire, where my boat was allowed to sink after they relaunched it holed after grit blasting and epoxy blacking, and having unsuccessfully explored all avenues to claim compensation for uninsured losses due to cost, I turned to the BMF for possible assistance, if only to make others aware of what happened here.

 

Leaving aside the financial loss above, when my insurer, Craftinsure, (although it was their underwriters N&G who were dealing with me), had settled my claim, and had reclaimed their own costs of that claim from the marina's insurer who had eventually accepted full liability for what their insured had done, and the legal process funded by legal expenses insurance had concluded without a result, due to the marina's insurer deciding they would deal independently with my own, leaving the law company out of the equation, the marina decided they would like to go one step further.

 

Before they would release my boat so I could sell it off to the trade, they insisted they would charge me storage charges for the time the boat lay on hard standing as a result of their actions while we sorted out the consequences of sinking - over £500, as well as insisting on full payment for their "job", for which I now held a surveyor's report stating it was sub-standard and poor. The total I had to pay, after all this damage during routine work, was around £2,500! Or I couldn't regain possession of my boat. Remember - their insurer had already accepted full liability.

 

The BMF operates both a mediation service for such disputes between customers and member companies. In my case that consisted of contacting the marina for their side of the story, which was they had "complied" with all the BMF codes of practice - which I had evidence to show they certainly hadn't. Initially the BMF accepted that and told me there was nothing more they could do. A two step mediation process!

 

I objected, thanked them, and said I would make their decision known to the boating community. They then immediately requested my survey report, the offending invoices for storage charges, and the original written quote from the marina, at which they re-contacted the marina, and asked me to refrain from writing here until they had further investigated.

 

After a few more days the BMF then replied to me that the marina had consented to "improve their practices for the future", and that was the end of that. No further mediation, no BMF committee decision on the actions of the marina, who are still free to operate behind the BMF logo, and certainly no recompense for us, who have probably lost in the region of £20,000 as a result of what went wrong here. The BMF concluded that was a "positive result".

 

The BMF Codes of Practice for member companies can be found here for reference: http://britishmarine.co.uk/Our-Members/Why-Choose-a-BMF-Member

 

My own thoughts are that if a case such as mine cannot stir the BMF into action - I hold all documentary evidence and believe I have been wronged, although legal action can't be considered due to extreme cost, then there surely could be no circumstances where they might be useful to consumers such as me. They stated in their final email to me that they had no regulatory powers and were simply a trade association, which of course they are, funded and supported by trade member companies. What then is the point of their codes of practice?

 

In that case what use would they ever be to a consumer, and could they ever provide "protection" to a consumer if things go wrong when using a member company?

[gaggle]

Same with builders , they can have all the badges of the trade associations and they pay a sum to have the badges , nothing to do with customer care and more to do with instilling a false sense of trust into the customer mind.

[David Mack]

Trade organisations like this exist solely to protect their members (the traders) not the customers. Unfortunately it is not unheard of for them to give erring members a mild ticking off, followed by a closing of ranks.

 

If you think their published claims with regard to protecting customers are not borne out in reality, you could report them to the Advertising Standards Authority.

[zenataomm]

Be aware that in general these supposed organisations only exist to to take fees from their members. I echo Gaggle's comment above, they have no clout over their members, they may attempt to influence how/what a member does but when it comes to it the member may ignore it and do just what they want.

The supplier hands over his dosh and immediately buys themselves a veneer of honesty and professionalism.

 

You are the supplier's customer, the supplier is the Trade Association's customer, the Trade association owes you nothing and its prime objective is to collect next year's membership fees.

In this game you can also count Chambers of Trade or Commerce.

It's like Reader's Digest who used to pester and pester you to join, the subscription price dropping each time you refused. By the time they'd written to everybody in the world confirming they were in the final draw for a mountain of money, and handed out free gifts or special offers on the entire works of Charles Dickens it must be obvious that posting out a monthly paperback book doesn't constitute a healthy business model.

However audited accounts demonstrating how many subscribers they had worldwide did allow them to charge obscene amounts of money to those wishing to advertise in it.

Your subscription bought you a "naff" publication with hopes of winning a competition and getting special offers on insurance etc.

Edited February 25, 2015 by zenataomm

[Sea Dog]

I read your original thread Raz, which beggared belief. So sad to hear that you had no joy here either. I can only imagine what an awful and frustrating experience this has been.

[junior]

Which marina?

[The Lockie]

Agree entirely with the above. They exist solely for the benefit of the business NOT the consumer. Respectability only enters the equation when the use it in their marketing blurb!! Shame on them

[Dave-Shrop]

Yes when Seven Valley boats having Cash Flow problems and stopped work on our boat, I contacted BMF because we had a BMF contract and Seven Valley Boats were members only to be told by BMF that they had terminated their membership because they had County Court Judgements on them. Seven Valley went Under.

[b0atman]

can you not get any no win no fee solicitors interested.

[Sabcat]

Having recently gone through a bit of a nightmare with a British Marine Federation Member Marina in Cheshire, where my boat was allowed to sink after they relaunched it holed after grit blasting and epoxy blacking, and having unsuccessfully explored all avenues to claim compensation for uninsured losses due to cost, I turned to the BMF for possible assistance, if only to make others aware of what happened here.

 

Leaving aside the financial loss above, when my insurer, Craftinsure, (although it was their underwriters N&G who were dealing with me), had settled my claim, and had reclaimed their own costs of that claim from the marina's insurer who had eventually accepted full liability for what their insured had done, and the legal process funded by legal expenses insurance had concluded without a result, due to the marina's insurer deciding they would deal independently with my own, leaving the law company out of the equation, the marina decided they would like to go one step further.

 

Before they would release my boat so I could sell it off to the trade, they insisted they would charge me storage charges for the time the boat lay on hard standing as a result of their actions while we sorted out the consequences of sinking - over £500, as well as insisting on full payment for their "job", for which I now held a surveyor's report stating it was sub-standard and poor. The total I had to pay, after all this damage during routine work, was around £2,500! Or I couldn't regain possession of my boat. Remember - their insurer had already accepted full liability.

 

The BMF operates both a mediation service for such disputes between customers and member companies. In my case that consisted of contacting the marina for their side of the story, which was they had "complied" with all the BMF codes of practice - which I had evidence to show they certainly hadn't. Initially the BMF accepted that and told me there was nothing more they could do. A two step mediation process!

 

I objected, thanked them, and said I would make their decision known to the boating community. They then immediately requested my survey report, the offending invoices for storage charges, and the original written quote from the marina, at which they re-contacted the marina, and asked me to refrain from writing here until they had further investigated.

 

After a few more days the BMF then replied to me that the marina had consented to "improve their practices for the future", and that was the end of that. No further mediation, no BMF committee decision on the actions of the marina, who are still free to operate behind the BMF logo, and certainly no recompense for us, who have probably lost in the region of £20,000 as a result of what went wrong here. The BMF concluded that was a "positive result".

 

The BMF Codes of Practice for member companies can be found here for reference: http://britishmarine.co.uk/Our-Members/Why-Choose-a-BMF-Member

 

My own thoughts are that if a case such as mine cannot stir the BMF into action - I hold all documentary evidence and believe I have been wronged, although legal action can't be considered due to extreme cost, then there surely could be no circumstances where they might be useful to consumers such as me. They stated in their final email to me that they had no regulatory powers and were simply a trade association, which of course they are, funded and supported by trade member companies. What then is the point of their codes of practice?

 

In that case what use would they ever be to a consumer, and could they ever provide "protection" to a consumer if things go wrong when using a member company?

 

What went wrong with the legal cover you had - sold specifically to recover uninsured losses?

 

Surely this legal cover which you'd been sold means that you do not have to fund the cost of legal action against the marina.

[bassplayer]

I also agree with the above. The trouble is that even if you pay a visit to the premises and look into the white of their eyes you can still get let down. It's a minefield out there and inside knowledge of where the 'nice guys' are helps a long way. I got burnt very badly years ago by being naive so just passing on my experience really.

 

One thing I have to add though, I don't know what condition your boat was in or how old it was l, but playing devils advocate, boat workshops must take a risk sometimes...and things can go wrong without it being their fault.

 

I really hope this gets sorted, I know how upsetting it can be.

[Raz]

Which marina?

Junior, all I am prepared to say in answer to this for fear of further issues with them is that it is a modern marina opened in 2007 I believe, on the offside of the Llangollen Canal not far after Hurleston. It was close to our home mooring, a farm mooring on the main line between the next two locks. When things went badly wrong I became very concerned about the behaviour of its wealthy owner, although we had used them on many occasions in the past to routinely black our boat, first in October 2009 after we bought it in March that year. Then again in May 2012. Until now we had only dealt with the manager. The previous owner of our boat had had it blacked elsewhere in July 2008, and to the best of my knowledge, all was well with the hull when we took it over and had never had any cause to think badly about the work they did for us until now, and we hold a survey report that tells a different story.

[Raz]

 

What went wrong with the legal cover you had - sold specifically to recover uninsured losses?

 

Surely this legal cover which you'd been sold means that you do not have to fund the cost of legal action against the marina.

Craftinsure passed my claim to their underwriters, N&G. They appointed a surveyor, who was supposed to be independent, but as it turned out was far from it, and intervened in the estimates for repair of the sinking damage that was covered by insurance in order to attempt to make it cheaper for my insurer, or "acceptable" was the word he used. This resulted in a potential claim off my own insurance to one quality and cost, that would be acceptable to them, and a very much more detailed type of repair that had been recommended by my own surveyor, and would not be funded by my marine insurer. The difference in values, as well as the reduction in residual value if I had to accept my own insurer's repairs were the uninsured loss.

 

My insurance appointed surveyor advised me to seek out any legal expenses cover I had to reclaim these losses. I found I had such cover with my home insurer, Saga. They wanted to see all the evidence of the occurrence, but after review, accepted my case to be worked by a Yorkshire company, Cogent Law. The surveyor also advised me to write to the marina owner after the event, in early April 2014, to request details of the marina's own insurer so that I might make a more fruitful claim in line with my surveyor's recommendations directly to them. Unfortunately, I never received a reply!!!

 

This forced me to go forward with my own claim to Craftinsure, along with pursuing the legal uninsured loss claim, hopefully from the marina's insurer. N&G had requested details of the marina's insurer for themselves, so they could make their own counter claim. It wasn't until the middle of August that my legal team had been informed of the marina's insurance details, by which time the two insurance companies had agreed to settle with each other.

 

Once an insurer has settled with another, they are not obliged to entertain further claims, and this is exactly what happened. The marina's insurers were quite happy to refund the cost of my claim to N&G, I then got my £300 excess payment returned to me BUT, having no 3rd party insurer to claim from now, the legal expenses insurance funded legal case failed there and then.

 

I did of course explore taking my own case, and contacted two specialist marine solicitors for quotes. They both wanted £10,000 up front to assess our chances of success, with a further estimated £20,000 to bring a successful conclusion, which hopefully would be awarded to us by the court. However, should we fail, then the other party's costs would also have to be paid, now a total around £60,000, which, on failing could not be reclaimed and would be my cost. Very very risky! Not worth it in the circumstances. There is no such thing as "no win no fee" legal action in these circumstances.

 

I did also explore using the small claims court just to reclaim the extortionate (in my opinion) storage charges, as well as the costs of the initial job that went so wrong, but charges have recently gone up there, and together with witness costs, would come to around £1000 to get, (hopefully) £2,500 back. Costs are also NOT reclaimable when using the small claims process, so that would have substantially reduced the value of my case had I won.

 

I have now sold the boat to the trade, for £18,000 as is, and accepted my own insurance pay out at £5,000 instead of repairs. The boat was worth around £40,000, before all this happened. The reason I didn't have the boat repaired was the repairs funded by my insurer were valued at just a fraction of what my surveyor advised were actually required. So why would I want to go into the future owning such a boat, when it had previously been in such good condition. Or in the case of the hull itself - so I was led to believe. Had the boat NOT been allowed to sink, I would have quite happily found the estimated £5,000 from my own pocket to repair the hull corrosion damage, that had never been brought to our attention over the 5 years of our ownership. However, I wasn't prepared to fund this knowing the the insurance repairs were going to be so lacking.

 

Moral of this story - check your scope of insurance cover very carefully, and get a professional to decipher the true meaning of all that small print. MY own claim was accepted, but proved wholly unacceptable in the end.

[Sabcat]

Nightmare.

 

Doesn't help you but I guess what everyone else should take from this, as well as knowing the details of the insurance cover we have is only use yards that are known to be good for work on our boats.

[bassplayer]

Nightmare.

 

Doesn't help you but I guess what everyone else should take from this, as well as knowing the details of the insurance cover we have is only use yards that are known to be good for work on our boats.

100% on that...well...98.456%!!!

[zenataomm]

An awful state of affairs that appear to have been stacked against you from the beginning and then escalated beyond belief.

It sounds as if you didn't survey the boat prior to purchase, unless you just didn't mention it.

 

If you believed the hull to be in good condition, did you ask the boatyard to blast the hull back and black over, or did you also ask them to report on any problems they discovered?

 

I do hope there is a way for you progress to a more acceptable solution.

[Raz]

For anyone who may be interested, our boat was a 57 foot semi-trad built in 2003 by Dragon Narrowboats of Oswestry, fitted out and completed during 2004 by professionals, but was self certified RCD because the fitters were cabinet makers and not boat fitters. The boat was certified as being first used in September 2004. It was fitted with a Barrus Shire 4cyl. 2ltr diesel new in 2003 with the boat in its sail-away condition. I have blacking receipts for late 2004, July 2008, October 2009 (arranged professionally at this marina by me), then again in May 2012, (again by this marina). I had no cause to suspect anything was going wrong with the steel hull, but with hindsight I should have been present when it was brought out of the water. I placed too much trust in my choice of marina. I had no cause to believe I might need the boat surveying again, and the quite obvious pitting damage on this occasion appears to have simply been ignored.

The boat was fitted with a galvanic isolator, which was tested and working after the event, as was the mooring power supply. Both surveyors conclude the hull damage that sank the boat was galvanic corrosion fully revealed after the grit blast, and should never have been painted over, let alone relaunched in that condition, after the grit blast. Interestingly, the bulk of the pitting was found to be on the starboard side - the side that had been against the galvanized piling of our home mooring for extended periods during our ownership, and all the time connected to shore power. you can, if you wish view images of all aspects of the damage here. I can now only make this available as I can no longer attempt any further action in this case. The last few images are of further damage to the skeg and rudder, caused by the marina as they moved the boat around the site "for operational reasons" during its stay there. This was after my insurer had settled, and I couldn't do anything about it - nor did they tell me they had damaged it further, let alone offer to put it right. Luckily, it made no difference to its trade price in the end. All images are after the event, once out of the water again. Note the quality of blacking, with pits displaying bare metal, and already weeping new rust.

 

Link to image album: https://picasaweb.google.com/105652800170559253591/KellyLouiseWaterDamage?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCP-cxITxt5_ZTg&feat=directlink

[Guest]

I am intruiged why this has come up again. The op has had a good airing of his difficulties which I thought I had read he had put behind him and moved on.

 

What has changed and why are BMF in the frame all,of a sudden?

[bassplayer]

For anyone who may be interested, our boat was a 57 foot semi-trad built in 2003 by Dragon Narrowboats of Oswestry, fitted out and completed during 2004 by professionals, but was self certified RCD because the fitters were cabinet makers and not boat fitters. The boat was certified as being first used in September 2004. It was fitted with a Barrus Shire 4cyl. 2ltr diesel new in 2003 with the boat in its sail-away condition. I have blacking receipts for late 2004, July 2008, October 2009 (arranged professionally at this marina by me), then again in May 2012, (again by this marina). I had no cause to suspect anything was going wrong with the steel hull, but with hindsight I should have been present when it was brought out of the water. I placed too much trust in my choice of marina. I had no cause to believe I might need the boat surveying again, and the quite obvious pitting damage on this occasion appears to have simply been ignored.

The boat was fitted with a galvanic isolator, which was tested and working after the event, as was the mooring power supply. Both surveyors conclude the hull damage that sank the boat was galvanic corrosion fully revealed after the grit blast, and should never have been painted over, let alone relaunched in that condition, after the grit blast. Interestingly, the bulk of the pitting was found to be on the starboard side - the side that had been against the galvanized piling of our home mooring for extended periods during our ownership, and all the time connected to shore power. you can, if you wish view images of all aspects of the damage here. I can now only make this available as I can no longer attempt any further action in this case. The last few images are of further damage to the skeg and rudder, caused by the marina as they moved the boat around the site "for operational reasons" during its stay there. This was after my insurer had settled, and I couldn't do anything about it - nor did they tell me they had damaged it further, let alone offer to put it right. Luckily, it made no difference to its trade price in the end. All images are after the event, once out of the water again. Note the quality of blacking, with pits displaying bare metal, and already weeping new rust.

 

Link to image album: https://picasaweb.google.com/105652800170559253591/KellyLouiseWaterDamage?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCP-cxITxt5_ZTg&feat=directlink

I can see why you weren't too worried at the time, its not an old boat. I took much more of a risk years ago with a very old boat and got burnt! I'm surprised it pitted so badly that soon...scary! . Out of curiosity was it grit blasted every time it was blacked?

[Raz]

An awful state of affairs that appear to have been stacked against you from the beginning and then escalated beyond belief.

It sounds as if you didn't survey the boat prior to purchase, unless you just didn't mention it.

 

If you believed the hull to be in good condition, did you ask the boatyard to blast the hull back and black over, or did you also ask them to report on any problems they discovered?

 

I do hope there is a way for you progress to a more acceptable solution.

 

On each occasion I had the boat blacked at this marina I asked them to inspect and notify me of any possible need that may arise after they inspected it that would require further investigation. I even put that in writing on this last occasion, as I knew that I was having it grit blasted, which I also knew can be intrusive. When I first used this marina for blacking 6 months after we bought the boat, being super cautious owners (30 years experience of general boat ownership, but never a narrowboat), I initially asked them to inspect for damage more in line with that caused by hitting the bottom of the canal. They returned the boat to me afloat with a "clean bill of health". I specifically asked them on collection.

 

About 6 months after the May 2012 blacking I had noticed an early return of waterline rust bubbles - the type that you usually get when it is time to consider blacking again. I reported this to the marina, and suggested the waterline might be treated with a good quality rust inhibitor / remover prior to blacking again on this latest occasion. It was they who suggested the grit blast and epoxy blacking as a much better option that would take the boat into its next 10 years in a much more reliable condition of protection. The job I agreed to, which included slipway, yard movements, grit blast and epoxy, was £1768, which is part of the payment the marina insisted on before they would release the boat to me last November. The remainder, up to £2,500 was made up of berthing and storage charges. These are the elements that "stick in my throat" as the boat only remained at the marina due to what they did to it. They even levied a storage charge of over £300 even before my insurer had settled. They became involved with that one, and it was later waived. When my insurer was gone though, at the end of the attempt to reclaim uninsured losses by legal means, they certainly didn't waive the next one of over £500, when I had no backup. A £250 charge for using the hoist to load the boat on to Tuckey's trailer was also levied, but the buyer paid that.

 

We feel that we have received a pretty raw deal here from all parties, from the marina to our own insurers, where it appeared to us their only interest was to settle our claim at the cheapest price. I told them that I expected that they should have at least attempted to make a claim to the marina's insurer for uninsured losses, but they rejected this out of hand, stating that my online Craftinsure policy was a "budget" one, and what I was getting was all I should expect.

 

The case is now dead and buried, with no further options open to me, unless I was prepared to spend on a fully fledged legal case, which I am not, (see post #13). This is the reason I am now able to start to talk about the detail.

 

I wouldn't mind, but I conducted myself in a calm and polite way throughout all this to all concerned. I now feel I should have perhaps done some more bawling!

[Raz]

I am intruiged why this has come up again. The op has had a good airing of his difficulties which I thought I had read he had put behind him and moved on.

 

What has changed and why are BMF in the frame all,of a sudden?

 

This has come up again because a last ditch attempt to gain some sort of closure was made to the BMF, of which this marina is a member. This aspect had not occurred when the situation was previously aired, and this post is simply to detail my efforts to bring the matter to the attention of the BMF and their response to it.

 

It had been my understanding that The BMF was supposed to offer consumers some sort of sense of security, in that a member company was supposed to operate in a fair and reasonable way according to their code of practice. It now appears from their response that is not the case - hence this post's title "Why choose a BMF member company". My own opinion now is that seeing the BMF logo on any company paperwork has no clout whatsoever. The punter might as well use the first business they come across that perhaps has gained an untainted reputation from its other customers. If things do go wrong, it appears to me that the BMF will be of no help, as they put it themselves - "they are not a regulatory body, just a trade association". An the association is funded by the trade membership.

[Raz]

I can see why you weren't too worried at the time, its not an old boat. I took much more of a risk years ago with a very old boat and got burnt! I'm surprised it pitted so badly that soon...scary! . Out of curiosity was it grit blasted every time it was blacked?

 

Bassplayer. The boat was routinely jet blasted with water before bitumen blacking at regular intervals throughout its life, and at this marina since October 2009. It was only on this last occasion that I agreed to grit blasting before epoxy blacking due to the early onset of waterline rust bubbles after the May 2012 blacking, which I had reported to the marina manager. Perhaps with hindsight I should have been present to inspect the hull myself when it came out, but I trusted "professionals".

[Raz]

I understood you had found closure which was the point of my post. Closure means closure, it doesn't mean closure until you find another angle to explore.

 

Yes that is blunt I known, but it's also true.

 

I don't suppose you have ever laid in bed at night, can't get to sleep, over a period of almost a full year, knowing that you have been "twirled" and as such lost a vast amount of money but don't seem to be able to do anything about it. As ideas on how to do something about it crop up, even if they are only likely to cause a little annoyance to the perpetrator, I will continue to apply them in any way I can, and if I feel the need to report my efforts to the general boating community, possibly preventing someone else falling into the same trap, then I will try and do that too.

[bassplayer]

I don't suppose you have ever laid in bed at night, can't get to sleep, over a period of almost a full year, knowing that you have been "twirled" and as such lost a vast amount of money but don't seem to be able to do anything about it. As ideas on how to do something about it crop up, even if they are only likely to cause a little annoyance to the perpetrator, I will continue to apply them in any way I can, and if I feel the need to report my efforts to the general boating community, possibly preventing someone else falling into the same trap, then I will try and do that too.

It's a tough one. Even though I was stitched up over a slightly different matter 14 years ago you have to ask the question what good comes from dwelling on it. I've found what goes around comes around so don't let 'them' win by letting it eat you up. If you want to start a battle you've got to be prepared to go all of the way, even if that means risking legal costs. If not, just let it go and treat it as a lesson learnt, at least your conscience is clear. I do feel for you though.

[Athy]

Have you got another boat yet? If so it is perhaps time to enjoy yourself on it and put this past experience behind you.