Why Choose A BMF Member Company?

[Guest]

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

 

After 35 years of boat ownership of all types, that interest finally came to an end in 2014 due to circumstances beyond our control. Our retirement interest now lie with our motorhome which we use to travel Europe.

 

That from his profile.

[Dave-Shrop]

Quote "The boat was fitted with a galvanic isolator, which was tested and working after the event"

 

Galvanic isolator do not fully protect, you can still get a small amount of current flowing which will eat the metal away. Also you can get other stray earth currents if connected to the mains earthing system. Isolation Transformer is the only guaranteed way.

[Guest]

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.

I did respond to this point however....

 

Anyway, getting back to the role of the BMF. It is I think pretty clear from their web site what their role is.

 

http://britishmarine.co.uk/About-BMF

 

I don't think it suggests anywhere they are a regulatory body for their members at all so I am not sure why people would think they are. It reads to me they are very much they are there as a resource to their members ie marine related companies.

[gaggle]

I did respond to this point however....

 

Anyway, getting back to the role of the BMF. It is I think pretty clear from their web site what their role is.

 

http://britishmarine.co.uk/About-BMF

 

I don't think it suggests anywhere they are a regulatory body for their members at all so I am not sure why people would think they are. It reads to me they are very much they are there as a resource to their members ie marine related companies.

 

 

The badges and emblems plastered on vehicles paperwork and advertisements of these companies do give the public false perception that the company is decent , the federation of master blah blah , we are members of this federation in no way means they are a master of anything but it is implied .

[Athy]

 

After 35 years of boat ownership of all types, that interest finally came to an end in 2014 due to circumstances beyond our control. Our retirement interest now lie with our motorhome which we use to travel Europe.

 

That from his profile.

Fairy nuff, thank you.

 

Whilst I have the utmost sympathy for the OP who has, it looks to me, been messed about by people on whom he thought he could rely, I do wonder how a hole in the hull could reduce the value of a boat from £40,000 to £18,000. Perhaps the fact that he sold the boat to a dealer did not help his financial equation.

[cuthound]

I do wonder how a hole in the hull could reduce the value of a boat from £40,000 to £18,000. Perhaps the fact that he sold the boat to a dealer did not help his financial equation.

Presumably because the boat sank, and thus would require an internal refit.

 

My heart goes out to the OP. Perhaps a last roll of the dice might be to get the media interested?

[Midnight]

....

I don't think it suggests anywhere they are a regulatory body for their members at all so I am not sure why people would think they are. It reads to me they are very much they are there as a resource to their members ie marine related companies.

 

Hence the OPs title why indeed choose a BMF member company?

[Athy]

Presumably because the boat sank, and thus would require an internal refit.

 

 

Yes, that's very possible.

[Guest]

 

Hence the OPs title why indeed choose a BMF member company?

 

Well yes I realise that. Hence my posting. The BMF does not appear to purport to offer any sort of additional consumer protection so I don't see why you would choose one over another. Unless anybody knows different they just appear to be a trade organisation like any other. In fact the web page talks about 'representing' their members which leads to me to guess which side they would come down on in the event of a dispute..... and that isn't the consumer I would say.

 

ed. to make sense.

Edited February 26, 2015 by MJG

[Guest]

The badges and emblems plastered on vehicles paperwork and advertisements of these companies do give the public false perception that the company is decent , the federation of master blah blah , we are members of this federation in no way means they are a master of anything but it is implied .

Maybe I'm a cynical and sceptical old 'so an so' then because whilst it might be implied I don't think I would have taken it as read TBH. (this being a general point and not specifically aimed at the OP)

 

I tend to choose companies on the strength of personal recommendation or word of mouth where I can, rather than the use of logos on the stationary or the vehicles which has been shown here mean diddly squat (Unless as I say somebody knows different).

 

(Of course the company concerned may have been chosen on the basis of personal recommendation in which case that would be annoying to say the least.)

 

 

 

ed. to correct double negative.

Edited February 26, 2015 by MJG

[nicknorman]

When we chose our boatbuilder, BMF or not wasn't a criteria (he was not), neither did we feel the need for a BMF template contract. We realised that BMF wasn't really worth much (or anything!) however more trusting and less cynical folk than us might have considered it a good idea, so the OP is to be praised for pointing out the uselessness of the BMF!

 

I believe the boating comics still endorse the usefulness of the BMF when having a boat built, but then again maybe they receive lots of advertising money from the BMF and/or its members!

[Raz]

Fairy nuff, thank you.

 

Whilst I have the utmost sympathy for the OP who has, it looks to me, been messed about by people on whom he thought he could rely, I do wonder how a hole in the hull could reduce the value of a boat from £40,000 to £18,000. Perhaps the fact that he sold the boat to a dealer did not help his financial equation.

 

Athy, it wasn't the hole in the hull that reduced the boat's value it was the fact that it had been sunk, and the only repair option forced upon me was from my own insurer who would not fund the repairs to the detail and standard recommended by my own surveyor. The loss of value would have been present even if I had allowed my insurer to repair it because, for example, a submerged starter motor would only be reconditioned, a submerged alternator remained untouched, because it actually worked after the event, and the proposed works to the interior cabin were almost negligible compared to the full strip down, dry out, treat and re-build that my surveyor advised was necessary to preserve the confidence of any future buyer and his surveyor.

 

Yes, my loss was, as it happened as a result of selling it "as is" to the trade. But had it been repaired in the manner my insurer wanted to do it, then, according to several "expert" brokerage businesses I was asked to contact by Cogent Law, in order to prove devaluation, they all agreed on a possible reduction of 30% in retail value due only to the sinking and the poor repair on offer against what a similar "undamaged" boat might be marketed at. This would be down to market forces - less interested parties in a boat with this history.

 

Would you buy a boat at full price that had a sinking within its history, having been told by your chosen pre-purchase surveyor that its subsequent repair had not been to a satisfactory standard? I certainly wouldn't.

 

Had I been aware of the hull condition at a more appropriate time - after the grit blast for example, that would have been a relatively simple matter of wear and tear, and the repairs would have been funded by me, to return a boat with no such issues as above. In those circumstances everything would have been hunky dory.

[David Schweizer]

At the risk of sounding smug, I have always tried to use people who I know and trust to do work on our boat, all either individuals, or members of very small family concerns, none of whom are members of BMF. I have always received the highest standard of work and at prices which are reasonable (usually no VAT)

 

On the one occasion when the surveyor I had booked was unexpectedly unavailable, I had to use someone I did not know, but was a member of YDSA. I was not at all happy with his work, he made factual errors in the report which led to the Insurance Company refusing cover. I tried contacting YDSA but they were as usefull as a fart in a space suit, and I had to threaten legal action before he would agree to submitting a new report with the errors corrected.

 

I suppose the moral is to always try and use people with a good reputation rather than membership of some fancy trade organization, but then that is what the OP thought he had done.

Edited February 26, 2015 by David Schweizer

[costalot]

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?

Because he took his complaint about the actions of the marina to the BMF in an effort to get justice only to find the BMF decided to take the side of their financial member. Probably not surprising as the BMF is funded by it's members. The lesson for me is the BMF is not some type of independent standards body but rather an association of commercial marine entities attempting to portray themselves as something they are not!

[Jim Batty]

Wow, those images show a pretty poor blacking job! Despite being blacked by brush, open pitting is still apparent.

 

We once had a boat pulled out of the water for a pre-purchase hull survey -- and it was shown to have very severe pitting (down to 0.5mm thickness left at one point). The old couple selling it were absolutely adamant (before pulling it out) that they had looked after the boat and had it regularly blacked. It turned out that, being elderly, they had left the blacking to the marina to do at the last two times (over previous 8 years). In retrospect it seemed that the marina had given it a single rollered coat of blacking that very quickly became useless as hull protection.

 

Sorry you have had such trouble over this.

[bigste]

Just had a flip through the photos on this subject. It is quite remarkable how obvious the damage is. Even more it is almost unthinkable that a professional body would lay the boat to rest on the rudder and bend it like that. Any decent business would have held their hand up and offered to right their wrong doing. I for one will not be visiting that particular marina. It certainly opens one eyes when reading the original thread.

[David Schweizer]

I hadn't realized there was a photo album to view, the pictures show a pretty sorry state. Not only is the hull very badly pitted, the blacking is appaling, there is no way anyone could claim that to be a competent job. The person who does the blacking on our boat applies it liberally with a roller, but follows through with a brush into all the corners where guard irons etc are fitted. I normally stay on the boat whilst it is in dock, tidying up paintwork on the tunnel bands and rudder etc. I also apply an additional coat along the water line with a brush in the evening before the hull receives it second coat next day ,

Edited February 26, 2015 by David Schweizer

[Willber G]

Raz, sorry to hear of your troubles but thanks for bringing it to my (and others) attention.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Willber G

[Semitrad]

Some years ago I took my VHF exam using an examiner accredited by the RYA, Having passed and paid for the test I waited for the licence to arrive but it never did. On contacting the RYA I was told the forms had not been sent in by the examiner and there was nothing they could do! He had disappeared with my money, never to be seen again. It was about £25 I think, not a fortune but it still hurt.

Never did take another test.

[David Mack]

 

Well yes I realise that. Hence my posting. The BMF does not appear to purport to offer any sort of additional consumer protection so I don't see why you would choose one over another.

 

That is true, but all too many members of the public seem to think that an impressive-sounding trade association name and flashy logo on a trader's advertising material or headed notepaper means that the trader has in some way been endorsed for the goods or service he provides.

[Machpoint005]

It seems to me that the OP has a reasonable prospect of winning a court case, and is free to bring one if he chooses to go down that route, but he hasn't got the money to risk. Unfortunately, that's the way the system works. Justice is far easier to get if you are well off.

[Raz]

It seems to me that the OP has a reasonable prospect of winning a court case, and is free to bring one if he chooses to go down that route, but he hasn't got the money to risk. Unfortunately, that's the way the system works. Justice is far easier to get if you are well off.

 

Ian, not strictly true, we do have sufficient funds to proceed with a full blown legal case if we chose to, but they are funds that we have worked very hard for during our working life, and are now part of a finite retirement pot, as was the narrowboat itself, which we had intended to spend much of our free time with now, when in fact what happened to that ended up draining substantial funds from that very same pot.

 

It now comes down to doggedness. There is one side of me that says why the hell should I let them get away with this, and the other that says why now risk many more £ thousands just to be satisfied that I managed that. Although the feeling of helplessness does eat away at us, and I would very much like to prevent this happening to anyone else, which is why I post here, as previously mentioned, time will most likely heal things and we will move on.

 

Yes we do appear to have a very workable case, which has already been through a rigorous assessment process both at Saga Legal and Cogent Law. The failure was within the remit of the legal expenses insurance funding and the way it works. Once the door had closed on one route, - the claim to the 3rd party insurer, a completely new case had to be opened, assessed, and applied for to pursue a different route - perhaps a claim directly to the company. All the time we were gathering potential storage charges from the marina, so in effect they managed to scare me off by using them in this way, in that at the first failure, after 8 months I decided to call it a day, and landed myself with an additional bill of well over £500 against nothing had I just given up in the first place.

 

On the subject of access to law. Legal Aid is being wound down all the time, with access to it being made harder than ever. That is why the "no win no fee" brigade were allowed to start advertising their wares in the first place. That however, by its very nature is more often than not only on offer for "popular" and perhaps "easy" cases. Legal Expenses Insurance was introduced as part of this dumbing down process, and was given to Insurance companies to operate and oversee. We all know how they operate? There has been recent publicity that LEI, on offer as both "before the event" like the one I used, or "after the event", which is designed to be used by punters who have found a no win no fee deal, is not working, and I can fully endorse that. The latter after the event LEI is an insurance policy to cover the prospects of failure where the claimant would be liable to huge costs at the end of a failed case. No win no fee does NOT usually pay the other side's costs even in these circumstances. The former usually has a premium annual cost up to £30, the latter can be hugely expensive depending on the circumstances to which it will apply.

 

Resorting to law for the average person is a very risky and expensive business, and should be avoided at all costs if possible.

[zenataomm]

Strikes me you should write a book about this experience.

Not only might it give you an emotional outlet, it might recoup some costs, plus get your story out there.

[Sabcat]

I've read some of the other things out there about this fiasco. If this had happened to me Raz I'd be doing time now.

[Raz]

Perhaps just to finalize this topic - (I have already removed all references to my misfortune on my own website now so I can move on) - this is the unsolicited response I received from the BMF official who had been speaking to me about this case. They have obviously read this thread.

 

Dear *****,

 

I write to you to reiterate that I am sorry that you are disappointed by the outcome. However, I have been clear throughout that the BMF is not an adjudicating body which apportions fault. I have seen your comments regarding mediation on Canal World discussion forum. I did explain to you that the BMF tries informally to help parties reach a conclusion - but that is not formal mediation, such as you refer to.

 

In this case it seems that an insurance settlement has been reached, which has superseded any further informal involvement by the BMF.

 

Many thanks.

 

Best Regards,

 

****** *******

Legal Adviser

British Marine Federation

 

 

This has been included here just to make available to any current or potential boat owners just where this organisation stands in circumstances such as this.

 

Not a satisfactory outcome as far as I am concerned, but perhaps not unexpected. The BMF operates a code of practice for their members to adhere to and conduct themselves by, so if one is alleged to have gone rogue, I would have expected a fuller investigation into the circumstances with possible action against the member if proved. If not, what is the point of advertising a code of practice to consumers. It only instills a false sense of security, and the organisation is perhaps there to serve only its members, and has nothing whatsoever to do with consumers. This, I believe answers the question in my post title.

 

At least I hope to have been able to save someone else from falling into this trap by being more aware of what happened to us by placing too much trust into so called "professionals".