It may not be generally realised just how good a position a boatyard/moorings operator is in these situations. Not that any would wish the aggravation of recalcitrant and persistent late payers and troublemakers, but the legal tools for dealing with them are straightforward.
I have commented previously on the implied restrictions imposed by the Torts Act, but the positive thrust of the Act is to provide a legal means of dealing with goods left on your property when you no longer wish them to be there, and no longer wish the burden of the legal responsibilities involved in keeping them; seizing the boat is not involved, because the boat is already in your 'possession' as in on your premises: -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/32
Uncollected goods
12 Bailee’s power of sale.
(1) This section applies to goods in the possession or under the control of a bailee where—
( a ) the bailor is in breach of an obligation to take delivery of the goods or, if the terms of the bailment so provide, to give directions as to their delivery, or
. . .
(2) In the cases of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act a bailee may, for the purposes of subsection (1), impose an obligation on the bailor to take delivery of the goods, or as the case may be to give directions as to their delivery, and in those cases the said Part I sets out the method of notification.
(3) If the bailee—
( a ) has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act given notice to the bailor of his intention to sell the goods under this subsection, or
. . .
and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods.
. . .
(5) A bailee exercising his powers under subsection (3) shall be liable to account to the bailor for the proceeds of sale, less any costs of sale, and —
( a ) the account shall be taken on the footing that the bailee should have adopted the best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances, and
( b ) where subsection (3)(a) applies, any sum payable in respect of the goods by the bailor to the bailee which accrued due before the bailee gave notice of intention to sell the goods shall be deductible from the proceeds of sale. [my emphasis]
This all means that CaRT having given due Notice in the format specified, that they wished the owner to remove his boat, and having given due Notice in the format specified that if the boat was not removed they would take steps to sell the boat – they could proceed to do so, adopting the “best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances”, and upon selling the boat could deduct from the proceeds the costs of the sale and any sums due for the berthing fees up to the point they took the decision to cut their losses respecting allowing the boat to remain as a customer.
Several points of interest arise –
The best method of sale reasonably available must be adopted. That would have entailed advertising the boat for sale where it was, still within their premises. There is an obligation to deal with the goods as responsibly as possible, selling the boat for the best sum reasonably obtainable at least cost.
Having given notice of intent to sell, no sums accruing in respect of the berthing fees post the date of the notice may be deducted from the proceeds of sale. That in itself ought to focus the bailee’s mind upon accomplishing the sale as swiftly and economically as possible. There is NO provision for deducting costs of relocating the goods elsewhere prior to sale, which could not possibly be accounted as costs of sale, whether reasonable or not..
There is likewise NO provision for refusing access to the boat, let alone charging for third parties to collect and hand over goods from it.