Andy Kayll

It's ironic that nowadays the position of a boat on the network, along with how long it's been there and where it was before, is actively monitored yet the inhabitants are deemed NFA... The boat may not be fixed but it's current location (and from that the inhabitants) can be found with little effort. If someone wanted to disappear out of the system it's now possibly the most monitored way of living and, rightly or wrongly, that's not going to change so is it not reasonable to expect something back in return? A recognised system of address? For those who choose and pay for a home mooring then something akin to the Mobile Homes Act 2013... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/14/contents/enacted Andy

Comments from members of this forum about the plight of Rod Taylor and his eviction from Poplar Dock Marina have made me question just how much unity there is now in the boating world and worse, how fragmented and dog eat dog we have become... The topic started with a straight forward post and has gone through so much back biting and frankly, self effacing "you bought a boat so you should expect this and think yourself lucky" it is now reminding me of, at best a Python sketch and at worst we should expect to be treated as Second Class Citizens.... I will declare now that I am fully in favour of regulation. I will take that further in that if a Marina operator is good then they have no fear of regulation. Any operator who says regulation may stop them trading should be stopped. Please comment on the topic and start your own if you want to contemplate your navel Andy

My how this thread has gained a squeaky wheel... <<>>... If you want to have a go at each other go to another channel. For the record Rod has traded boats since before he arrived in Poplar (around 2000) and was asked by BWML to assist selling a boat before they did the "Exclusive" with Boatshed. More on this shortly but first some good news - Rod met with BWML today and the matter is settled. The eviction order is withdrawn Although breaking of T&C's was not mentioned in the eviction letter, Rod has agreed to stop trading boats. it's been over a year since anything sold and at 1.5% (Yes, that's one and a half) commission it's no loss. Incidentally, Boatshed never had a problem with Rods sideline and when Rod met with Derek Newton on 19 Dec 2013 Derek decried Rods commission as "No business at all". initial enquiries also indicate that stipulation of a single market is very likely illegal. Certainly this practice was outlawed in the mobile home market, oh yes... That has some regulation... The allegations of being abusive to staff remain unsubstantiated and not mentioned... Could it be it was alleged in a fit of pique? As a leaving comment look for my new topic - "Boaters regard themselves as second class citizens who deserve being thrashed by the marina owners, doffing their caps, and move off the marina or sell the boat as they clearly shouldn't have one"... Andy

Hi Nigel, glad to have you in the discussion. I foresee a problem in that when this was written "Houseboat" meant a floating home without an engine (this was a VAT definition I think?) Andy

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

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

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

If a company publishes and promotes a complaints procedure you don't expect to be hung out to dry for using it... BWML's legal team (Shoosmiths) are notoriously expensive. I have seen them trying to claim full Barrister hourly rate for the journey time plus mileage on top before they even sat down in court so a full days hearing will have cost BWML a hefty sum. If BWML thought they had such a watertight case they could easily have defended it in person. It appears that they fully expected all costs to be paid by Mr Taylor and they got it wrong. Quite possibly Hell hath no fury like an MD getting a large legal bill in the post but that is hardly a good reason for the level of punishment. Andy

Can you explain "continuing reluctance"? In this instance the Ombudsman delivered his decision on the 15th March 2013. As a result it is not yet available as part of the annual reports. One aspect of that decision was that BWML could not immediately terminate the 3 year contracts that had been offered to customers in 2011... BWML had previously told customers that they would be moved onto the "New" residential rate midway through the current contract. The Ombudsman also stated: I now return to my point above about the OFT’s guidance and whether there is any ambiguity about the terms, and following on from that whether paragraph 7.2 of BWML’s terms and conditions, and in particular the definition of berth and the consequences for charging, could be regarded as unfair. It could be argued that if there is ambiguity or doubt about whether BWML can, or cannot, apply a widebeam surcharge, the UTCCRs make it clear that the most favourable interpretation should prevail (i.e. that no widebeam surcharge should be applied). My view is that at best the terms lack clarity, but it would be, as the guidance implies, for a court to reach a conclusion on whether there was any actual ambiguity. Rod initiated his small claims case in July 2013 however these things take time and Rod had not only been offered but also paid in full for a Residential contract commencing January 2014 before the actual court hearing. I should add here that Rod had travelled up to Sawley to have a meeting with Derek Newton on 19th Dec 2013... Clearly Rod was so "aggressive" at this meeting that Mr Newton felt intimidated into renewing his mooring........ This next bit is conjecture as I was not there but Rod was advised to drop the case as BWML would win and it would cost Rod a lot of money as happened to other people who took BWML to court. The court hearing happened. Rod did not win his case however he was not ordered to pay BWML's costs. Rod received a letter telling him to vacate the marina... Following the court case he had not done anything to further "Annoy" BWML No warning was given, no indication that if he persisted beyond that point BWML may regard him as a troublesome customer.

I realise that this is an old thread but what you have written here if fascinating and I would love proof if you have it. Whilst BWML where telling you this they where telling us that the only acceptable proof of alternate address was a council tax bill in your own name for a property you had sole use of and if you couldn't provide that they would automatically charge you full Residential Rate.... There was an alternative of proving you paid tax in another country but that does not seem to be the case with you Andy

"I have no idea why Mr Weasel is introducing these changes and making out it is a good thing" I like that We are obviously talking about the same conglomoration of cells I have further information from BWML themselves (so take it with a large pinch of Salt as it may have become obsolete as the pen left the paper): BWML has been talking to The National Valuation Office and have stated to us that moorings would have to be switched for at least a Month at a time and 4 x Times a Year. BWML has also stated that they will Dob us in to the Council if we don't move by when they have told us in which case "That individual will generally receive from the Council an individual charge that will be generally at Band A". It's very General Amongst ourselves it has already been suggested that if it is simply swapping around with your neighbour then we can still remain connected to the same bollard although some boats would need to leapfrog in order to keep the pontoon where the door is and your neighbour may not want / need to move or may not even be around... It does have farce written all over it... I have been told that the new Electricity meters (been waiting over 4 years for those to arrive) will have a rechargeable swipe card. I have seen these on the Rolec website and you can take the credit off your meter back onto the card to use again on another meter but it could be another 4 years before they matterialise. The bad news is that BT can charge up to £130 to move your line... They say this is if there is no line existing already so that's not the case at Poplar as every bollard is cabled although they don't say how much if a line already exists. Throw broadband into the equation and it gets even messier. Provided BWML are telling the truth / not lying by omission (I know that is stretching the bounds) then THC Band H £2377.04 divided by 50 moorings would be £47.54 each per year (in the example BWML have provided an admin charge is not applied) so the saving is not to be sniffed at. Something tells me that it is not that cut and dried though... What happens if only 10 Residential moorings are taken? If 22 Res Moorings reach Band H (over £320,000) lets assume that an individual mooring is valued at £16000 BWML inform the council that 10 moorings are in use and the council say OH, Ok you are just within Band F that's £1716.75 £47.54 has just become £171.68 each If another person takes a mooring (now 11) that tips into Band G £1980.87 Now it's £180.08 each. Still less than full Band A and probably driving BT Nuts but they (BT) would likely fit a Patch Panel once they realise we are playing magic roundabout. Now for the strange bit... BWML are claiming that individual moorers CAN opt out and pay their own CT if they wish... I think I may have a handle on this as BWML will be contacting the Local Council every 6 Months to tell them how many Moorings are in Residential use (and obviously who the Council should be Billing Individually). It sounds like a burocratic nightmare for the Local Council as well but BWML and the National Valuation Office "seem" to have created a Hybrid. If nothing else this info may be useful to other groups wrestling with an awkward Local Council as a precident has now been set? Will keep this updated as more info comes in. Andy

As I said, for how long I wonder. I don't know your circumstances and am flying blind here but you say that temp registration is not fit for your needs. I mean no disresspect but could it be that the GP are seeing you as an expensive customer (care wise) that they think they can easily get rid of to someone else? If you contact the local council they are obliged by law to allocate you a GP and the GP has no say in the matter (that is from a practice manager who lives on our marina). Andy

Hi Bob, if you can get permission from the leaseholder to install a post box (thats the hard part) and get the post office to recognise your address (probably more difficult now than when we did it in 2006) you can have post delivered. It doesn't depend on paying Council Tax unless you are receiving ballot papers but many site owners prevent people from doing this as, among other things, if people started to use the address as a credit scam the site address would become blacklisted and that would affect the site owner. Likewise everyone has a right to medical care (for how long I wonder) and unless the practice is fully booked a surgery will not ask too many questions about the legitamacy of your address provided you can be contacted by post. Contact by post has become an issue as local authorities pay doctors a "standing charge" for having people on their books (please correct me if I am wrong on this) and as such they (local authority) sometimes send out letters to check that you exist. People who live in Caravans now have quite a lot of clout when it comes to protection under law, mainly due to this being recognised as a traditional way of life. As it stands in Law at the moment the only protection for someone who lives on a boat is the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts. We also have the Waterways Ombudsman and although our new one does seem to be very active and fair his powers at the moment are sevirly limited by the whole "grey area" of living on a Boat. By example the MCA clasify the Tidal Thames as both Inland and Coastal (thats how daft it gets) and for this reason he was unable to adjuicate on our submission. BWML can class Poplar as "Inland" and now intend to charge people 30% extra if their boat is wider than 3Mtr. Slap on wrist as now I'm going off topic Andy

"That's clearly nonsense. I, as a house dweller, can produce a council tax bill in my name, but my wife and adult children who live with me can't. Does that mean that if any of them wanted a keep a boat in a BWML Marina they would be deemed residential?" If the mooring was taken in their name then yes, they would be required to take a Residential Mooring. We have tried putting many valid scenarios to them including the case that Students are exempt from paying council tax but (certainly for the London marinas) BWML have refused to budge or said they will "look into it" but refused to put anything in writing. Doubtless in other areas of the country were they have empty marinas they would be more "Accomodating"

Hi Paul, your comments on how a council rates a place make sense and would indicate that the 2 x methods of charging are mutually exclusive. I will also see if I can get any further clarification from Simon Robbins (NABO). The "official status" of the address you use is indeed an important issue. After the postal vote fiasco in Tower Hamlets (which also coencided with BWML telling the council we were not residential after all) the council got twitchy and downgraded us to "having a vested interest in the area". In effect that would have made us "of no fixed abode...". Fortunatly we managed to persuade them (THC) to put us back on the voting register as a bonfide address until BWML sorted out the mess they had left us in. Re: The £120 per boat that BWML is proposing to charge. If they weren't trying to make a fast buck we would be more worried Andy