CHALLENGER SYNDICATESHIPS LIMITED
zupcon
Limited. My experience with the company to date has been extremely
poor.
Before commencing with further action, I've spent the last few days
talking to a limited number of existing and ex customers, and
suppliers. A recurring theme is that the majority of people I've
spoken too refuse to publicly criticise Mr Rimmer and Challenger
Syndicates for fear of legal reprisals.
Id like to take a balanced view if possible, so I'm trying to
determine if the problems that I'm experiencing are far more
widespread, or if their failure to provide me with an adequate service
is an isolated case.
I would therefore appreciate any comments, either positive or negative
posted via the newsgroup, or if your uncomfortable making comments
publicly for any reason, please feel free to contact me via email.
All comments will be treated in the strictest of confidence, and
without prejudice.
regards
mick norris
Peter Stockdale
"zupcon" <zup...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155591416.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>I recently purchased a share in a boat with Challenger Syndicates
> Limited. My experience with the company to date has been extremely
> poor.
>
> widespread
Elaborate on the "problems" and help could be at hand.
Canaldrifter
Perhaps the forum would forgive me for blatently advertising, and
saying that the National Association of Boat Owners is increasingly
taking on board the interests of joint and shared ownership boaters....
http://www.nabo.org.uk/
You may find help through them.
Tony H
Dave Mayall
> Limited. My experience with the company to date has been extremely
> poor.
>
> Before commencing with further action, I've spent the last few days
> talking to a limited number of existing and ex customers, and
> suppliers. A recurring theme is that the majority of people I've
> spoken too refuse to publicly criticise Mr Rimmer and Challenger
> Syndicates for fear of legal reprisals.
>
> Id like to take a balanced view if possible, so I'm trying to
> determine if the problems that I'm experiencing are far more
> widespread, or if their failure to provide me with an adequate service
> is an isolated case.
>
> I would therefore appreciate any comments, either positive or negative
> posted via the newsgroup, or if your uncomfortable making comments
> publicly for any reason, please feel free to contact me via email.
If you want people to provide comments, I really think that it is incumbent
upon you to start the ball rolling.
In what way do *you* believe that the company has served you poorly?
PeterScott
zupcon wrote: " I recently purchased a share in a boat with Challenger
Syndicates Limited. My experience with the company to date has been
extremely poor."
This covers some of the V issues:
http://pub2.bravenet.com/forum/153944258/show/491504/
And this page mentions V's coyness - a mail to the webmaster here might
expand the info.
http://www.boatshare.co.uk/commercial/index.htm
I suspect reciprocal coyness here wrt V litigiousness if that's a word
:-) So come on, what's happened - we won't tell V.
Steve Atty
<pe...@homescott.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
God - what an ad encrusted site - and its adverts for "wonder" anti
hairloss drugs too. Doesn't really inspire me with confidence.
J.R.Alsop
"Steve Atty" <nos...@tty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ljc9e2ppk4djk0c4c...@4ax.com...
zupcon
comments, both publicly and in private.
I note that the majority of people who've replied in public are
requesting further details of the problems I've encountered. I am a
little hesitant at this stage to disclose full details simply due to
the amount of effort this would involve for potentially little benefit.
I also think that it's only fair to allow Challenger the opportunity
to rectify problems before washing too much dirty laundry in public.
It would appear that the management at Challenger do indeed monitor
this newsgroup. Although unaware of complaints submitted via their own
customer service team, they where however fully aware of my post to
this group, which they consider to be an "attack".
So careful what you write, you never know who's watching :-)
regards
mick norris
Dave Mayall
> Firstly I must express thanks to those who provided feedback and
> comments, both publicly and in private.
>
> I note that the majority of people who've replied in public are
> requesting further details of the problems I've encountered. I am a
> little hesitant at this stage to disclose full details simply due to
> the amount of effort this would involve for potentially little benefit.
> I also think that it's only fair to allow Challenger the opportunity
> to rectify problems before washing too much dirty laundry in public.
In which case, you ought not to have posted.
1) Don't expect others to offer information if you won't reciprocate.
2) By alluding to problems that you won't specify, you are hinting unfairly
about dirty linen.
If Challenger are indeed litigious, I suspect that alluding to unspecified
problems as you have done will be quite enough to land you in court.
Peter Stockdale
"Dave Mayall" <da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ktj2dF...@individual.net...
>
> In which case, you ought not to have posted.
>
> 1) Don't expect others to offer information if you won't reciprocate.
> 2) By alluding to problems that you won't specify, you are hinting
> unfairly about dirty linen.
>
> If Challenger are indeed litigious, I suspect that alluding to unspecified
> problems as you have done will be quite enough to land you in court.
>
Agreed.
Can't abide these hidden reason postings.
Dave Mayall
news:safje2p8036j6c1jl...@4ax.com...
> Challenger haven't got a chance of winning, especially if he can
> substantiate whatever it is that he is griping about.
There lies the problem!
By not giving any details of the problem, he is potentially damaging the
reputation of Challenger more than he would if he stated his gripe.
For all we know the complaint may be that the OP has twice collected a boat
that had two cups left on the draining board.
By refusing to say what the problem is, it gives an impression that there is
something seriously untoward, and that we ought to steer well clear.
zupcon
my posts have the potential to damage Challenger's reputation. You
are of course entitled to your opinion which I of course I fully
respect, but I have to disagree with your point of view.
I took the decision to post to the newsgroup for two main reasons.
Firstly I'd written to Challenger three times informing them of
problems Id experienced, but had received no response.
I was aware that Challenger Syndicates has run its narrow boat
operation very successfully for a number of years. I therefore expected
to receive a balanced and realistic view by polling opinions from this
particular group. I originally requested comments both good and bad.
It's practically impossible to think of a product or service from any
company that isn't openly discussed in public.
One might have thought that requesting feedback may well have
potentially resulted in a deluge of positive comments. Even a lack of
negative posts indicates that Challenger is doing something right. So I
really do fail to see how this could be construed as damaging to
Challenger's reputation
Secondly uk.rec.waterways is one of the few places where Id previously
seen Challenger being discussed.
You (and indeed many others) may not wish to offer information, but
several people very kindly provided information in private despite my
reticence to disclose full details of my complaint.
For the record I received quite a wide spectrum of responses. It's
completely absurd to think that any company won't have experienced
the occasional problem, so it therefore came as no surprise to hear
that some people had indeed experienced problems. Whilst my personal
experiences with Challenger have been extremely poor, I did receive
responses from one or two people who where very positive about their
experiences with Challenger. Some people had no experience of the
company whatsoever either positive or negative but just wanted to wish
me luck in resolving a problem.
The post was seen by management at Challenger, which at least had the
effect of prompting a response, and a promise to investigate the
problems that I'd experienced. However I suspect that no such
investigation has been undertaken as its now 3 weeks since this promise
was made without any further communication.
You are of course correct in stating that by alluding to unspecified
problems, with the intention of damaging challenger's reputation may
very well indeed land me in court. However under the circumstances I
would have thought that the obvious conclusion to be drawn by most
people is that I can probably substantiate my claims. I could have
posted with total anonymity, but you'll note that no efforts where
made to hide my identity.
I'm also puzzled that you should think that my intention was to
damage Challengers reputation. If at a future point I decide to sell my
share I'd want any prospective purchasers to believe that Challenger
are the best thing since sliced bread and that the operation runs like
clockwork. I would have thought that most people would understand that
it's not actually in my interests to damage Challengers reputation
In the unlikely event that I was attempting to damage Challenger's
reputation, then it's clear that I'm not doing a particularly
effective job. I've simply requested feedback (both positive and
negative) on a single newsgroup. There must be 1001 newsgroup's,
website forums etc where I could make mischief, but you'll notice
that at this stage this isn't the case.
If Challenger has grounds to believe that my complaints aren't of a
genuine or sufficiently serious nature then no doubt I can expect to be
receiving a solicitor's letter sometime soon. If this proves to be
the case I'll publish full details, and if this ges to court the date
and time of any hearing and anyone who's remotely interested can come
along in person to watch the proceedings. I'll even provide a picnic
and light refreshments.
You seam to be quite keen that I disclose further information. I'm
not going to do that for the following reasons
a) I posted in order to achieve my own objectives, and those objectives
have been partially achieved. I didn't post to provide anyone with
amusement or entertainment, nor did I post in order to engage in
pointless argument or debate.
b) For all I know you may be a dis-satisfied customer, supplier, or
even a competitor of Challenger Syndicates, encouraging me to publish
negative material to advance your personal agenda. I'm happy to
publish full details of my complaint, but only if it's to my
advantage.
c) I've spent the last 2 weeks compiling information for my
solicitors. It's just far too much effort even to spend another
moment reiterating my complaints on this forum. I partially achieved my
objective from the post, sorry if it didn't provide you with the
entertainment, or amusement or whatever else it was you where looking
for
Regards
mick norris
Dave Mayall
> You state that I shouldn't have posted, and seam to be implying that
> my posts have the potential to damage Challenger's reputation. You
> are of course entitled to your opinion which I of course I fully
> respect, but I have to disagree with your point of view.
Your refusal to state exactly what the problem with challenger, whilst
muttering about getting solicitors, leads to an impression that they are
doing something seriously wrong.
Now, it could be that you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and
saying very little about it, just to get a bit of mud to stick.
On balance, it looks to me like you have a minor niggle and are gobbing off
about it.
zupcon
> about it.
Oh dear, and I thought that Id made my position ever so clear, I'll
try again.
My personal experience with Challenger, has in my opinion been poor.
I'm sure that many other owners may well have a more positive
experience, and they of course are free to express their opinions, as I
am free to express mine.
I'm currently in the process of taking legal action against
Challenger for misrepresentation, and breach of contract. I certainly
wouldn't be considering spending upwards of £10,000 bringing an
action against them based on minor niggles, or complaints that cannot
be substantiated.
I'll give you just one or two small examples of problems that I've
personally experienced:
Challenger contacted me in August 2006 informing me that a week had
been allocated on the boat for my exclusive use, and that during this
time training would be provided. Sounded great, Id bought the share in
May 2006 and was looking forward to finally getting on the boat. The
following quote is taken from the challenger website (sorry if I've
breeched any copyright)
"Challenger Syndicateships will make arrangements for all owners to
be trained on the boat out in the Mediterranean. At the end of the
training, all owners will receive an International Certificate of
Competence"
In my case after booking flights etc, I received a call by Challengers
representative in Spain 5 Hours before departure, informing me that
training couldn't be provided during my visit as he was busy
skippering private clients. On requesting that an alternative training
provider or skipper be provided I was told that probably wouldn't be
possible as everyone was busy at that time of year. I emailed 12 RYA
approved schools on my return to the UK and all confirmed full
availability during the time of my visit.
After finally finding the boat (which was difficult as Challenger
despite earlier requests had failed to supply details), we found
problems with the AC and DC power systems, and therefore no water,
lights, cooking facilities or air conditioning. These problems
persisted throughout our stay, for approximately 80% of our time on the
boat we had no power.
Prior to my visit V had informed me that mooring for the boat had been
arranged at club de mar, in Palma, Mallorca. The Challenger website
also states that the boat operates from this base.
Unfortunately, at the time of our visit this wasn't actually the
case; the boat was technically "homeless", and was temporarily
moored on "an informal basis" at a marina in Port Adriano. So In
addition to being unable to actually use the boat Challenger had also
failed to provide a permanent mooring. The "informal basis" on
which the boat was moored involved the marina staff constantly moving
the boat in and out of the marina to make way for paying customers.
During our stay I left the marina on a couple of occasions to find on
my return that the boat had simply disappeared. On at least 3 occasions
marina staff boarded the vehicle, unannounced, without prior warning,
started the engines and drove off.
I requested on a number of occasions that Challenger find a skipper, or
trainer, to enable us to use the boat. I was told that in the unlikely
event that a skipper could be located we couldn't do very much as the
boat required maintenance to replace a bearing on the generator drive
shaft, limiting engine use to a maximum period of 90 minutes.
On my return to the UK I wrote to Challenger detailing my specific
complaints, and requesting a written response. I considered that I was
due at least an apology, and reimbursement of travel costs, and an
extra week once the problems had been rectified. In the absence of a
response I made my first post here.
On Wednesday the 13th September 2006 I telephoned Challenger, and my
call was transferred to Mr Rimmer, despite specifically requesting not
to be transferred. I have a taped record of that conversation, at some
point I'll obtain an accurate transcript. As yet I haven't had
chance so the following is from memory, I therefore apologise in
advance if any of the comments below are not 100% accurate.
I spent around 90 minutes on the telephone, the majority of the time
was spent listening to the usual sales pitch, details of V's
outstanding and untarnished reputation in the industry, his staff are
the best in the business, he has 900 customers, 59 boats etc. Some
claims where objective and verifiable, some subjective and open to
interpretation. Eventually I managed to focus V's attention to
discussing my specific complaints.
I was informed that my complaint hadn't been dealt with as he only
conducts business by telephone, rarely looks at email and hasn't got
time to waste writing to customers.
I received no apology, he feels that he's provided an adequate
service; although to his credit, he did concede there where one or two
"unfortunate problems" with provision of training.
I was informed that all of the other syndicate members absolutely love
the boat, and have allegedly offered their 100% support to back
Challenger in court. I can't actually verify if this is this is true
as I don't know who my other syndicate members are.
When asked if he was prepared to compensate for travel costs his
comment was "Hell will freeze over before you get compensation from
Challenger". I thought that was quite a succinct quote, and he has
given me verbal permission to use it
I was also informed that he fully intends to sue me based on the
previous posts made to this newsgroup, which he claims where a vicious
and vitriolic attack. You may feel that I'm gobbing off but
personally I wouldn't be prepared to risk what could amount to costs
running into hundreds of thousands of pounds if my claims couldn't be
substantiated.
V concluded the call by stating that in his opinion my partner and I
aren't suitable customers, and he wants us out of the syndicate on
the basis that my partner has a disability. This conclusion was made
after requesting and receiving a comprehensive report of the problems
we experienced during our (non) use of the boat. This report was
allegedly written by the Lady he employs in a part time capacity as a
cleaner in Spain who stated my partner had difficulties manoeuvring on
the boat. In reality my partner told the cleaner that she'd fallen
over during the night as there was no lighting on the boat, due to the
power supply problems. The cleaner has since verified she has no formal
medical training on which to base her opinion.
So despite purchasing a share in May, I've had one visit to the boat,
and the problems we experienced during the visit where of such
magnitude that they resulted in us leaving after 3 days. I've no idea
who the other syndicate members are, no idea if the boat has a
permanent mooring or not, no evidence that the boat is insured, I have
no idea if Challenger even owns the boat in which I purchased a share.
I'm probably violating Challengers copyright, and will get a writ in
tomorrows post, but their website quite clearly states that "Each
member is provided with details of other members of their own
Syndicate"
I've requested this particular information during face to face
discussions with Challengers Managing Director; I've requested this
information by telephone, letter and e-mail. Despite assurances made
prior to purchase, and in advertising materials V flatly refuses to
provide this. Similar enquiries regarding insurance details, title of
ownership etc similarly go unanswered.
As an attempt to bring some degree of balance, Challenger have been
successful for a number of years, and I'm sure that the majority of
their 900 customers have experienced many positive aspects, and
thoroughly enjoyed their time with Challenger. Unfortunately I
didn't.
I believe that newsgroups and website forums are a valuable source of
information for anyone undertaking due diligence prior to making a
substantial financial commitments such a purchasing a boat.
I'm obviously a little upset at the way I've been treated, and
there's a part of me that would like to provide a full and frank
disclosure of all of the problems that we've faced but as V is
threatening litigation, and has an external agency in his employ who
actively monitors this group, I must be extremely careful to ensure
that anything I post is 100% factual and 100% verifiable and paints a
true and accurate reflection of the events that I personally
experienced.
I'm sure that many (including the staff and management at Challenger)
may not consider the problems to be sufficiently serious to warrant
complaint. Personally I do, as do my legal advisors, but as I've said
previously this is simply my opinion, and it may very well differ from
yours.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Phil R
> On balance, it looks to me like you have a minor niggle and are
gobbing off
> about it.
> "Challenger Syndicateships will make arrangements for all owners to
> be trained on the boat out in the Mediterranean. At the end of the
> training, all owners will receive an International Certificate of
> competence.
Sorry I have snipped this post........... (and apologies that
somebody's
newsreader is not doing the business!)
Zipcon brought this topic up on here - uk.rec.waterways.
I would think that most people on here (myself included), would have
assumed that your OP was about a Challenger boat on the uk
inland waterways?
Now we learn that it concerns a sea going? boat on the Med :-)
I really think that you should have posted your problem to
uk.rec.sailing (or similar group). I would not be surprised if
all the previous replies have been under the assumption that
you were discussing Challenger boats on the UK canals/rivers?
Incidentally, before you bought a share did you do the Day Skipper
or Yachtmaster RYA course before considering taking a boat
out to sea?
Phil
zupcon
waterways issue previously, and explained why I posted to this
particular group. Sorry if this wasn't clear, or if I'm in breach of
the groups charter.
I originally posted here as its one of the few places V is discussed,
and as my problem is specifically with V, I thought I might get a
balanced and more considered view. I also appreciate that the types of
problems experienced on narrow boats may be completely different from
those experienced on other types of vessel
I would also assume that Challenger has considerably more experience
and expertise in respect to issues concerning inland waterways, simply
as this aspect of their business has been established for much longer.
Diversification into power boats is I believe quite recent.
I'm not sure how my personal experience (or lack of) affects the
issue but as you ask:
I do have a tidal day skipper qualification and ICC for motor boats up
to 10m, but I required an upgrade to 24m for this particular boat. I do
have some experience at sea, occassionally on boats much larger than
the one in which I have purchased a share (I live on a small island in
the med surrounded by wet stuff so I get out on the med most weekends)
Most of my experience is in sail boats; I have both day skipper theory
and practical, and am very slowly working towards Yachtmaster.
The point you raise is quite pertinent. I guess it's possible for
people with relatively little experience, to gain ICC's with very
little training, and with potentially disastrous consequences.
regards
mick
Peter Headland
> I suspect reciprocal coyness here wrt V litigiousness if that's a word
> :-) So come on, what's happened - we won't tell V.
For the benefit of us ignorant peons who are not part of the in crowd,
what is all this "V" business?
--
Peter Headland
zupcon
> what is all this "V" business?
As Im not in the in crowd, I too was puzzled by this V business. When
asked I was told that it's short for Voldemort, the name of the
fictional arch-villain of the Harry Potter series.
For those unfamiliar with the Harry Poter books, I've provided a
brief synopsis of the Voldemort character (taken from wikipedia)
Voldermort is an evil wizard bent on securing unmatched power and
achieving immortality through the practice of the Dark Arts. He is so
feared in the Wizarding world that his name is considered to be
ineffable. Most characters in the novels refer to him as "You-Know-Who"
or "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" rather than saying his name aloud,
although the protagonist, Harry Potter, speaks the name freely except
when attempting to be sensitive to others' fears.
Voldemort is considered one of the most powerful wizards alive. It has
been said that the only wizard he ever feared was Albus Dumbledore,
Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, though
Voldemort has repeatedly denied fearing Dumbledore.
You may draw your own conclusions.
Disclaimer:
The characters in the Harry Potter books are fictitious, and any
resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, business establishments,
events, or locales is entirely coincidental
Phil R
> Please accept my apologies, I thought Id stated it was a non UK
> waterways issue previously, and explained why I posted to this
> particular group. Sorry if this wasn't clear, or if I'm in breach of
> the groups charter.
Don't worry, no problem. I was interested to learn that Challenger
have diversified into the Med.
>
> I'm not sure how my personal experience (or lack of) affects the
> issue but as you ask:
I worded my question badly. Bearing in mind all the different
standards
that charter, flotilla etc companies require, I wondered if Challenger
required any landbased/practical qualification before providing their
own training course.
>
> I do have a tidal day skipper qualification and ICC for motor boats
up
> to 10m, but I required an upgrade to 24m for this particular boat. I
do
> have some experience at sea, occassionally on boats much larger than
> the one in which I have purchased a share (I live on a small island
in
> the med surrounded by wet stuff so I get out on the med most
weekends)
>
> Most of my experience is in sail boats; I have both day skipper
theory
> and practical, and am very slowly working towards Yachtmaster.
>
> The point you raise is quite pertinent. I guess it's possible for
> people with relatively little experience, to gain ICC's with very
> little training, and with potentially disastrous consequences.
That was my concern :-)
Phil
zupcon
> required any landbased/practical qualification before providing their
> own training course.
I haven't got my contract to hand at the moment, so can't quote the
exact requirements but it is a condition of contract that owners, if
they wish to use the boat, are required to be qualified to a basic
minimum level (which I believe is ICC) If they wish to sit on a
stationary boat in a marina, no such qualification is however required
:-)
Im led to believe that a charge is usually made to cover the cost of
training if provided by Challenger. Although in my case V kindly agreed
to provide this free of charge, but sadly didnt deliver
I also believe that the level of an owners experience may also affect
the owner's liability with respect to insurance claims. The website
states that "each owner is responsible for the first £500 (or £750
depending on experience) worth of any damage caused during his control
of the boat", my contract dosn't make this distinction, so it's
possible that the website may be misleading in this respect, or
possibly the contract at time of signing is customised based on
Challengers view of the particular client. I'm not in a position to
say, but probably worth clarifying if your considering a purchase
regards
mick
Peter Headland
> As Im not in the in crowd, I too was puzzled by this V business. When
> asked I was told that it's short for Voldemort, the name of the
> fictional arch-villain of the Harry Potter series.
:-) Thanks for the explanation.
FWIW, I hope that you are able to reach a fair and equitable solution
without too much stress and expense.
--
Peter Headland
zupcon
> without too much stress and expense.
Thanks Peter
I very much hoped so too, but would be pleasantly surprised if it turns
out to be the case.
I tried calling Challenger on a number of occasions earlier today; I
was told that all staff had been instructed by the managing director
not to speak to me. I asked to speak to a member of the management
team, but the request was refused, and on every occasion my calls where
disconnected. Personally I found their behaviour somewhat rude and
highly unprofessional. Others of course may feel that having a call
disconnected whilst in mid sentence is completely acceptable behaviour.
Although I was very insistent that my questions where answered, and
after each disconnection, called right back, at all times I tried to
remain polite and courteous, I must however admit that I did laugh out
loud on one occasion, which caused offence to whoever I was speaking
too. It was just one of those situations where someone says something
so unbelievably ridiculous that you just had to laugh.
I was informed that a complaint about me had been filed to the police
(hence my laughter), Challenger wouldn't disclose details but someone
in the office clearly thinks that I've committed some form of
criminal offence. I'm no expert in law, so maybe I have. Perhaps it
really has become a criminal offence to notify a company that you're
not entirely satisfied with the service that they're providing.
As they say, ignorance is no defence in law, so no doubt I can expect a
visit from the old bill and possibly a short break at her majesty's
pleasure simply for asking questions such as "where is my boat", or
"who are my fellow syndicate members", or "what weeks have been
allocated to me". All of these questions have repeatedly been asked
in numerous letters, emails, and telephone calls. The only reason that
I've been given for Challengers failure to answerer is that
"He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" makes the rules, and he's decided he
doesn't want to tell me.
Silly me, I was under the misguided belief that "the rules" where
clearly set out in the contract that both parties signed and agreed to
abide by. Obviously I missed the clause about rules changing at any
time on a whim simply because V says so. Of course that clause may have
been written in magic ink, only observable to evil wizards, hence my
failure to spot it.
hey ho
regards
mick
Michael Clarke
Please keep us updated as I am rather interested to know how this turns out.
Best of luck.
BTW, was the problem with gaining an ICC in Spain anything to do with the
illegal issues of ICC's that the RYA successfully managed to terminate by
getting the person sent to jail?
--
Regards
Michael Clarke
Email: michael...@skynet.be
Web: http://users.skynet.be/sky34301/
Dave Mayall
news:1158584939.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I tried calling Challenger on a number of occasions earlier today; I
> was told that all staff had been instructed by the managing director
> not to speak to me. I asked to speak to a member of the management
> team, but the request was refused, and on every occasion my calls where
> disconnected.
If you have instigated legal proceedings against them, it is to be expected
that they would have issued instructions to their staff not to speak to you.
Whilst you may find it rude, it is an entirely sensible position on their
part that all further communication will come via their solicitor, and that
any calls must be terminated.
Uncle Marvo
4n7pp2F...@individual.net, I, Marvo, say :
It is certainly an entirely sensible position on the part of their solicitor
[spits]
zupcon
> illegal issues of ICC's that the RYA successfully managed to terminate by
> getting the person sent to jail?
I've heard several different versions of events regarding this case.
In one version, a school was applying for, and being provided with
original RYA certificates, the RYA noticed that they where issuing more
certificates to the school than would normally be expected for a school
of that size, investigations commenced, and shenanigans where
discovered.
I also heard that a number of fake certificates had been produced, and
where openly on sale from a registered yacht master instructor in
Spain. I believe he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment
I have absolutely no reason to suspect that Challenger would be
involved in anything of this nature.
regards
mick
zupcon
> part that all further communication will come via their solicitor, and that
> any calls must be terminated.
In principle I'm probably in partial agreement with you on this
point, as I (unlike V) can see the situation from the other parties'
perspective.
However I respectfully submit that a *more sensible* option, might have
been to avoid the whole situation in the first instance. Opinions on
this of course will differ, and hence our dispute
It should be noted that I'm not actually complaining. As I couldn't
get enquiries answered either before or after involving solicitors,
their decision to terminate my calls has had no net effect whatsoever
on the levels of service provided.
Other than to reduce my phone bill of course :-)
Regards
Mick
Dave Mayall
>> Whilst you may find it rude, it is an entirely sensible position on their
>> part that all further communication will come via their solicitor, and
>> that
>> any calls must be terminated.
>
> In principle I'm probably in partial agreement with you on this
> point, as I (unlike V) can see the situation from the other parties'
> perspective.
:-)
Once it becomes clear that legal action is in the offing, it is sensible not
to offer any further ammunition to the opponent by unguarded communications.
> However I respectfully submit that a *more sensible* option, might have
> been to avoid the whole situation in the first instance. Opinions on
> this of course will differ, and hence our dispute
Avoiding the feeding of lawyers is always a sensible option.
Peter Headland
> I was informed that a complaint about me had been filed to the police
By persistently calling them when they do not want you to, you may
liable to a charge of some kind (don't remember the exact legislation,
but it's to do with harassment, probably specific to telephone calls).
I would stop doing that, were I you.
--
Peter Headland
PeterScott
zupcon wrote:
> I was informed that a complaint about me had been filed to the police
> (hence my laughter), Challenger wouldn't disclose details but someone
> in the office clearly thinks that I've committed some form of
> criminal offence. I'm no expert in law, so maybe I have.
This would be it -from the Communications Act 2003
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--c.htm#127
127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he ...
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications
network.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable,
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to
both.
The bill says this:
http://www.met.police.uk/askthemet/524.htm
It just seems a shame to give the opposition a weapon they don't
already have.
zupcon
> already have.
Thanks Peter,
Im sure a decent lawyer could probably find 101 bits of legislation
they could attempt to hang a case on, and in principle your quite
right, why give an opponent a weapon. My understanding is that in
addition to the act you mentioned there are 3 other potential areas's
that could be invoked against a nuisance caller. Section 43 of the
Telecommunications Act 1984 and Section 92 of the Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act 1994 are quite clear in stating that a person who
makes indecent, offensive or threatening calls to another via the
telephone system network is guilty of an offence.
In some cases (e.g. where the malicious calls form one element of a
wider charge such as breach of an injunction, where there have been
threats to kill etc) the defendant could be held in contempt of court
or charged with grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm under the
Offences Against the Person Act.
I don't think that remaining perfectly polite and asking questions
about a boat that I've purchased constitutes any of the above, so
hopefully I should be OK there.
The third option is taking action under the Harassment Act. However,
the act is quite explicit in stating that there are no grounds for
harassment if the person making the call has reasonable grounds for
calling. I suppose that a good example of this might be a debt
collection agency, or a supplier repeatedly calling and requesting late
payment. The recipient may feel they're being pressured or harassed,
but the caller has every right to demand payment. I have read of cases
of certain banks calling customers every hour, day after day
Challenger are a business, offering a service, and it could well be
argued, that if they fall short of a customers expectations, or fail
to comply with contractual obligations, you can hardly expect a
customer not to complain. I personally think it's quite reasonable to
call and ask where the boat is, or what weeks have been allocated for
my use. The staff are trained and paid to answer telephone calls and
answer customer enquiries. Part of that will occasionally involve
dealing with a persistent customer.
If a member of staff informs me that they've been instructed not to
deal with my requests, I think I have a reasonable right to request
that a call is transferred to someone in authority who is authorised to
deal in this matter. If the call is immediately terminated before I get
the chance to make that request, I feel it's reasonable to call back,
and attempt to make that request again. If I'm told that there is no
one available to take the call, or they've refused the call, then
fine, it's noted, and I'll try again within the next few days.
If I can't get satisfaction by phone, then I have recourse to other
avenues of complaint, civil charges, complaints to trade associations
etc.
Challenger may not like the situation in which they now find
themselves, but they cannot expect, let alone demand that customers
cease complaining, just because they don't wish to acknowledge or
deal with that complaint. They are after all legally obliged to comply
with their management obligations, or risk a civil action.
Id would be the first to agree that calling staff out of office hours,
on non business lines would very clearly constitute harassment.
Furthermore, I'd consider this sort of behaviour unacceptable, and
outside the bounds of a reasonable right to complain.
I hardly think 5 or 6 calls over the course of a day represents
harassment, but they're welcome to complain if they so wish. I would
however suggest that there's no end of call screening technologies
that could be implemented for a fraction of the cost of a solicitors
letter.
I don't wish to be in the situation where Challenger states at a
later date that all I needed to do to resolve a problem was call.
Got to go.... I've a call to make..... only joking :-)
mick
PeterScott
When in one stop digging.
I know it's absurdly simplistic, but couldn't the Company just return
the money and everyone just return to their former lives slightly wiser
and slightly poorer for the experience?
I waive my conciliation fee and leave :-)