Boat charter cancelled - refund not forthcoming

[TGCOTF-dewey]

Forester1965 said:

audikarma said:

You sound like hard work.

Perhaps a bit harsh but it does seem to have become obsessive. If the OP had been more patient the likelihood is they'd have the £900 in hand by now and possibly put the £200 down to experience.

The dive community is quite a small one and tends to look out for each other when it comes to safety though.

I applaud the OP's stance as its easy enough to kill yourself when you do everything right. Cowboy operaters adding to the risk of diving should not be allowed to get away with it.

I suspect the money is only part of the motivation.

[Ganglandboss]

Somebody else who is taking them to court has posted on a diving forum that they have just changed their accounting period. It ended 31st July last year and has been changed to 31st December, meaning their accounts, which were due to be published soon, are now not due until 30th September.

He added the following:

"Looking at various accountants websites, this can be a red flag that a company is in financial difficulty and possibly struggling with paying it's debts / creditors; or has accounting history it wants to keep hidden for as long as possible. It is (according to the accountants pages I can find) often a pre-cursor to a company closing or declaring bankruptcy and going into administration without facing up to it's financial responsibilities."

Any more thoughts?

[Simpo Two]

Ganglandboss said:

Any more thoughts?

I think it's nothing to do with your case. What's relevant is what was going on during and before your experience.

[ingenieur]

Ganglandboss said:

Somebody else who is taking them to court has posted on a diving forum that they have just changed their accounting period. It ended 31st July last year and has been changed to 31st December, meaning their accounts, which were due to be published soon, are now not due until 30th September.

He added the following:

"Looking at various accountants websites, this can be a red flag that a company is in financial difficulty and possibly struggling with paying it's debts / creditors; or has accounting history it wants to keep hidden for as long as possible. It is (according to the accountants pages I can find) often a pre-cursor to a company closing or declaring bankruptcy and going into administration without facing up to it's financial responsibilities."

Any more thoughts?

ingenieur six months ago when this all started said:

I would get the £900 quid and cut my losses.

The normal reason for people pissing about when it comes to providing refunds is that they don't have the money.

I strongly suspect if you were to take legal action these are the sorts of people who would not even show up at court. When you have the judgement they won't pay because they can't afford to.

Take whatever you can get back and don't overthink it. Chalk it up to experience and move on. If they're serious about the £900 and you actually get that back then the difference isn't anything to cry about.

Put out warnings about these people when the opportunity comes up.

[Forester1965]

Ganglandboss said:

Any more thoughts?

Negotiate on a 'without prejudice' basis to get the refund you were originally offered in return for withdrawing the claim. Anything else is throwing good time and money after bad.

[BertBert]

Forester1965 said:

Negotiate on a 'without prejudice' basis to get the refund you were originally offered in return for withdrawing the claim. Anything else is throwing good time and money after bad.

I suspect that boat has sailed. My guess would be they don't have any money to refund with.

[48k]

BertBert said:

Forester1965 said:

Negotiate on a 'without prejudice' basis to get the refund you were originally offered in return for withdrawing the claim. Anything else is throwing good time and money after bad.

I suspect that boat has sailed. My guess would be they don't have any money to refund with.

I agree with you, there is no money from which to provide a refund. That ship has sailed.

[Forester1965]

If that's the case then there's no point pursuing a claim, either.

[CraigyMc]

Forester1965 said:

If that's the case then there's no point pursuing a claim, either.

Not financially, no, but you aren't OP. There are non-financial reasons to do this.

OP may well want to see this through to its conclusion simply to satisfy himself that he did everything right here especially given the safety concerns with the operator.

It's probably what I would do, to hell with the cost in time or money.

See also: people who put trollies back properly, people who fully refill rental cars right before return, people who clean out and then re-stock communal wood burners for the next person, etc.

To me, it's a mindset about being the change you want to see.

I imagine OP may be inclined this way simply due to the nature of the thread.

[Forester1965]

CraigyMc said:

Not financially, no, but you aren't OP. There are non-financial reasons to do this.

OP may well want to see this through to its conclusion simply to satisfy himself that he did everything right here especially given the safety concerns with the operator.

It's probably what I would do, to hell with the cost in time or money.

See also: people who put trollies back properly, people who fully refill rental cars right before return, people who clean out and then re-stock communal wood burners for the next person, etc.

To me, it's a mindset about being the change you want to see.

I imagine OP may be inclined this way simply due to the nature of the thread.

With respect, the courts aren't there to facilitate moral crusades. The reparation the OP's looking for is money. If the company has no money, it has no money. If he' concerned about safety, he can report to the relevant bodies, which I believe he's already done.

The courts are a finite resource with no spare capacity and long delays for genuine claimants. Clogging them up with money claims doomed to failure to pursue a personal principle is wrong, on principle.

[OutInTheShed]

Ganglandboss said:

Somebody else who is taking them to court has posted on a diving forum that they have just changed their accounting period. It ended 31st July last year and has been changed to 31st December, meaning their accounts, which were due to be published soon, are now not due until 30th September.

He added the following:

"Looking at various accountants websites, this can be a red flag that a company is in financial difficulty and possibly struggling with paying it's debts / creditors; or has accounting history it wants to keep hidden for as long as possible. It is (according to the accountants pages I can find) often a pre-cursor to a company closing or declaring bankruptcy and going into administration without facing up to it's financial responsibilities."

Any more thoughts?

Changing your accounting period can be for many, many reasons.

I did it myself once when I was too busy making money to spend time with the bean counter.
Other reasons include alignment or staggering against the tax year, something significant like a big sale or purchase being better in a current period than a a later one, and just keeping the plates spinning and hoping.

[Simpo Two]

Forester1965 said:

If that's the case then there's no point pursuing a claim, either.

Unless you think the defendant has goods, cars etc that HC bailiffs could take to be sold to pay the debt.

[HiAsAKite]

Simpo Two said:

Unless you think the defendant has goods, cars etc that HC bailiffs could take to be sold to pay the debt.

and/or the director can be deemed personally responsible.. so the claim is not only on the company, but on the director personally

[CraigyMc]

Forester1965 said:

With respect, the courts aren't there to facilitate moral crusades.<snip>

Your use of the word "crusade" is noted. It's not a word I used or as I'd describe this situation, but I see how describing it as such so you can tear it back down might be a useful strawman argument for someone trying to discredit the process.

The use of courts is not to uphold morality? This comes as news to me, I thought that was it's primary mission. So thought Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, when she gave this speech: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-190221.pdf but of course anyone can be wrong.

The courts aren't just a coin operated machine to facilitate financial transfers from one party to the opposing.

[Forester1965]

CraigyMc said:

Your use of the word "crusade" is noted. It's not a word I used or as I'd describe this situation, but I see how describing it as such so you can tear it back down might be a useful strawman argument for someone trying to discredit the process.

The use of courts is not to uphold morality? This comes as news to me, I thought that was it's primary mission. So thought Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, when she gave this speech: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-190221.pdf but of course anyone can be wrong.

The courts aren't just a coin operated machine to facilitate financial transfers from one party to the opposing.

You're going to have to spell it out to me how the 'moral courage' speech applies to the point that was made.

[CraigyMc]

Forester1965 said:

CraigyMc said:

Your use of the word "crusade" is noted. It's not a word I used or as I'd describe this situation, but I see how describing it as such so you can tear it back down might be a useful strawman argument for someone trying to discredit the process.

The use of courts is not to uphold morality? This comes as news to me, I thought that was it's primary mission. So thought Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, when she gave this speech: https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-190221.pdf but of course anyone can be wrong.

The courts aren't just a coin operated machine to facilitate financial transfers from one party to the opposing.

You're going to have to spell it out to me how the 'moral courage' speech applies to the point that was made.

I'm really not going to "have" to do anything. Feel free to remain obtuse, it appears to be what you're keen on.

[Forester1965]

HiAsAKite said:

and/or the director can be deemed personally responsible.. so the claim is not only on the company, but on the director personally

What features of this particular claim do you believe could make the directors personally liable?

[martinbiz]

Simpo Two said:

Ganglandboss said:

Any more thoughts?

I think it's nothing to do with your case. What's relevant is what was going on during and before your experience.

Of course it's relevant,the OP is yet to paid

Your user name really is very apt considering some of the posts you make

[Simpo Two]

martinbiz said:

Simpo Two said:

Ganglandboss said:

Any more thoughts?

I think it's nothing to do with your case. What's relevant is what was going on during and before your experience.

Of course it's relevant,the OP is yet to paid

Your user name really is very apt considering some of the posts you make

Post count is irrelevant, as are pointless jibes.

Just remind me if the OP has sued and won, or is waiting for his day in court.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

OP, followed this thread from the start.

Whilst I admire your tenacity and doggedness, I think I would have taken the £900 and called it a draw.

However, I can also see why you'd want to put an unsafe dive charter/school out of business. Surely there are professional bodies (no pun intended) that can do that?

Best of luck and keep us updated please.