Coronavirus And The Broads

[Meantime]

38 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter. Those who are not content with the way the BA runs it's business do not actually have to pay the tolls. They can sell their boats and buy caravans on Canvey Island. Sorry to be so blunt, but whether or not the BA offers value for money will not figure highly compared with feeding the masses of unemployed people this shut-down will create.

Those caravans, they call them bungalows, but they are really static caravans cost from £260,000. Probably cheaper to stick with the boat

http://sandybay.co.uk/sandy-bay-development/

[DAVIDH]

48 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

2 hours ago, DAVIDH said:

The government needs to stop sitting on it's hands on this, and come out in support of those businesses by guaranteeing the validity of these refund credit notes.

I'm not sure the government is in any position to do this.

Perhaps we need to remember that, as I said earlier, the government as such, has no money. To obtain money, it taxes people/businesses. we all want the government to pay for this, that and the other, but all that means will be paying more tax.

When this is over, we shall look back at what we have called "austerity budgets" with wistful smiles thinking "We never had it so good"

Cutbacks will abound, tax will soar and the standard of living will drop through the floor. Those are the likely outcomes of this pandemic to some extent or other. This will not just be in the UK, it will have to be the case in any country which has been economically affected by the virus.

I don't disagree with any of that MM. I was just making the point that the support for the credit notes would be self-financing in that it would be much cheaper than lost tax revenues from both the companies, and their employees, which winding up would precipitate. Plus the government would then have to support all those made redundant until they can find other jobs. It was the government that said they want to keep as many enterprises trading as possible, so that the recovery (when it comes) is faster avoiding a recession that drags out over many months. 

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, DAVIDH said:

 The government needs to stop sitting on it's hands on this, and come out in support of those businesses by guaranteeing the validity of these refund credit notes.

And who is going to reimburse the government for all the support they are dishing out, answers on a postcard please.

Fred

[marshman]

Now, forgive me for saying this, and with apologies to Andy especially, but can anyone explain how the holiday industry as a whole continues to operate on such a flawed business model that they cannot pay back to customers (less a deposit even) monies that were paid to them a few weeks in ago? Did they never listen to those who said you should never rob Peter to pay Paul, or pay another debt with someone elses money? It isn't good enough IMHO to just say "oh dear, we have spent that money - can you wait until next year?" Neither is it ok to say, oh that is how its done, is it?  Why? There is still a lot I clearly fail to understand but you should be able to repay someone who has given money in advance for a service and you are not providing it ? I am not sure either it is the Governments responsibility to "give you credit" and cover your backside?

Ok its not really an analogy but would you pay for a car up front or at least more than a few days? Do you buy a house and give the money to a builder to build it? Do you pay a tradesman in advance for doing a job - as I have described it, its like giving your money to a builder and then he uses that money to build a house for someone else, without you having any recourse to getting your money back other than when it suits him?

I have clearly missed something - or perhaps the holiday companies have, especially as this trend of holiday companies pulling a fast one continues over and over! When fuel goes up they demand a "fuel surcharge" but when it goes down, they trouser the difference without batting an eyelid? It all seems to me to be a disaster waiting to happen.

So going back to the boat scenario, why cannot I pay a deposit, and lose it if I don't keep my side of the bargain, but pay as I take the boat over? Seems a good way to go - plenty of others follow that model - hire car companies for example! 

If the argument is that you need any agency to do the booking, so be it, but sort that out directly with them and find a way, but don't refuse to pay back the punter who has entrusted you with his money. Sadly on that logic I just would not accept a RCN credit note or similar under any circumstances - I want back what they have "borrowed" from me now.

[DAVIDH]

3 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

And who is going to reimburse the government for all the support they are dishing out, answers on a postcard please.

Fred

You and me of course Fred, in the form of income tax and VAT (amongst others). That's why limiting the liability now makes sense.

 

[Oddfellow]

3 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

And who is going to reimburse the government for all the support they are dishing out, answers on a postcard please.

Fred

And who would deal with the resultant poverty caused by not supporting businesses and people? Seems that some of us aren't happy either way. 

Few are going to come out of this situation unscathed. I am not supporter of the Tories, but at this point in proceedings, I would concede that they seem to be doing a half-decent job in this instance. It's gonna be painful for a long time (just like after the war) but, the choices are few and no matter what the government does, it won't please everybody. 

Currently, there are huge representations to the government at many levels to step in and provide more support for the decimated domestic tourism market. It might and it might not. If it dosen't be prepared to whinge that the Broads pubs are boarded up, the shops are closed, the rivers are overgrown, yacht stations unstaffed, and more. You can't have it all ways. 

[marshman]

Oh and Pete, don't forget there are loads of services you have paid for and not receiving in the short term, that you can poke a stick at, other than the BA. Do you want help in formulating a list?

[Meantime]

8 minutes ago, marshman said:

Now, forgive me for saying this, and with apologies to Andy especially, but can anyone explain how the holiday industry as a whole continues to operate on such a flawed business model that they cannot pay back to customers (less a deposit even) monies that were paid to them a few weeks in ago? Did they never listen to those who said you should never rob Peter to pay Paul, or pay another debt with someone elses money? It isn't good enough IMHO to just say "oh dear, we have spent that money - can you wait until next year?" Neither is it ok to say, oh that is how its done, is it?  Why? There is still a lot I clearly fail to understand but you should be able to repay someone who has given money in advance for a service and you are not providing it ? I am not sure either it is the Governments responsibility to "give you credit" and cover your backside?

Ok its not really an analogy but would you pay for a car up front or at least more than a few days? Do you buy a house and give the money to a builder to build it? Do you pay a tradesman in advance for doing a job - as I have described it, its like giving your money to a builder and then he uses that money to build a house for someone else, without you having any recourse to getting your money back other than when it suits him?

I have clearly missed something - or perhaps the holiday companies have, especially as this trend of holiday companies pulling a fast one continues over and over! When fuel goes up they demand a "fuel surcharge" but when it goes down, they trouser the difference without batting an eyelid? It all seems to me to be a disaster waiting to happen.

So going back to the boat scenario, why cannot I pay a deposit, and lose it if I don't keep my side of the bargain, but pay as I take the boat over? Seems a good way to go - plenty of others follow that model - hire car companies for example! 

If the argument is that you need any agency to do the booking, so be it, but sort that out directly with them and find a way, but don't refuse to pay back the punter who has entrusted you with his money. Sadly on that logic I just would not accept a RCN credit note or similar under any circumstances - I want back what they have "borrowed" from me now.

I guess the big difference and why the tourist industry works the way it does is because it is time limited. You book your holiday and pay the deposit, and to use your example pay the balance when you take the boat over. If you fail to turn up you lose your deposit and the hire yard won't have another customer ready to take over that boat on that day in time, so revenue lost. With your other examples they are not time limited and therefore you pull out from buying the car or house and it can be resold a few weeks later.

[Ray]

This is straight from Facebook, but seems a reliable source :(

NEWS⚡️: MBO has just received word that Windboats Marine Limited, based in North Walsham, Norfolk, the manufacturers of the Hardy range of motorboats, has 'entered administration due to a general downturn in orders and the untimely impact of the COVID-19 pandemic'

[DAVIDH]

2 minutes ago, marshman said:

Now, forgive me for saying this, and with apologies to Andy especially, but can anyone explain how the holiday industry as a whole continues to operate on such a flawed business model that they cannot pay back to customers (less a deposit even) monies that were paid to them a few weeks in ago?

Take a booking for say a city break to Dubai. The travel industry (cannot say for sure with boating companies) collects the money as either a deposit and/or full payment. They pay the airlines at the time of booking. So in this case, BA or Emirates. They will pay the hotels at around 4 weeks before departure. They will have set terms with both the airlines and the hotels regarding what happens if the holiday cannot be taken. So in theory, both would refund the money back to the travel company for transmission to the customer. No fee being taken by any party in doing so. However, just as the tour operator is being pressed by it's customers to issue a refund, the airlines and hotels are also being pressed. All parties hold on to their money because to do otherwise would probably send them out of business. So the operators are not holding the money in most cases, and are trying, like the customer, to get money from those it has paid. You will have read what dire state the airlines are in. They collect money for future travel and use that to pay for the aircraft leases. You wouldn't expect them to collect the money, then go out and lease aircraft would you? 

The point regarding fuel surcharges I'm not sure about as I cannot remember fuel surcharges being applied for many a year, and when they were, they had to be approved by ABTA, which said if they rose my more than 2%, the customer had the right to cancel with a full  refund. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter. Those who are not content with the way the BA runs it's business do not actually have to pay the tolls.

John, I too will be blunt. That statement is profoundly flawed. It is clearly written in law that the Broads is a tidal water and that I, and lots of others, have an absolute right of access to the sea from our properties, riparian rights. That right was challenged by the Authority in the House of Lords and our right was upheld. If we wish to exercise that right then we have to pay a harbour due (toll) in order to be able to do so. There is no alternative, we have to use the services of the Authority, no debate. I have absolutely no alternative, in order to exercise my right I have to pay what is demanded of me by the unaccountable Broads Authority. It is taxation without representation.

The Harbours Act is abundantly clear, harbour dues should be fair and reasonable. This is my home, Canvey Island is not, nor do I wish it to be.

[grendel]

31 minutes ago, Ray said:

This is straight from Facebook, but seems a reliable source :(

NEWS⚡️: MBO has just received word that Windboats Marine Limited, based in North Walsham, Norfolk, the manufacturers of the Hardy range of motorboats, has 'entered administration due to a general downturn in orders and the untimely impact of the COVID-19 pandemic'

https://www.edp24.co.uk/business/historic-norfolk-boatbuilder-windboat-marine-looking-for-new-buyer-1-6631234

[MauriceMynah]

Peter, If you don't own a boat, you don't need to pay the BA anything. If you choose to own a boat then you have to pay the toll. Owning a boat is your choice. That was what I said (though not exactly in those words) my words were...

…"Those who are not content with the way the BA runs it's business do not actually have to pay the tolls. They can sell their boats and buy caravans on Canvey Island."

Quoting the first sentence alone is somewhat misleading, and as a free standing statement would indeed be incorrect.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

And who would deal with the resultant poverty caused by not supporting businesses and people? Seems that some of us aren't happy either way. 

Few are going to come out of this situation unscathed. I am not supporter of the Tories, but at this point in proceedings, I would concede that they seem to be doing a half-decent job in this instance. It's gonna be painful for a long time (just like after the war) but, the choices are few and no matter what the government does, it won't please everybody. 

Currently, there are huge representations to the government at many levels to step in and provide more support for the decimated domestic tourism market. It might and it might not. If it dosen't be prepared to whinge that the Broads pubs are boarded up, the shops are closed, the rivers are overgrown, yacht stations unstaffed, and more. You can't have it all ways. 

Andy, my point exactly the more we ask for now the more we are going to have to find tomorrow and the fewer businesses and therefore the more unemployed there are the bigger the burden on everyone, while I try and look at everything on its merits and happily accept the majority are trying to play theire part I am becoming more and more saddened by those who can or will only see whats in their own interests and not is what in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Fred

 

[Oddfellow]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Now, forgive me for saying this, and with apologies to Andy especially, but can anyone explain how the holiday industry as a whole continues to operate on such a flawed business model that they cannot pay back to customers (less a deposit even) monies that were paid to them a few weeks in ago?

The pandemic has forced governments around the world to take drastic action to protect life and in doing so ripped open economies, tested economic systems to the max and beyond and exposed many weaknesses in many other systems. These weaknesses would never be exposed during normal operation. Are they weaknesses at all? Are they they really flaws?

What we are talking about here is more akin to testing something to destruction; "Hey, look, that lifting shackle is rated at 3tonnes but it didn't snap until we tried to pull a Boeing 737 through concrete, what a piece of crap that was"

Nobody really cares about these things when they work but when you force them to break, people form opinions. 

There are many business model parallels.

 

[MauriceMynah]

7 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am becoming more and more saddened by those who can or will only see whats in their own interests and not is what in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Fred, I quoted this part of your post because I didn't think a "like" was anywhere near enough.

Such is the society we live in... unless it proves me wrong and steps up to the challenge. We can only hope!

[Poppy]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Now, forgive me for saying this, and with apologies to Andy especially, but can anyone explain how the holiday industry as a whole continues to operate on such a flawed business model that they cannot pay back to customers (less a deposit even) monies that were paid to them a few weeks in ago? Did they never listen to those who said you should never rob Peter to pay Paul, or pay another debt with someone elses money? It isn't good enough IMHO to just say "oh dear, we have spent that money - can you wait until next year?" Neither is it ok to say, oh that is how its done, is it?  Why? There is still a lot I clearly fail to understand but you should be able to repay someone who has given money in advance for a service and you are not providing it ? I am not sure either it is the Governments responsibility to "give you credit" and cover your backside?

Ok its not really an analogy but would you pay for a car up front or at least more than a few days? Do you buy a house and give the money to a builder to build it? Do you pay a tradesman in advance for doing a job - as I have described it, its like giving your money to a builder and then he uses that money to build a house for someone else, without you having any recourse to getting your money back other than when it suits him?

I have clearly missed something - or perhaps the holiday companies have, especially as this trend of holiday companies pulling a fast one continues over and over! When fuel goes up they demand a "fuel surcharge" but when it goes down, they trouser the difference without batting an eyelid? It all seems to me to be a disaster waiting to happen.

So going back to the boat scenario, why cannot I pay a deposit, and lose it if I don't keep my side of the bargain, but pay as I take the boat over? Seems a good way to go - plenty of others follow that model - hire car companies for example! 

If the argument is that you need any agency to do the booking, so be it, but sort that out directly with them and find a way, but don't refuse to pay back the punter who has entrusted you with his money. Sadly on that logic I just would not accept a RCN credit note or similar under any circumstances - I want back what they have "borrowed" from me now.

Very good analysis.  It occurs to me that Solicitors are now required ( and have beenfor some time ) to keep a 'client account' for monies held on their behalf.  Perhaps the time is overdue for a similar arrangement to be a requirement for the travel and holiday industry.

[Poppy]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

And who is going to reimburse the government for all the support they are dishing out, answers on a postcard please.

Fred

Well whoever it is, it sure as hell won't be that bloke who lives on Nekar Island or his like !

[Oddfellow]

18 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Very good analysis.  It occurs to me that Solicitors are now required ( and have beenfor some time ) to keep a 'client account' for monies held on their behalf.  Perhaps the time is overdue for a similar arrangement to be a requirement for the travel and holiday industry.

And for builders! Let's get a builder to knock up an extension and only pay him when it's complete. Who cares what he lives on or how he pays his bills during the build? 

Ah, you might say, but he's building, making something I can see, I can see where the money's going. 

And so are holiday providers. They need the cash flow to prepare your holiday. Just because you can't see progress and preparation, dosen't mean to say it's not there. 

 

[Poppy]

1 minute ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

And for builders! Let's get a builder to knock up an extension and only pay him when it's complete. Who cares what he lives on or how he pays his bills during the build? 

Ah, you might say, but he's building, making something I can see, I can see where the money's going. 

And so are holiday providers. They need the cash flow to prepare your holiday. Just because you can't see progress and preparation, dosen't mean to say it's not there. 

 

The business model of holiday providers  needs to be looked at then.

The cash flow is from bookings completed ( or about to be) . Until I take the holiday which I have booked, the deposit /full payment monies belong to me, unless I breach contact in some way.

As it happens, I have had a builder carry out some work . The cost was considerably more that that of any holiday I have taken. 

NO payment was due or requested until the work was finished to our satisfaction.

If I buy a house, deposit money is held by a solicitor  in a secure client account. Both sides are therefore protected.

[Oddfellow]

6 minutes ago, Poppy said:

The business model of holiday providers  needs to be looked at then.

The cash flow is from bookings completed ( or about to be) . Until I take the holiday which I have booked, the deposit /full payment monies belong to me, unless I breach contact in some way.

As it happens, I have had a builder carry out some work . The cost was considerably more that that of any holiday I have taken. 

NO payment was due or requested until the work was finished to our satisfaction.

If I buy a house, deposit money is held by a solicitor  in a secure client account. Both sides are therefore protected.

Have it your way. I am not going to argue with you, especially if you cannot see that the vast majority of the effort to give you a holiday is made prior to your arrival. 

[ChrisB]

One must never forget that there has to be trust in business, without trust there can be no business.

[DuncanPritchard]

Well Hoseasons still have my cash, they have not paid the boat provider. I checked today. ( told the yard i will book direct with them in future, i don't mind waiting for a legit business and helping them but not a bunch of chralatans)

Therefore why no refund? I think CMA will crucify them plus others, 

lesson learnt will only book direct with yards in future

 

 

[marshman]

Andy - no one is trying to argue with you but you have to admit that time and time again over the last decades, we have seen holiday companies collapse and people lose their money - you must therefore accede that if that is happening time and time again then something is wrong? 

With respect, your analogy too is wrong saying so much is in the preparation prior to your arrival - thats precisely the same in almost every consumer product you can think of from carmakers to the farmer growing asparagus or breeding pigs - the latter has to add feed and processing costs out of his pocket way before the customer pays for it - and they have to cope too.

Its not you I am having a poke at at all and believe me, I understand the point you are making, but the model you are operating fails time and time again and yet nothing is done to protect the consumer and your customer from losing his money. ATOL helps some but is specific to part of one sector and there seems little appetite to set up similar schemes to help the guy losing his money time and time again when holiday operators fail to deliver. And that includes offering RCN's for next year which not everyone wants - its not a choice for some people who want the certainty back of what they have paid out . Lets just assume next year there is another lockdown, what then - oh just wait another year???

( Andy - this is not a crusade against you , the industry or anyone in particular nor am I trying to argue for the sake of it, but I really believe if the vendor of the "product" cannot deliver then there is a valid case for a refund.

[Oddfellow]

19 minutes ago, marshman said:

Andy - no one is trying to argue with you but you have to admit that time and time again over the last decades, we have seen holiday companies collapse and people lose their money - you must therefore accede that if that is happening time and time again then something is wrong? 

With respect, your analogy too is wrong saying so much is in the preparation prior to your arrival - thats precisely the same in almost every consumer product you can think of from carmakers to the farmer growing asparagus or breeding pigs - the latter has to add feed and processing costs out of his pocket way before the customer pays for it - and they have to cope too.

Its not you I am having a poke at at all and believe me, I understand the point you are making, but the model you are operating fails time and time again and yet nothing is done to protect the consumer and your customer from losing his money. ATOL helps some but is specific to part of one sector and there seems little appetite to set up similar schemes to help the guy losing his money time and time again when holiday operators fail to deliver. And that includes offering RCN's for next year which not everyone wants - its not a choice for some people who want the certainty back of what they have paid out . Lets just assume next year there is another lockdown, what then - oh just wait another year???

( Andy - this is not a crusade against you , the industry or anyone in particular nor am I trying to argue for the sake of it, but I really believe if the vendor of the "product" cannot deliver then there is a valid case for a refund.

No, i don't agree with the opening statement at all. Companies fold. It happens. It's happened today with Windboats. It happened to Woolworths, Comet, Corrillion. You could single out sectors if you wish, but I am sure it will be to support your argument rather than be a true reflection of the state of markets, the economy, changing buyer behaviours and a host of other reasons. 

In your second paragraph, you use the term "product". A holiday is a service, not a product. If someone doesn't buy that car today,  it's still available tomorrow for sale and when it's sold, another one can be made in under a day to replace it; not so with a holiday as it is not a physical thing. It is as finite as the last minute that just past: you will never see that minute again. 

I don't disagree there is a case for a refund. LIke I said above, this pandemic has split open entire economies, exposing issues that some people would like to call "flaws" or "weaknesses". No business model, especially one that produces paper-thin margins, can sustain the financial problems the globe faces currently.  Yet, we are happy to single out a service industry that is going to be hit the hardest and the longest as being "flawed"?  Give me a break. Some realism is needed here.