Fairline Dorset Limited---VAT Fraud

[acbruce]

Well, we do know that my boat had a valid VAT invoice but I was lead to believe that this was the only case where this was true - WARNING HEARSAY EVIDENCE!

In my case the boat was supplied by Fairline to Offshore Nautical CI Limited in the Channel Islands and then sold by them to the associated company Fairline Dorset Limited, which James Williams was a director of, and thence to me. I had an appropriate chain of documentation to substaniate this.

I have to say that my dealings with James Williams were all fine and of course I have no knowledge of my happened to the VAT the I paid and why. However he was convicted after a three week trial.

This thread seems to have focussed on the VAT position of the other boat purchasers but my big issue remains that a) people shoud use lawyers to buy expensive boats to protect themselves, and b) this is yet another case where a manufacturer of yachts holds out companies as distribution agents who then either misbehave or run into financial difficulties. If you are a manufacturer shouldn't you be controlling who can represent you, sell your product and use your name more carefully?

It all does make buying a new boat a little more nerve-racking than it should be!

[JFJ]

He's not the accused, he's the convicted criminal. As such he should be hanging his head in shame. Surely you're not trying to say that he made an innocent mistake?

Hi LJS
What I am saying is, all is not what it seems and just because a Jury has found the person guilty it does not mean he is. The case against this chap was made very complicated by the HMRC, which in turn made it extremely difficult for the Jury to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
There has been many cases in history where an innocent man has been "set up" and hanged for a crime he did not commit for instance "George Kelly was executed at Walton jail on Merseyside in March 1950," google this and it might enlighten you. Of course it is too late to "undo" the hanging as no amount of pardoning can bring him back.
I have known the man in question for over 20 years and I know him to be an honest and trustworthy person. Yes he has made mistakes, as we all have, but this case was about being sucked in by the big fish and swallowed up. The real criminals have escaped any form of punishment, and in my opinion this was a stitch up.
His family and friends are serving this sentence with him as we all know that he is not wholly to blame for the mess he has been dropped in, so I would ask that comments about this matter be restricted to fact as it is a nightmare for all his family at the moment. Thank you

[mikef]

b) this is yet another case where a manufacturer of yachts holds out companies as distribution agents who then either misbehave or run into financial difficulties. If you are a manufacturer shouldn't you be controlling who can represent you, sell your product and use your name more carefully?

Yes you are absolutely right and in fact, one British boatbuilder, Sunseeker, did recently step in to save a dealer going under in order to maintain it's credibility with customers. In doing so, Sunseeker put themselves in financial difficulties which resulted in the Sunseeker having to be rescued by new investors. Obviously we don't know the full story but on the face of it, Fairline seem to have washed their hands of this. Did you contact them and what did they say?
Yes, manufacturers should control how their dealers operate but I know from my own experience that this is not really how manufacturers think, especially smaller ones as are found in the boat building industry. The whole reason they use a dealer network is so that, contractually, they don't have to involve themselves directly with customers. Most manufacturers usually only want 3 things from their dealers and those are meeting sales targets, conforming with payment schedules and minimising warranty cost claims. Beyond that, most manufacturers aren't interested how dealers operate in their individual markets

[Nick_H]

Obviously we don't know the full story but on the face of it, Fairline seem to have washed their hands of this.

Has any buyer lost money? I thought not, so I can't see that Fairline are washing their hands of it, unless you expected them to reimburse HMRC

[mikef]

Has any buyer lost money? I thought not, so I can't see that Fairline are washing their hands of it, unless you expected them to reimburse HMRC

As a manufacturer and seeing as this situation involved buyers of brand new Fairline boats, I would expect Fairline to contact each of the buyers to assure them that they would do everything possible to help them and appoint one person in the Fairline marketing team to be a point of contact. Whether they could or would help is immaterial, it would have demonstrated to these buyers that the manufacturer was ready to stand behind it's product. I realise that this is an alien concept to some manufacturers but it certainly would have been the right thing to do. As I say, we wait for the OP to confirm whether he tried to involve Fairline and if so, what their reaction was

[Nick_H]

As a manufacturer and seeing as this situation involved buyers of brand new Fairline boats, I would expect Fairline to contact each of the buyers to assure them that they would do everything possible to help them and appoint one person in the Fairline marketing team to be a point of contact. Whether they could or would help is immaterial, it would have demonstrated to these buyers that the manufacturer was ready to stand behind it's product. I realise that this is an alien concept to some manufacturers but it certainly would have been the right thing to do. As I say, we wait for the OP to confirm whether he tried to involve Fairline and if so, what their reaction was

Do we know that Fairline haven't done exactly that? The only involved customer to post on here is in the clear anyway due to his solicitors involvement, and in an earlier post he wrote "I would love to know what Fairline's attitude has been to helping those who didn't have all the documents", so he clearly hasn't stated that others have been left in the lurch. I think it's a bit early to suggest Fairline have washed their hands of anything.

[acbruce]

Nick,

You are right, I have no knowledge of what Fairline have done. I have not been contacted by them but I have not needed their help and no longer own the relevant boat. Let's hope that Fairline have given what help is necessary and possible.

I think the real issue is that builders such as Fairline need to realise that their reputation is at stake where the action of their "agents" is concerned. Obviously if the distributors really were agents in the legal sense then they might focus rather more intently on their actions etc.

Mike,

I too noted that Sunseeker had intervened to protect their customers and good on them for that.

[mikef]

Do we know that Fairline haven't done exactly that? The only involved customer to post on here is in the clear anyway due to his solicitors involvement, and in an earlier post he wrote "I would love to know what Fairline's attitude has been to helping those who didn't have all the documents", so he clearly hasn't stated that others have been left in the lurch. I think it's a bit early to suggest Fairline have washed their hands of anything.

Well thats why I keep asking for the OP to explain whether he contacted Fairline for help or not but the fact that he has complained about Fairline's lack of control over their dealer tends to suggest that they did not involve themselves in the situation. But as I say, some clarification from the OP would be helpful

[Brian Legal]

Nick,

You are right, I have no knowledge of what Fairline have done. I have not been contacted by them but I have not needed their help and no longer own the relevant boat. Let's hope that Fairline have given what help is necessary and possible.

I think the real issue is that builders such as Fairline need to realise that their reputation is at stake where the action of their "agents" is concerned. Obviously if the distributors really were agents in the legal sense then they might focus rather more intently on their actions etc.

Mike,

I too noted that Sunseeker had intervened to protect their customers and good on them for that.

I had cause to approach Fairline at the time on this and they (perhaps understandably) were not too keen on getting involved.

I fully agree that it would be in their interests to become involved and perhaps now that the matter is done and dusted, they will. You never know - we live in hope!!

I'm glad that you bought your boat in a sensible way. There's been a lot written recently about VAT (see back in February) and there are a lot of "experts" that will give you retrospective advice. I see a lot of these problems, usually at the point when someone is trying to sell their boat, but in the main they can be avoided by purchasing it wisely in the first place.

Best wishes

Brian

[PaulGooch]

How do you actually know that the accused "stole" the alleged £210,000 VAT? If you speak on authority on this case then you identify yourself as an interested party (ie you are involved in the case). I do not know you personally but you sound very unchristian in your attitude towards this man. As regards to your last question I am not related to him, but I do not make judgements on the outcome of the court case as I know different and you should speak as you find not join in with the rest of the pack wolves.

Here's a clue for you :

James Williams (51) was found guilty on six counts of cheating the public revenue and one count of false accounting. He was sent to prison for three years.