Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
It would be the Coach firms themselves?
The boat/James (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pusbccfc
- Start date
duffer
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, and in fairness mate I'd totally agree that in any other circumstance you and d&c are spot on in that the company shouldn't be giving out the info to a third-party without permission. But I think because it's been self-published this would be a hard one to get a judgement on. I'm not the ICO though and this is just my opinion - if James feels wronged he should complain, definitely.
Fwiw, GDPR is a bit of a nightmare in my area which relates to credit modelling (trust me, it's not as exciting as it sounds!), because of the various opt-ins and opt-outs regarding processing data that are now available to individual customers. Lots of people still scratching their heads at my place, meetings every week about how to handle it; suffice to say it's a complex area. I'd rather complain about SISU or Wasps but no one at work will listen to me any more.
Either way, still don't want to see the bloke threatened, which I suppose is where I came in.
pusbccfc
Well-Known Member
I'm desperate to believe him and do believe therr are genuine mistakes having been made.
I have been on his coaches a couple of times and had absolutely no problems.
However, I agree with some people about the lies that keep popping up. James was going on about 3 party boats being sold for that day. However, he now says it was 1 party boat and 1 family boat.
Where was this family boat? It wasn't with us during the day. No one seems to have said they went on it?
I have been on his coaches a couple of times and had absolutely no problems.
However, I agree with some people about the lies that keep popping up. James was going on about 3 party boats being sold for that day. However, he now says it was 1 party boat and 1 family boat.
Where was this family boat? It wasn't with us during the day. No one seems to have said they went on it?
duffer
Well-Known Member
Tricky one that. If you paid me for a seat, and I'd booked but didn't pay the coach firm, I don't think the coach firm is under any obligation to refund you directly or provide you with the service.
There's obviously an element of trust here, and in fairness to James he seems to have run a lot of these and helped a lot of people to travel cheaply and without incident. For me personally that's a mark in the plus column...
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
I know of at least one poster on here who went on the family boat.
It was mentioned on an earlier thread that one went ok as no booze was advertised on that one.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
I think he means public liability insurance not for the price of the ticket. In fairness it's no different to what we do with L&W supporters and equality a level of trust but I'd 100% back anything those lads did and no reason to think otherwise.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I see what you're saying but a lot of companies don't have that facility - especially ones that are mainly business to business. Funnily enough I prefer not to pay things via a website, especially to small businesses whom I don't always trust to have adequate levels of security.
If I could offer just one bit of advice for anyone who isn't aware of it, it's always worth putting some part of any fair sized purchase on a credit card if you can (especially Cars, TVs, or things of that nature). Then you get some level of protection from a thing called Section 75 where the Credit Card company may be obliged to refund you if the goods or services are not delivered, fit for purpose, or as described. It's a very, very handy thing to have in your back pocket if you fall into a dispute with the vendor and they're not being helpful.
Even better, you don't have to put the whole amount on the card, just a small part of (say) the deposit will cover you for the whole purchase.
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance - OR, an Onion with part of a pie in it.
Sorry Rob, always loved messing with words - blame my Nan for all the games of Scrabble!
duffer
Well-Known Member
Sorry. completely missed that. As a private individual just organising bookings I'm not sure he'd have to have public liability would he? The coach company certainly would be obliged though, I'm sure.
Not at all I haven’t asked for my money back, I wasn’t bothered at first was generally still a good boat something different. And Iv said fair play to him on many busy occasions for him such as Wembley and few other away trips - there have been a few issues as to be expected but generally always get to where you need to be - so I thought why not . It was constantly advertised and a lot of friends were going on it. However he does and is known to exaggerate on the amount of coaches he has, passengers on his flights etc. He told some 4,3,2 boats. People are stating different figures, different things about all his trips which he told them and lies are flying left right and centre. Basically he just needs to come forward with the truth it’s not about the refund it’s the fact he can’t provide simple email confirmation which would of been sent, therefore is a 7000 difference near enough with that he told everyone and the fact the emails said he 100% knew it was not free bar and food. So lies yet again..
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it James that said it went ok, on this thread, post 97? Or do you mean you actually know someone who went on the family boat?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
No it was ether on here or fb.
But believe it was on here I know the poster but not up to me to post his name.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
In Jimbo's defence, If anyone is stupid enough to pay £1200 for a trip to Barcelona then he should be allowed to keep the money.
Fuck me, you could literally buy a round the world flight ticket for that much.
All jokes aside though, I don't like to see threats but this does look bad. There is so much naivety about. Even when he was doing the coaches to Wembley, what did people think?
If he made only a £1 profit on every coach seat then we're talking thousands and thousands.
Fuck me, you could literally buy a round the world flight ticket for that much.
All jokes aside though, I don't like to see threats but this does look bad. There is so much naivety about. Even when he was doing the coaches to Wembley, what did people think?
If he made only a £1 profit on every coach seat then we're talking thousands and thousands.
WhaleOilBeefHooked
Well-Known Member
In his defence though, there's nothing wrong with that. He's providing a service, at below the rate you can get elsewhere, and generally speaking the coaches work well (minus a few hiccups which was always going to happen). So he should make a profit, he's not a charity.
I also agree that it doesn't look good. The radio silence is bad, and whoever is advising him to stay quiet is a terrible teacher.
I hope that this is truly a cock up of the highest order... however you do need to consider his past. I understand people are saying that second chances should be given, and rightly so, but you should always be mindful of previous issues. Leopards don't change their spots etc etc. And the fact is he's previously been in prison for fraud which was deceptive and calculating (I know exactly what he did) and ultimately stupid - in general and how he got caught. Coupled with all these little stories popping up and this fits fraud typologies to an absolute T (get everyone invested and trusting early doors and then go for a 'big hit' by offering boat trips and Euro trips) and you have a whole new shitstorm. The constantly saying he's 'poor' doesn't help either as that's another incentive.
One thing for it. Share evidence. If he doesn't, the silence is deafening and is effectively akin to admitting it. If he does, he's vindicated.
James. Do the right thing before you get too deep into this - both reputationally and before people start contacting the police.
Specs WT-R75
Well-Known Member
You haven't though. You could get your side across by posting copies of invoices and the only reason that you haven't done that is because they won't corroborate what you have said elsewhere. The £4000 transaction if legitimate is for 2 boat trips not one as you have already mentioned you had a family boat that also sailed without any issues at all.
There is only 2 explanations here:
1) you are telling the truth - will be easy to prove that by just posting up a copy of the invoices for the boats...
or
2) you haven't been completely truthful with the details surrounding the boat, or have got some of the details mixed up thinking you were getting something that you weren't and the profit margins were too good to be true...
Look, I don't personally have any issues with you running a boat trip and making a bunch of cash from it. The issue is people that have been given the run around. Just come out and tell the whole truth, refund every penny of profit from the boat trip and chalk that one as a bad experience...
or you could carry on giving people the run around and they probably won't be using the coaches in the future either....
my 2cs.
Otis
Well-Known Member
A lot of conclusion jumping isn't there.
I reckon it was Mr. Plum in the study with the lead pipe.
harvey098
Well-Known Member
This is my synopsis.
James genuinely thought the money he was paying was for the unlimited drink option but he clearly didn’t read the booking form correctly, which is why he’s embarrassed to show that now because it will prove he didn’t have that included.
I think he genuinely paid that £4000 on the screenshot but probably not much more and the reason hes withholding some of the info is because he’s embarrassed to show how much money he wouldve actually made (which is why he’s rushing to refund people before having to show his figures).
This isn’t the act of a con merchant, it’s the act of someone who got it wrong but stood to make a lot of money because of their own wrong calculations and is now backtracking.
James genuinely thought the money he was paying was for the unlimited drink option but he clearly didn’t read the booking form correctly, which is why he’s embarrassed to show that now because it will prove he didn’t have that included.
I think he genuinely paid that £4000 on the screenshot but probably not much more and the reason hes withholding some of the info is because he’s embarrassed to show how much money he wouldve actually made (which is why he’s rushing to refund people before having to show his figures).
This isn’t the act of a con merchant, it’s the act of someone who got it wrong but stood to make a lot of money because of their own wrong calculations and is now backtracking.
christonabike
Well-Known Member
So without reading through all the threads again how much do people think James has trousered? Or are we still waiting for screen shots?
skyblueeyesrevisited
Well-Known Member
Let’s just say he should have been wearing cargo trousers
Nick
Administrator
Why? Is he into docking?
skyblueeyesrevisited
Well-Known Member
From what some posters are saying he should have been wearing a Captain Hook costume.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I think after the initial interest there was a plan for a second boat but I think loads dropped out so in the end the demand wasn't there.
skyblueeyesrevisited
Well-Known Member
Sounds a lot like Brexit
Otis
Well-Known Member
There's talk of a family boat though and people say they were on it, so there's your two boats.
Nick
Administrator
Surely the first thing James should have replied was "What they have listed is only one of the boats?"
I don't really think he is helping himself in any of it, just adding more confusion.
Nick
Administrator
Isn't that a lock?
WhaleOilBeefHooked
Well-Known Member
Trying to be diplomatic here, but it looks like he's attempting things which are above and beyond his capabilities - both from a commercial point of view and an intelligence one, too.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Good job he won't be able to comprehend your post then.
ccfcricoh
Well-Known Member
I didnt go so wasnt going to comment but seeing as this is topic of the month!
Surely if James refunds everyone that paid £20 that should be the end of it? The only issue was lack of free drink? So £10 for a boat trip seems reasonable?
its irrelevant how much he was going to make because everyone was going to happily pay anyway?
I may well be missing loads but oh well!
Surely if James refunds everyone that paid £20 that should be the end of it? The only issue was lack of free drink? So £10 for a boat trip seems reasonable?
its irrelevant how much he was going to make because everyone was going to happily pay anyway?
I may well be missing loads but oh well!
It's good but it's not right.
Depends where you are from
Loch!!