"Dorothy Robbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In a service industry, is it not reasonable to expect the service provider >to give the service user the service he or she requires?
No. That's a fairly fundamental misconception you've got their Dorothy! In fact, it is reasonable only to expect the provider to give the user the service *the user has contracted for*. >Assuming that Simon conforms to all the conditions of his mooring >requirements, he should expect to continue to receive the level of service >for which he has signed up. Yes. But only until the period of his mooring contract expires. Unless a right to renew is part of the contract, he has no valid expectations for what happens after the end of that period. > He should not expect his fees to rise substantially through no action of > his: You need to add "within the contract period" to that statement. Then it's true, unless such a rise within the contract period is covered by the conditions of the contract. I think that was not the case at Sawley, and did not occur. What fee might apply in a subsequent period is not defined in this case. It might well be substantially different from that for the current period. An example. Last time I ordered diesel delivered to my mooring, I paid 43p/litre. This time it was 56p/litre. A substantial rise through no action of mine! Disgusting! Call out the price police! > he should not be required to go out of his way to use a change of mooring > imposed on him: Yes. When his contract expires, he is quite free to go anywhere else he likes. But he does have to go away, of course.. > he should expect to continue to receive the same level of service for the > same consideration >(plus inflation as appropriate) as before. Another fundamental misconception. After the contract expires, he should not expect anything. >I would expect any service I use to conform to these conventions: Then you are likely to be disappointed, because of your faulty assumptions. > BW as a service provider expects certain behaviour from its clients, but in > return >has an obligation (or should have) to commit to a level of service to its >clients, Yes, within the period of the contract and consistent with the conditions of the contract. >rather than dictating where people should keep their boats and how >much they should pay for the 'privilege'. If you and BW agree to a mooring contract, then neither party is dictating. The price will be arrived at either by negotiation, or by your acceptance of what BW offers. Again, no dictating there. >I do not like long lengths (or even short ones) of linear moorings, but >would not like to see people forced into marinas at extra cost. But it is unreasonable to expect (let alone insist) that the supplier of anything continue to supply it in perpetuity, especially at a price below market? If the local shopkeeper decided to stop selling newspapers, I think it would be unreasonable for me to threaten to sue him if he doesn't restart. What I do is find somewhere else to buy them from. And if they are more expensive there, c'est la vie. >In recent years, BW have added linear moorings as the fancy takes them, no >doubt to >provide additional income Yes. The towpath mooring problem has been caused by BW. So it seems right that BW is now trying to solve it by closing towpath moorings. > but this produces a two-faced impression - on the >one hand, they deprecate linear moorings, but on the other hand they put in >more and more. Is this so that they can later create marinas then force the >linear moorers into them? My understanding is that BW is not creating additional towpath moorings any more. I hope so. If it hadn't made the mistake of creating the existing ones, all the boats now moored to them would be off-line already. So where's the problem with their relocating there now? Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
