Preface: Please note the events refered to in this document are from 2005. As such they pertain to the actions of Barrie Vandermolen who was, at that time, trading as Auto-Marine Shipping. Whilst this company was refered to, at that time, as a limited company Auto-Marine Shipping Ltd was not formed until after all these events took place and as such is not connected. It is true however that both companies employ a person called Barrie Vandermolen.
>>>>Hi Andrew,
| do not remember making” hilarious suggestion.” Must be your sense of humour”>>>>
No Barrie, when you say you will call the police to report what you allege is libel I can only conclude you are joking or a very confused person. Libel is a civil case, dealt with in the civil courts. Or perhaps you are suggesting that in "overwriting your advertisement" I am also breaking some criminal law. Here I have to assume you are joking or simply don't understand that when I write something on "Barriskell.com" I am publishing content on MY web site. I own it, I run it, and I pay for it, in which case you are indeed a very confused person.
So, were you joking or are you a very confused person? Excuse us if we draw our own conclusions on that one Barrie.
>>>Thank you for your reply , I would inform you that all our invoices are subject to change and rates are subject to fluctuation and are as at time or delivery.>>>
Hi Barrie, Auto-Marine Shipping can't change an invoice once it's issued without the express agreement, dare I say cooperation of the recipient - which bit of that don't you understand? Auto-Marine Shipping cannot indeed vary a contract once it's in force, again without the other side consenting, again, which bit of that are you not hoisting aboard? It's called law - civil law, contract law. Just in case you confuse that with criminal "I'm gonna call the cops" law. (See above)
>>>>The return journey shipping line was booked to Thamesport, however due to matters which were completely beyond my control the shipping line decided to miss out Thamesport as booked and decided to off load the containers in Europe (Antwerp), they and all shipping lines have the right to do this if for some reason beyond their control something happens such as bad weather , etc., after some difficulties they agreed to deliver them to Southampton, and offered to deliver the containers to Thamesport free of charge by road, you or your members decided they should be off loaded at Southampton.>>>>
A little bit more complicated this one, but let's try....
Yes, the cars were booked to Thamesport. The cars were delivered to a warehouse in Oakland for loading into containers on October 5 - 6, 2005. They were expected to be loaded into containers and on board a vessel bound for Thamesport on October 14. Can you recall when they were actually loaded? Do you recall why they were delayed? Let me fill in the blanks for you: Despite the fact that we had provided you with every shred of paperwork you asked for Auto-Marine Shipping had failed to deliver all the car registration documents to the customs officials in Oakland. So, I chased down what was missing and I supplied them. You were asleep at this point I fear. Secondly, having imported into Houston on a "Personal" basis, the paperwork Auto-Marine Shipping or your agent supplied to the customs officials in Oakland referred to a "rally". Thus requiring an entirely different set of paperwork and calling the original importation into question to boot. Guess who had to sort that mess out? Not you Barrie, not Auto-Marine Shipping . Me. I'll add up the cost of the transatlantic phone calls and teleconferences I organised to sort Auto-Marine Shipping 's mess out and add them to MY invoice to you shall I?
So, to cut a long story short, the reason we were actually on the ship that left FIVE WEEKS later was that Auto-Marine Shipping had not carried out it's duties with care, diligence, skill and judgement as required of you by the BIFA terms and conditions you sent to me. We'll overlook the fact that this was a fraudulent act (Oooooh, can I call the police I wonder) as Auto-Marine Shipping was not actually a member of BIFA at the time and was merely using their terms, as a convenience let's say.
>>>>The charges at Southampton , handling the containers and moving the containers from the port to the depot at Free Trade Zone were excessive and not allowed for in your original quotation , charges at Thamesport were very small>>>>>
Once again Barrie, your recollection of facts seems to be pretty poor. Let me explain. It was I, me, us THAT TOLD YOU, Auto-Marine Shipping that the containers were landed in Southampton. We used this wonderful invention called the Internet (Forget it Barrie we know from your comments above it's beyond you) to track our containers by the waybill numbers. We knew where they were even if you, patently, did not. I called you and told you when we knew they were bound for Southampton from Antwerp. I asked you to discuss the situation with the shippers to verify that they would convey them to the contracted port free of charge. You did this and informed me that they would indeed do so, BUT, you suggested that it may be cheaper to devan in Southampton. I told you that if that was the case we were prepared to accept the cars in Southampton. PLEASE don't make it sound as though we insisted in some way on them being devanned in Southampton, that's simply a fabrication. In my view it also defies common sense as we had insisted all along that YOU stick to the contract.
>>>>The original loading and packing of the cars at HG RENT were by using their patented loading system racks . and were to be used in the return of the cars and I instructed they be sent by road to the US port to enable loading. However, somehow and it was not on my instructions that the cars were loaded on platforms in the USA, the costs of building these platforms , loading and securing the cars was excessive. and not allowed for in your quotation. >>>>
In this paragraph you suggest (And confirm in the next paragraph) that it was we that caused the problem of how the cars were loaded and subsequently unloaded because we, you claim, ordered this to happen in the USA. "It was your decision" you claim. Let me make something abundantly clear to you Barrie - I have a document, from your agent that refutes this assertion, moreover it makes clear that we would not enter into any negotiation with your agents in the USA whatsoever and that we referred all matters to YOU. YOU agreed the change. You are therefore responsible for the additional cost. However, you are the one that upon arrival of our cars in Southampton conveniently overlooked this and presented us with an invoice for over GBP4500 and further suggested that every day we did not pay would be a day's storage fees in Southampton.
>>>>Southampton Free Trade Zone , The containers had to be delivered to the Free Trade Zone, The cars had to be removed from the platforms and devanned, the shipping line demanded their containers back and Free Trade Zone had to remove all the built in platforms from the containers and dispose of the timbers the containers cleaned etc., are return the containers to the docks their charges were excessive, it was very expensive this is why you had the excess charges, it was your decision to have the cars put on platforms in US off loaded at Southampton, if the containers were transported to Thamesport by road and collected by your members as previously arranged you would not have the extra charges.>>>>
To repeat myself slightly: We did not vary the method of loading in the containers. We did not insist on them being devanned in Southampton. I would point out one further detail you may have overlooked and may have contributed to the issue, not previously mentioned. Your instructions to the agents in the USA (Yes, I have copies) suggest the shipment of ALUMINIUM racks from Houston to Oakland for them to be reused. The fact that they are made from extraordinarily heavy angle IRON may have contributed to your agent suggesting to YOU that using locally sourced wood in Oakland may be better. Furthermore, given your so called extensive experience of shipping cars in which you apparently specialise, it is something of a surprise to me that Auto-Marine Shipping did not have this aspect well and truly under control with full knowledge of the best way to take care of this issue. It seems to me that then, and probably now, you were making it up as you went along, and that included, obviously, your fees
>>>The main thing was that the cars were safe (except for two which were covered by insurance) and your members had a successful rally>>>
Barrie, we have not, as yet, listed the damage caused to the cars left in a damp warehouse by the sea in Oakland. We haven't mentioned the damage to paintwork caused by the pine dew that fell on the cars while they were under the roof there. We haven't made any claim against Auto-Marine Shipping or its agents for damage caused to two cars during the loading process in London. There were two cars damaged enough to be covered by insurance and claimed for - others had damage they decided it was simply a waste of time chasing you for as you made it so difficult for the two guys who were successful in their claims.
Yes, we had a brilliant holiday. But it was NOT A RALLY. And it was certainly in no way attributable to your efforts. I could list more of your failings but you haven't brought them up yet such as:
Why we had to
supply car papers in Houston as you had failed to
Why we had to
inform your agent of the timetable as you hadn't
Why we had to
unload the cars in sweltering heat ourselves as you had not correctly
provided for this
I could go on, but I can't be bothered
Have a nice day
Andrew Barriskell
THIS IS MY WEB SITE. ALL STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS SITE ARE MY OWN