Jump to content

phill

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    264

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by phill

  1. phill
    Not true. The name might have been the broker, the contract was with Chop. So the terms of that contract are with Chop. As I said earlier the nub is proving it v
  2. phill
    Seems a little vague. You can't prosecute (or refuse a license to) something that 'quacks like rent'. There would have to be a more definite infringement of something for it to be a breach of any law or rules. I can see issues for the minority owner. Security being a big one. But a contract with clauses covering dissolution of the shared ownership should cover that. There are shared ownership boats on all sorts of deal, there was a two way share proposed recently by a South African, is that dodgy?
  3. phill
    Discussion forum time; Many boats are lived on under shared ownership. Boat is registered on SSR part III Person A owns 63 shares Person B owns one share Person B lives on the boat, licenses it ( meeting all statutory reqs and ongoing regulations), insures it third party ( eg Basic Boat ) Person B pays A a monthly management fee which includes ordinary BSS and maintenance of systems. All this is written as a contract. Issues?
  4. phill
    Everyone has to be somewhere.
  5. phill
    How is it dodgy?
  6. phill
    So not only incompetent at boat building but difficulties with comprehension too.
  7. phill
    Assuming this a serious question; If you don't feel competent to assess the condition of a boat - yes. but.... don't use a surveyor recommended by the buyer use a surveyor recommended by someone you trust most important bit: make sure you agree the scope of the survey (hull only, hull and engine, etc) be present at the survey and ask lots of questions Contrary to most advice on here if the owner has a survey then use that to make an initial assessment. I can't emphasise how important it is to only deal with someone you feel you can trust. A good business deal is one where both parties walk away happy it is NOT a competition. (again against most of the armchair advice).
  8. phill
  9. phill
    I'm not quite sure where this myth has arisen. It certainly seems unique to the canal. Do you think the owners of a cross-channel ferry will write off a negligent survey so easily. It's not a question of the stakes, it's a matter of the responsibility accepted by a properly qualified surveyor. I've worked with a few and the best can drive you up the wall with their apparent pedantry and nit picking. But that's what you want. Whether you spend money after that rectifying all small details is up to you but it is absolutely the surveyors responsibility to identify them.
  10. phill
    You're incompetent.(Apparently I'm now qualified to say this ) I know nothing about your work except what you've told me. To fit a floor in a boat with no access hatches is incompetent. My guess ( unqualified ) would be that you are experienced in liveaboards but don't really consider their boatiness.
  11. phill
    Yes, wonderful atmospheric. Thanks Lawrence. Can you tell a bit more about Matty's yard ( or point to other resources?)
  12. phill
    Unfortunately you won't learn with a closed mind. Dozens. A couple but mostly I pay someone else. Inspection points ( or liftable flooring); one at the lowest point, one at the opposite end and probably one or two others depending on shower placement, water tanks and so on. Basically enough to be able to gain access that might be needed. How else would I pump out a boat swamped by leaky gates in a lock? There's a lot to be said for doing it yourself. Unfortunately this takes experience and isn't always possible in a first boat. But : and an important but. If a marine surveyor is engaged they have responsibilities. It takes thousands or hours to qualify and there's no distinction between a barge in a muddy ditch and a sea going boat.
  13. phill
    Then answer my question; what's the point of having a hull survey if it doesn't reveal major defects in the hull? If I pay a surveyor to report the condition of the hull that's what I expect. If some numpty seller refuses access he, and I, will draw conclusion and walk away.
  14. phill
    To the OP; This is interesting reading; http://www.admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/Papers/surveyor's%20negligence.htm Particularly about implied contract. "With respect to the law of contract, the court found an implied term in the contract that the survey would be conducted with that degree of skill which is generally exercised by marine surveyors advising an intending purchaser[v]. It is also noteworthy that the court also declined to enforce a clause in the survey report which purported to exclude liability for negligence because, among other things, the purchaser did not become aware of it until he reviewed the report, which was after the contract had been formed during the initial telephone call. " Yes. It's either incompetence or stupidity. Of course they do. Perhaps Mr Jacks has fitted a tap on the bottom so his customer can drain any spillage.
  15. phill
    You seem very ignorant of the role of a marine surveyor. If you refused to allow him access then he would advise his client to walk away. But hey, don't worry, you'll still find some desparate London hippy to buy your wreck. Suggest you do some research before talking crap. There's plenty of Admiralty law in the matter of marine surveys. We are not talking a mate with a hammer. And if you've fixed the floor with no possibility of inspection you are incompetent at your job too
  16. phill
    I'm not your friend and if you read the OP rather than spouting nonsense we're not talking 'pin pricks in 40' of steel. Neither are you if it required welding. I repeat: what is the point of paying £500 for a survey if it doesn't reveal substantial defects? And if you would buy a 40 year old boat without inspecting the inside of a hull.....you're a fool.
  17. phill
    Then what's the point in having a survey?
  18. phill
    What a load of rubbish. What is the point of having a survey if it doesn't find defects like this ? You would be as well tossing a coin. Of course a surveyor should examine the hull inside and out everywhere that is physically possible and extrapolate using experience and expert knowledge to where he can't and the inside of the hull is crucial to that. Would you go to sea in a boat a surveyor had said that he couldn't guarantee the integrity of the whole hull? To the OP : I would take a punt in the small claims court. At the very least if you can show you paid for the survey and it was addressed to Aqueduct this is a breach of contract. The small claims procedure is relatively cheap and person-friendly. It also seems to me that, if you can prove you commissioned the survey ( by paying for it, invoice) then the contract is with you and his legal responsibility is which you and any negligence ( such as the weedhatch) he will be liable for. No terms and conditions will protect him if he can be shown to be negligent.
  19. phill
    3/8" will do what you want but some people go for 1/2" to maximise the pressure when everything is on. I was simply taking issue with your 8mm.
  20. phill
    3/8" (or 1/2")
  21. phill
    NABO members will have had an interesting insight to the (non) workings of the K and A local plan in this month's issue.
  22. phill
    No, no, the answer to the OP' original question is 'yes'..... ....because the purpose was to shaft Tony Dunkley in court and it was perfect for that.
  23. phill
    No, they haven't. What they have reported is their experience on visitor moorings which has absolutely nothing to do with what you call the "mooring zones trial" As I say if you come in with that attitude, nobody will tell you anything.
  24. phill
    So why ask the question if you already know the answer? Which part of your so-called 'mooring zones trial' applies to 48 hour moorings?
  25. phill
    I take it this personal abuse is an indication you concede the argument. They intended to present this document in court, it contains misleading information. (which has only been clarified after much questioning - far more than would be allowed in court) Which part of that do you continue to attempt to argue against?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.