Raz

Yes, my GI installation was checked by my own surveyor to form part of his own report and was found to be correctly installed according to its instructions. It was initially looking like a report from him needed to be suitable for court, as my Navigators and General insurance claims handler was initially looking at rejecting my claim on the grounds of preventable damage caused by lack of maintenance. I had kept all my maintenance receipts, some of which showed where and when I had submitted the boat for blacking. I believe it was only when they got wind of my surveyor's ability to prove the negligence on the marina's part, and nothing to do with me that they accepted my claim for the damage as a consequence of sinking, but then went on to argue the costs involved in repairs. In the end they offered me the choice - accept their final offer, or make an official complaint to go to the Insurance Omnudsman. After 12 months of worry, getting nowhere fast and making long written replies to my insurance company and the legal team who were attempting to claim from the marina's insurer, I had had enough and bailed out.

The C-Tech charger was plastic cased and contained guarantees within its literature that there would be nebligable stray currents in use - checked after the event. It was screwed with short brass screws to oak faced ply lining of the internal cabin at waist height within the stern storage area, plugged into one of the normal internal 13A mains sockets. With hindsight, I would recommend using an isolation transformer. I too think this might have prevented our issues. My insurer instructed a specialist surveyor, who concluded the hull corrosion was down to "galvanic corrosion" - perhaps a generic term he used to me who might not understand a more complicated explanation. As such, after his report, my insurer declared it to be "wear and tear" and not covered by my insurance. I agreed with this, and repairs to the hull would have to be funded by me. Unfortunately this event was the end of our boating. My insurer, Craftinsure (although they passed my claim to their underwriters Navigators and General), refused to provide new for old replacements during repairs, according to the Craftinsure schedule. This meant, against the appointed repair contractor's advice, that submerged alternators, starter motor, and everything else was tested. If working it was left, in the case of the alternators. If not then they would only be rebuilt, not replaced as in the case of the starter motor. Water stained internal woodwork would also be left due to it remaining serviceable after drying out. After much argument, they agreed to repairs as a result of sinking at a value of £5k. My surveyor and the contractor who had started engine repairs suggested a cost of around £20k was more in line to do the whole job properly. They both suggested I accept payment in cash and dispose of the boat rather than accept sub-standard repairs in their opinion. The marina owner was asked several times for their insurer's details but never replied until I had settled with my own. I had a legal team working for me funded by legal expenses cover on my home insurance policy, but still couldn't get anywhere with the marina owner. A self funded action using marine specialist solicitors was advised to cost in the region of £25k when I enquired, possibly double if the case was lost. Too risky for me. All this took 12 months to try and sort out afterwards, until getting nowhere I sold the boat for salvage at a loss of around £25k on what she might have sold for in good condition. Unbelievably, the marina then went on to refuse to allow my boat's removal from their site until I paid for their "blacking" job in full, along with storage charges! £2,500 in total. Finally, some months later, when Craftinsure had managed to contact the marina's insurer, who then (too late for me) accepted liability and refunded Craftinsure's outlay to me, I had my Craftinsure excess of £300 refunded.

Just to provide an answer for the last two posts. Yes, ours was an end of garden mooring on a farm on the offside of the canal. There was no electric fence anywhere near, but around 100 metres away the landowner had an array of solar panels on the roof of a steel barn that provided backup to his own mains supply. He provided shore power to ours and a couple more boats on the moorings. We bought the boat when she was in the first months of her fifth year in March 2009. There were no signs of hull corrosion at that time, and she had been last blacked by the previous owner 6 months previously, done himself at the Ellesmere dry dock. I paid to have her blacked again at the end of our first season, 6 months after we bought her. I paid a local marina to do the work, specifically asking them to inspect the the condition of the hull and anodes. They reported back that there were no issues, although I didn't see the boat out of the water on that occasion, placing my trust in the marina. The previous owner did not leave the boat connected to shore power - he didn't even have a battery charging system installed other than the two alternators. He occasionally used a car battery charger while there. When we took the boat over I installed a C-Tech marine multi stage smart charger to charge two 100ah leasure batteries and one engine battery. We were away from the boat during weekdays, returning on a Friday evening until Sunday evening. We left her connected to shore power permanently with the battery charger on. Our Galvanic Isolator was a model that did not have the led to show it was activated, but I checked it annually to test if it was in working order using an electronic multi-meter as per its instructions. After our first blacking 6 months after we acquired her / 12 months after the last owner's, I returned it to the same marina in Spring 2012, with the same inspection instructions, she was again returned to me with "no reported issues". During the Summer of 2013 I noticed fizzy rust bubbles on the waterline and reported this to the marina. I suggested using perhaps a branded rust killer at the next blacking. After the marina manager had consulted their "technical team" they suggested a grit blast back to bare metal followed by two pack blacking on the next occasion, which was February 2014. I gave the same inspection instructions, and we agreed a job to take a week to allow proper paint curing etc. I also requested that the packing be replaced on the prop shaft gland as a matter of routine while she was out of the water, as I had no idea if it had ever been done. It was not leaking any more than normal during use. The marina manager rang me just 3 days after work was scheduled to start to tell me it was complete, back in the water and ready to collect. This was 4pm on a Friday afternoon. I arranged to collect on Saturday morning, thinking at the time this was too soon. When we arrived on Saturday morning we found her on the bottom. I reported it to the marina manager, keeping fairly calm as I believed the marina owner or his insurer would put things right. I was wrong on that one. During discussions it also transpired the shaft gland packing job I asked for hadn't been done either, but this had nothing to do with the sinking. I supervised the start of the pumping operation, and at the end of the day left, telling the manager I would return during the week with my surveyor, and I expected the boat to be ashore by then. On returning with my surveyor and seeing her ashore, we could both see the very poor blacking job, as well as the severely peppered hull with very deep pitting on the starboard side. My surveyor also suggested the anodes, although in reasonable condition, should also have been replaced, but were not. I informed my own insurer as you are required to do in such circumstances, and also asked the marina owner, via his manager to provide details of their insurer. I received no reply. (Solicitors received the same no reply on two further occasions). Apologies for the long post, but as this is about preventative maintenance, I wanted to relate how this could happen even if you try your best with regular maintenance which failed miserably in my case. I firmly believe that had I not left her connected to shore power, where there was obviously some kind of fault, either in our boat, the supply, or another nearby boat, this probably wouldn't have happened. It is just unfortunate that after the event it also appears to me things were compounded perhaps by the marina ignoring what was happening until it was too late.

Re the crap steel theory. 1) The boat was built by Dragon Narrowboats of Oswestry. Although I would class it at the budget end of the market there are hundreds out there with no issues, and they build narrowboat hulls as part of their main business - Premier Motor Bodies, building skips and refuse vehicle bodies. To me, that would negate the crap steel theory alone. 2) Also study the images I took again. The surveyor who was the specialist in this type of corrosion suggested that the side moored against the steel canal banking would be affected the most in the event of this type of corrosion taking hold. I always moored facing up the Llangollen Canal, starboard side against steel piling. The images show the most severe pitting on this side, with the holes that sunk her also on this side. The image of the port (canal side) - the one that includes the image of the anode, is nowhere near as badly pitted. This was the same right along the rest of the boat too. So if the crap steel theory is to hold up, then the port side must have been built with better steel than the starboard side? 3) When we acquired the boat in March 2009, having been first used in September 2004, there were no visible issues at all with the hull - 4 trouble free years from new. The previous owner had blacked her in 2005 and again in July 2008 - I have the receipts. When we took her over on the same mooring, she was severely damaged by hull corrosion within 5 years, even though we had (supposedly) kept up with regular blacking in less than two year intervals, three further times. The only difference in use between us and the previous owner is that we kept her connected to shore power permanently to keep her batteries charged between visits, and he did his own blacking. The bottom line for me after the event is that I placed too much trust in those I paid to do the hull inspections and blacking. Had I seen it myself, I would have ordered much earlier investigations as to why the hull was pitting so badly between blacking and also ensured a good blacking job took place, because in my opinion the last blacking job was nowhere near a good job, with bare metal left everywhere apart from just painting over an obviously severely pitted hull that they had painted every time since September 2009.

Just for info. The bilge on our boat was notably dry. So dry in fact that the BSS surveyor usually commented on how pleasantly dry it was to work in. There was an electric bilge pump fitted and working, but the only time it got wet was when the bilge flooded as a result of the pitting holes. The bilge filled overnight to the top of the engine level where it then leaked into the cabin of the boat through pipes leading to the calorifier through the engine bay bulkhead. The water was around 4" above floor level right up to the kitchen when I found her on the Saturday morning. I found an interesting article here on the different types of corrosion that will eat boats away..... http://www.boatus.com/boattech/articles/marine-corrosion.asp

Something that always stuck in the back of my mind after the event. Look at the images of the prop. It is in perfect condition and is the original 2004 fitment. After my own research on this subject I would have thought the prop would have been eaten away by corrosion, but it was the steel hull that was. Although the anodes were discovered to be more worn that I would have preferred when I first saw the underwater hull ashore, and should have been replaced as I asked before this work, they too are original and not that worn compared to the steel hull.

Our permanent mooring was an end of garden farm mooring located between the two Swanley Locks on the Llangollen Canal near Nantwich, NOT in a marina, although it was a local marina that we used exclusively for all our preventative maintenance work during our own ownership over 5 years, including the last occasion. Shore power was provided by the mooring land owner who had a solar panel system installed on a barn to back up his own mains supply from where our boat supply was taken. As far as I am aware - no nearby electrified railway.

Our boat was fitted with a Safeshore Marine galvanic isolator which I tested annually according to their instructions using an electronic multi-meter. It was also tested after the event by my surveyor and reported to be in working condition.

I completely agree. I too kept on insisting there are thousands of narrowboats connected to shore power. I did wonder if he was speaking in his "insurance surveyor" capacity. However he would not have it. He kept on insisting that steel narrowboats should not be generally connected to shore power, and alternative methods such as wind generator or solar should be used instead. For information, I do believe he is a highly respected narrowboats surveyor though - Mike Carter of Marine Surveys Ltd. Advice to me on who to appoint as my own surveyor after the event often pointed to Mike. Unfortunately Navigators and General appointed him as theirs first.

I can quote from the information my insurance provided surveyor passed on to me. 1) His own opinion was that steel narrowboats should not be connected to shore power for continuous periods of time. 2) If they were to be connected at all, then he recommended the use of an isolation transformer rather than the more widely used Galvanic isolator diode. 3) He attached great importance to maintaining a good quality, undamaged underwater blacking, which again in his opinion reduces the effect of natural corrosion of any type. 4) As well as maintaining good blacking, anodes should be regularly inspected, replaced when starting to dissolve, (together with an investigation as to the reason why if this happened too quickly), as well as ensuring anodes left in place after blacking have not been painted over, which would reduce or impede their efficiency at preventing corrosion. Magnesium anodes for fresh water use, zinc ones for salt water or brackish use. New hull anodes attached next to worn ones, not in place of. 5) Generally keep an eye on the waterline for fizzy rust bubbles. As I said earlier, I had noticed this and advised the marina who had carried out previous blacking. Unfortunately they neither told me of the revealed damage after grit blasting, nor asked if I would like it investigating. They just painted over perhaps with the intention of returning my boat as quickly as possible to collect their fee. Unfortunately it sank immediately, launched at close of work on a Friday afternoon, found like that by me on Saturday morning. As can be seen from above my opinion is that it appears that galvanic corrosion or stray current corrosion can't be prevented as it is a natural occurrence. What can be done though is act when the symptoms are there, and do your best with maintenance to minimise or prevent it taking hold in a severe way possibly due to an electrical fault either on your own boat, on a neighbouring boat or in the shore power supply. As I keep saying - I am no expert, and the above has been taken from those who were involved in my own particular experience of this. i have attached images here of the condition of my hull AFTER the so called blacking job by the marina when back on shore. Ignore the bent rudder Skegness - they also damaged that when dragging out again! The holes that sank her are chalked by my surveyor.

Looking at the interesting posts on this thread I would now agree that our own particular issue was down to stray current corrosion rather than galvanic corrosion. As I said - I am no expert, but I suspect the specialists including those who inspected our boat on behalf of our insurance company reported our damage to the hull under the banner of galvanic corrosion as a general term. My own reading on the subject tells me that stray DC corrosion can be far worse than galvanic corrosion, and in my case our boat's hull was obviously desolving in the canal water at a very rapid rate over the 5 years we owned it. When it was brought ashore after the sinking, which was the day after being relaunched by the marina that did the "blacking" I could see for myself what state the hull was in - completely peppered with deep pitting holes. Perhaps the moral of this maintenance story might be don't rely on others that are doing work on your behalf to keep you informed of what is going on, or do the blacking yourself so any potential issues will be seen and attended to before you get to the stage ours did and became a write off due to the cost of putting things right and I was completely unaware of what was happening. Just to finish off, our insurer Craftinsure passed our claim to their underwriters, Navigators and General. They declared the hull damage to be wear and tear and would not be covered by insurance, which I agreed with. After investigation and a report from their own surveyor they agreed to rectify the damage as a result of sinking by the marina. However, as my Craftinsure policy would not replace New for old, things like the submerged alternators and starter motor would only be funded to be rebuilt not replaced. The alternators actually worked once dry, so were not touched. This went against the contractor's advice who had been awarded the work as well as my own surveyor's advice. In fact they both suggested "proper" repairs to all damage as a result of sinking should come in around £20k, but Craftinsure would only agree to a repair estimate at £5k and wouldn't even go as far as replacing water stained oak interior panels for example because they remained serviceable. As I said above, the marina owner was asked for his insurance details but we never got a reply until my claim with my own insurer was finalised, even with solicitors asking. So our choice was get a boat back with what in our opinion would be inferior internal and mechanical repairs, and still have to pay for hull repairs, or get shut. I chose to get shut. The marina then chose to charge us storage fees for the time the boat was with them as well as the cost of what in our opinion was a rubbish job, before we could remove the boat from their site - £2,500! In the end Craftinsure reclaimed their £5k outlay from the marina owner's insurance, so they refunded my £300 excess! So, stray current corrosion or galvanic corrosion, whatever it may be called is something that is best not ignored.

The causes of the initial problem were well reported by surveyors at the time, due to the fact my insurance company were attempting to wriggle out of accepting liability. Our mooring was inspected, and it was reported that as it was on a slight curve, even though I had fenders, it was still possible for the steel hull to be in permanent contact with the steel piling in the middle, if tied too tightly. Chain wasn't used by me, just rope, but the fact there was possible contact was mentioned. I am no expert, and had to rely on those who were involved in reporting on the causes of what had happened. In the end - 12 months later, my own insurer paid out due to the negligence of the marina who allowed her to sink after routine maintenance, a reason which was included in my schedule, whereas the hull corrosion could have gone down as lack of maintenance, which wasn't in my insurance schedule. The marina owner refused to provide his own insurer's details until I had accepted "full and final settlement" from my own insurer, which was by then too late to claim from his to obtain a full and detailed repair to the sinking damage - the reason I sold for salvage rather than repair.

We lost our 9 year old boat to galvanic corrosion. Bought by us having recently become a 4 year old with a clean bill of health in March 2009 and blacked by our local marina every 12 months or so while in our ownership I started to notice waterline rust bubbles within 3 months of the 2013 blacking, so on the advice of the yard that undertook our regular maintenance, the next blacking was to be a grit blast followed by a two pack coating. Unfortunately, it appeared they had failed to notify us of a deteriorating hull over the 5 years in their annual care, and when we returned to collect her from their marina in February 2014 we found her sunk - on the bottom, (not their staff)! Three specialist surveyors inspected her during the aftermath, our own, one sent by our insurer, and another. The whole hull was severely pitted, with at least two having gone straight through the side at the stern, apparently unnoticed or ignored by those who had blacked her. The 4 anodes were still in fairly good condition. The worst pitting, including the ones with full penetration were on the side adjacent to the canal bank of our online mooring. The opinion of the insurance surveyor was that the galvanic corrosion was due to our boat being left connected to shore power on a more or less a continuous basis between cruising. Another went further. He had been conducting research into galvanic corrosion, and it was his opinion that the cause was due to being connected to shore power, moored against galvanised steel piling and in flowing water (Llangollen Canal). Our own surveyor reported to us that another factor could have been poor blacking during the time we owned her - but I was paying a marina to do this for us, so was not aware of this possibility, until I saw her for myself out of the water at the end. All our electrics were checked, including our galvanic isolator, and were found to be functioning without issue. Our boat was a 57 foot semi-trad, first used in September 2004 by her first owner and built by Dragon narrowboats. She sank due to galvanic hull corrosion in February 2014 in our ownership - her 2nd owners. The detailed story of how we lost her rather than having her repaired has been well discussed already on here and is another story. I hope our experience helps answer your question. Galvanic corrosion remains a very mysterious phenomenon.

In my own circumstances, where over 5 years of an alleged negligent maintenance regime carried out by my choice of marina led to the actual sinking of my 9 year old hull while still in their care, and then being found to be pitted to the extent that overplaying was required I obviously assumed I had suffered a significant loss as a result. The difficulty I found, working with my legal team was how to prove I had suffered a loss at court. I wanted to sell the boat to a trader as you suggest so this would quantify my loss measured against the prospective sale value of my boat in a good condition, provided by three independent brokers, against what three independent trade offers for the boat in its current condition would be. In my own mind this would provide the easiest solution - a boat of that brand of that age in good condition, over what I had to do now to realise it's value as it was no longer in retail condition and could only be sold to the trade. I also had the complication of the additional damage caused by the sinking, which was covered by insurance, but in the opinion of my surveyor would not be repaired to a satisfactory standard within their settlement. Unfortunately the legals working on my behalf insisted that a court would not accept this evidence of loss, and went on to insist that in their opinion the only proof of loss acceptable to court would be if I offered the boat for sale, repaired and plated, at what would have been its full value in good condition. After a reasonable time, whatever that might be, the price should be reduced until a sale was secured. Then, if there was a significant depreciation in value over what I might have expected, returned during an actual sales transaction, then this, and only this would provide the required satisfactory evidence of loss to go to court with. Interestingly, I pointed out to solicitors that I didn't want to be responsible for offering a boat that had been damaged in this way to a possible unsuspecting buyer at brokerage, without telling the buyer the circumstances. Their reply to me was that brokerage was a private sales agreement between seller and buyer, and as such I had no obligation to tell anybody, unless a specific question was asked. All I had to do, according to solicitors was try and obtain the best price from a sale, and I should not volunteer any information to a buyer other than answering their questions honestly. This was not acceptable to me. This whole scenario was to me an unsatisfactory state of affairs, so I went ahead and sold my boat as is to the trader with the best offer, and in the process lost £18,000 or so on what was estimated to be the boat's value if it had been in good condition. This was against my solicitor's advice. As the services of the solicitor were being provided by legal expenses cover I had attached to another insurance policy, they then went on to withdraw, as they considered my action would now mean the possibility of success of my loss claim would fall below their required 51% chance criteria. Taking court action after being "wronged" in such a way is by no means easy, straightforward, or inexpensive and anything alleged has to have the evidence, assessed by those who "know" to be good sound evidence to go to court attached to the allegation. In the end I decided I had done all I could without entering into even more months of deliberation on top of the year I had already spent, and it was easier to just let it go.

I have recently been through a very similar situation. Unfortunately my own outcome was not good, and I no longer own the boat. From my own experience I would advise you to first attempt to use any legal expenses cover you might hold attached to an insurance policy. Your case will be assessed as viable or not before they accept it. Be aware though that this type of action will only ever attempt to chase the surveyor's own insurance for a negligence claim. It would not usually end up in court, unless a very last resort. Forget about the surveyor being a member of a trade association. I found the BMF, of which the party concerned with my own problem was a member, turned out to be a complete waste of time. They will always fall on the side of their member. If you chose to engage a solicitor, I would highly recommend one who is a marine specialist. Others won't have a clue about what went wrong and why. My own attempts to go down this route proved far too expensive though. I got three individual quotes, and all wanted around £10k for their initial viability assessment of my case. If they were to take it on then, it was estimated a successful outcome at court would cost a further £20k, which we could probably claim back. However, should we lose the case, then the other side's costs would also have to be paid, making this unthinkable in my book, far too risky. There is the small claims court, but you would still require evidence to take there, probably provided by an independent surveyor. You would also have to fund his expenses to appear in court on your behalf. Be aware that costs are not awarded in small claims court actions, so even if you win, you will not get any costs back. I would explore solicitor / legal expenses action before engaging a surveyor, as if you chose to go down that route they will want to engage their own surveyor who will have been agreed by the other side as truly independent, rendering any survey you have already had done redundant, and thus a waste of money. If the OP would like to PM me I can provide much more detailed information about what happened to me. But over a year of sleepless nights I eventually conceded I was on a road to nowhere with my claim, and gave up.