Surveyor recommendation? Stafford area

[Paul_B]

Hi all

 

It looks like I'm buying a narrowboat of my own , having hired and had a share in one for some time now. I've found a boat, paid a deposit, and need to arrange a survey.

 

The boat's only about 4 years old and seems to be in good nick - so to my mind this survey is really to check for anything wrong with the boat, or in worse condition than it should be for a boat of its age.

 

It's currently moored near Stafford - can anyone recommend a good surveyor for this sort of work?

 

Many thanks for your help.

 

Paul

[magnetman]

Jeff Greatwood

Edited October 23, 2007 by magnetman

[Paul_B]

Jeff Greatwood

 

Thanks Magnetman.

 

Any reason for the recommendation? Have you used him before?

 

I've found his details in WW so that's great.

 

Can't wait to buy and get aboard now, so hopefully there won't be any significant problems found.

 

Paul

[Lesd]

Im told Dave Broach has a very good reputation too.

[Paul_B]

Jeff Greatwood

 

I spoke to Jeff - he doesn't do pre-purchase surveys any more. Just BSS. He put me on to Iain Jones at Shobnall Boat Services. Anyone have any experience of him?

 

It strikes me that everyone says that a survey is essential when spending lots of money on a secondhand boat. But then the survey excludes so many areas to almost make it worthless! But I suppose what you're paying for is an experienced eye to pick up on any faults or signs of previous faults or failings. And of course having found the boat that you think is the one for you, you hope he finds nothing wrong!

 

Well it looks like my potential boat will be coming out of the water on the 12th, so here's hoping it all goes well.

 

Paul

[zenataomm]

I spoke to Jeff - he doesn't do pre-purchase surveys any more. Just BSS. He put me on to Iain Jones at Shobnall Boat Services. Anyone have any experience of him?

 

It strikes me that everyone says that a survey is essential when spending lots of money on a secondhand boat. But then the survey excludes so many areas to almost make it worthless! But I suppose what you're paying for is an experienced eye to pick up on any faults or signs of previous faults or failings. And of course having found the boat that you think is the one for you, you hope he finds nothing wrong!

 

Well it looks like my potential boat will be coming out of the water on the 12th, so here's hoping it all goes well.

 

Paul

 

My survey got me £7.5K off the price plus an overhaul on what I thought was an acceptable Lister hydraulic gearbox (and I'm Lister trained). Fair exchange for £460 I thought .......... and whilst it was out of the water the owner used up what bits of bitumen he had on the hull.

 

Good luck, hope it goes your way!

 

zenataomm

[KenK]

Hi Paul,

 

I used Paul Smith http://www.narrowboatsurveys.co.uk found him very thorough and professional.

 

Good luck with the boat

 

Ken

[Maverick]

I spoke to Jeff - he doesn't do pre-purchase surveys any more. Just BSS. He put me on to Iain Jones at Shobnall Boat Services. Anyone have any experience of him?

 

It strikes me that everyone says that a survey is essential when spending lots of money on a secondhand boat. But then the survey excludes so many areas to almost make it worthless! But I suppose what you're paying for is an experienced eye to pick up on any faults or signs of previous faults or failings. And of course having found the boat that you think is the one for you, you hope he finds nothing wrong!

 

Well it looks like my potential boat will be coming out of the water on the 12th, so here's hoping it all goes well.

 

Paul

 

Also worth bearing in mind Paul that if recent posts on here are anything to go by then having a peice of paper that says the boat is in a sound condition will be absolutely useless to you should a major problem be found shortly afterwards. It appears the legal system in this country does not pay much attention should any boat related matter attempt to go to court.

 

By all means spend the money for your own peice of mind if you wish, and good luck with the boat

[Teadaemon]

Also worth bearing in mind Paul that if recent posts on here are anything to go by then having a peice of paper that says the boat is in a sound condition will be absolutely useless to you should a major problem be found shortly afterwards. It appears the legal system in this country does not pay much attention should any boat related matter attempt to go to court.

 

By all means spend the money for your own peice of mind if you wish, and good luck with the boat

 

As far as I'm aware, no disclaimer can remove somebody's liability for negligence, so if a surveyor doesn't spot something that a competent surveyor should, then they can be held responsible in court. On the other hand, they can't survey what they can't see, and most of the disclaimers you see on a survey report are there to draw the client's attention to that fact, and to make clear what did or did not form part of the survey.

 

It is possible to get a surveyor to do a more thorough inspection that goes beyond non-destructive testing of visible areas, but it's not generally done as it's very, very expensive for the buyer (since they'd have to pay the surveyor for the extra time involved, a shipwright to do any disassembly or removal of structure in the way of a survey, and for the time and materials to put the vessel back into it's original condition after the survey has been conducted, all assuming they can get the owner's permission to do this in the first place).

[Maverick]

As far as I'm aware, no disclaimer can remove somebody's liability for negligence, so if a surveyor doesn't spot something that a competent surveyor should, then they can be held responsible in court. On the other hand, they can't survey what they can't see, and most of the disclaimers you see on a survey report are there to draw the client's attention to that fact, and to make clear what did or did not form part of the survey.

 

It is possible to get a surveyor to do a more thorough inspection that goes beyond non-destructive testing of visible areas, but it's not generally done as it's very, very expensive for the buyer (since they'd have to pay the surveyor for the extra time involved, a shipwright to do any disassembly or removal of structure in the way of a survey, and for the time and materials to put the vessel back into it's original condition after the survey has been conducted, all assuming they can get the owner's permission to do this in the first place).

 

If you have any evidence of a boat surveyor being taken to court through negligence I would be very interested to see it.

 

I repeat a peice of paper is no use at all if the courts do not recognise it. If the poor folk in Gary's recent story who had that nightmare of a story over their new boat couldn't get any justice then I'm not sure why you would think a bad survey report would ever get to court at all.

We have had stolen boats and numerous crimes reported on this forum recently with no justice to the victims at all.

 

By all means have the boat out the water and test any suspect areas yrself with a good hammer. By all means take along mechanic who can advise on engine condition. Far cheaper and just as affective in satisfiying oneself

[Teadaemon]

If you have any evidence of a boat surveyor being taken to court through negligence I would be very interested to see it.

 

I repeat a peice of paper is no use at all if the courts do not recognise it. If the poor folk in Gary's recent story who had that nightmare of a story over their new boat couldn't get any justice then I'm not sure why you would think a bad survey report would ever get to court at all.

We have had stolen boats and numerous crimes reported on this forum recently with no justice to the victims at all.

 

By all means have the boat out the water and test any suspect areas yrself with a good hammer. By all means take along mechanic who can advise on engine condition. Far cheaper and just as affective in satisfiying oneself

 

I don't have details of any recent court case where a marine surveyor has found themselves in court due to alleged negligence, but I'd imagine such cases only make the news on a really, really slow day. I'll dig around and see what I can turn up. My comment about not being able to use a disclaimer to get out of claims of negligence is true though, and applies equally to any professional.

 

I do remember Gary's thread about the crap boat, and that the boat's owner had trouble getting the surveyor(s) they'd instructed to repeat their comments in court. I don't know the details of what went on (merely what was reported on here), so I don't think I should comment in detail. I would suggest that if anyone is planning a survey of their boat with a view to taking legal action against somebody, they should let the surveyor know this when the survey is commissioned (giving the surveyor the opportunity to recuse themselves), and if they're sensible they'll use an appropriately qualified surveyor with experience in forensic surveying, particularly if they wish the surveyor to appear as an expert witness rather than merely a witness of fact. If in doubt, they should talk to their lawyer and get them to appoint the surveyor (which is actually a good idea anyway, but for different reasons).

 

I'm not entirely certain how the treatment of criminal acts by the police and CPS has any bearing whatsoever on the civil liability of marine surveyors, who will definitely end up as the plaintiff in a civil case if their client decides to file a suit against them. They may well not be found liable, but that merely indicates that they were doing their job properly, or at least not so badly that the litigant had a reasonable claim against them.

[Maverick]

Just taking a slightly different slant on this. The fashionable advice now given is that anyone thinking of purchasing a second hand boat should have it surveyed. (another added cost and not cheap) I'm sure the surveyors are rubbing ther hands in glee and the numbers of them have gone up considerably over the last 10 - 15yrs or so.

 

It is deemed to be the best advise. Can anyone go back far enough to remind us when this fashionable advice started? what did folk do prior to buyng a second hand boat before this advice becoming fashionable?

 

I'm guessing it dates back to a time before the glossy boat mags and internet forums etc.

 

Boats do cost far more money now and I can see the reasoning for having a survey done for a few hundred pounds extra if it really does give you some sort of guarantee. But you cant really take it back like you do at Argos can you. so what are peoples opinions on this? Would the survey stand up in court should it need to?

[onthecut]

Hi Paul.

 

Just a thought --- might a slightly more economic approach be to have a BSC done (or not, if it's got a pretty new one) and then just a hull thickness test, if you're concerned ? I also don't think it unreasonable to ask to see the boat out on the water and given a good thrashing (as far as possible), to check for any biggies with the engine, box, cooling etc.

 

Mike.

[Teadaemon]

Just taking a slightly different slant on this. The fashionable advice now given is that anyone thinking of purchasing a second hand boat should have it surveyed. (another added cost and not cheap) I'm sure the surveyors are rubbing ther hands in glee and the numbers of them have gone up considerably over the last 10 - 15yrs or so.

 

It is deemed to be the best advise. Can anyone go back far enough to remind us when this fashionable advice started? what did folk do prior to buyng a second hand boat before this advice becoming fashionable?

 

I'm guessing it dates back to a time before the glossy boat mags and internet forums etc.

 

Boats do cost far more money now and I can see the reasoning for having a survey done for a few hundred pounds extra if it really does give you some sort of guarantee. But you cant really take it back like you do at Argos can you. so what are peoples opinions on this? Would the survey stand up in court should it need to?

 

As one surveyor I've conversed with online puts it "you only have the power of the deal before you close the deal". If you make an offer on a boat that's not subject to a satisfactory survey, buy the boat and something goes wrong, then you've got no comeback against anyone. If you make an offer subject to a satisfactory survey and the survey picks up defects, then you've got the opportunity to either walk away from the boat or to renegotiate the price to take into account the cost of rectifying those defects. If you arrange to have a pre-purchase survey done on a boat, receive the report, buy the boat, and subsequently find that the surveyor missed something that a competent surveyor should have found, then as I've mentioned you have grounds for suing said surveyor in a civil action for negligence, though the onus is on you to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that they were negligent. If the survey report was commissioned by somebody other than you (or your agent, such as a lawyer acting on your behalf), it's harder to prove a claim against the surveyor, as in addition to proving that they were negligent, you also need to prove that they owed you a duty of care. That's why it's important to commission your own independent survey, rather than relying on one done for the broker or a previous owner.

 

A survey report does not give you any kind of guarantee that a vessel is seaworthy or fit for it's intended purpose, it's merely a statement of fact recording what the surveyor saw, and opinion soundly based on fact as to the likely cause of any defect, how serious such a defect may be, and how such defects should be rectified. Whether or not a survey report will stand up in court depends very much on the surveyor writing the report, as it's their competence and experience that will be called into question by lawyers attempting to discredit the report.

 

Personally, I'd have a survey done on any boat I was buying, new or second hand (even the best builders/fitters have off days), and I'm a fairly experienced boater with a good idea of what to look for myself. (In fact, I'm currently studying to become a yacht & small craft surveyor, because I want a job working with boats and this seems like the job that best suits my skills and lifestyle.)

[Gary Peacock]

Im told Dave Broach has a very good reputation too.

 

We have worked with Dave he knows his stuff and is very conscientious.

 

I have had dealings with others who weren't so.

 

In my view the beauty of a survey is that it is done by someone impartial, on both used and brand new boats they should pick up on any visible issues but can never in one or just a few visits be completely infallible.

 

The legal options in my view are a very last resort and more than likely in the cases I have known the solicitors were the real winners.

 

The problem with boats is that quality varies wildly especially in older or DIY boats not built under any regulation, one mans opinion of excellence is anothers lemon!

 

I see boats that the owners paid vast sums for that they rave about being superb and I think but can't say "You got ripped off", the trouble is I have a fair idea what I am seeing but those coming into it blind can't possibly see it.

 

I really do feel for people buying boats it is such a murky business where often very good advice from all can seem so contradictory.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Gary Peacock

[Machpoint005]

I'm sorry, but surely the whole point of having a survey (out of the water) is that the surveyor might see something you've missed? You only get a survey done after you've looked for anything you can think of (and many problems are obvious).

It will then never be a case of suing him through every court in the land, but rather one of walking away from a boat that isn't all it seems, breathing a heavy sigh of relief. I'm not much of a gambler, admittedly, but spending a few hundred quid against the possibility of being tens of thousands out of pocket seems a good idea to me.

 

Ian

[Maverick]

I'm sorry, but surely the whole point of having a survey (out of the water) is that the surveyor might see something you've missed? You only get a survey done after you've looked for anything you can think of (and many problems are obvious).

It will then never be a case of suing him through every court in the land, but rather one of walking away from a boat that isn't all it seems, breathing a heavy sigh of relief. I'm not much of a gambler, admittedly, but spending a few hundred quid against the possibility of being tens of thousands out of pocket seems a good idea to me.

 

Ian

 

Cant agree with yr first 2 lines Ian. You say the whole point of having a survey is for the surveyor to look for something you may have missed. Most boats are in the water and they only come out in this case to be surveyed which has to be booked in advance. Up until it comes out of the water the buyer has not seen below the water level so how could they have missed something they havnt had a chance to see?

 

Your wrong in yr statement that you only get a surveyer in to look for something youve missed. You get him in to do thickness tests on the hull mainly for peace of mind although obviously other factors like stern gear etc can also be tested.

[Teadaemon]

Cant agree with yr first 2 lines Ian. You say the whole point of having a survey is for the surveyor to look for something you may have missed. Most boats are in the water and they only come out in this case to be surveyed which has to be booked in advance. Up until it comes out of the water the buyer has not seen below the water level so how could they have missed something they havnt had a chance to see?

 

Your wrong in yr statement that you only get a surveyer in to look for something youve missed. You get him in to do thickness tests on the hull mainly for peace of mind although obviously other factors like stern gear etc can also be tested.

 

Well there's nothing to stop you paying for a haulout or dry dock and going over the boat yourself if you so desire and the owner has no objections, you can even hire an ultrasonic thickness tester and do the tests yourself should you wish to. Having said that, if you've made an offer subject to a satisfactory survey, have a look yourself and then decide that there are problems, you may have trouble convincing the owner that your results are accurate and if you walk away they may feel justified in keeping your deposit. (If you tried that with a boat I was selling, I'd certainly consider doing so.)

[magnetman]

I sometimes think that the 'ultrasonic testing of hull thickness' is a bit dodgy. Afaik the testing machine is generally for ascertaining the original plate thickness as a guide and giving it a good whack with a hammer will give a (experienced) surveyor far more information on overall hull quality and condition. 'ultrasonic' sounds better than 'hammer' i guess.....Should it really cost hundreds of pounds to get a bloke to hit a boat with a hammer and say 'yes its ok' or 'no its a bit nackered' or make a hole in it with the hammer.

[TimRatRace]

Ian Jones is excellent and a gentleman - good value for the money and a very kinowledgeable chappie.

 

Mike Chambers has just done one for us and very easy to get on with and very professional.

[Teadaemon]

I sometimes think that the 'ultrasonic testing of hull thickness' is a bit dodgy. Afaik the testing machine is generally for ascertaining the original plate thickness as a guide and giving it a good whack with a hammer will give a (experienced) surveyor far more information on overall hull quality and condition. 'ultrasonic' sounds better than 'hammer' i guess.

 

Sounding the hull with a hammer is indeed a useful technique, but best practice is to do this in addition to ultrasonic thickness testing, not instead of it. Before the days of ultrasonic thickness testers the generally accepted method of determining the thickness of a steel hull involved drilling holes into the hull large enough to insert a vernier caliper and measuring the thickness manually. This was time-consuming and expensive, and only gave an accurate measurement in a few choice spots (there being a fairly limited number of times you can drill through the hull without beginning to affect it's structural integrity and/or it's appearance). With ultrasonic thickness testers it's possible to take many more measurements, as well as using it to spot check any areas where sounding has indicated that there may be a problem.

 

Incidentally, sounding a hull does not involve giving it a good whack with a hammer and seeing if it dents or goes straight through (that would be destructive testing). The idea is to give a firm tap at regular intervals and listen for changes in the sound produced as you go around the hull.

[Hobbler]

I would have no hesitation in recommending Des Fforde who has done a number of both in and out of water surveys and BSC inspections for me over a number of years on a variety of boats.

 

Also Malcolm Braine who is near Stafford if he is still surveying.

[Paul_B]

Thanks to everyone who came up with suggestions. My survey is booked for just over a week's time.

 

I'm sorry, but surely the whole point of having a survey (out of the water) is that the surveyor might see something you've missed? You only get a survey done after you've looked for anything you can think of (and many problems are obvious).

It will then never be a case of suing him through every court in the land, but rather one of walking away from a boat that isn't all it seems, breathing a heavy sigh of relief. I'm not much of a gambler, admittedly, but spending a few hundred quid against the possibility of being tens of thousands out of pocket seems a good idea to me.

 

For me, I think this is the crux of it. I've had a look at the boat - it seems well built and in the time I spent on it I saw nothing wrong. But I don't have a huge amount of experience of such things, and although I've been boating for quite a few years, I've never been responsible for maintaining a boat (other than running repairs). So I probably wouldn't spot problems that might be obvious to others.

 

I'm paying someone with a great deal of experience, to take an independant look. He'll also not have the 'rose tinted glasses' that I will have had when I found a boat that felt right for me. If he finds something wrong then I can bargain with the vendor, or I can walk away.

 

If he finds nothing wrong, then I can be happy that my gut instincts and own observations were probably ok. If something later turns out to be a problem then I may have some come-back, but this is probably tricky. Which is why I wanted a recommendation for a surveyor, rather than take pot-luck that I don't use a cowboy (if such things exist). It's in a surveyor's interest to do a good job and to get it right - his reputation counts for a lot.

 

Unfortunately the terms and conditions do tend to limit the possible comeback against the surveyor if he misses something, it excludes things that can't be seen, and the inner-workings of the engine - just a visual inspection of it, rather than any sort of dis-assembly. But if he is negligent, and can be proved to be so, then he would certainly be liable.

 

So for me, it's a lot of money, but as a proportion of the purchase price it's peanuts, and having someone 'in the know' look over it for me is worthwhile.

 

Thanks again for everyone's input.

 

Paul (hopefully afloat by Christmas )

[Teadaemon]

Thanks to everyone who came up with suggestions. My survey is booked for just over a week's time.

For me, I think this is the crux of it. I've had a look at the boat - it seems well built and in the time I spent on it I saw nothing wrong. But I don't have a huge amount of experience of such things, and although I've been boating for quite a few years, I've never been responsible for maintaining a boat (other than running repairs). So I probably wouldn't spot problems that might be obvious to others.

 

I'm paying someone with a great deal of experience, to take an independant look. He'll also not have the 'rose tinted glasses' that I will have had when I found a boat that felt right for me. If he finds something wrong then I can bargain with the vendor, or I can walk away.

 

If he finds nothing wrong, then I can be happy that my gut instincts and own observations were probably ok. If something later turns out to be a problem then I may have some come-back, but this is probably tricky. Which is why I wanted a recommendation for a surveyor, rather than take pot-luck that I don't use a cowboy (if such things exist). It's in a surveyor's interest to do a good job and to get it right - his reputation counts for a lot.

 

Unfortunately the terms and conditions do tend to limit the possible comeback against the surveyor if he misses something, it excludes things that can't be seen, and the inner-workings of the engine - just a visual inspection of it, rather than any sort of dis-assembly. But if he is negligent, and can be proved to be so, then he would certainly be liable.

 

So for me, it's a lot of money, but as a proportion of the purchase price it's peanuts, and having someone 'in the know' look over it for me is worthwhile.

 

Thanks again for everyone's input.

 

Paul (hopefully afloat by Christmas )

 

If you want a detailed inspection of the engine, you can commission a survey from a marine engineer or a specialist engine surveyor, but I doubt it'd be worth it for a narrowboat engine. Failing that, your surveyor may offer oil analysis, which isn't amazingly useful unless it's repeated over time and trends analysed, but can potentially provide warning of some serious problems. If your surveyor doesn't offer this, you can (with the owner's permission) take oil samples and have them tested yourself, here is one lab that offers such a service, recommended to me by a qualified marine surveyor (I've not yet used them myself).

 

As to the question of whether there are 'cowboy' surveyors, I would point out that unlike certain other titles (e.g. 'Chartered Engineer' or 'Pharmacist'), absolutely anyone can call themselves a 'Marine Surveyor', put an ad in a glossy magazine, and start surveying boats. Some of these people are vastly knowledgeable and experienced, many are not. Some surveyors have extensive academic qualifications and/or membership of a number of professional societies, some of which specialise in surveying (the IIMS, NAMS and SAMS in the US), and some of which are less specific (RINA, IMarEST, YDSA). Either way, no surveyor with any sense goes into business without professional liability insurance, so that's generally an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff. (and also means that if you do have cause to take them to arbitration or litigation and win, you should get your cash).

 

Personally, I think you're decision to engage a surveyor is sensible and proportionate, given the cost of the boat. I hope the survey goes well.