Seller survey

[Captain Pegg]

The seller’s surveyor may be willing to transfer the survey into the name of the buyer for a fee. The survey will then be reworded to say it has been produced for the buyer and can be used in the same way as a survey commissioned by the buyer.

 

If the original surveyor is not willing to do this then disregard the survey entirely and get your own.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

The only survey that is worth what you pay for it is the one that says "too bad - do not buy".

 

If you rely on a 'good survey' and subsequently find that the boat is not as suggested by the survey then you have wasted your money as you are very unlikely to get any recompense from the surveyor - I know I have tried and my Solicitor said, "give up before you get to court, their 'small print' pretty much says they have no responsibility for anything written, if you go any further you'll lose and end up paying all the court costs"

[Bee]

If I was buying a boat there is one unknown that I would REALLY like to know about. That is the state of the underwater bits. I would not buy unless I had a survey, I might very well not pay a surveyor but I would want to 'survey' for myself the pitting, general condition of the paint, what sort of paint , amount of overplating and whether it was welded by someone like me (crap) or someone very much better (acceptable)  The exception to this is if it was very new or very old and therefore pretty certain to need major work. I would be happier to trust myself because I've been around boats a while or, best of all, pay a welder from a boatyard if you can find one, to give an opinion. A lot of surveyors thickness test bits that dont really fail and chalk lots of figures all over the boat and miss the awkward corners that collect water on the inside and rust from both sides. As for the rest of the boat if it gets a BSS that's OK for me.

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, Bee said:

As for the rest of the boat if it gets a BSS that's OK for me.

 

A survey that goes into close detail about all manner of trivia like the configuration of the battery interconnects is great for quibbling about the price, but any surveyor who knows NBs will be able to produce such a list for any boat they inspect. Only an out-of-water survey of the hull proper is of any value, and even then its just an opinion with no come-back (as Alan superbly illustrates). 

 

All the previous posts about paying a surveyor who conducted a survey for a seller, to transfer the survey 'to the buyer', really is a load of ol' guff. Don't do it. If you 'buy' a seller's survey hoping to be able to sue the surveyor for oversights or important things missed, you'll have wasted your money just as if you'd commissioned the survey yourself. 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It says I need to create an account so I won't be looking.

Opens for me without a FB account.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Opens for me without a FB account.

 

Maybe it knows I 'don't do Facebook'

 

[LEO]

15 hours ago, Slim said:

Not quite at the point of selling but I fear it may be on the horizon (knees, back etc,etc,etc) note this is NOT an attempt to sell.

The boat's out for blacking in September and I intend to get a hull survey. That way, come the inevitable day I will have an idea whether I'm trying to sell a boat or a colander and pitch my approach accordingly. Just my view.

I went down that route a few years ago, boat out for blacking, hull survey at the same time, was not selling the boat but it seems a logical thing to do. Have not sold the boat, but at least I know my maintenance works are good.

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

A survey that goes into close detail about all manner of trivia like the configuration of the battery interconnects is great for quibbling about the price, but any surveyor who knows NBs will be able to produce such a list for any boat they inspect. Only an out-of-water survey of the hull proper is of any value, and even then its just an opinion with no come-back (as Alan superbly illustrates). 

 

All the previous posts about paying a surveyor who conducted a survey for a seller, to transfer the survey 'to the buyer', really is a load of ol' guff. Don't do it. If you 'buy' a seller's survey hoping to be able to sue the surveyor for oversights or important things missed, you'll have wasted your money just as if you'd commissioned the survey yourself. 

If you need a survey to provide to an insurer, but are of the view any survey is ultimately a waste of money, one that’s bought from the seller’s surveyor is going to be a whole lot better value than one you commission yourself.

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Captain Pegg

[Captain Pegg]

I don’t subscribe to the view that any survey is a waste of money on the grounds that there is probably no comeback on the surveyor. That only holds if you view a survey as a purely commercial consideration related to the sale.

The fundamental point of any survey is to establish and describe the configuration and condition of the asset concerned. That’s simply useful information to hold for anybody who owns an asset of significant value.

 

It may be that you can glean this information from other sources - particularly if the boat is relatively new and/or you have a high degree of relevant expertise and experience with boats - in which case a survey may not be of great value.

In my case I own an aged and idiosyncratic boat and the survey information has been valuable to me in understanding my boat and it’s systems, and particularly so in relation to routine maintenance and when making alterations.

 

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

If you need a survey to provide to an insurer but are of the view any survey is ultimately a waste of money one that’s bought from the seller’s surveyor is going to be a whole lot better value than one you commission yourself.

 

 

Good point. Cheaper if you want your name on the survey to get insurance. But I doubt an insurer would demand this, just a copy of an 'in date' survey regardless of who paid for it and it would be really dog-in-the-manger of a seller to refuse to hand over his copy of the survey when you actually bought his boat! 

 

But if your reason for getting your name on the survey is so you can pick it apart and sue the surveyor for oversights and errors, even gross ones, Alan's experience suggests don't bother.

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Good point. Cheaper if you want your name on the survey to get insurance. But I doubt an insurer would demand this, just a copy of an 'in date' survey regardless of who paid for it and it would be really dog-in-the-manger of a seller to refuse to hand over his copy of the survey when you actually bought his boat! 

 

But if your reason for getting your name on the survey is so you can pick it apart and sue the surveyor for oversights and errors, even gross ones, Alan's experience suggests don't bother.

 

 

That’s probably true but I also think requesting for it to be transferred is a good test of the integrity of the seller’s survey.

I’ve already posted my thoughts on the second paragraph.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I don’t subscribe to the view that any survey is a waste of money on the grounds that there is probably no comeback on the surveyor. That only holds if you view a survey as a purely commercial consideration related to the sale.

 

I subscribe to the view that you should get what you paid for - NOT a survey saying 'great, buy it worth much more than the asking price, nothing bad to report on' to then find that it needed £20,000+ spending on it to make it even usable.

 

That is my single experience of surveyors and hence why 17 boats later it is the only survey I have had.

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I subscribe to the view that you should get what you paid for - NOT a survey saying 'great, buy it worth much more than the asking price, nothing bad to report on' to then find that it needed £20,000+ spending on it to make it even usable.

 

That is my single experience of surveyors and hence why 17 boats later it is the only survey I have had.

 
Of course you should get what you pay for but what the OP - and others who ask similar questions - need is objective advice. To put your experience of surveyors into context it’s one very bad experience and it demonstrates there are no guarantees and legal recourse is not a given.
 

I have had two perfectly good experiences and on balance I think the best advice to a prospective purchaser is to get a survey, potential pitfalls notwithstanding.

[MtB]

So there are quite a few reasons people might want to get a survey...

 

1) So you can get comprehensive insurance on a 25+ year old boat.

 

2) To get a detailed and extended description of what you are considering buying.

 

3) To get an opinion on the condition of the hull, along with some thickness measurements.

 

4) To have someone you can sue for compensation if their report turns out to be wrong

 

5) For a valuation and opinion on whether the boat is worth the asking price, if you are buying. Or how much to ask if you are selling.

 

6) To give the buyer a surveyor's opinion about the probable condition of the boat you are planning to sell.

 

 

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I subscribe to the view that you should get what you paid for - NOT a survey saying 'great, buy it worth much more than the asking price, nothing bad to report on' to then find that it needed £20,000+ spending on it to make it even usable.

 

That is my single experience of surveyors and hence why 17 boats later it is the only survey I have had.

I'll hazard a guess that if you read the survey again, it won't include your quoted remarks. 

 

If the vessel was as bad as you suggest, and the survey (as commissioned) reported it in glowing terms, why would a claim for negligence not be well-founded?

 

 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I'll hazard a guess that if you read the survey again, it won't include your quoted remarks. 

 

If the vessel was as bad as you suggest, and the survey (as commissioned) reported it in glowing terms, why would a claim for negligence not be well-founded?

 

 

 

 

So round in circles we go, as often happens as threads grow longer.

 

Further back in the thread, your question was answered. The surveyor's well-written T&Cs prevent it, according to the professional legal opinion obtained. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

So there are quite a few reasons people might want to get a survey...

 

1) So you can get comprehensive insurance on a 25+ year old boat.

 

2) To get a detailed and extended description of what you are considering buying.

 

3) To get an opinion on the condition of the hull, along with some thickness measurements.

 

4) To have someone you can sue for compensation if their report turns out to be wrong

 

5) For a valuation and opinion on whether the boat is worth the asking price, if you are buying. Or how much to ask if you are selling.

 

6) To give the buyer a surveyor's opinion about the probable condition of the boat you are planning to sell.

 

 

Let’s not forget there are two main surveys; a full boat survey and a hull survey. 
 

A hull survey for maintenance purposes or to keep the insurers happy won’t get you a valuation of the boat.
I’ve asked and they never say much regards how much the boat is worth.  Certainly won’t say anything in writing. 

I’m not sure the job of a full survey will get you a valuation as such but will simply allow you to judge for yourself whether it’s worth it or not considering any extra work to be done. 
 

 

[Captain Pegg]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

Let’s not forget there are two main surveys; a full boat survey and a hull survey. 
 

A hull survey for maintenance purposes or to keep the insurers happy won’t get you a valuation of the boat.
I’ve asked and they never say much regards how much the boat is worth.  Certainly won’t say anything in writing. 

I’m not sure the job of a full survey will get you a valuation as such but will simply allow you to judge for yourself whether it’s worth it or not considering any extra work to be done. 
 

 

I recently changed my insurer and asked if they were willing to increase the value for which the boat was insured, given it has increased in value since I bought it.
 

They replied saying that they require a written valuation from a recognised broker, no mention of a survey.

[LadyG]

19 hours ago, Slim said:

Not quite at the point of selling but I fear it may be on the horizon (knees, back etc,etc,etc) note this is NOT an attempt to sell.

The boat's out for blacking in September and I intend to get a hull survey. That way, come the inevitable day I will have an idea whether I'm trying to sell a boat or a colander and pitch my approach accordingly. Just my view.

You are a man of integrity, rare species nowadays. 

If survey is full of holes, will you mention it, or just price accordingly? 

[Tacet]

24 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I'll hazard a guess that if you read the survey again, it won't include your quoted remarks. 

 

If the vessel was as bad as you suggest, and the survey (as commissioned) reported it in glowing terms, why would a claim for negligence not be well-founded?

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

So round in circles we go, as often happens as threads grow longer.

 

Further back in the thread, your question was answered. The surveyor's well-written T&Cs prevent it, according to the professional legal opinion obtained. 

The Unfair Contracts Terms Act or the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (depending on the date) generally restricts the ability to unreasonably contract-out of negligence liability.  And any provision that says that a survey reporting a rotten boat to be marvellous is excluded, sounds unreasonable to me. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Comments such as "we cannot comment on what we have not seen" and "we have not lifted carpets or opened cupboards, or assessed anything which needed a tool to test or operate'  etc etc etc.

 

If he couldn't see something requirirng 'wriggling  about' it was not checked.

 

"The survey is valid only for the period the surveyor is at the boat" obviously - as he cannot allow for vandals going aboard and ripping out the gas piping or grinding holes or making rust grow as aoon as he has left the site.

 

One example of a survey that came with a boat I bought on the Thames :

 

LOCATION :-

This vessel was surveyed ashore and afloat at Bray Marina, Monkey Island Lane, Bray on Wednesday, 28thJuly 2004. The weather conditions were good.

 

PREPARATION FOR SURVEY: No parts of the craft were dismantled and no bolts were drawn for inspection. No attempt was made to open up or prove machinery or systems. The electrical installation was not examined in detail, only switch tested.

 

INACCESSIBLE AREAS: I have not inspected the mouldings, woodwork or other parts of the structure which were covered, unexposed or inaccessible and I am therefore unable to report that any such part of the structure was free from defect.

 

 

Limitations of liability 

The Surveyor shall undertake the services to which these terms relate with reasonable care, skill and diligence. The Surveyor shall not be liable under this Agreement for any loss or damage caused in circumstances

(i) where there is no breach of a legal duty of care owed to the Client by the Surveyor or 

(ii) where, notwithstanding any such breach, any loss or damage is not a reasonably foreseeable result of such breach.

[Richard10002]

26 minutes ago, Tacet said:

 

The Unfair Contracts Terms Act or the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (depending on the date) generally restricts the ability to unreasonably contract-out of negligence liability.  And any provision that says that a survey reporting a rotten boat to be marvellous is excluded, sounds unreasonable to me. 

In order to enforce the provisions of the Act, you have to go through the court process, which may, or may not, find in your favour.

 

This costs time and money, (often lots of money), in addition to stress and anxiety.

 

The best thing to do is to choose your surveyor carefully. I got recommendations here for several surveyors and the one I ended up using was excellent.

 

Alan had one bad experience, and one could wonder how he chose his surveyor. His solicitor advised him that it would be a waste of time and money to pursue a claim, so he had to take the £20k hit on the chin. He has decided that this one experience means that all surveyors are likely to be bad, so he has chosen to use his own judgement since.

 

Let’s not forget that he often takes the opportunity to tell us about the time he screwed someone over for £40k, because he had a bag of cash so, perhaps, what goes around comes around  

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

37 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I recently changed my insurer and asked if they were willing to increase the value for which the boat was insured, given it has increased in value since I bought it.
 

They replied saying that they require a written valuation from a recognised broker, no mention of a survey.

Yes, mine said the same. 
I’ll sort something out after my current work’s finished. 
 

But I think as we’ve said before a boat with an old hull might only ever be worth a certain value. 🤷‍♀️
I don’t think mine will increase by the amount I’m chucking in to it. 
 

I am at least hoping my surveyor might be able to recommend that it won’t need another hull survey in the next 5 years but  could perhaps ‘skip’ it. 
And perhaps assess it again in 10 years. 

A full replate of old overplating along the entire length (apart from the swim)  and painted with epoxy paint, including base, should see it good for awhile I’d have thought. 
 

Would be great to think it need only to come out in 5 years for painting. 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

The Unfair Contracts Terms Act or the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (depending on the date) generally restricts the ability to unreasonably contract-out of negligence liability.  And any provision that says that a survey reporting a rotten boat to be marvellous is excluded, sounds unreasonable to me. 

 

Given that Alan says since his dodgy survey and failure to sue the surveyor, he has owned 17 boats. 

 

My guess is that the dodgy survey was therefore a long time ago, possibly before the UCT act came into force. 

 

So you hold that notwithstanding any T&Cs that say "this survey is just my opinion on the day" or stuff like that, surveyors can now be sued for mistakes and laziness and consequential losses resulting from relying on the content of the survey?

 

 

 

 

[PD1964]

 The thing with Wilton advising all sellers to get a survey and they know a Surveyor who will give discount, is the integrity of the survey and the family member that has been said does them.

  He’s probably got a well written template, excluding him from all liability and changes the document little for each boat.
  The naive Newbie buyers probably haven’t got a clue what they are reading and are so excited to be getting a boat they aren’t bothered, as they think they’re doing the right thing by buying through an established Marina brokerage and will be led by what Wilton say.

  

Edited April 15, 2022 by PD1964