Seller survey

[ditchcrawler]

8 hours ago, manxmike said:

Not just crap, but heavily overpriced crap. Sellers market?

And that folks is the world of selling boats today. you may not like it, but its whats happening

[Tacet]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

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?

 

 

 

 

!977.  Alan will know whether his dodgy survey was before or after the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

 

Essentially, if a surveyor is negligent in his survey (or report), then the client has a prima-facie claim for damages.  Successfully pressing a claim may well be troublesome (as are badly founded claims for the surveyor) and possibly not worth the effort - but the principle remains.

 

Consequential losses is a subject in itself.  I doubt you would be successful with a claim based on a breakdown delay that meant you were too late to purchase your lottery ticket - even if you could show that your usual choice of numbers came up trumps.

 

 

[Tacet]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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.

If it was agreed that the surveyor would not inspect covered, unexposed or inaccessible areas, then it is hardly surprising that he did not.  Any more than if he was not instructed to comment on the engine - or the boat next door.  Nevertheless, there has been case law where a surveyor is expected to follow the trail i.e. if something a bit odd is observed, then further investigate even when those investigations would not be merited other than if something created the suspicion.  If you want the surveyor to inspect the mouldings or dismantle the craft, you are free to ask  - but no doubt the line will need to be drawn somewhere.

 

The limits of liability seems reasonable enough (in the absence of knowing anything about the craft).  Reasonable care, skill and diligence is a conventional standard. 

 

If vandals had indeed wrecked the boat after the survey, you can hardly expect the surveyor to be responsible for making good.  If the surveyor is merely claiming that the boat deteriorated after the survey (to cover up his negligence) then it will, in the Court, be a matter for evidence as to whether the survey accurately reflected the condition of the boat at the agreed date; mostly it would be straightforward where the timescales are short.  More difficult if you wish to lay a claim years later.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Tacet

[Slow and Steady]

7 hours 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 imagine that while spending that £20K you also learned a lot about boats!

I've bought 2 boats, no survey either time, no regrets. I know not a lot about boats particularly but I know about old cars and engines and woodwork and stuff. One was old, one was quite new, neither was cheap. IMO if you're looking at a boat you have enough doubts about that you feel the need for a survey, it's probably more sensible to pass and look at some others. If you know nothing about anything in a practical sense, find someone you know and trust who does. IMO there's nothing about a narrow boat that is difficult, it's farmyard engineering.row boat that is difficult, it's farmyard engineering.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Slow and Steady

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Tacet said:

!977.  Alan will know whether his dodgy survey was before or after the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

 

It was post !977

[MtB]

25 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Consequential losses is a subject in itself.  I doubt you would be successful with a claim based on a breakdown delay that meant you were too late to purchase your lottery ticket - even if you could show that your usual choice of numbers came up trumps.

 

 

So while a claim for a refund of the £500 the survey cost might succeed, recovering the £20k Alan spent to put right the faults not identified in the dodgy survey might be a different kettle of fish as they are consequential losses?

 

 

[Mad Harold]

13 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

I imagine that while spending that £20K you also learned a lot about boats!

I've bought 2 boats, no survey either time, no regrets. I know not a lot about boats particularly but I know about old cars and engines and woodwork and stuff. One was old, one was quite new, neither was cheap. IMO if you're looking at a boat you have enough doubts about that you feel the need for a survey, it's probably more sensible to pass and look at some others. If you know nothing about anything in a practical sense, find someone you know and trust who does. IMO there's nothing about a narrow boat that is difficult, it's farmyard engineering.row boat that is difficult, it's farmyard engineering.

The problem is, that even though canal narrowboats are as you say ' farmyard engineering' there is so much of them that can' t be inspected without major dimantling. See the surveyor's comments in A De E's post.

A boat I bought I found that when removing interior trim to fix a leaking window, there was no insuation at all!

It wasn't untill I lit the stove in cold weather that I found it was only warm within about a yard of the stove, move away and it was freezing.

When looking to buy this boat, I must confess that I didn' t think of removing trim to inspect the insulation or metalwork, and it's likely that the vendor would have refused.

[Slow and Steady]

5 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

The problem is, that even though canal narrowboats are as you say ' farmyard engineering' there is so much of them that can' t be inspected without major dimantling. See the surveyor's comments in A De E's post.

A boat I bought I found that when removing interior trim to fix a leaking window, there was no insuation at all!

It wasn't untill I lit the stove in cold weather that I found it was only warm within about a yard of the stove, move away and it was freezing.

When looking to buy this boat, I must confess that I didn' t think of removing trim to inspect the insulation or metalwork, and it's likely that the vendor would have refused.

Exactly - it's about the same as a house survey - anything they can actually survey and tell you about you can see for yourself anyway!

Better to knock 'em down £5K for a quick "no survey" sale and be prepared to spend the £5K?

Edited April 15, 2022 by Slow and Steady

[Troyboy]

6 hours 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'm afraid I cannot agree with this . I had to have my boat surveyed two years ago to satisfy my insurance company . I approached Mark Douglas Marine who offer three types of survey , a full survey, an insurers survey and a hull only survey . I had the insurers survey which is slightly cheaper than a full survey and Mark gave a valuation of my boat in his very comprehensive report . 

[ditchcrawler]

59 minutes ago, Tacet said:

!977.  Alan will know whether his dodgy survey was before or after the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

 

Essentially, if a surveyor is negligent in his survey (or report), then the client has a prima-facie claim for damages.   

 

 

But who is the client, not the person who bought the boat that sank on the strength of someone else's survey 

[Tacet]

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

So while a claim for a refund of the £500 the survey cost might succeed, recovering the £20k Alan spent to put right the faults not identified in the dodgy survey might be a different kettle of fish as they are consequential losses?

 

 

I am happy to be corrected - but you need to decide whether, if the survey had not been negligent, the purchase would have proceeded.  If Alan had been properly advised, and would still have bought the boat, his loss (claim) will be the difference in price between what he paid - and what he would have paid if he had been properly advised.  This might be more or less than the £20k required to remedy the faults - (cost is not the same as value) but will probably have something to do with the £20k.

 

On the other hand, if Alan would not have bough the boat at all, he is able to claim his entire loss - which might be the price he paid less the price he sold the boat etc.  Again, could be more or less than £20k - but possibly something around that figure, logically.

 

Consequential losses, pure economic losses and economic losses are confusing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_economic_loss_in_English_law ,   When I trained as an arbitrator in property disputes, the advice was to take care and look into the details when required - as it was too complicated to convey in general terms.  If your broadband goes down just as you were about to secure the best business deal ever, the service provider may not be liable for all the losses you perceive

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, Troyboy said:

I'm afraid I cannot agree with this . I had to have my boat surveyed two years ago to satisfy my insurance company . I approached Mark Douglas Marine who offer three types of survey , a full survey, an insurers survey and a hull only survey . I had the insurers survey which is slightly cheaper than a full survey and Mark gave a valuation of my boat in his very comprehensive report . 

That’s good news 

Ive not heard of an insurers survey before. 
 
 

[Tacet]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But who is the client, not the person who bought the boat that sank on the strength of someone else's survey 

The client is err..., the client.  That is the person who commissioned and paid for the survey.

 

In some circumstances (remember Donoghue v Stevens - snail in the ginger beer bottle?), a third party may able to lay a claim in tort, but not contract.  Contracts for survey will usually specifically exclude contractual liability to third parties - and most of us will understand why that is sensible.  So you would typically be unwise to rely on a survey addressed to the seller of a boat you are about to buy.

 

It is probably worth reading such a survey - and if you want to rely on it, asking the surveyor to provided the survey to you (and making a payment).  But you may still be left with a nagging feeling that the surveyor was in the pocket of the vendor or the vendor commissioned half-a-dozen surveys and is showing you the most favourable or that the vendor instructed the surveyor not to report on some items he knew were below par. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Would a surveyor who surveys there own boat for sale be trusted ?

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Would a surveyor who surveys there own boat for sale be trusted ?

 

 

It is 'frowned upon' by the professional bodies.

 

As is the BSSC being done by an examiner on his own boat.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It is 'frowned upon' by the professional bodies.

 

As is the BSSC being done by an examiner on his own boat.

I expected it weren’t  allowed. 

like Santa choosing his own presents. 

[PD1964]

14 hours ago, Troyboy said:

I'm afraid I cannot agree with this . I had to have my boat surveyed two years ago to satisfy my insurance company . I approached Mark Douglas Marine who offer three types of survey , a full survey, an insurers survey and a hull only survey . I had the insurers survey which is slightly cheaper than a full survey and Mark gave a valuation of my boat in his very comprehensive report . 

What I’ve found is, not all surveyors can value a boat or are prepared too. There are certain  accreditations/affiliations of societies the surveyor must have before most insurance company will recognise them for a boat valuation and most will have their own list of surveyors you must use. Some have so many qualification, accreditation post nominal letters after their name, which mean absolutely nothing to most people. It always better to ask your insurance company before you get your local surveyor to survey/value your boat for insurance purposes to see if he’s ok with them.

Edited April 16, 2022 by PD1964

[ditchcrawler]

5 hours ago, PD1964 said:

  It always better to ask your insurance company before you get your local surveyor to survey/value your boat for insurance purposes to see if he’s ok with them.

And what they want included in the survey

[cuthound]

On 15/04/2022 at 13:07, 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. 

 

But what about the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which specifically subjects possiblely unfair clauses to limit liability to a "reasonableness" test?

 

https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/ucta#:~:text=The Unfair Contract Terms Act,bring into existence contractual obligations.

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

But what about the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which specifically subjects possiblely unfair clauses to limit liability to a "reasonableness" test?

 

https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/ucta#:~:text=The Unfair Contract Terms Act,bring into existence contractual obligations.

 

 

 

Point covered previously in the thread. 

 

Why not read the thread before asking redundant questions?

 

 

[cuthound]

On 15/04/2022 at 13:16, 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.

 

Interesting, I did the same last year and my insurer was happy to increase the insured sum by £10k provided I was prepared to pay a small increase in premium.

 

 

Just now, MtB said:

 

 

Point covered previously in the thread. 

 

Why not read the thread before asking redundant questions?

 

 

 

Because with a memory like mine, I would have forgotten the point I wanted to make by the time I got to the end. 😉😂

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Because with a memory like mine, I would have forgotten the point I wanted to make by the time I got to the end. 😉😂

 

Fair enough! 

 

Back in the thread it emerged that the legal opinion Alan mentioned was obtained before the UCA became law! So nowadays one could possibly invoke it, if one's pockets are deep enough and one's appetite for risk is high. 

 

 

 

[cuthound]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Fair enough! 

 

Back in the thread it emerged that the legal opinion Alan mentioned was obtained before the UCA became law! So nowadays one could possibly invoke it, if one's pockets are deep enough and one's appetite for risk is high. 

 

 

 

 

I suspect that threatened with legal action for their negligence, most surveyors would settle out of court so that their reputation (and thus future income) is not risked.

Edited April 17, 2022 by cuthound
Clarification

[Alan de Enfield]

41 minutes ago, MtB said:

Alan mentioned was obtained before the UCA became law!

 

Previously covered earlier in the thread ..............No I didn't - I was asked if it was before !977 and I replied that it was post !977

 

 

 

On 15/04/2022 at 18:52, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It was post !977

 

I have even linked back to the post in question.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Previously covered earlier in the thread ..............No I didn't - I was asked if it was before !977 and I replied that it was post !977

 

Blood from stone!

 

What year did you obtain your legal advice please? Or if you don't want to say, did the UCA exist at the time and did your lawyer take it into account when he advised you would definitely lose an action against your surveyor?