seeking advice - small claims for boatyard error?

[Rosy]

Hello, hoping for some advice on an uncomfortable subject...! seeking 'small claims' from a boatyard that made a dangerous mistake with an engine installation....

 

For years I bodged along with an old re-re-re-refurbished BMC, and when I could bodge no longer, made the decision to invest in a quality new engine, professionally installed, in the hope that I could at long last get out of the engine bay!

 

now, a couple of years later, an RCR engineer on an unrelated callout advised that the engine had been incorrectly installed as the mounts were the wrong way round and not sufficiently supported - I'll pop a photo in to show - and advising not to run the engine extensively until this problem was resolved. I thought I'd left my breakdown days behind me! Subsequently I've sought second- and third- and fourth- opinions,

from boaters, engineers, mechanics, the even the engine manufacturers, who so far all concur - this is an insufficient and unsafe instal. 

 

The only ones to vehemently deny this are the installing boatyard. 

 

Now, I am usually happy with bodging jobs myself, and asking a friend to do a bit of welding - but as the new engine is still under a 5yr warranty, this may be invalidated if the work is not done by approved contractors - the cheapest quote from any of them being £1,500 (the bulk of which is to lift the engine to comply with welding safety standards)

 

This is not money I have, since everything already went on the new-warranty-professionally-installed-engine, in order to avoid this kind of unexpected hit! 

 

I feel in a limbo. A mistake the boatyard made now must be corrected to make the boat safe to move (which must be soon, CRT aren't granting me an extended overstay owing to this being a popular mooring - it clearly wasn't my choice to break down here, or anywhere!!) The boatyard won't do the work or acknowledge responsibility. I am not keen to do the work informally and risk invalidating the warranty. I cannot afford the unexpected high quote for the work to be done officially.

 

Many have suggested making 'small claims' against the boatyard for their service, to cover the costs their work ensued. This is not something I have ever considered and feel very underinformed, and even uncomfortable about, but I don't feel I have many other options! Has anyone undertaken or heard of this procedure with regards to boatyards before? 

 

Many many thanks for any ideas or leads on this you have. 

 

Happy Boating! hope to be back floating along with you all soon! 

 

Rosy

 

Please find a photo of one of the four mounts - all apparently inadequate as half off the bearing, and not in line with the engine and thus thrust. (apologies it's grubby down there, been raining all week and another messy job going on! have cleaned the mounts again now but too rainy for another pic!)

[Alan de Enfield]

One of the problems of fitting a new engine (different make / model) in an old boat.

 

You would hope that the boatyard would have the skills and knowledge to be able to adapt the engine bearers with new fillets or brackets to suit and, by my reckoning, they have just done a quick bodge job and the weight is not properly supported on the engine bearers.

 

I'd suggest that if it is indeed over 2-years ago that it was installed then you will now have little, or no, come-back on the yard - they could simply say "someone has had the engine out and put it back in the wrong way in the last 2 years".

 

You have a 5 year warranty on the engine breaking down - but I bet you don't have any warranty on the installation.

 

I'd suggest that you'll get a whole host of answers here from 'barrack-room lawyers' and you should really either contact a marine solicitor, or one of the consumer organisations - even citizen advice may help.

 

How to make a 'small claim'

 

How to use the small claims court - Which?

 

Good luck.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[frahkn]

It has been my experience (not with a boatyard) that filling in the court forms and sending a copy to the person you are claiming from often works without the need to formally proceed with the claim.

[MPR]

9 minutes ago, frahkn said:

It has been my experience (not with a boatyard) that filling in the court forms and sending a copy to the person you are claiming from often works without the need to formally proceed with the claim.

In my case (again not with a boat yard) filling in the forms resulted in a hearing in which I was successful and awarded compensation.  The respondent then went into liquidation.  Winning does not always equate with getting the dosh. 

[Arthur Marshall]

I would be a liitle wary of the RCR engineer's opinion. They do have a bit of a reputation for drumming up work for their sister company. If you can get a written comment from the manufacturer it might help, and also maybe ask the boatyard to confirm (in writing) that their five year guarantee also covers the installation. There's a lot of bodge in all boatyards' work and in my experience rarely any real chance of comeback.

I'm no expert though.

[magnetman]

It is interesting that the word "breakdown" has been used. Presumably there was a reason why the RCR was called out. 

 

ETA rereading the OP the callout was not related to engine mounts but the boat is now "broken down" due to the RCR condemning the engine mounts. Is that correct? 

 

Do the engine mounts show any signs of actually causing any problems at this point? The picture looks dodgy but it might be fine. It seems to have no welding and be relying solely on the right hand bolt in the photo, which would defeat the object of having two bolts holding the flexible mount down. Not very good. 

 

I agree with the comment just above mine with regards to RCR although not sure if it is allowed on a public forum. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by magnetman

[magnetman]

I think the engine manufacturer may have a clause in their warranty which says that the engine must be installed under the supervision of a professional and the post installation check sheet will need to have been filled out. 

 

It definitely is an interesting situation and does look like an awful bodge. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by magnetman
Autoincorrect

[Tony Brooks]

I am not aware that those round mounts are tuned to accept thrust in one direction so feel the "fitted the wrong way round" would not hold up in court.  However, I agree it is not the "normal" way of mounting them. If anyone knows differently about how those mounts handle thrust please chip in.

 

If the propshaft is fitted with a thrust bearing then "the wrong way round" is relevant.

 

I do not like the way the "packing piece" seems to be cantilevered out from the bed, but if it was welded to the bed on both sides I feel it would be perfectly serviceable - but can't see any welds. I fear the whole thing may be held down by just one long bolt through the mount flange, packing piece and bed. If so I would fear such bolts could eventually fail from fatigue.

 

If all four mounts are like that, and it were my boat I would try to get those packing blocks welded to the beds with the engine in place and accept a bit of weld spatter if necessary, but it all depends upon access.

[Arthur Marshall]

18 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I agree with the comment just above mine with regards to RCR although not sure if it is allowed on a public forum. 

My comment was admittedly hearsay - it's been mentioned on here by a few people in the past. I've had a mix of RCR engineers on callouts, a couple have been excellent, another couple have walked away and left me stranded and one nearly got me chucked off my mooring by abusing the farmer who owns it.

I've said this before, that I've only ever had one job in the last 20 years done in a boatyard or by an engineer that didn't need either tidying up by me (if possible), by hiring another one to do a proper job on the bits left undone, or in one case getting the bloke back from ten miles down the road on his way home because part of the job fell to bits as soon as I ran the engine (and the proper fixing cost me another grand). One nearly sank the boat, and one nearly wrecked the engine.

[PD1964]

41 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Do the engine mounts show any signs of actually causing any problems at this point? The picture looks dodgy but it might be fine. It seems to have no welding and be relying solely on the right hand bolt in the photo, which would defeat the object of having two bolts holding the flexible mount down. Not very good. 

 

  Could the issue be fixed by just welding the seam to the original bearer and a welded support from added steel section to base plate?

 Or are people also picking up on the way the mounts are positioned, instead of the normal position?

Edited January 3, 2023 by PD1964

[Peugeot 106]

Rosy that doesn't very clever. Would it be possible to have pictures of all 4 mounts to get an idea of access. As Tony says welding would seem to be the best remedy (with care so as not to heat damage the rubbers). There are some very good, agile, helpful welders around. Maybe you could ask the forum for recommendations if you tell us where you are and it looks at all feasable. Looks like they meant to weld them and just never bothered it would have been dead easy when the engine was out.

[magnetman]

Just now, PD1964 said:

 

  Could the issue be fixed by just welding the seam to the original bearer and a welded support from added steel section to base plate?

 Or are people also picking up on the way the mounts are positioned, instead of the normal position?

There does seem to be a piece added on the inside of the bearers which may be adding some support underneath the piece of channel that the mount itself is bolted to. Not a lot though. 

 

It just seems a bit wrong to put the engine mounts that way round and for one side to have no support. 

 

I suppose what engine is it ? Would be a good question then possibly some reference to manufacturer drawings. 

 

 

I think this is a Beta Marine engine. Beta marine offer "special feet" which are adapted to fit onto existing mounts. The hardware is the same paint colour as the bearers. So it is possible that these are the mounts used for the original BMC engine. If that is the case and they have caused no problems then perhaps the installation is okay. The lack of welding does seem curious though. 

[magnetman]

I think there was a section of angle iron on the inside of the bearers helping to support the mounts but it was removed as there was not enough clearance for the new engine. 

[PD1964]

Maybe you could spin the added steel section through 90 degrees, weld the right side to the original bearer then add/weld a steel support plate to the left side welded to base plate?? 
  Maybe could be an easy fix? Then again there may be someone rubbing their hands as they know they could drag it out and make a good profit, knowing the original fit is not the best.

Edited January 3, 2023 by PD1964

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, PD1964 said:

Maybe you could spin the added steel section through 90 degrees, weld the right side to the original bearer then add/weld a steel support plate to the left   side welded to base plate?? 

It seems like that might have been how it was originally but maybe someone got the measurements wrong on the feet or the new engine was supplied with standard mounting feet. 

 

I installed a new Beta marine engine in a boat about ten years ago and when I sent the specifications to Beta Marine by email they sent a return email but got a basic dimension wrong. It was the distance between engine mount and prop shaft centre. They had it as prop above engine mounts by X mm but I had clearly said it was below engine mount by X mm. I had to resend the original email to point out their error. 

 

If someone got this sort of detail wrong you could end up needing to rotate the mounts and executing a bodge when they may have originally been mounted in the normal orientation.

 

Putting them in the right way with an angle bracket on the inside seems the ideal option but may be very awkward. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

Maybe you could spin the added steel section through 90 degrees, weld the right side to the original bearer then add/weld a steel support plate to the left side welded to base plate?? 

 

If the added piece of 'box-section' is swung around by 90 degrees using the existing bolt as the rotation point then the engine mount will be too wide for the engine to fit onto. To swing it around 90 degrees and retain the mounting bolted to the engine would make the fixing bolt slide down the inside edge of the engine bearer with nothing to bolt onto.

[Tony Brooks]

4 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

Maybe you could spin the added steel section through 90 degrees, weld the right side to the original bearer then add/weld a steel support plate to the left side welded to base plate?? 
  Maybe could be an easy fix? Then again there may be someone rubbing their hands as they know they could drag it out and make a good profit, knowing the original fit is not the best.

 

If those mounts are not thrust dependant, and I don't think they are, no voids in any I have seen, then the mount orientation is fine. What may not be fine is how the packing blocks are secured to the beds. I am sure 8 runs of weld, two per mounting block would be cheaper and easier.

[magnetman]

Another obvious possibility is that the channel section piece holding the mount was originally the same length as the engine bearers and welded along the top of the bearer itself to get the original BMC engine to the right position. That would make sense bearing in mind the odd paint situation. So when the new engine was installed the mounts were narrower than the original one so cut off the channel section with the mount already in it and reuse it to accommodate the dimension problems. 

 

=Bodge

 

[Slim]

1 hour ago, MPR said:

In my case (again not with a boat yard) filling in the forms resulted in a hearing in which I was successful and awarded compensation.  The respondent then went into liquidation.  Winning does not always equate with getting the dosh. 

Identical situation for me, won the case but never saw a penny. It was an education but a loss in cash terms. 

[Slim]

No one has mentioned that the greatest issue would be engine alignment. Maybe that was the root cause of the RCR callout

[PD1964]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If the added piece of 'box-section' is swung around by 90 degrees using the existing bolt as the rotation point then the engine mount will be too wide for the engine to fit onto. To swing it around 90 degrees and retain the mounting bolted to the engine would make the fixing bolt slide down the inside edge of the engine bearer with nothing to bolt onto.

I’m on about spinning 90 and welding the right hand side to the original bearer and welding a support plate to left side of box section to base plate. The mount bolts would only need to go through the box section, the box section would be all welded and supported. Obviously depends if you have the width of the box section to get a good support weld to the original bearer.

 

4 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

If those mounts are not thrust dependant, and I don't think they are, no voids in any I have seen, then the mount orientation is fine. What may not be fine is how the packing blocks are secured to the beds. I am sure 8 runs of weld, two per mounting block would be cheaper and easier.

Along with a welded support plate to the  left of the box section to base plate to give it more rigidity??

 Could be an easy fix for a decent steel fabricator/welder

 

 

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Slim said:

No one has mentioned that the greatest issue would be engine alignment. Maybe that was the root cause of the RCR callout

It is written in the OP that the callout was not related to the engine mounts. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Rosy said:

I feel in a limbo. A mistake the boatyard made now must be corrected to make the boat safe to move (which must be soon, CRT aren't granting me an extended overstay owing to this being a popular mooring - it clearly wasn't my choice to break down here, or anywhere!!)

 

Have you moved the boat during the last 2 years ?

 

I cannot imagine that moving 1km every 2 weeks (to keep C&RT happy) is going to do any more damage that the last 2 years has done.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

Of course the callout may have been related to the gearbox which is technically the same subject. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by magnetman

[Slim]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Of course the callout may have been related to the gearbox which is technically the same subject. 

I was thinking more of the stern gland or prop shaft. Both suffer mightily from misalignment.