Jump to content

seeking advice - small claims for boatyard error?


Rosy

Featured Posts

21 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

This may be the best fitted bearer, looking at the rear of the photo, is that the other engine mount, looking to be mounted lower and more on top of the original bearer without the added box section?

 As you say the alignment could be way out, the engine could be mounted too high with the addition of these box sections. Without lots of photo’s and detailed info, the forum can only speculate on what they see and that is one badly fitted piece of steel section supporting an engine mount.

Edited by PD1964
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all so much for your observations and suggestions, a wealth of wisdom here, I'm glad I asked! A couple of reoccurring questions here which I'll try to quickly sort out.

 

I believe the mounts positioning IS thrust dependent, the rubbers are thicker in the direction of thrust (when aligned correctly) - sketch below. So yes, I think we've got to rotate them! and support them.

 

All four mounts are the same style. Will get you all done detailed photos in the light!

 

The original callout was related to the raw-water-cooling system (I'm not a fan personally, but that's what it is.) not engine / prop / gearbox related - no obvious problems there (well apart from the mounts which somehow weren't obvious to me!) BTW cooling system sorted (barnacles growing on the inlet! not a fan personally!)

 

The RCR engineer was concerned that there was a possibility the mounts could fail (eg prop impact or heavy vibration, unpredictable causes) and the engine could drop, which no-one wants - hence advising not running the engine under propulsion to avoid any risk of that. The (many other) second opinions I have sought have not been quite so alarmist, more on the spectrum of  'it would probably be alright for a bit if it's been ok so far' - but generally concurring that sorting asap is definitely preferred. I'm not really up for the engine dropping, however sooner or later! 

 

I am also keen not to move as this current mooring is ideal for getting work done, it would be ages to another easy-to-access mooring - so to make risky move just to appease the CRT when my previous CC-ing record is totally in accordance with their guidelines seems a bit silly. but that's a different story. 

 

really disheartening but helpful to hear how many others have been highly dissatisfied with boatyard's work!

 

Thank you for sharing your time and experience and woes! 

 

20221216130608247 (1).pdf

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PD1964 said:

As you say they need rotating 90 degrees, what is holding the box section that the mount is sitting on in place, is it just the mount bolt to the right going through the original bearer?

It looks like it.

 

Basically the original longitudinal bearers have been cut up and repositioned wrongly. Quite understandable for DIY or if one is happy to do a bodge for a paying customer but not ideal if the latter in terms of reputation. It is blatant bodge. Probably holds up for normal use of a narrow boat but it could cause some serious issues.

 

Imagine if the engine dropped off the mounts and the whole lot failed just when a boat full of disabled kids was approaching, hit the boat and sunk it and everyone (21 disabled kids and 3 carers who were in the cabin) drowned. This is not to mention the bus accident caused when the attention of the driver was drawn away from the road as he was driving over the swingbridge, which collapsed due to his inattention. It could really go horribly badly.

 

Worth fixing I reckon !

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It looks like it.

 

Basically the original longitudinal bearers have been cut up and repositioned wrongly. Quite understandable for DIY or if one is happy to do a bodge for a paying customer but not ideal if the latter in terms of reputation. It is blatant bodge. Probably holds up for normal use of a narrow boat but it could cause some serious issues.

 

Imagine if the engine dropped off the mounts and the whole lot failed just when a boat full of disabled kids was approaching, hit the boat and sunk it and everyone (21 disabled kids and 3 carers who were in the cabin) drowned. This is not to mention the bus accident caused when the attention of the driver was drawn away from the road as he was driving over the swingbridge, which collapsed due to his inattention. It could really go horribly badly.

 

Worth fixing I reckon !

Don’t forget an animal, put an animal in there, especially a dog or cat, and some fluffy disabled bunnies. 👍


 

 

and when turned 90 degrees they’ll still need supporting proper ?

Edited by Goliath
  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Don’t forget an animal, put an animal in there, especially a dog or cat, and some fluffy disabled bunnies. 👍


 

 

and when turned 90 degrees they’ll still need supporting proper ?

 

I would put all cats in the sunk boat and make sure it had a really good lid on it and that the water was deep enough to submerge the entire superstructure. .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Rosy said:

I believe the mounts positioning IS thrust dependent, the rubbers are thicker in the direction of thrust (when aligned correctly) - sketch below. So yes, I think we've got to rotate them! and support them.

 

 

I agree, but I don't think it will be an easy job, I fear the engine will have to come out to get access for welding and offering up fabricated parts. If the cost comes in under the small claim limit then I think there will be nothing to lose, apart from the fairly modest filling fee, to make a claim, but I think that you will need the installation instructions for those particular mounts, photos of all four mounting areas and ideally a written statement from whoever does the job agreeing the installation is wrong.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I agree, but I don't think it will be an easy job, I fear the engine will have to come out to get access for welding and offering up fabricated parts. If the cost comes in under the small claim limit then I think there will be nothing to lose, apart from the fairly modest filling fee, to make a claim, but I think that you will need the installation instructions for those particular mounts, photos of all four mounting areas and ideally a written statement from whoever does the job agreeing the installation is wrong.

 

In my experience, a moneyclaimonline is a long protracted process in these underfunded days. I entered a claim against Currys a while ago and a bit of research suggested that it would take around 9 months to get to court. Arbitration was offered, which was done over the phone, and I decided beforehand to agree to much less than I was claiming, on the basis that having it hanging was irritating, annoying, and stressful, and life is too short.

 

It doesn't sound like the OP has the money to do the job quoted for, nor the time to wait for the outcome of a court case, although it is always possible that the yard gives in shortly after being served, or at arbitration.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question in the original quote ( I will leave others who are better qualified to give technical advice)

 

You will here differening reports on the small claims court/money claim online because most people process their own claim without legal advice, so a lot of claims go in with insufficient evidence or where there is not a legal reason for the claim.

 There are 2 ways to win a claim

1) issue the claim and the other party concedes because they don't want to fight it.

2) the court awards in your favour.

 

To increase the chance of either happening you need lots of evidence on your side,

a) proof of what the company who fitted the engine had agreed to do, and/or charged you for. A written quote or invoice that actually details the work.

b) proof that what they did wasn't what they should have done, a written statement from a qualified person, most of the people giving you advice probably know what their talking about but they wouldn't count as an expert witness, some one from the manufacturer would be perfect.

 

If you just have proof you paid them some money, or just something that says "install engine" they could argue that the engine mounts aren't their responsibility - they were told to use what was there. Keep a record of all communication with them (even if it's just notes from a conversation) and include them in the evidence with your claim, this will help if they change their story.

 

As others have said it isn't a quick process, and you need the money now.

Get the highest sensible quote that you can - one that includes towing the boat to a boatyard etc, then but in a claim for that amount with lots of evidence and hope they make an offer to settle. They won't offer the full amount but hopefully it will be enough.

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Tony above, I think you will need the specification and fitting instructions from the mountmanufacturer, or an email or letter from them advising on the correct instalation.

You could make a dimentioned drawing of the existing installation, and send it along with photographs of how the engine is installed to Beta Marine. They may be able to advise on how to rectify the work, and  may be able to supply alternative brackets to fit the existing engine beds.

With the mount manufacturers and Beta Marines advice, I think you may have a reasonable chance of success with a small claim.

You could also obtain estimates of how much the work would cost from reputable boat yards, in order to support the size of you claim.

I see Barneyp has beaten me to it. All he says is correct.  With all the evidence, you could approach Citizens Advice, to make sure you get the procedure correct, though it is not that difficult.

The fact that they say there is nothing wrong, might help in avoiding having to let them, 'put it right'.

The Courts can take ages.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that the boatyard concerned could state that as their installatiin has worked faultlessly for two years then it must be ok, and this fact is a fact whilst everything else is just opinions.

Do be aware that there are one or two court cases that came out in favour of the boatyard because "they are the experts".

 

There are a couple of things on my boat where a few people have said "I don't like the look of that", but its done 20,000 hours so must be ok. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bolt highlighted is the only thing holding the mount, transverse bearer to the original bearer, then yes, this is a faulty and potentially costly installation. The single bolt will have too much stress and fail, as pointed out above.

20230103_170502.jpg.c50269eff7440afd08b08f14d1a16240.jpg

 

I presume you have fitted a Beta as the BMC replacement, Beta are very helpful, and can be cajoled into attending your boat to comment on installation or faults, you may need a report from them if considering legal action. The smaller Beta engines have a narrower footprint than similar engines from different manufacturers.

The ideal repair would be to create a new bearer within the existing bearer structure, replacing a 3 pot Isuzu with a Beta looked like this...20230103_203856.jpg.bf5488ee816e634c33c8ddf4692d2183.jpg

 

The new bearers were bolted to the existing with 5 bolts each side, and lowered by about 5mm to retain the plane with the prop shaft.

 

Edited by matty40s
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dmr said:

I suggest that the boatyard concerned could state that as their installatiin has worked faultlessly for two years then it must be ok, and this fact is a fact whilst everything else is just opinions.

 

 

Thats pretty much what I was getting at when I asked if the boat had been used / moved in the last two years - my argument (as the boat yard) would be you used the boat, nothing has happened and if you are now saying it is not correctly installed how do we know you have not has someone else move the engine in the last couple of years.

 

I really dont think the OP has got much of a chance of getting anything from the installer.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Dmr says, their defence is likely to be that due to the passage of time, and there being no failure, then the installation is adequate.

That is precisely why you need to be well armed with the manufacturers installation instructions or an opinion from them. Beta know how their engines should be installed, and their view would be good to have.

You may also need an expert witness to support your claim.

Edit for typo

Edited by Peanut
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peanut said:

As Dmr says, their defence is likely to be that due to the passage of time, and there being no failure, then the installation is adequate.

That is precisely why you need to be well armed with the manufacturers installation instructions or an opinion from them. Beta know how their engines should be installed, and their view would be good to have.

You may also need an expert witness to support your claim.

Edit for typo

 

Its not a nice job, but on the grand scheme of things it might be just about adequate, and its lack of failure would support this. There are some pretty dire bits of engineering on narrowboats, probably a lot worse than this. Legal action can be very time consuming and draining of the spirit. Assuming there is some access to all of the mounts then there are people on the cut who can improve this installation without it costing an arm and a leg, you just need to find one of them. The idea of longer legs is rather appealing, can we have photos of the other mounts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

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.

 

That's what I was thinking. Just get those cantilevered spacers welded on, job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, fear the chances of success in the courts is now slim so think this may be a question of making it as reliable as possible. That is why I suggested just welding the spacer pieces to the beds. That leaves the fact that it appears the rear mounts are not in the correct orientation, but from what I can see the front ones are, so they should take the prop thrust, but if the OP felt it was worth it similar mounts could be fitted that would better accept prop thrust than the present ones. Failing that I fear the required metal work and welding could be expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem, at what point is poor of shoddy workmanship so bad that you can get a remedy.  There is consumer law that covers this, and it is a well trodden path.

Here is just one example of the advice available, but relating to building work:

https://www.confused.com/home-insurance/guides/how-to-deal-with-shoddy-workmanship

The principal is the same, but in this case, you will need to show that the boatyard failed to install the engine properly, and that the mounts are likely to fail or cause damage due to being wrongly installed or alligned,  They were contracted to do a proper job, and it has now come to light that they didn't.  Rose, as a consumer, would not have had the technical knowledge to know this, and relied on their professional service.

She needs someone to help her through this,

typo

 

Edited by Peanut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

That's what I was thinking. Just get those cantilevered spacers welded on, job done.

 

But according to the OP that fails to address the fact that the mounts are oriented to accept transverse thrust rather than prop thrust. Just how vital  that is I do not know, but it is wrong.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.