Think I might be in trouble.

[Tracy D'arth]

2 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

The survey (and purchase) were some time ago, I don't think the surveyor is obligated to give on going advise for the length of your ownership. From what the OP has said there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the survey, it was clear that there was work that needed doing.

The problem seems to be with the broker (who may also have been the owner) convincing the OP to buy the boat with possibly false information about the cost and ease of the necessary work, and with the yard who at best failed to communicate with the OP and didn't prioritise the work, and at worst may have carried out and charged for unnecessary work.

 

If the Broker was actually the owner then in theory the OP could take them to court for a refund or compensation, in reality the evidence to win in court may not exist or at least not be easy to find, and the amount of work and cost to mount the claim may be excessive, only the OP can make that decision.

 

I think the main lesson to be learned is that although buying a canal boat is never a totally logical or financially driven decision, it isn't a decision that should be made purely from the heart. Listen to the surveyor and get independent quotes or estimates for all recommended work before making an offer, remember the broker is working for the seller not you, and if you are paying for work in a yard make regular visits to inspect the work. This isn't intended as criticism of the OP, just a summary of lessons learned for others reading the thread.

If you go the legal route, there is one certain winner, the lawyers.

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

If you go the legal route, there is one certain winner, the lawyers.

 

If (and we don;t know) the broker was also the owner then the OP will have no prblem getting his money back, or satisfaction in other ways (pistols at dawn ?)

 

A commercial seller must accept the item back for a full refund, or repair it at no cost if it is not 'fit for purpose' - I'd suggest that breaking down twice in 3 days shows it is not 'fit for purpose'.

 

How long do you have to return a faulty product?

The Consumer Rights Act gives you the legal right to either get a refund for goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, or get it repaired  - depending on how long you've owned it:

• 0-30 days: You can claim a full refund for goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described. 
• 30 days-six months: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a refund.
• Six months or longer: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a partial refund, and the burden of proof is on you to prove the product is faulty.

If you'd prefer a repair or replacement in the first 30 days you can ask the retailer, but it cannot refuse to give you a refund.

The 30 day right to a refund doesn't apply to products you've bought as downloads - such as music, games or apps. You can, however, ask for a digital product to be repaired or replaced if it develops a fault. And if this isn't possible, or unsuccessful, you have the right to get a price reduction - which could be the full amount you paid. 

The 30 day period is shorter for perishable goods, and will be determined by how long it is reasonable to have expected the goods to last. For example, milk would be expected to last until its use-by date, as long as it’s stored correctly.

 

Your right to a repair or replacement

You can state your preference, but the retailer can normally choose whichever would be cheapest or easier for it to do.

If the attempt at a repair or replacement is unsuccessful, you can then claim a refund or a price reduction if you wish to keep the product.

Beyond the first 30 days of ownership you're entitled to a full or partial refund instead of a repair or replacement if any of the following are true:

• an attempt at repair or replacement has failed 
• the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content
• a repair or replacement is impossible
• a repair or replacement will cause you significant inconvenience
• the repair or replacement will take an unreasonably long amount of time.

If a repair or replacement is not possible, or the attempt at repair fails, or the first replacement also turns out to be defective, you can reject the goods for a full refund.

If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request that the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement.

If you discover the fault within the first six months of having the product, it is presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership of it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

The retailer can't make any deductions from your refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement.

The only exception to this rule is motor vehicles, where the retailer may make a reasonable reduction for the use you've already had of the vehicle after the first 30 days.

If a fault develops after the first six months, the burden is on you to prove that the product was faulty at the time you took ownership of it. 

In practice, this may require some form of expert report, opinion or evidence of similar problems across the product range.

Edited September 10 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

As far as opinions of RCR go, they do give you immediate access to an engineer (of variable quality) but also they will replace certain items at no cost on breakdown. The flexible coupling is one of them, as is the starter, alternator and a few other expensive items, including gearbox. I've had two grand off them towards gearbox repairs and a new starter.

They are obviously not much use to you at the moment as they won't cover stuff that's bust when you join up, though I believe they will source and fix it for a price that some have thought excessive. They will also tow you to a yard if needed. I joined because my blasted boat had a spate of weird breakdowns and have stayed even though it seems to have stopped doing it . I've about broken even now. It's worth looking at. Some people have had nothing but excellent service, some people have had terrible. I've had mixed!

Bits of boats do have an unfortunate habit of catastrophic failure. Most aren't that expensive and some can be fixed oneself. I've consoled myself by the thought that once something expensive has been fixed, it's one thing I probably won't have to worry about for a year or three. If its any consolation, I was told that my flexible coupling would be £1600 as they'd have to make me one, and they wouldn't make less than two at a time, so that's over three grand plus VAT, postage and fitting. Luckily, I could bodge it instead.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

Maybe if @david909 put some of the boat details on, maybe the Name, or if he has a link to the original sale ad, someone will know it and shed some light on the history of the boat. Far better than speculation.

[Captain Pegg]

4 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 But we’re not talking about their other stock, we’re talking about this boat which seams to not moved for a while so likely an ex moored boat at Barton Turns, which seams to have been bought and later sold by Lakelandleisure brokerage. So since you’ve done work for Lakelandleisure boat sales. Do they run the moorings, workshops and facilities as implied on their website under “our Marina’s”? As last time I spoke to M***🏎 he implied that they were now running the place, along with Great Haywood.

 

Removed because of clarification of the actual broker.

 

Edited September 10 by Captain Pegg

[Barneyp]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If (and we don;t know) the broker was also the owner then the OP will have no prblem getting his money back, or satisfaction in other ways (pistols at dawn ?)

 

A commercial seller must accept the item back for a full refund, or repair it at no cost if it is not 'fit for purpose' - I'd suggest that breaking down twice in 3 days shows it is not 'fit for purpose'.

 

How long do you have to return a faulty product?

The Consumer Rights Act gives you the legal right to either get a refund for goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, or get it repaired  - depending on how long you've owned it:

• 0-30 days: You can claim a full refund for goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described. 
• 30 days-six months: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a refund.
• Six months or longer: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a partial refund, and the burden of proof is on you to prove the product is faulty.

If you'd prefer a repair or replacement in the first 30 days you can ask the retailer, but it cannot refuse to give you a refund.

The 30 day right to a refund doesn't apply to products you've bought as downloads - such as music, games or apps. You can, however, ask for a digital product to be repaired or replaced if it develops a fault. And if this isn't possible, or unsuccessful, you have the right to get a price reduction - which could be the full amount you paid. 

The 30 day period is shorter for perishable goods, and will be determined by how long it is reasonable to have expected the goods to last. For example, milk would be expected to last until its use-by date, as long as it’s stored correctly.

 

Your right to a repair or replacement

You can state your preference, but the retailer can normally choose whichever would be cheapest or easier for it to do.

If the attempt at a repair or replacement is unsuccessful, you can then claim a refund or a price reduction if you wish to keep the product.

Beyond the first 30 days of ownership you're entitled to a full or partial refund instead of a repair or replacement if any of the following are true:

• an attempt at repair or replacement has failed 
• the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content
• a repair or replacement is impossible
• a repair or replacement will cause you significant inconvenience
• the repair or replacement will take an unreasonably long amount of time.

If a repair or replacement is not possible, or the attempt at repair fails, or the first replacement also turns out to be defective, you can reject the goods for a full refund.

If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request that the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement.

If you discover the fault within the first six months of having the product, it is presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership of it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

The retailer can't make any deductions from your refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement.

The only exception to this rule is motor vehicles, where the retailer may make a reasonable reduction for the use you've already had of the vehicle after the first 30 days.

If a fault develops after the first six months, the burden is on you to prove that the product was faulty at the time you took ownership of it. 

In practice, this may require some form of expert report, opinion or evidence of similar problems across the product range.

Knowing your legal rights and enforcing them are too separate things.

The OP would need to PROVE the broker owned the boat, and that may not be simple. 

 

Also the right to a full refund expires 6 months after the purchase date. This thread started on 25th Feb at which point the OP had already spent £18,000 at the boat yard, so presumably the purchase date was months before that.

The OP would now need to PROVE that the bits that have gone wrong were faulty at the time of purchase, given the time that has passed and the work carried out on the boat that would be very difficult.

[Bee]

Centaflex 11/2” Marine Shaft Coupling | eBay try an offer but check yours is actually beyond use first.

[Tracy D'arth]

7 minutes ago, Bee said:

Centaflex 11/2” Marine Shaft Coupling | eBay try an offer but check yours is actually beyond use first.

Looks rough, way too dear. And his may not be a 1 1/2" shaft. If it would fit, worth a punt at £50 I think. Selling as used which means it must be serviceable or money back.

Edited September 10 by Tracy D'arth

[Bee]

A quick google seems to indicate that spare parts are available - don't know how much but as I said make very sure that a) the coupling is actually the cause and b) that it could well be reparable. You need to understand how all these things work and be able to work out what needs fixing as much as possible otherwise you will have a succession of people traipsing through your boat charging a fortune and some of them will not be as expert as they say. Good Luck.

Edited September 10 by Bee

[david909]

The boat's name is Veritas.

Attached is the brochure.
 

Veritas-Brochure-2-3-2.pdf

[Tracy D'arth]

27 minutes ago, david909 said:

The boat's name is Veritas.

Attached is the brochure.
 

Veritas-Brochure-2-3-2.pdf 1.26 MB · 8 downloads

ER,,, yes,,, well. Ridiculously  over priced for a 29 year old boat.

Obviously intended to be in a marina all the time with small water tanks, a bath and electric heating.

Horrible windows.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

49 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Neither you or I know the provenance of this boat, it being an ex-moorer's boat at Barton is merely one possibility. As you seem to know the broker/dealer you will know the business model does rather more than just source boats from within the home marina.

Exactly, that’s why I’ve asked if maybe the Op will put some details on, so to end the speculation as to who owned the boat when sold. My feeling is it may of been the Broker, as to get such a big reduction in price and for the broker to say he would arrange repairs, sounds like it may if been a stock boat and not a private sale.

36 minutes ago, david909 said:

The boat's name is Veritas.

Attached is the brochure.
 

Veritas-Brochure-2-3-2.pdf 1.26 MB · 18 downloads

Any chance anyone can work some IT magic on this to make the file open more easily. Thanks

[Tracy D'arth]

3 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Exactly, that’s why I’ve asked if maybe the Op will put some details on, so to end the speculation as to who owned the boat when sold. My feeling is it may of been the Broker, as to get such a big reduction in price and for the broker to say he would arrange repairs, sounds like it may if been a stock boat and not a private sale.

Any chance anyone can work some IT magic on this to make the file open more easily. Thanks

Download it, opens easy.

[LadyG]

I would just assume the broker owns the boat, if he denies it then you ask for the name and address of the owner, (it should be on the BSC), or other paperwork.

When the OP bought the boat was there a Bill of Sale, how did he transfer the the money. I don't see a great problem establishing ownership, the broker certainly acted as though he was, promising this that and t'other.

[Barneyp]

13 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I would just assume the broker owns the boat, if he denies it then you ask for the name and address of the owner, (it should be on the BSC), or other paperwork.

When the OP bought the boat was there a Bill of Sale, how did he transfer the the money. I don't see a great problem establishing ownership, the broker certainly acted as though he was, promising this that and t'other.

Establishing if the broker was also the owner doesn't change the fact that at least 8 months has passed since the sale, meaning that any claim will be hard to prove.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

37 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Download it, opens easy.

unfortunately don't seam to be able to open PDF on my phone

[Machpoint005]

On 09/09/2023 at 14:03, haggis said:

I have come across similar fittings in a blue material and they don't fit properly. Best to stick to Hozelock which seem to fit most things 

 

The green ones from q-shop are OK though.

 

 

[haggis]

23 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

unfortunately don't seam to be able to open PDF on my phone

I opened it in Office 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, haggis said:

I opened it in Office 

 

I opened it in the kitchen. 

 

 

[LadyG]

48 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Establishing if the broker was also the owner doesn't change the fact that at least 8 months has passed since the sale, meaning that any claim will be hard to prove.

The problems started early on did they not, and it's been a long list of problems ever since. Yes the broker was informed because he promised to get it sorted.

Regardless of his disclaimer, this cannot override the consumer law. ITS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

[MtB]

50 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Regardless of his disclaimer, this cannot override the consumer law. ITS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

 

 

Which is a subtly different problem. The OP needs to have "Rejected" the purchase within six months and have the right to a full refund, IIRC, a deadline he has missed. 

 

Whether it could ever have been "Rejected" in the legal sense is a moot point given all the work he immediately had done on it. The whole situation is an utter mess legally and will (IMO) cost way more than the value of the boat to have resolved by the legal profession.

 

 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

I’ve just noticed that the brochure is from Great Haywood Boat Sales which is now Nationwide Boat Sales.

 

That’s absolutely nothing to do with Lakeland Leisure Boat Sales or any of operations or staff at Great Haywood or Barton Turns marinas.

 

The brochure also makes a statement that GHBS were acting solely as broker in the sale.

 

Edited September 10 by Captain Pegg

[Paul C]

6 hours ago, IanD said:

A lot of schadenfreude going on here -- the OP knew the boat had problems and negotiated a big drop in price which he thought (and was told) would be enough to pay for them, to get a boat that he wanted. Isn't this what has often been suggested as the correct approach on this very forum?

 

And it's still not clear that he got this wrong -- yes he's had to do various expensive repairs, but unless these exceed £13k then there wasn't anything obviously wrong with his decision. And if they do cost more -- well, how many posters on here have found that boat repairs *always* cost more than you think?

 

The fact that the surveyor/broker/boatyard may have screwed him over is a separate problem -- and again not one unknown to many on the canals, there do seem to be a fair number of dodgy operators of all kinds around... 😞

 

The issue is that the cost (and time) of the required work, is greater than the £13k advised.

 

Regarding rejection, I think you're in a stronger position to be able to reject by NOT having a survey, then only subsequently finding out issues. If you had a survey, knew about (some of the) issues, then still went ahead it weakens the case. There would need to have been additional things over and above the survey findings to be a cause for rejection then. And, with the passing of time, its a fruitless avenue to go down now.

 

Owner, due to passage of time, is pretty much deemed to have accepted the boat now, and must deal with its issues (or sell, probably at a big loss). Its still worth something, but there's a lot of issues for its age.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Owner, due to passage of time, is pretty much deemed to have accepted the boat now, and must deal with its issues (or sell, probably at a big loss). Its still worth something, but there's a lot of issues for its age.

 

Fantastic interior. I can see why he bought it in the teeth of advice not to.

 

I do find myself wondering how much, if any, of the work really needed doing. Did it float and go along? So much opinion is presented as fact e.g "It needs over-plating". I reckon nine out of ten boats overplated would have continued to float for another 30 years with no plating, just bi-annual blacking for £750.

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Fantastic interior. I can see why he bought it in the teeth of advice not to.

 

I do find myself wondering how much, if any, of the work really needed doing. Did it float and go along? So much opinion is presented as fact e.g "It needs over-plating". I reckon nine out of ten boats overplated would have continued to float for another 30 years with no plating, just bi-annual blacking for £750.

 

 

But conversely you wouldn’t last long as a surveyor if 1 in 10 boats you reported as being sound then sank or needed a five figure repair doing shortly after completion.