Opinions on a survey

[Mark R]

Hi all,

 

Further to my previous posts regarding the potential purchase of a Fenchurch narrowboat, the current owner has sent me a copy of the survey dated in July of last year. Since then the boat has been overplated with a 6mm base plate, according to the seller (who I have no reason to doubt), he asked the surveyor to inspect this work once carried out. Having read plenty of posts regarding overplating I know some on this site don't necessarily agree with it.

 

He is happy for me to speak to the surveyor for peace of mind. Obviously I’d not purchase the boat without a survey. Is it worth a punt?

 

I’ve attached a copy of the survey and some photos of the overplating. I’d really appreciate your expert opinion on what you see and read! It’s a 120 mile trip to see the boat, if there’s an obvious reason not to I’d love to know rather than make the journey.

 

Apologies if I should have attached this to my previous post regarding Fenchurch boats.

Hull survey mystic Dancer.pdf

[Paul C]

So it was recommended to fill in the pits in the base plate and re-ballast (ie remove ballast) because the weedhatch sides were deemed too low. But its been overplated on the base - have the weedhatch sides also been raised? Are the various hull fittings still sufficiently clear of the waterline? These are some basic questions worth asking. 

 

Other than that, no real red flags in the report, although obviously its just a hull survey with a ton of caveats and CYA clauses in there.

[Mark R]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

So it was recommended to fill in the pits in the base plate and re-ballast (ie remove ballast) because the weedhatch sides were deemed too low. But its been overplated on the base - have the weedhatch sides also been raised? Are the various hull fittings still sufficiently clear of the waterline? These are some basic questions worth asking. 

 

Other than that, no real red flags in the report, although obviously its just a hull survey with a ton of caveats and CYA clauses in there.

 

Cheers Paul, appreciate your input! I shall certainly ask the seller.

 

[GUMPY]

That square plate is going to make it very difficult to nudge lock gates open 😱😂

[Alan de Enfield]

53 minutes ago, Mark R said:

I’d really appreciate your expert opinion on what you see and read! It’s a 120 mile trip to see the boat, if there’s an obvious reason not to I’d love to know rather than make the journey.

 

I'd reiterate what Paul C has said.

 

If the surveyor commented that it was sitting too deep in the water, then overplating will have made the situation much worse.

 

What, if anything, has been done to counteract the additional weight ? (Ballast removed, hull fitting raised higher, etc etc)

[Mark R]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'd reiterate what Paul C has said.

 

If the surveyor commented that it was sitting too deep in the water, then overplating will have made the situation much worse.

 

What, if anything, has been done to counteract the additional weight ? (Ballast removed, hull fitting raised higher, etc etc)

 

From what I gather it has had new ballast, I'm assuming this might be to meet the recommendations. Here is a link to the boat...

 

https://narrowboats.apolloduck.co.uk/boat/fenmatch-58-cruiser-stern-for-sale/731667

 

I'm not sure if you can tell much from the pictures on there.

[ditchcrawler]

18 minutes ago, Loddon said:

That square plate is going to make it very difficult to nudge lock gates open 😱😂

Behave

[Mark R]

18 minutes ago, Loddon said:

That square plate is going to make it very difficult to nudge lock gates open 😱😂

 

He's reliably informed me it has been done like that so if the canal freezes over it can be used to skid across the ice. He told me it's a one of a kind.

[blackrose]

1 hour ago, Mark R said:

Obviously I’d not purchase the boat without a survey. Is it worth a punt?

 

 

Er... If you buy a boat only on the basis of the seller's survey you are in effect purchasing a boat without a survey.

 

A broker or seller's survey should only be used as a basis to decide whether to commission your own survey.

 

I'm not saying that there's anything dubious about the survey or the seller, but I once met a guy on a Dutch barge on the Thames who'd done what I think you're suggesting only to find out much later that the hull thickness figures he'd seen on the seller's survey had been doctored. By the time he found out the seller was long gone and he ended up £10K out of pocket to get the remedial work done.

 

Other less dishonest things can happen too. Suppose the boat has been moored up somewhere since that survey was done and has suffered from galvanic corrosion, or what if you later discover the previous overplating work wasn't done very well. You'd have no come back on the seller's surveyor.

Edited Thursday at 17:26 by blackrose

[jonesthenuke]

30 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

That square plate is going to make it very difficult to nudge lock gates open 😱😂

Great for cutting through weed though

[Mark R]

18 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Er... If you buy a boat only on the basis of the seller's survey you are in effect purchasing a boat without a survey.

 

A broker or seller's survey should only be used as a basis to decide whether to commission your own survey.

 

I'm not saying that there's anything dubious about the survey or the seller, but I once met a guy on a Dutch barge on the Thames who'd done what I think you're suggesting only to find out much later that the hull thickness figures he'd seen on the seller's survey had been doctored. By the time he found out the seller was long gone and he ended up £10K out of pocket to get the remedial work done.

 

Other less dishonest things can happen too. Suppose the boat has been moored up somewhere since that survey was done and has suffered from galvanic corrosion, or what if you later discover the previous overplating work wasn't done very well. You'd have no come back on the seller's surveyor.

 

 

Sorry, by 'punt' I meant is it a boat worth buying (with a survey), not should I buy it without a survey.

[Bod]

My initial comment would be, the surveyed boat, is different to the photographed boat.

There is no indication of re-plating needing doing in the survey.

The photographed boat has had the paint removed, possibly the interior stripped(?)

Before travelling to view, a recent time stamped photo, showing the identity of the boat might be an idea.

 

Bod.

[LadyG]

2 hours ago, Mark R said:

 

 

Sorry, by 'punt' I meant is it a boat worth buying (with a survey), not should I buy it without a survey.

That all depends on your attitude to risk and your finances. 

I don't know about boat prices but I think most people woul go with gut feeling after doing researches

[MtB]

People do so love to have boats overplated unnecessarily. 

 

Now the boat had been ruined, I recommend you don't buy it. 

 

 

[blackrose]

4 hours ago, Mark R said:

 

 

Sorry, by 'punt' I meant is it a boat worth buying (with a survey), not should I buy it without a survey.

 

Ok. It's only worth a punt if you intend to commission your own survey.

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

People do so love to have boats overplated unnecessarily. 

 

Now the boat had been ruined, I recommend you don't buy it. 

 

Really? Who loves spending thousands of pounds on overplating?

 

I don't think overplating necessarily ruins a boat if it's done properly in cases where replating isn't practical.

Edited Thursday at 21:57 by blackrose

[Mark R]

10 hours ago, Bod said:

My initial comment would be, the surveyed boat, is different to the photographed boat.

There is no indication of re-plating needing doing in the survey.

The photographed boat has had the paint removed, possibly the interior stripped(?)

Before travelling to view, a recent time stamped photo, showing the identity of the boat might be an idea.

 

Bod.

 

Hi Bod,

 

The boat is a project where the current owner's situation has changed (as is always the case). What makes you think it's a different boat? Is it the window to the rear? If so this was welded up. One thing the owner did tell me was that the boat was partially submerged a couple of years ago, this was partially at the stern end, it didn't sink as such. The interior was stripped as it was a total overhaul due to water ingress inside (as a result of the water intake in the stern end).

 

 

9 hours ago, MtB said:

People do so love to have boats overplated unnecessarily. 

 

Now the boat had been ruined, I recommend you don't buy it. 

 

 

 

What makes you say it's no longer worth purchasing? I understand it might have been overplated unnecessarily but how does it ruin the boat? 

[Tony Brooks]

32 minutes ago, Mark R said:

 

Hi Bod,

 

The boat is a project where the current owner's situation has changed (as is always the case). What makes you think it's a different boat? Is it the window to the rear? If so this was welded up. One thing the owner did tell me was that the boat was partially submerged a couple of years ago, this was partially at the stern end, it didn't sink as such. The interior was stripped as it was a total overhaul due to water ingress inside (as a result of the water intake in the stern end).

 

 

 

What makes you say it's no longer worth purchasing? I understand it might have been overplated unnecessarily but how does it ruin the boat? 

 

In reverse order.

 

Probably Mike's sense of humour. Otherwise, a number of people would never buy an over plated boat because of the difficulty of proving it is a serviceable job.

 

If it went down by the stern, the engine was probably under, and that might explain what looks suspiciously like a nice clean "bitsa" BMC engine. One thing is for sure, it is in the vehicle colour, not marine. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but who knows its history or work done.

 

It looks like a new skin tank, and it looks as if it passes through the rear bulkhead. This is an unusual feature, and prevents the assessment of size, it may well be inadequate for river or high power work.

 

That is two things I would want a lot more info about.

[Mark R]

Cheers Tony, 

 

You've provide a really informative response. I assume a 'bitsa' engine is a bit of this, a bit of that? I'll definetly ask the owner about its history and what was changed. Are there any differences between a road vehicle and marine engine that I should look out for?

 

As for the skin tank, I understand it's purpose but don't have any idea as to the size it should be. I'm told it's a 1.8 BMC engine, could you offer your opinion as to size. I'm assuming if it is sized too small then the engine will be liable to overheating?

 

Mark

[Bod]

37 minutes ago, Mark R said:

 

Hi Bod,

 

The boat is a project where the current owner's situation has changed (as is always the case). What makes you think it's a different boat? Is it the window to the rear? If so this was welded up. One thing the owner did tell me was that the boat was partially submerged a couple of years ago, this was partially at the stern end, it didn't sink as such. The interior was stripped as it was a total overhaul due to water ingress inside (as a result of the water intake in the stern end).

 

 

 

The surveyed boat is in old paint, and no mention of over plating needed.

The photographed boat has had a full paint strip back to bare metal, and is in the process of being partially or fully having the base re-plated.

This is expensive work, being done in a dry dock. Has it been paid for?

The painted boat has 3 items visible by the front door, the stripped boat hasn't, through this may just not be visible after stripping. (lights removed, I would still expect to see the wire holes.)

This is all just my feeling on this.  If I were traveling some distance to view, I would like to know just what I am going to see, particularly as the story has some discrepancies.

Bod

 

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, Mark R said:

Cheers Tony, 

 

You've provide a really informative response. I assume a 'bitsa' engine is a bit of this, a bit of that? I'll definetly ask the owner about its history and what was changed. Are there any differences between a road vehicle and marine engine that I should look out for?

 

As for the skin tank, I understand it's purpose but don't have any idea as to the size it should be. I'm told it's a 1.8 BMC engine, could you offer your opinion as to size. I'm assuming if it is sized too small then the engine will be liable to overheating?

 

Mark

 

Yes, a bit of this and a bit of that. The base marine and automotive engine are identical, although there might be minor differences between an automotive 1.5 and an industrial 1.5, but nothing to worry about. The settings on the injector pump might be a little different, but again, not worth worrying about.

 

One side of the skin tank should be 1 sq ft per hp, so taking a BMC 1.5 to be about 35 bhp, that gives about 9 sq ft on one side of the tank. The part you can see in the images looks no more than 2 sq ft. The thickness takes no part in the calculations, and the thinner, the better. That 1 sq ft per 4 hp is for a thank with internal baffles. Without such baffles, it would have to be larger.

 

What is good is that it has the modern flywheel housing that accepts standard engine mounts, unlike the earlier engines where the mounts are unobtainable. This also means that it is exceptionally unlikely to be a very early one with a two bolt starter motor. Those have parts that are also unobtainable.

 

Edited Friday at 09:10 by Tony Brooks

[Mark R]

8 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Yes, a bit of this and a bit of that. The base marine and automotive engine are identical, although there might be minor differences between an automotive 1.5 and an industrial 1.5, but nothing to worry about. The settings on the injector pump might be a little different, but again, not worth worrying about.

 

One side of the skin tank should be 1 sq ft per hp, so taking a BMC 1.5 to be about 35 bhp, that gives about 9 sq ft on one side of the tank. The part you can see in the images looks no more than 2 sq ft. The thickness takes no part in the calculations, and the thinner, the better. That 1 sq ft per 4 hp is for a thank with internal baffles. Without such baffles, it would have to be larger.

 

What is good is that it has the modern flywheel housing that accepts standard engine mounts, unlike the earlier engines where the mounts are unobtainable. This also means that it is exceptionally unlikely to be a very early one with a two bolt starter motor. Those have parts that are also unobtainable.

 

 

Thanks Tony, your advice really is invaluable. I owe you a beer!

 

I’ve been asked to remove the survey from this post by the surveyor which I’ll happily do (when at a laptop) as I don’t want to cause disharmony.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Mark R said:

 

Thanks Tony, your advice really is invaluable. I owe you a beer!

 

I’ve been asked to remove the survey from this post by the surveyor which I’ll happily do (when at a laptop) as I don’t want to cause disharmony.

 

 

 

 

 

You did not pay for the survey, you have no rights to use it, let alone publish it, and (I cannot open it) but it probably says "for the use of  Mr XXX only"

[Mark R]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

You did not pay for the survey, you have no rights to use it, let alone publish it, and (I cannot open it) but it probably says "for the use of  Mr XXX only"

 

I have no right to use it? The seller sent me it in an attempt to sell the vessel. Should I have reprimanded him

for that? What an odd thing to suggest….

[David Mack]

Not at all. Copyright in the survey report belongs to the surveyor, and his contract with his customer probably says that the report is for that customer's use only. By passing a copy of the document on to you the seller may well be in breach of his contract with the surveyor.

[Mark R]

The issue being I can't remove the document from the document

.

 

Edited Friday at 18:51 by Mark R