Boat sunk over Christmas in Manchester

[Ianws]

This happened over Christmas but was only reported now in the Manchester Evening News.

 

A boat bought for £45,000 from Facebook marketplace. Sunk over Christmas at New Islington Marina.

 

Insurers refusing to pay out as the boat was not fit for purpose and should never gave been sold to them  

 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/we-spent-house-deposit-narrowboat-28587997?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

[haggis]

I wonder in what way was the boat "not fit for purchase"  and whether whatever it was is fixed or there is little point in sorting out the inside. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

I wonder on what the insurers are basing their 'not fit for purpose' decision ?

 

I cannot imagine that the fact there was a storm would have a huge impact on a boat tied up in a sheltered marina in Manchester.

 

I wonder if they did not have a survey and it was a colander ?

[IanD]

How did it "tip over in the bad weather" (what the article said)?

 

I moored literally right next to that space last year, and I'm pretty sure you'd need a hurricane strong enough to destroy the surrounding buildings to "tip a boat over", or rainfall torrential enough to wash boats away and flood the marina -- neither of which happened.

 

I expect it sprang a leak, filled up with water while unattended, and sank, which is why the insurers are getting bolshy about it...

Edited February 8 by IanD

[Bee]

Huh. Insurance companies. The insurers accepted the risk and it was up to them to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the thing. On that basis no insurance can be relied upon if the company can refuse to pay out if something goes wrong.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Bee said:

Huh. Insurance companies. The insurers accepted the risk and it was up to them to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the thing. On that basis no insurance can be relied upon if the company can refuse to pay out if something goes wrong.

 

Insurers don't go out and survey boats, they rely on the owner supplying information (e.g. a survey, or ticking boxes on the application form) to the effect that the boat hull is sound, or that it has an automatic bilge pump to keep it afloat in case there's a leak, or whatever.

 

Like any insurance policy, if they're not told the truth, or deliberately misled -- which determines the risk and the premium, and maybe whether they'd cover it at all -- they will refuse to pay out.

 

That's not the same as refusing to pay out for spurious reasons, which some insurance companies also try and do regularly -- and may or may not be happening here... 😞

Edited February 8 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Bee said:

Huh. Insurance companies. The insurers accepted the risk and it was up to them to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the thing. On that basis no insurance can be relied upon if the company can refuse to pay out if something goes wrong.

As always, few facts to go by. 
Im guessing, only guessing, the insurance would have come to make an assessment after the boat was refloated and then perhaps pointed out something blindingly obvious that was a shortfall to the agreement. 

[StarUKKiwi]

Does anyone know how this would sink and not be valid for insurance cover? Just curious

 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/we-spent-house-deposit-narrowboat-28587997

[dmr]

I think most policies say that the boat must be in a "seaworthy condition", mine certainly does. Bit of a catchall loophole that one.

Its quite possible to buy a total basket case and still get insurance, but can really expect the insurer to pay out when it sinks? and insurance covers sudden accidents, not gradual decline.

The other option would be for the insurers to appoint there own inspectors to do an anual inspection but I suspect boaters would not be happy with the cost.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

But from what I gather, in most cases with most insurers they do pay out 🤷‍♀️

 

that bloke on the Trent never got back but I understood his insurance were gonna pay up. 
 

which all makes me think there’s something in our Manchester story that’s not being told. 

I do feel sorry for the owners mind

 

(the bloke on the Trent posted here back in August, his boat sunk on close to Nottingham by the island where the scout hut is)

Edited February 8 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[Alan de Enfield]

Already under discussion ...................

 

 

[jonathanA]

its is the Manchester evening snooze so have to take anything they report with a pinch of salt.  Sad for the fellas affected.   maybe the manchester rain (which can be biblical) filled the bilge, no bilge pump/not working and down she went. does seem odd that it could happen seemingly quite quickly though.

[Cheshire cat]

It's undoubtedly going to be the small print that puts the onus on the owners to keep the boat in a seaworthy condition. 

Not saying it is the case here but if you can't be bothered to pull your boat out of the water every two to three years to black the hull it's not surprising that the insurance company might feel reluctant to cough up. 

 

Buying your first boat from Facebook Marketplace has got to be a huge gamble.

[Ianws]

6 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

its is the Manchester evening snooze so have to take anything they report with a pinch of salt.  Sad for the fellas affected.   maybe the manchester rain (which can be biblical) filled the bilge, no bilge pump/not working and down she went. does seem odd that it could happen seemingly quite quickly though.

It's also in a few of the natoonal papers. Not sure who reported on it first  

[ditchcrawler]

He posted on Facebook when it was first lifted and someone asked about insurance and he basically said the vendor didn't do the work they should have done.

[IanD]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

He posted on Facebook when it was first lifted and someone asked about insurance and he basically said the vendor didn't do the work they should have done.

 

I wonder what "the work they should have done" was? Either way it seems they moved onto the boat regardless of this, maybe hoping it wouldn't go wrong for some time and they could ignore it for the time being and sort it out later, but it all went pear-shaped before they got chance to fix it?

 

Whatever the exact story, if there was work that should have been done to keep the boat safely afloat but it didn't get done, it's hardly surprising that the insurer is refusing to cough up.

[jonathanA]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

He posted on Facebook when it was first lifted and someone asked about insurance and he basically said the vendor didn't do the work they should have done.

so there is a bit more to the back story.... possibly something like fix leaking stern gear and/or ensure bilge pump works.... 

[ditchcrawler]

Just now, IanD said:

 

I wonder what "the work they should have done" was? Either way it seems they moved onto the boat regardless of this, maybe hoping it wouldn't go wrong for some time and they could ignore it for the time being and sort it out later, but it all went pear-shaped before they got chance to fix it?

 

Whatever the exact story, if there was work that should have been done to keep the boat safely afloat but it didn't get done, it's hardly surprising that the insurer is refusing to cough up.

The impression I got was the vendor was suppose to do the work and the new owner thought it had been done but I cant find the post now

[haggis]

Sounds as if they did have a survey but the seller didn't put right matters it was agreed he should. Just a possible explanation

 

Must type faster  🙂 

 

Edited February 8 by haggis

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, jonathanA said:

so there is a bit more to the back story.... possibly something like fix leaking stern gear and/or ensure bilge pump works.... 

Surely something as simple as that would have been noticeable in the month they were living on it. I wonder if it was simply that it was insured as a leisure biat rather than residential, though why that should make any difference to its floatability I can't imagine, but it's the kind of thing insurance companies love.

[ditchcrawler]

I think this was the Facebook post about it. The Friendly Narrowboat And Waterways Group... | On Boxing Day after all the terrible storms, our beloved new home went under with all our possessions | Facebook Don't blame me if you don't do facebook and cant read it, It too long to cut and past here 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

The duplicate topic has been merged with this one.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think this was the Facebook post about it. The Friendly Narrowboat And Waterways Group... | On Boxing Day after all the terrible storms, our beloved new home went under with all our possessions | Facebook Don't blame me if you don't do facebook and cant read it, It too long to cut and past here 

 

 

I think you need to be in the 'in crowd'

 

Private

Only members can see who's in the group and what they post.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I think you need to be in the 'in crowd'

 

Private

Only members can see who's in the group and what they post.

I got a glimpse of it,

some mention of water tank leaking,

but 🤷‍♀️ as always nothing adds up

[IanD]

Clear as mud -- could be some surveyor arse-covering going on...

 

Niall Senior

Author

Fiona Winning the vendor hadn’t done things they had agreed to before we received it but didn’t know so it essentially made the insurance void

 

Niall Senior

Author

Simon Lord the surveyor said that it primarily points to a leaking water system/tank prior to us purchasing the vessel. Reasonably gradual, but water might have continued to ingress into the bilge and therefore further affect the boat’s trim and stability. It seems the wind pushed it to a point where water was able to down flood through the hull side openings.

 

Jerry Scales

Top contributor

How the hell did the contents of the water tank sink the boat ……….and how long was it left unattended ?

You would need far more water than a tank full to drop the rear end far enough to let water in the engine air vents . It would be over the rear floor level …….you would be paddling in it before it made a difference.

Get an independent assessor and argue the case .