Jump to content

Advice following a boat survey


Kynes

Featured Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I'm looking for some advice. I've recently put an offer and deposit down on a boat and arranged a survey. I'm new to boating and some things have come up that I'm slightly concerned about.

 

For context, the boat was built in 2003 and during the last survey before mine, it was found to have extensive pitting and extensive previous pit welding. Following the survey in 2023, it had more pit welding and was blacked with epoxy.

 

The survey I've had done shows active corrosion on the starboard side of the hull, and dormant pits (some more than 2mm deep) that require pad welding. The survey also said that mud and weed may be covering other pits.

 

While there were a number of recommendations, the surveyor has listed the following points as 'hull integrity requirements' that should be rectified immediately:

 

Weed and mud should be suitably cleaned from the hull sides by pressure washing, so a thorough examination can be carried out. Any pits found 2mm or deeper, should be suitably pad welded. These areas should then be painted with the protective paint covering.
Weed hatch waterline clearance should be at least 150mm (weed hatch top measured 60mm above waterline). This could be achieved by increasing the weedhatch height or, adjusting ballast which would also improve the waterline clearances to other outlets, particularly those of engine and boiler exhaust.
Unused outlet (near cabin) should be blanked off with a fully welded steel plate. 

 

I'm looking to get your advice on whether the pitting is a cause for concern, and whether the points I've shared above need to be rectified before the sale or used to negotiate the price?

 

As I mentioned, I'm new to boating, so any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of a concern will depend on how thick the steel is, and how many pits there are. You won't really know the answer to that until the hull is properly cleaned off, as suggested by your surveyor.

 

Regarding the weedhatch height, we had our weedhatch extended after a surveyor deemed it was not high enough. Probably in line with the latest insurance requirements. In my opinion, it was detrimental to the ease of usage on our particular layout.

 

However,if you wish to secure fully comp insurance,it may be easier than removing ballast, particularily if it is difficult to access below the internal flooring. Don't forget, you will likely be adding weight when you move onboard.

Edited by Rod Stewart
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say starboard side of the hull, do you mean the starboard side of the baseplate or the actual side of the boat? One will likely be 10mm steel (2mm not such a big deal) and one will likely be 6mm.

 

Pits are rectifiable depending on how many, as has been said. Another option is to grit blast the hull, and paint with 2pack paint. It should stop any smaller pits getting worse, as pitting seems to be an emerging problem. I think I would be pushing to negotiate to get the pit welding and cost of grit blasting and paint off the price of the boat. You probably won't get that much but it's a good negotiating point.

 

Weed hatch adjustment isn't a big deal, just use it as a negotiating point.

 

EDIT: Just re-read that it was previously blacked with epoxy. If you can confirm if it was grit blasted first, then they've done that side of the work. But make sure it was grit blasted before painting! Ask for invoices. 

Edited by DShK
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

The corrosion is mentioned as being on the starboard side, and not the port. This suggests to me that the boat has sat for a long time moored alongside some structure on its starboard side, so any pitting, once fixed, should stop if you don't keep the boat moored to the same structure. That may have been a jetty, another boat, etc. Others here will be more technical with their responses: I'd say it's a natter of concern but not actively worrying.

  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with previous points. On reading what worried me was why the corrosion is still occurring.  It could be as stilllearning says due to previous mooring or possibly a lack of Galvanic Isolation on the mains supply and /or poor blacking ? 

 

Does the surveyor make any comment on the cause ?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone, that's really useful!

 

The pits they've been able to see are dormant so the previous epoxy looks like it's done the trick. It was sandblasted but I've not been shown the evidence/invoice.

 

That makes a lot of sense about the starboard corrosion. It's currently in a marina. I think this may be the/one of the causes of the previous pitting, thankfully it now has a galvanic isolator installed.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kynes said:

Thanks everyone, that's really useful!

 

The pits they've been able to see are dormant so the previous epoxy looks like it's done the trick. It was sandblasted but I've not been shown the evidence/invoice.

 

That makes a lot of sense about the starboard corrosion. It's currently in a marina. I think this may be the/one of the causes of the previous pitting, thankfully it now has a galvanic isolator installed.

 

I might be wrong but I don't think a galvanic isolator will stop this type of corrosion. A galvanic isolator (aren't worth their salt imo, have a read of this, a transformer is what you want http://www.smartgauge.co.uk/galv_tran.html) will stop errant currents due to the shore and onboard earths being connected - causing galvanic corrosion. HOWEVER, two dis-similar metals in contact (and with water as an electrolyte) will experience galvanic corrosion. This can even happen if you use a different metal to screw something into your hull (mushroom vent...) and I don't think pitting underneath fittings is uncommon.

 

Easy solution there though, if you're going to not be moving for a long time, don't have direct contact with other metals - use go-kart tyres (or something) as a fender.

Edited by DShK
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a bit concerned here, for clarification,

I presume the boat was in the water when you viewed it.

you made an offer subject to survey, and that's a discussion on its own.

The surveyor was found and visit arranged by you? ie not chosen by vendor.

The boatyard were asked to haul out the boat, but did not pressure wash it properly?, there fore it seems the surveyor is looking at a hull which has been epoxied, but not cleaned.

You say it has been sand blasted, which would be preparing the surface for two pack epoxy, but not befor the damage is repaired, that's a big job, and really i would want to know who did it, because the grit or sand blasting requires specialist equipment, the welding ditto. So it's not a cash in hand job.

If you think you might  have to do all this, because there are no receipts, then that is the sort of discount I would be looking at, several / many thousands, and of course the boat needs to be out if the water, and the weather needs to be good , [I'm guessing +5C ] and dry.

I always correspond by email on anything like this, else it is a cae of either you did not ask the right question!,,,,! Or they obfuscated, ie did not tell you what you needed to know.

I believe the standard practice when there is a history, is that the boat owner gets the work done and then presents it for sale. I would suspect that its been coated for sale, though the fact that it is dirty, presumably out of the water is not encouraging.

You have the surveyors number, give him a ring, even if he is best friend of the boatyard owner,  we'll, you could drop your offer, saying that you don't have proof that the required work was done. The cost of doing that work could be sufficient to allow you to walk away, with your deposit, ask your surveyor about this, you've paid for his advice, now it's his turn to repay you!

PS most boat purchases work outvOK, but it is nerve-wracking  :)

 

 

 

Edited by LadyG
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kynes said:

Thank you so much for the advice!

 

Good luck with the purchase if you go through with it! Ask as many questions on here and in the real world as you need. People like answering questions for people who help themselves, and there will be a lot to learn (I was new myself a couple of years ago).

 

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 

The boatyard were asked to haul out the boat, but did not pressure wash it properly?, there fore it seems the surveyor is looking at a hull which has been epoxied.

 

I don't think that is uncommon practise is it? I don't think JD was washed prior to survey, the surveyor just scraped off bits to get an impression of the condition of the hull.

 

In contrast, when CEDAR was examined by a specialist, he made it very clear he would only survey a boat of this age if it was properly cleaned beforehand.

Edited by DShK
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DShK said:

I don't think that is uncommon practise is it?

According to the surveyor we used earlier in the year, most boats he surveyed had not been washed off when he attends. He was most surprised that we had washed ours off prior to inspection. However, its one of those surveyor caveats. Sorry guv, I can't see it properly, so I can't survey it as well as I might.

Edited by Rod Stewart
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I am a bit concerned here, for clarification,

I presume the boat was in the water when you viewed it.

you made an offer subject to survey, and that a discussion on its own.

The surveyor was found and visit arranged by you? ie not chosen by vendor.

The boatyard were asked to haul out the boat, but did not pressure wash it properly?, there fore it seems the surveyor is looking at a hull which has been epoxied.

You say it has been sand blasted, which would be preparing the surface for two pack epoxy, but not befor the damage is repaired, that's a big job, and really i would want to know who did it, because the grit or sand blasting requires specialist equipment, the welding ditto. So it's not a cash in hand job.

If you think you might  have to do all this, because there are no receipts, then that is the sort of discount I would be looking at, several thousands, and of course the boat needs to be out if the water, and the weather needs to be good , [I'm guessing +5 ] and dry.

I always correspond by email on anything like this, else it is a cae of either you did not ask the right question!,,,,!

Or they obfuscated, ie did not tell you what you needed to know.

The standard oractice when there isca history, is that the boat owner gets the work done and then presents it fir sale.

 

 

 

Thank you for the reply.

 

I did see the boat in the water and unfortunately wasn't able to be there for the survey.

 

The survey and lift was arranged and paid for by me.

 

I'm not sure how this normally works in terms of a pre-purchase survey when it comes to pressure washing.

 

The previous work (welding/sand blasting/epoxy) was commissioned by the current owner. I can ask the brokers whether they can get any proof of the work that was done.

 

I've gone back to the brokers with the top level findings to see how best to move forward. I was keen to get all of your advice too as this will be my first boat purchase.

11 minutes ago, DShK said:

 

Good luck with the purchase if you go through with it! Ask as many questions on here and in the real world as you need. People like answering questions for people who help themselves, and there will be a lot to learn (I was new myself a couple of years ago).

 

I don't think that is uncommon practise is it? I don't think JD was washed prior to survey, the surveyor just scraped off bits to get an impression of the condition of the hull.

 

In contrast, when CEDAR was examined by a specialist, he made it very clear he would only survey a boat of this age if it was properly cleaned beforehand.

Thanks so much, I really appreciate it! I've been watching lots of YouTube videos and reading lots of threads here to try and educate myself. I'm sure living on the boat will be the ultimate learning curve 😊

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reasoned decision can only be made when you compare the price asked plus potential rectification with a boat that has no problems.

If work is urgently required and will preclude use of the vessel for a period ( remember boatyards are notoriously unreliable with time scales), then walk away. If the required work is of a relatively minor need and can wait a year or two and the price is attractive in comparison, then it's your choice. I'd say ask your surveyor, but they will only really be interested in covering their own back. 

What sort of reviews does your broker have? Have they expressed an opinion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kynes said:

 

The pits they've been able to see are dormant so the previous epoxy looks like it's done the trick. It was sandblasted but I've not been shown the evidence/invoice.

 

 

Sandblasting including the baseplate is very expensive, over £2000 at 60ft so there should not be any ambiguity in the boat's papertrail. The sandblasting cost might have been rolled into a larger invoice for a hull restoration job.

 

What concerns me most about your current situation is the surveyor is effectively saying the boat has not been comprehensively surveyed as yet from the perspective of a potential buyer. This is a dilemma for you as you have already shelled out for a survey and placed a deposit.

 

Is it now time to play hardball with the local marine trade. If you have not paid the surveyor, I wonder if you should now make contact with the surveyor and say "I note from the current interim survey report that the survey is incomplete, so would you now make arrangements to return to the boat to complete the comprehensive prepurchase survey I instructed".

 

There are forum members here, both trade and owners, with decades of experience. Their thoughts on this gambit would be very interesting to read. And guys please note we are trying to help the OP and not reignite old forum conflicts.

 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be aware that at 22 years old it is getting very close to the time some insurers insist on a survey if you want fully comprehensive insurance, other companies ask at 25 or 30 years old. Before you spend money on the weed hatch thing, I would consider if third party insurance will do you.

 

As this is an inland then if the unused hole near the cabin has bit of pipe on the inside then I would be very tempted to stick a piece of tape Over the inside a fill the pipe stub with an adhesive sealer that you can paint over (no silicon), that would prevent rain or the odd wave getting into the hull.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

A reasoned decision can only be made when you compare the price asked plus potential rectification with a boat that has no problems.

If work is urgently required and will preclude use of the vessel for a period ( remember boatyards are notoriously unreliable with time scales), then walk away. If the required work is of a relatively minor need and can wait a year or two and the price is attractive in comparison, then it's your choice. I'd say ask your surveyor, but they will only really be interested in covering their own back. 

What sort of reviews does your broker have? Have they expressed an opinion? 

The surveyor has suggested immediate action is required. Without hull thickness readings, we can only guess, but assuming he is suggesting pits of 2 mm need rectifying in a 6mm nominal plate, that would likely rule out fully comp insurance, if required, but not immediately addressed. Of course, third party insurance is an option.

 

Quote

the surveyor has listed the following points as 'hull integrity requirements' that should be rectified immediately

 

Edited by Rod Stewart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

Sandblasting including the baseplate is very expensive, over £2000 at 60ft so there should not be any ambiguity in the boat's papertrail. The sandblasting cost might have been rolled into a larger invoice for a hull restoration job.

 

 

£2000? If you're including painting in that, please let me know what yard you're using. The figure is more like £5k for a full blast and paint.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

A reasoned decision can only be made when you compare the price asked plus potential rectification with a boat that has no problems.

If work is urgently required and will preclude use of the vessel for a period ( remember boatyards are notoriously unreliable with time scales), then walk away. If the required work is of a relatively minor need and can wait a year or two and the price is attractive in comparison, then it's your choice. I'd say ask your surveyor, but they will only really be interested in covering their own back. 

What sort of reviews does your broker have? Have they expressed an opinion? 

Thank you for this. I've shared the top level findings with the brokers and I'm waiting to hear back from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kynes said:

While there were a number of recommendations, the surveyor has listed the following points as 'hull integrity requirements' that should be rectified immediately:


Weed hatch waterline clearance should be at least 150mm (weed hatch top measured 60mm above waterline). This could be achieved by increasing the weedhatch height or, adjusting ballast which would also improve the waterline clearances to other outlets, particularly those of engine and boiler exhaust.

 

I hate to thread-jack given you're concerned about pitting, but the weed hatch thing was flagged in the pre-purchase survey I had on my 2002 boat a few weeks back too.

 

Consensus in my thread was that extending the weed hatch isn't necessary and is a back-covering surveyor 'thing' about holding older boats to modern standards. My broker is of the same opinion and isn't asking the seller to fix (with the other stuff they do need to fix which affects insurability).

 

Yet my surveyor? He insists it is an urgent insurability issue, and replies in this thread suggest it will affect fully-comp insurance.

 

Confusing things, the owners of the boat I'm buying also had the weed hatch height flagged in their pre-purchase survey in 2023, yet were able to get fully-comp insurance without issue.

 

So while pitting is rightly your immediate concern, for peace of mind I'd perhaps get clarification on weed hatch woes from the involved parties – assuming they can agree and give you a straight-ish answer! 😅

 

Sincerely hope everything pans out for your purchase! 🙏❤️

Edited by d0od
  • Greenie 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, d0od said:

 

I hate to thread-jack given you're concerned about pitting, but the weed hatch thing was flagged in the pre-purchase survey I had on my 2002 boat a few weeks back too.

 

Consensus in my thread was that extending the weed hatch isn't necessary and is a back-covering surveyor 'thing' about holding older boats to modern standards. My broker is of the same opinion and isn't asking the seller to fix (with the other stuff they do need to fix which affects insurability).

 

Yet my surveyor? He insists it is an urgent insurability issue, and from replies in this thread, it could well affect fully-comp insurance.

 

…But owners of the boat I'm buying had the weed hatch height mentioned in their pre-purchase survey in 2023, and were able to get fully-comp insurance without issue.

 

So while pitting is rightly your immediate concern, for peace of mind I'd perhaps get clarification on weed hatch from the involved parties – assuming they can agree and give you a straight-ish answer! 😅

 

The advice on here is GOLDEN, and others are filling you in (on filling the pits in).

 

Sincerely hope everything pans out for your purchase! 🙏❤️

Thank you so much for this! It's really reassuring to know that people have been in similar situations and have found solutions.

 

Hopefully I'll be able to pass some sound knowledge onto other newbies in the future 😊

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, d0od said:

Consensus in my thread was that extending the weed hatch isn't necessary and is a back-covering surveyor 'thing' about holding older boats to modern standards. My broker is of the same opinion and isn't asking the seller to fix (with the other stuff they do need to fix which affects insurability).

 

Yet my surveyor? He insists it is an urgent insurability issue, and replies in this thread suggest it will affect fully-comp insurance.

 

Certainly on our boat, I think as a safety concern, it was a non issue. Given that the boat hadn't sunk in the previous 40 years of its life. However, our surveyor also insisted it was an insurability issue, and given that out insurer wanted to see the survey before offering cover, it was a choice between having the work done or settling for third party only insurance. We choose to have the work done, but in hindsight should have gone third party only. I assume it is now a requirement because somones boat sank after they neglected to put the cover back on the weedhatch.

 

The modification to ours now means that it is harder to reach and clear the prop.

 

The job itself was not particularly expensive, but did involve (for some unknown reason) cutting out the old hatch, welding some new sides on it, reattaching it to the boat and fabricating a new lid. Unfortunately for us, it involved a lot of angle grinding work that produced loads of dust which ultimately worked its way into our electronics. If you do get the job done, and it does involve a lot of grinding, get some dust sheets in place.😂

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kynes said:

Weed and mud should be suitably cleaned from the hull sides by pressure washing, so a thorough examination can be carried out. Any pits found 2mm or deeper, should be suitably pad welded. These areas should then be painted with the protective paint covering.

This is a pretty standard statement in all survey reports where the hull has not been cleaned off.

 

2 hours ago, Kynes said:

Weed hatch waterline clearance should be at least 150mm (weed hatch top measured 60mm above waterline). This could be achieved by increasing the weedhatch height or, adjusting ballast which would also improve the waterline clearances to other outlets, particularly those of engine and boiler exhaust.

60mm weedhatch clearance isn't a lot and looks quite scary when you take the lid off. Imagine what would happen if the seal under the lid wasn't perfect and the boat took on enough rainwater to sink the stern another 60mm...

Sounds as if the boat has put on weight over the years. How far does the weed hatch extend above the counter plate? If 150-200mm then the suggestion if removing some ballast (if accessible) from the stern is much easier and cheaper than raising the weedhatch.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rod Stewart said:

 

Certainly on our boat, I think as a safety concern, it was a non issue. Given that the boat hadn't sunk in the previous 40 years of its life. However, our surveyor also insisted it was an insurability issue, and given that out insurer wanted to see the survey before offering cover, it was a choice between having the work done or settling for third party only insurance. We choose to have the work done, but in hindsight should have gone third party only. I assume it is now a requirement because somones boat sank after they neglected to put the cover back on the weedhatch.

 

The modification to ours now means that it is harder to reach and clear the prop.

 

The job itself was not particularly expensive, but did involve (for some unknown reason) cutting out the old hatch, welding some new sides on it, reattaching it to the boat and fabricating a new lid. Unfortunately for us, it involved a lot of angle grinding work that produced loads of dust which ultimately worked its way into our electronics. If you do get the job done, and it does involve a lot of grinding, get some dust sheets in place.😂

Blimey! I'll definitely look into what this means in terms of insurance and what the options are moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DShK said:

 

£2000? If you're including painting in that, please let me know what yard you're using. The figure is more like £5k for a full blast and paint.

 

No, that is why I used the word "sandblasting" and made no mention of "painting". I did suggest the sandblasting had being rolled into a larger restoration job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gybe Ho said:

 

No, that is why I used the word "sandblasting" and made no mention of "painting". I did suggest the sandblasting had being rolled into a larger restoration job.

I wouldn't really call "painting" a "larger restoration job". This work is undertaken as one and the same thing. See a portion of my recent quote below:

 

image.png.e2490aad6be7157970873d0ddf6ba87e.png

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.