Advice following a boat survey

[Mike Todd]

1 hour 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.

 

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.

 

 

I cannot see the justification of this assertion. What the OP quoted was a recommendation that when work is done then every nook and cranny will need to be examined for pits - the survey has found that there are enough to warrant particular attention, there is no need to go further for the purpose stated.

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, d0od said:

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.

 

Oh they'll issue the policy and charge you.  What they won't do is pay out if you've declared that all survey requirements have been sorted and they haven't.

[Kynes]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

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

 

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.

I'm not sure of the dimensions, but that's a really good point. It's currently got all of the owners possessions onboard, and I'm not sure that the ballast positioning is. It would be great if it could be sorted that way!

[LadyG]

What is the difference between Third party and Comprehensive, does it mean i am effectively self insuring the fabric of the boat.?

Last time I checked, ie when i first insured, there was little difference in cost. Now , unfortunately my company has added a surcharge because I have claimed  the scoundrels, after four years they will have the cash back that they paid out, and i dont expect a reduction.. If I'd known that I'd not have claimed.

[blackrose]

2 hours ago, DShK said:

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.

 

 

Yes you are wrong. A decent galvanic isolator if correctly fitted and working will definitely stop galvanic corrosion. That's precisely what they're designed to do. What you're talking about is an isolation transformer (not a transformer) and the advantage is not that they work any better at preventing galvanic currents forming between your boat and other boats or submerged steel in the marina, it's simply that (if correctly fitted and working) they're a bit more reliable than a couple of diodes in a galvanic isolator. Galvanic isolators should be tested regularly. I've had one on my boat for 20 years and my boat has no pitting.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, LadyG said:

What is the difference between Third party and Comprehensive,

 

 

Third Party - Basically it means that anyone (or anything) you hit can make a claim against your insurance, but if your boat is damaged, it sinks, catches fire and you lose all your worldly goods yiu are not paid anything from the insurance.

 

Fully Comprehensive means that both anyone you hit, and any damage or loss you get if the boat sinks you (and they) are reimbused as per whatever agreement limits it says in your policy.

 

 

 

Your fully comp insurance will be for either :

 

Market Value, or

Pre-agreed value.

[DShK]

19 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Yes you are wrong. A decent galvanic isolator if correctly fitted and working will definitely stop galvanic corrosion. That's precisely what they're designed to do. What you're talking about is an isolation transformer (not a transformer) and the advantage is not that they work any better at preventing galvanic currents forming between your boat and other boats or submerged steel in the marina, it's simply that (if correctly fitted and working) they're a bit more reliable than a couple of diodes in a galvanic isolator. Galvanic isolators should be tested regularly. I've had one on my boat for 20 years and my boat has no pitting.

I'm not suggesting I might be wrong about the the difference in effectiveness between galvanic isolators an isolation transformer - you can read the link I provided on that front.

 

I was more talking about if a boat (without one vs with one) would still *potentially* experience SOME kind of galvanic corrosion if moored against a dis-similar metal for long periods. Because as I understand it, there can be more than one cause for it. One induced by potential differences from electrical equipment, and one by voltages induced between dissimilar metals connected by an electrolyte.

Edited October 31 by DShK

[Rod Stewart]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Third Party - Basically it means that anyone (or anything) you hit can make a claim against your insurance, but if your boat is damaged, it sinks, catches fire and you lose all your worldly goods yiu are not paid anything from the insurance.

 

Fully Comprehensive means that both anyone you hit, and any damage or loss you get if the boat sinks you (and they) are reimbused as per whatever agreement limits it says in your policy.

 

 

 

Your fully comp insurance will be for either :

 

Market Value, or

Pre-agreed value.

Hopefully third party would cover removal of the sunken vessel as well. But what about contamination clear up? I guess the devil is in the detail, and not all third party policies are equal.

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, DShK said:

I was more talking about if a boat (without one vs with one) would still *potentially* experience SOME kind of galvanic corrosion if moored against a dis-similar metal for long periods. Because as I understand it, there can be more than one cause for it. One induced by potential differences from electrical equipment, and one by voltages induced between dissimilar metals connected by an electrolyte.

 

But it still needs a low resistance connection between the two dissimilar metals, which an unprotected shoreline would provide, as would metal to metal contact between the hull and (say) the piling - except the galvanising on the piling would suffer rather than the hull. Just being immersed in an electrolyte does not provide a complete circuit

 

 

[DShK]

3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

But it still needs a low resistance connection between the two dissimilar metals, which an unprotected shoreline would provide, as would metal to metal contact between the hull and (say) the piling - except the galvanising on the piling would suffer rather than the hull. Just being immersed in an electrolyte does not provide a complete circuit

 

 

Yeah, I earlier suggested that a large fender would halt the contact type. In theory the electrolyte does provide a circuit right? It's just the voltages we're talking about are so low, it's not going to have much effect if it's not basically in contact.

 

Why would the galvanising on the piling suffer rather than the metal in this instance, vs if it was electrically induced?

[Tigerr]

Do you really, really like the boat? Does it fulfil the need you feel? Will owning it, being on it, make you happy?

That's the thing that matters.

Have you looked at lots of boats? that is also so important. You need to have looked at a lot of frogs before you can begin to work out what your prince looks like. And boy, are there a lot of frogs out there. 

If you really like it, and you are saying that based on having looked at and dismissed lots of others - then this is simply a price negotiation issue.

The thing to bear in mind is that whatever boat you buy, it will reveal its own set of problems, and they will all cost about 3X what seems reasonable. 

It does sound as though this boat has a hull corrosion issue, of some sort. It's been blasted and epoxied at some point, and possibly not well since the problem is still there. 

Get a quote from a decent yard for a proper blasting and epoxy. It will be eyewateringly expensive. See if you can get the seller to meet you halfway on costs. 

But only do this if you really want the boat. It's going to be a big hassle. 

Because, a 20 year old boat is basically an ongoing set of similar issues, and you need to be confident you can afford to pay for them as they arise. 

You have to want the boat, and the ongoing costs, because that is in the nature of boat owning. You can do it on the cheap but at the cost of stuff actually working as it should. You can see how that plays out just by walking down the towpath. 

If not, hire boats when you want to go boating, which is a much cheaper alternative. 

 

[Tony Brooks]

16 minutes ago, DShK said:

Yeah, I earlier suggested that a large fender would halt the contact type. In theory the electrolyte does provide a circuit right? It's just the voltages we're talking about are so low, it's not going to have much effect if it's not basically in contact.

 

Why would the galvanising on the piling suffer rather than the metal in this instance, vs if it was electrically induced?

 

The electrolyte only forms one half of the circuit (think batteries). For the electrons to flow, you need the other half.

[DShK]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

The electrolyte only forms one half of the circuit (think batteries). For the electrons to flow, you need the other half.

True! I just looked it up, I was thinking about how rust forms typically - looks like it relies on how electrons flow due to a different type of process. I assumed this was possible with what we're calling galvanic corrosion? Like I said before, we've observed pitting around mushroom vents etc using dissimilar metals.

 

[Tony Brooks]

13 minutes ago, DShK said:

Like I said before, we've observed pitting around mushroom vents etc using dissimilar metals.

 

I don't doubt that. look at any 60s car with chrome trim strips held on by aluminium dished washers. The rivets corroded and the steel around the holes corroded.

[Gybe Ho]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I cannot see the justification of this assertion. What the OP quoted was a recommendation that when work is done then every nook and cranny will need to be examined for pits - the survey has found that there are enough to warrant particular attention, there is no need to go further for the purpose stated.

 

 

This thread is discussing a boat with a troubling recent history of corrosion and that has resulted in sandblasting, two rounds of pit welding and epoxy blacking. A survey was instructed by the OP and the surveyor reports "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.".

 

There might be different practices re. jetwashing a hull in preparation for a survey, however in this case the boating trade has failed the OP.  Despite spending £100's she is now left guessing about the quality of the recent hull restoration work and the extent of new active corrosion.

[system 4-50]

7 hours ago, Kynes said:

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.

Has it been overplated??  You haven't said and I'm sure a surveyor would have, but why is it so low?

Sorry to be negative but I would walk away.  Briskly.

[Rod Stewart]

34 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

This thread is discussing a boat with a troubling recent history of corrosion and that has resulted in sandblasting, two rounds of pit welding and epoxy blacking. A survey was instructed by the OP and the surveyor reports "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.".

 

There might be different practices re. jetwashing a hull in preparation for a survey, however in this case the boating trade has failed the OP.  Despite spending £100's she is now left guessing about the quality of the recent hull restoration work and the extent of new active corrosion.

I tend to agree. What is the point of spending hundreds of pounds having a boat lifted and another few hundred surveyed, if what is a relatively simple task of cleaning it off is omitted.

 

I sold a boat earlier in the year, which I had surveyed prior to sale. Mainly to satisfy myself that it had no problems, and was worth the money I was asking, but also to black it whilst it was out of the water. I cleaned it off before inspection.

 

The problem arises when clear instructions are not agreed up front, and who pays for putting the coating right once it's been cleaned off. If it's a bitumen based coating, then after jet washing, it will need to be re applied, but I would think, in this case, the boat being epoxied, no further action would be required. Obviously any epoxy removed in the inspection would have to be addressed.

 

It's not unreasonable for a potential buyer to want to present a clean hull to a visiting surveyor, in my opinion.

[Arthur Marshall]

36 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

This thread is discussing a boat with a troubling recent history of corrosion and that has resulted in sandblasting, two rounds of pit welding and epoxy blacking. A survey was instructed by the OP and the surveyor reports "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.".

 

There might be different practices re. jetwashing a hull in preparation for a survey, however in this case the boating trade has failed the OP.  Despite spending £100's she is now left guessing about the quality of the recent hull restoration work and the extent of new active corrosion.

The only thing that surveyors care about is not being sued if they miss something blatantly obvious. Any survey will find problems and exaggerate them, and will then fill any gaps with "there may be other problems". No survey can cover the whole hull anyway and most, once you lob out the caveats, aren't worth the paper they're written on. There are no boats over a couple of years old without pits.There are several people on here who have bought and sold boats without bothering with a survey, including me.

It's a relatively old boat. They rust, it's what they do. A bit of corrosion comes with the territory of dunking something in water for twenty years, be weird if it wasn't. If it hasn't been overplated yet, odds are it will need doing soon. Look at the cost of that before spending a bomb sandblasting and welding up a few pits, because you'll have to do it anyway. No point in spending the money twice, and an overplate solves everything.

If you're planning on living full time on the boat as your only home, fully comp insurance is important because accidents happen. If it's going to be a leisure boat, 3rd party should be plenty, because accidents hardly ever do.

I bought mine because firstly, I liked it, and secondly, I could afford it. Rebottomed it after ten years and a full bottom and sides twenty years later. Still think surveys a waste of time and money on both boats and houses.

Edited October 31 by Arthur Marshall

[Rod Stewart]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If you're planning on living full time on the boat as your only home, fully comp insurance is important because accidents happen. If it's going to be a leisure boat, 3rd party should be plenty, because accidents hardly ever do.

I bought mine because firstly, I liked it, and secondly, I could afford it. Rebottomed it after ten years and a full bottom and sides twenty years later. Still think surveys a waste of time and money on both boats and houses.

I'm not sure the two statements work well together, since to secure fully comp insurance, boats of a certain age require a survey.

Edited October 31 by Rod Stewart

[Gybe Ho]

13 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

Has it been overplated??  You haven't said and I'm sure a surveyor would have, but why is it so low?

 

 

Over 20 years this boat might have acquired:

 

A calorifier hot water tank = two full sized heavy suitcases

A washing machine = 3 more of those heavy suitcases

An extra 200 amp hours of lead acid batteries, that's another 2.5 suitcases.

 

Call it an extra 190kg. Would that depress the stern an extra 50mm?

 

If there is a photo of the boat out of the water, the depth of the stern counter in the water could be estimated from the scum line. What is normal on a newly built boat, does the swim base plate just kiss the water or another 2" deeper?

[Rod Stewart]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I bought mine because firstly, I liked it, and secondly, I could afford it. Rebottomed it after ten years and a full bottom and sides twenty years later. Still think surveys a waste of time and money on both boats and houses.

In contrast, we did have ours surveyed. Have now been on it 25 years. Some minor pit welding done, and no overplating. The boat is now over 40 years old,and had we not had a survey, we may have needed to have it overplated as you did. That is not to say it won't need doing in the future. As you say, they are lumps of metal that rust.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

Over 20 years this boat might have acquired:

 

A calorifier hot water tank = two full sized heavy suitcases

A washing machine = 3 more of those heavy suitcases

An extra 200 amp hours of lead acid batteries, that's another 2.5 suitcases.

 

Call it an extra 190kg. Would that depress the stern an extra 50mm?

 

If there is a photo of the boat out of the water, the depth of the stern counter in the water could be estimated from the scum line. What is normal on a newly built boat, does the swim base plate just kiss the water or another 2" deeper?

Going by my ballast adventures, adding 200kg at the stern of a narrowboat will typically pull it down by about an inch and raise the bows about half an inch.

 

The uxter plate must always be under water, even with an empty diesel tank at the stern and a full water tank at the bow, so with typical trim it'll be maybe a couple of inches under the water -- or more with a full diesel tank and an empty water tank. Not to mention any black water tank... 😉 

[Gybe Ho]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

It's a relatively old boat. They rust, it's what they do. A bit of corrosion comes with the territory of dunking something in water for twenty years, be weird if it wasn't. If it hasn't been overplated yet, odds are it will need doing soon. Look at the cost of that before spending a bomb sandblasting and welding up a few pits, because you'll have to do it anyway. No point in spending the money twice, and an overplate solves everything.

 

 

Not disputing anything you wrote but your approach would lead to a stagnant secondhand narrowboat market where purchasers would discount all old boats £10k lower than what sellers believe their boat is worth, in order to fund pending major hull repair work. Surveyors should close that £10k valuation uncertainty gap and make the market more liquid. Unfortunately due to the abbreviated nature of the survey in question we are left guessing the quality of the recent sandblast and recoat job.

 

For the benefit of the OP, someone should mention there is a difference between the process of routine epoxy "blacking" and the much thicker application of epoxy to stabilize a sandblasted hull with minor pitting. Two to three times more paint layers should go on to get a thick flow into the pits.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:

your approach would lead to a stagnant secondhand narrowboat market where purchasers would discount all old boats £10k lower than what sellers believe their boat is worth, in order to fund pending major hull repair work. Surveyors should close that £10k valuation uncertainty gap and make the market more liquid.

That's nonsense. If a boat is old enough to likely need ten grand's worth of overplating, then the selling price has to reflect that, or no-one will buy it. The owner will certainly already know. It doesn't matter a jot what a seller "believes" his boat is worth - it's what the buyer believes that matters.

If surveys were worth anything, they might close an uncertainty gap, but they aren't, so they don't. A friend had a survey on his boat, said it was fine, and within months had to weld in about two metres of steel - it just hadn't been where the surveyor had pointed his gizmo.

Nor, of course, does spending ten grand on a replate increase the boat's value one iota. It just makes it a saleable boat.

It's always worth trying to find out who did the last blacking, and seeing if they remember the boat. If it was in a terrible state, they will and will happily tell you. If they don't recall it, it was probably fine. Yards notice these things - that's how I found out mine need replating, the guy doing the blacking told me. Admittedly, seeing the water coming in through the bottom was what finally decided me to get it done in a hurry, two years later...

[Gybe Ho]

I agree old boats are over valued both GRP sailing yachts and narrowboats.

 

40 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

it's what the buyer believes that matters.

 

 

Not if the seller disagrees or requires 6 months to adjust to market reality, this where the market illiquidity kicks in.

 

Take the boat in this thread, the seller has spent £5k+ in the past year and believes external hull corrosion has been arrested for 5 years. The buyer has cause to believe things are not so rosy, the abbreviated survey creates uncertainty and a possible negotiation impasse. 

Edited October 31 by Gybe Ho