Hull Survey

[nfo]

Hi not sure if anyone out there has experienced the problems we have encountered with regard a hull survey or if there is anyone at all that can give us advice/guidance on how to proceed.

 

We purchased a 42ft narrow boat in July 2008 with the intention of refitting and enjoying some lovely holidays. We stupidly, I repeat stupidly purchased a boat without a survey, taking the word of the gentleman that owned it.

 

Within two days of purchase we had engine problems but luckily (as we thought) the engine ceased to work on arriving at a boatyard. To cut a long story short we were advised to purchase a new engine, which we did. Obviously the boatyard agreed to carryout the work.

 

After speaking with one or two other narrow boat owners we then decided that before we spent any more money on a refit we would have the hull surveyed. The boatyard carried out the survey in August 2008. The survey was good and the boatyard advised that the boat was in very good condition for its year, i.e. 1990. We had new anodes fitted, blacking and other work carried out. We then decided to proceed with a complete refit. We took further advice from the boatyard and indeed they carried out some of the work.

 

After several months and a great deal of money in January/February 2009 we decided to move our boat as the boatyard had messed us about to say the least and caused us a great deal of heartache. We took the boat just a few miles away to finish the refit and in August this year it was completed. It looked stunning but unfortunately because of what had gone on before with the boatyard it had taken the fun and enjoyment out of the whole thing. We decided to sell and took it to a reputable mariner and luckily we agreed a sale subject to a survey being carried out. We thought this was wonderful and all the hardwork had been worth it However, this is not the case. The survey was carried out on the boat and to our horror we were informed that the boat require replating on both sides, costing thousands of pounds. As you can imagine we thought this could not be correct as our hull survey came out good and the boat has just been moored up for the refit.

 

We were originally advised on our survey that it was a 10/6/4 boat and this is not the case, it is a 8/5 The areas which need replating are 1.9 below acceptable levels for insurers, so all in all our original survey does not ring true. We are at a loss as to what we can do. Surely there must be some recourse on the boatyard that carried out our original survey- please someone out there tell me there is.

 

We have literally spent thousands of pounds on refitting the boat and we would have not done all this work if we had known there was any problem at all with the hull. I must admit that alarm bells did ring when we had to ask several times for a copy of the survey and when it was handed to us it was on a plain A3 sheet with no letter heading or signature. We pointed this out to the boatyard and said that this could have been done by anyone. They did however put there name to it and a signature was gained.

 

Has this happened to anyone else or are we just the unlucky ones. We experienced so many problems with this boatyard and the above it just one of many.

Edited October 29, 2009 by nfo

[saltysplash]

You have my sympathies but having said that, Always go with a full independant survey.

You knew the risks when you bought the ticket.

 

Again, having said that, I dont understand all this reluctance in people to buy or consider boats that have been replated.

surely thats the beauty of steel. Theres probably not a ship at sea unless brand new that hasnt had some over plating.

 

Folk dont bat an eyelid when they consider an old wooden boat that has had one or two planks replaced so why all this hoo har over steel?

[blackrose]

I'm confused. You said "We decided to sell and took it to a reputable mariner where it sold fairly quickly"

 

If you sold the boat then surely it's no longer your problem?

 

This story doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you meant "A prospective purchaser was found fairly quickly who was willing to buy the boat subject to survey."

 

But in that case the boat wasn't sold.

Edited October 29, 2009 by blackrose

[Chris Pink]

Fairly obviously you need legal advice and i would think the issue would swing on whether the 'survey' was a survey in law, and thus a legal statement against which you can make a claim.

 

It would seem to me that if it can be shown that the survey is incorrect you could make a claim against the boatyard for the cost of redoing any work that would need to be redone as a result of overplating. Plus, of course the cost of the survey.

 

The scenario would have been; 'True' survey says you need overplating, overplating is done, the fitout proceeds as before. So all you have lost is any work that has to be removed (if any)

for the overplating to take place.

 

Also worth considering is that the recent survey is not your property - unless the prospective purchaser is willing to give it to you you cannot use this as evidence. Because there is always the possibility that the later survey is flawed - and you have no contract with that surveyor.

 

The qualification of the boatyard may well play a part, if you asked me to use my (hypothetical) ultrasound machine to do a hull survey then this would not, i would imagine, hold the same weight as a qualified surveyor (i wouldn't be charging the £150 per hour that my recently qualified surveyor friend commands).

 

Hope this is helpful. I realise this is a shock but you have to separate what you have actually lost and what you can recover from the situation before you attempt redress from the law.

 

Have you spoken to the boatyard about this?

 

 

As an aside, suggest a few more paragraph breaks will make your tale more legible.

[nfo]

I'm confused. You said "We decided to sell and took it to a reputable mariner where it sold fairly quickly"

 

If you sold the boat then surely it's no longer your problem?

 

This story doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you meant "A prospective purchaser was found fairly quickly who was willing to buy the boat subject to survey."

 

But in that case the boat wasn't sold.

 

Sorry I do apologise for the confusion, yes we found a prospective purchaser who was willing to buy the boat subject to survey.

[nfo]

Fairly obviously you need legal advice and i would think the issue would swing on whether the 'survey' was a survey in law, and thus a legal statement against which you can make a claim.

 

It would seem to me that if it can be shown that the survey is incorrect you could make a claim against the boatyard for the cost of redoing any work that would need to be redone as a result of overplating. Plus, of course the cost of the survey.

 

The scenario would have been; 'True' survey says you need overplating, overplating is done, the fitout proceeds as before. So all you have lost is any work that has to be removed (if any)

for the overplating to take place.

 

Also worth considering is that the recent survey is not your property - unless the prospective purchaser is willing to give it to you you cannot use this as evidence. Because there is always the possibility that the later survey is flawed - and you have no contract with that surveyor.

 

The qualification of the boatyard may well play a part, if you asked me to use my (hypothetical) ultrasound machine to do a hull survey then this would not, i would imagine, hold the same weight as a qualified surveyor (i wouldn't be charging the £150 per hour that my recently qualified surveyor friend commands).

 

Hope this is helpful. I realise this is a shock but you have to separate what you have actually lost and what you can recover from the situation before you attempt redress from the law.

 

Have you spoken to the boatyard about this?

 

 

As an aside, suggest a few more paragraph breaks will make your tale more legible.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your reply Chris and I take on board what you say.

 

The problem was that we were new to boating and took people on trust, which was a foolish thing to do I know.

 

The boatyard advertised the fact that they carried out ultrasound surveys and had done so for a number of years, so we obviously thought this was the right thing to do. I am not sure if there is a governing body we can approach to ascertain if indeed the gentleman concerned holds the relevant qualification to carryout the survey.

 

The recent survey is not my property but the Surveyor involved has said that he will be more than happy to assist in any way he can as unfortunately he has come across similar problems concerning this boatyard. We believe the prospective purchaser may also be willing to allow us to have a copy of the survey.

 

We would only want what we feel is fair, by way of costs, and that would be the cost of the over plating.

 

We have spoken to the boatyard and we have had a mixed response. One person has said that the corrosion has obviously taken place since the boat left their boatyard earlier this year and another person, the one who actually carried out the survey, has merely asked to speak to the surveyor who has carried out the most recent survey. How this will help matters I am not sure.

 

Thank you again for your input.