Full Boat Survey

[Maffi]

Much as I sympathise with the buyer of such a boat, I really don't think we need any more legislation. A dud boat is just the same as a dud pair of shoes or washing machine but as in all these matters it is for the buyer to take action against the vendor, there is lots of existing consumer protection. Good luck with your case.

 

 

£70,000 for a pair of shoes. Did you win the lottery?

[bottle]

Hello bottle

 

There aren't always two sides to every story. That is an insidious little cliché that defends the indefensible, gives succour to the undeserving and puts the guy who is suffering in the false position of having contributed to his own difficulties. What possible reason have you in this case to make such a comment?

 

It may well be a cliché, but there is always two sides, they are as each party sees the problem. Did itldo4me have a survey done on receiving the boat if not then it could be argued he has contributed to his own difficulties

 

As far as we know this story, and many like it, have only one side. A person buys a boat for a lot of money with faults, the builder refuses to rectify them. If those are the facts, then how can there possibly be two sides? Surely you can see that. You are drawing the conclusion that there is more to this than meets the eye, thus casting doubt on the integrity of the buyer. My view is that we should be offering him support, not suggest that he has omitted some facts.

 

I am not doubting the integrity of the buyer and I do support him in his endeavours but would still like to know the builders view before I condemn him. Why has the builder refused to rectify the faults? We do not know he may have good reason.

 

Yes we then take the risk that he has been economical with the truth but my belief is that we should err that way until demonstrated otherwise. Not suggest that he is somehow also in the wrong with talk of "two sides" and "all builders make mistakes".

 

I do not take risks I deal in facts, at the moment, I have the facts as given by itldo4me and no doubt they are true but the builder also has the facts as he sees them. All builders make mistakes, it is how they deal with those mistakes is some of the difference between a good one and a bad one but I suggest the better ones make less mistakes.

 

It is very difficult to appreciate why you seem to be to some extent on the side of the builder, instead of 100% unequivocally on the side of the buyer who is the victim here.

 

I am on no ones side

 

regards

Steve

[Jon]

To clarify the situation, I originally removed an inappropriate comment, not a name of a builder.

 

Bernie has removed the name of a boat builder as we have in the past had problems whereby the boatbuilders name has caused the thread to come up top of a google search etc. I have then been threatened with legal action, complaints made to hosting company causing the site to be shutdown until comments are removed etc.

 

Atleast this way the thread is still here for you to read, anyone who wants to know can private message or e-mail iteldoo4me who I am sure will be more than happy to tell you who it is. If the name is left in, it could mean the whole thread gets deleted at some point in the future.

 

I hope this makes our position a bit clearer.

 

Jon

[anhar]

Hello bottle

 

You said:

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Did itldo4me have a survey done on receiving the boat if not then it could be argued he has contributed to his own difficulties.

____________________________________________________________________________

 

I find this a ludicrous suggestion for two reasons:

 

1 Why should a new boat buyer require a survey?

 

2 And why should they be considered to have contributed to the problems if they did not?

 

It is perverted logic to expect a buyer of a new boat to need a survey. Even though some buyers may do this, it is daft to expect them to do so as a matter of routine. Surely a buyer should be able to depend on the quality of a builder and furthermore if there are problems, that the builder rectifies them immediately with good grace and without argument.

 

But you really are stretching credibility to the limit when you say that a buyer may be liable in some way for any problems on a new boat if they do not have it surveyed. You actually come across as a boat industry lawyer, knowing that your client is wholly in the wrong but using tricks and technicalities to try and escape a an obvious obligation to a customer with problems on a new boat.

 

Why can't you just say that on the facts we know here, the supplier is wholly in the wrong and has behaved appallingly towards the buyer? There are no excuses, no lawyer tricks, no two sides, no builder mistakes. The story that we have been told is very simple. A dud boat refused to be put right by the builder. That's it. Why do you insist on trying to suggest that there is any more to it than this, and thereby try to shift some of the blame on to the buyer?

 

I hope that if you ever go through this nightmare that you don't have people telling you that somehow you're partly to blame for disgustingly poor service from a builder.

 

regards

Steve

[bottle]

Hello bottle

 

You said:

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Did itldo4me have a survey done on receiving the boat if not then it could be argued he has contributed to his own difficulties.

____________________________________________________________________________

 

I find this a ludicrous suggestion for two reasons:

 

1 Why should a new boat buyer require a survey?

 

Because you cannot trust boat builders, it has been mentioned many times on this forum and people have been advised to have a survey whether boat is new or 'second hand'

 

2 And why should they be considered to have contributed to the problems if they did not?

 

They had an opportunity to make sure the goods were of 'merchantable quality, before they paid for them. Though of course the builder should have supplied the goods 'of merchantable quality,

 

It is perverted logic to expect a buyer of a new boat to need a survey. Even though some buyers may do this, it is daft to expect them to do so as a matter of routine. Surely a buyer should be able to depend on the quality of a builder and furthermore if there are problems, that the builder rectifies them immediately with good grace and without argument.

 

Yes you should be able to trust the builders but 'caveat emptor'

 

But you really are stretching credibility to the limit when you say that a buyer may be liable in some way for any problems on a new boat if they do not have it surveyed. You actually come across as a boat industry lawyer, knowing that your client is wholly in the wrong but using tricks and technicalities to try and escape a an obvious obligation to a customer with problems on a new boat.

 

As I stated before, we do not have both sides evidence, I will not and cannot judge who is right until I have heard both sides. As for using tricks etc. do you think that the builder will not use them, maybe itldoo has thought of these 'tricks' but if not they may help him to for armed.

 

Why can't you just say that on the facts we know here, the supplier is wholly in the wrong and has behaved appallingly towards the buyer? There are no excuses, no lawyer tricks, no two sides, no builder mistakes. The story that we have been told is very simple. A dud boat refused to be put right by the builder. That's it. Why do you insist on trying to suggest that there is any more to it than this, and thereby try to shift some of the blame on to the buyer?

 

I am not trying to blame the buyer in any way. this is a simple story with the facts that we know, yes the boat is a dud.

 

I hope that if you ever go through this nightmare that you don't have people telling you that somehow you're partly to blame for disgustingly poor service from a builder.

 

I hope so too, I have seen my boat builder this week and he has advised me to get an independent surveyor to over see the build. Which I shall do.

 

regards

Steve

[iteldoo4me]

Hello bottle

 

There aren't always two sides to every story. That is an insidious little cliché that defends the indefensible, gives succour to the undeserving and puts the guy who is suffering in the false position of having contributed to his own difficulties. What possible reason have you in this case to make such a comment?

 

As far as we know this story, and many like it, have only one side. A person buys a boat for a lot of money with faults, the builder refuses to rectify them. If those are the facts, then how can there possibly be two sides? Surely you can see that. You are drawing the conclusion that there is more to this than meets the eye, thus casting doubt on the integrity of the buyer. My view is that we should be offering him support, not suggest that he has omitted some facts.

 

Yes we then take the risk that he has been economical with the truth but my belief is that we should err that way until demonstrated otherwise. Not suggest that he is somehow also in the wrong with talk of "two sides" and "all builders make mistakes".

 

It is very difficult to appreciate why you seem to be to some extent on the side of the builder, instead of 100% unequivocally on the side of the buyer who is the victim here.

 

regards

Steve

 

I have had to get a full boat survey done because I needed an expert surveyors report to back me up in a court of law.I certainly dont believe a new boat owner should have to have a boat survey done,it is after all the boat builder who claims to be profficient in his job!Finally,as many on here claim I am responsible for getting a faulty boat,because I didnt check its build,and therefore contributed to the end reults,however as the problems I have had with this boat have only come to light when the boat was put in the water,and filled up with diesel,.their statements are somewhat meaningless.

Edited December 18, 2005 by iteldoo4me

[iteldoo4me]

The builder of my boat was given the opportunity to rectify the faults,immediately I had one, of many.The first being that the spray foam had sunk,and was no more than a millimetre thick in most places.They did come out to the boats hard standing site and redo the spray foaming,However once I had the boat launched,and filled with diesel,and run the engine,more serious faults came to light,and on informing the builders was informed by them it was not their responsibility,after which I took proffessional advice.

 

To conclude this ,for questions asked here,and that I have as of yet not answered,the following may answer most.The boat had leaks at the following pointers.

 

1) Engine feed and return,and auxilary feed pipes into integral tank

2) Welds to integral tank sides

3) Skin tank at both ends and front

4) Base plate to side at stern

5) Stern tube weeping

 

+ Also gas locker at bow end,the floor breather holes are 4" above the level of floor

+ The roof plates,welded only on inside,not outside,

+ Stainless Steel water tank at bow end has no movement brackets fitted

+ Doors at stern do not close correctly,welded to close to bulkhead

+ Roof drains cut out in wrong place,water does not drain away,just sits in its own pool

This may seem petty,to some of you out there,but I wanted to outline some of the faults I am having to deal with

Edited December 18, 2005 by iteldoo4me

[gaggle]

bottle,

if your builder has told you to get an independant surveyor to check his work will the check be when its finished in the yard,after the lift on the wagon,the lift into the water and who is standing the cost of the inspection or inspections.

are you paying in stages?

at what point would it in your opinion be safe to say the build is ok.

 

things on my boat seemed ok on delivery and now require adjustment,it is down to the builder to sort out any snags.

 

as it stands he is owed money and he wont get it if he does not,but if the outstanding works were major then by your reckoning tough sh*t on me.

 

i think it,ll do has the bottle to admit he may have been kidded by this builder and he has done the right thing by letting others know of the problems he has had with the t***.

[bottle]

The builder of my boat was given the opportunity to rectify the faults,immediately I had one, of many.The first being that the spray foam had sunk,and was no more than a millimetre thick in most places.They did come out to the boats hard standing site and redo the spray foaming,However once I had the boat launched,and filled with diesel,and run the engine,more serious faults came to light,and on informing the builders was informed by them it was not their responsibility,after which I took proffessional advice.

 

To conclude this ,for questions asked here,and that I have as of yet not answered,the following may answer most.The boat had leaks at the following pointers.

 

1) Engine feed and return,and auxilary feed pipes into integral tank

2) Welds to integral tank sides

3) Skin tank at both ends and front

4) Base plate to side at stern

5) Stern tube weeping

 

+ Also gas locker at bow end,the floor breather holes are 4" above the level of floor

+ The roof plates,welded only on inside,not outside,

+ Stainless Steel water tank at bow end has no movement brackets fitted

+ Doors at stern do not close correctly,welded to close to bulkhead

+ Roof drains cut out in wrong place,water does not drain away,just sits in its own pool

This may seem petty,to some of you out there,but I wanted to outline some of the faults I am having to deal with

 

 

These are 'problems' that you should not have and how the builder can say it is not his responsibility i do not know. I have said it before, I wish you all the best in your efforts to get the boat put right.

[bottle]

bottle,

if your builder has told you to get an independant surveyor to check his work will the check be when its finished in the yard,after the lift on the wagon,the lift into the water and who is standing the cost of the inspection or inspections.

 

I will take advice from the surveyor as to the number of inspections, I will be paying.

 

are you paying in stages?

 

Yes

 

at what point would it in your opinion be safe to say the build is ok.

 

Open ended, again discussion with surveyor

 

things on my boat seemed ok on delivery and now require adjustment,it is down to the builder to sort out any snags.

 

Agreed

 

as it stands he is owed money and he wont get it if he does not,but if the outstanding works were major then by your reckoning tough sh*t on me.

 

No. Well done for holding back final payment. Any necessary work, major or minor, is down to the builder.

 

i think it,ll do has the bottle to admit he may have been kidded by this builder and he has done the right thing by letting others know of the problems he has had with the t***.

 

I agree and more power to his elbow and if there are any more with boats from this builder that have had problems, let them come forward and help him.

[lymmranger]

I assume itldo4me bought a complete package from tradesman who should have coordinated to provide a complete and finished product. They (I also assume) professed at the point of order to be professional tradesman who could be trusted. (hence the order)

 

Why should itldo4me then suspicious?

 

After all he had the protection of the RCD didnt he

 

I would suspect that he has very good grounds to drag the "fitters" in on the action, - after all they should have advised him about the shoddy shell, rather than just hiding it all behind the fit out... (culpable negligence?)

 

Everyone makes mistakes, even the very best. What is important is how the mistake is rectified (or not). Professional tradesmen should have suitable insurance for this eventuality, maybe asking to see a copy of the certificate is a good start when choosing tradesmen?

[bottle]

If I have read itldo4me correctly the boat was bought as a 'sail away' and with the help of others he carried out his own fit out.

[iteldoo4me]

These are 'problems' that you should not have and how the builder can say it is not his responsibility i do not know. I have said it before, I wish you all the best in your efforts to get the boat put right.

 

Thank you bottle,I will let this site know of the progress of thew court hearing,and any further updates as they arise.Anyone wishing for a copy of the boat survey are welcome to it,once i have it.

[anthony]

What I dont understand is why ( deleted (JO)) dispute responsibility.

If they built the boat then they are responsible.

 

Ive heard there are people out here who run door firms who could sort this out for you for a small fee after a rather casual conversation, but its just an idea mind.

 

Jon with your apparent IT skills (if this board isnt php auto generated) then its behond me why you are working for the pittence the force will be paying you when you could earn over double in IT.

 

With that in mind IM getting back to the books.

Edited December 20, 2005 by John Orentas

[onionbargee]

I totally agree that buyers of new boats need some kind of protection against cowboy builders, i know where 2 blokes are working on overplating, stretching and new hulls and they are not qualified welders, and their work would fail basic standards.

 

Some kind of contract stating minimum standards might help.

[NB Willawaw]

Cabin fever finally got to me today so I walked into the nearest metropolis to collect my monthly dose of Waterways World. I notice that those who shall not be named (Voldemort of the boatbuilding world) are advertising in the Jan 2006 issue ? Bloody cheek !

[tony collins]

[ notice that those who shall not be named (Voldemort of the boatbuilding world) are advertising in the Jan 2006 issue ? Bloody cheek !

 

 

What page?

[tony collins]

 

What page?

[/quote)

 

 

 

 

Found it myself P36. I notice they make no claims of quality in their advert!

 

Tony