Boat Purchase

[Traveller]

Having just had my potential purchase hijacked by a bad survey (well the survey was good but the boat was bad) it occurred to me that someone had put a boat up for sale without knowing or caring about its condition and at a price (set by the broker) that certainly does not represent the facts. Indeed the purchaser might even have put the boat up for sale knowing the defects but hoping some punter might just buy as seen. Either way, the net result is I pay some £650 slipping and survey costs to tell someone else their boat is not fit for purpose.

This all seems very unfair to me. Why cannot a system be put in place where no boat (or no boat over a certain age) can be sold (or at least sold via a broker) without the benefit of a full condition report. The alternative is perhaps to have the survey undertaken by the prospective purchaser with subsequent reimbursement of related costs by the seller should that survey show previously undisclosed defects. I prefer the former and under such circumstances the purchaser could recoup the survey cost in the sale price.

[John Williamson 1955]

The analogy that comes to mind here is a house survey. Even if the vendor showed me a survey, I'd still insist on doing my own.

 

What you seem to have in mind is the equivalent of an MOT for a motor vehicle, which clearly states on the piece of paper that all it is, is a statement that at a certain time on a certain date, the vehicle passed the test by meeting certain legal requirements. It wouldn't be the first time I'd paid to have a car I'm interested in buying put through an MOT for me.

 

More relevant might be to have a requirement for the boat to have a new BSC issued when she's put up for sale.

 

Bye!

 

John.

[Ray T]

The analogy that comes to mind here is a house survey. Even if the vendor showed me a survey, I'd still insist on doing my own.

 

What you seem to have in mind is the equivalent of an MOT for a motor vehicle, which clearly states on the piece of paper that all it is, is a statement that at a certain time on a certain date, the vehicle passed the test by meeting certain legal requirements. It wouldn't be the first time I'd paid to have a car I'm interested in buying put through an MOT for me.

 

More relevant might be to have a requirement for the boat to have a new BSC issued when she's put up for sale.

 

Bye!

 

John.

 

BSC doesn't cover the hull condition.

[MoominPapa]

This all seems very unfair to me. Why cannot a system be put in place where no boat (or no boat over a certain age) can be sold (or at least sold via a broker) without the benefit of a full condition report.

Because that would force buyers to pay the cost of the survey in the purchase price, and some buyers may be happy buy without a survey, either because they trust their own judgemnet, or they can afford to lose the cost of a lemon, or they just can't afford the cost of a survey.

 

On a more general principle, I think it's not a good idea to introduce standards of fitness or merchantabilty into a contract between private individuals, I'd much prefer caveat-emptor.

 

If you buy a secondhand boat from a dealer (rather than from a private individual via a broker), do there exist merchantability standards, like those associated with used cars, I wonder?

 

MP.

[Tony Brooks]

I am sure they do. Sale of Goods Act etc. However in the good old UK way I bet the vendor would make you go to court and then not pay up - or lie and claim it was a private sale.

 

I think even brokers should be required to give a true description with NO get out clauses.

[Mike Jordan]

As you say, people are foolish enough to buy without a survey, they are the ones who make a real loss! Better to be 650 down and a little wiser than to be looking round for a mug to sell it on to and paying the broker yet another fee. If the broker let you down shop elsewhere.

[John Williamson 1955]

 

BSC doesn't cover the hull condition.

Agreed, but a BSC does cover a lot of safety related stuff that you can miss in a quick once-over, especially if it's your first boat. However, any requirement for extra paperwork will increase the cost of selling or buying a boat by more than the cost of the buyer getting it done as a one off.

 

If you're getting a marine mortgage or comprehensive insurance, a fresh full condition survey is normally required, and the cost of this would be roughly the same whoever pays for it or whatever the name (I did , of course, mean age!) of the boat, whereas the current system doesn't load *all* transactions with the same up front fees. For instance, if you pay £1000 for a survey and slipping on a newish boat, that's a small percentage of the price. On some of the boats featured in threads here recently, it's a significant proportion of the cost, and in many cases could lead to a an old working boat, say, being condemned instead of restored.

 

Just my opinion, like...

 

Bye!

 

John.

Edited November 5, 2013 by John Williamson 1955

[Teadaemon]

Agreed, but a BSC does cover a lot of safety related stuff that you can miss in a quick once-over, especially if it's your first boat. However, any requirement for extra paperwork will increase the cost of selling or buying a boat by more than the cost of the buyer getting it done as a one off.

 

If you're getting a marine mortgage or comprehensive insurance, a fresh full condition survey is normally required, and the cost of this would be roughly the same whoever pays for it or whatever the name (I did , of course, mean age!) of the boat, whereas the current system doesn't load *all* transactions with the same up front fees. For instance, if you pay £1000 for a survey and slipping on a newish boat, that's a small percentage of the price. On some of the boats featured in threads here recently, it's a significant proportion of the cost, and in many cases could lead to a an old working boat, say, being condemned instead of restored.

 

 

A BSS examination merely covers the navigation authority's minimum standards for a boat to get a licence/toll, and therefore remain on the waters that the navigation authority is responsible for. As has been mentioned it doesn't include hull integrity, or quite a few other important things that a full condition survey will. Even for the areas that are covered by the BSS, the minimum standard is often not the same as best, or even good practice.

[Laurie Booth]

Having just had my potential purchase hijacked by a bad survey (well the survey was good but the boat was bad) it occurred to me that someone had put a boat up for sale without knowing or caring about its condition and at a price (set by the broker) that certainly does not represent the facts. Indeed the purchaser might even have put the boat up for sale knowing the defects but hoping some punter might just buy as seen. Either way, the net result is I pay some £650 slipping and survey costs to tell someone else their boat is not fit for purpose.

 

This all seems very unfair to me. Why cannot a system be put in place where no boat (or no boat over a certain age) can be sold (or at least sold via a broker) without the benefit of a full condition report. The alternative is perhaps to have the survey undertaken by the prospective purchaser with subsequent reimbursement of related costs by the seller should that survey show previously undisclosed defects. I prefer the former and under such circumstances the purchaser could recoup the survey cost in the sale price.

 

I can fully understand your annoyance of the outcome of the survey.

Did the surveyor give an idea of the costs involved to put the boat into good condition ?

If so, was the seller/broker willing to reduce the price of the boat?

[Traveller]

The surveyor has said the boat is not a good proposition. He also believes given some detailed inspection of engine oil etc that the engine is in poor health.

I just cannot get my head around the fact that sellers can put something up for sale and brokers can value same at a price that does not match condition and then leave it to the purchaser to run up costs finding out why. Some of these faults, especially hull ones, mean one could buy a boat that could not be insured. True if the rectification is only a couple of thousand then a reduction in the asking price offsets the work but sometimes the amount of work required means you would end up with a boat that you possibly could not sell later.

Incidentally it has a bss until 2016. Maybe the bss should bring hull condition into the mix. that would help.

[Neil2]

As the very same thing happened to me a couple of months ago I share these feelings.

 

Whilst you could argue that it is no-one's fault, in that nobody can tell what the state of a boat's hull might be until it's taken from the water, the fact is that in a situation like this all the costs are born by the prospective purchaser which does seem quite unfair.

 

But look what happened to Home Information Packs (HIP's). The idea of forcing a seller to provide some form of fitness for purpose document prior to advertising a boat is a non starter, I would suggest.

 

The next time I go through this process I will ensure that I have some agreement from the vendor/broker that in the event of the boat being a basket case there is some sharing of the survey/lift out costs.

 

 

[nicknorman]

We still have the HIP (by another name) in Scotland. Having recently been looking to buy a flat with my pension lump sum, I think they are great and its amazing what a survey throws up in a superficially smart looking property.

 

It's obviously really annoying to have to fork out for a survey on what amounts to an up sellable boat. Yes it would be great if there was a requirement for a seller's survey, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen and the government has greater things on its radar than second hand canal boat sales.

 

Of course, if your boat is in good condition it might encourage buyers if you provided a favourable seller's survey. However, I am not sure whether the integrity of all surveyors can be reasonably guaranteed? Is there a strong trade body and qualification requirement for boat surveyors such as there is for housing?

[Neil2]

We still have the HIP (by another name) in Scotland. Having recently been looking to buy a flat with my pension lump sum, I think they are great and its amazing what a survey throws up in a superficially smart looking property.

 

It's obviously really annoying to have to fork out for a survey on what amounts to an up sellable boat. Yes it would be great if there was a requirement for a seller's survey, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen and the government has greater things on its radar than second hand canal boat sales.

 

Of course, if your boat is in good condition it might encourage buyers if you provided a favourable seller's survey. However, I am not sure whether the integrity of all surveyors can be reasonably guaranteed? Is there a strong trade body and qualification requirement for boat surveyors such as there is for housing?

I agree with the HIPs principle myself, as is so often the case things are much better North of the Border.

 

As regards surveyors, the term "Marine Surveyor" can be used by anyone and as you say, the first step in some form of pre sale requirement would be agreeing what accreditation is recognised like the RICS is for housing.

 

Some surveyors are members of the International Institute of Marine Surveyors, but as with all these federations and institutes you need to know how easy/difficult it is to become a member. A lot of the time it's just having the means to pay the annual fees.

[alan_fincher]

The next time I go through this process I will ensure that I have some agreement from the vendor/broker that in the event of the boat being a basket case there is some sharing of the survey/lift out costs.

 

 

Good luck with that - I can't see many, (possibly any), agreeing though!

[mattlad]

On the one hand it is a bit of a bummer spending £650 that you now don't have to spend on another boat but it could end up being the best £650 you ever spent if it saved you from losing £thousands and maybe your shirt as well...........

[David Mack]

Its been reccommended on here before that before you commit yourself to the cost of a survey you should have a real thorough poke around the boat yourself, and if you don't know a lot about boats, try to get a knowledgeable friend to go with you. Check all the systems and appliances work, insist on having a trip so you can experience the engine and the handling, check the oil and water levels, look in all the cupboards and nooks and crannies for signs of damp or decay, look for signs of corrosion on the outside of the hull along the water line, and anywhere where you can get to the inside. If the broker/vendor is not keen on any of this you can draw your own conclusions!

[mrsmelly]

Its been reccommended on here before that before you commit yourself to the cost of a survey you should have a real thorough poke around the boat yourself, and if you don't know a lot about boats, try to get a knowledgeable friend to go with you. Check all the systems and appliances work, insist on having a trip so you can experience the engine and the handling, check the oil and water levels, look in all the cupboards and nooks and crannies for signs of damp or decay, look for signs of corrosion on the outside of the hull along the water line, and anywhere where you can get to the inside. If the broker/vendor is not keen on any of this you can draw your own conclusions!

 

In complete agreement. I have never had nor never will have a survey, they are usualy not worth the paper they are written on, of course many people will differ thats their choice. In my opinion the best way is to take a knowlegable person along with you and if the vendor is not keen for you to rummage around there are another ten billion boats for sale. When I went to buy this boat a couple of years ago I offered cash there and then on the day and they were gobsmacked and believe it or not had the boat booked in for blacking anyway and said they wouldnt dream of taking my money until I had seen the boat out of the water !! So I waited a couple of weeks for the alloted pre booked date then looked at the boat then paid them all within the hour, they even paid for the docking and blacking and refused my offer to pay as they were going to do it anyway. My point being if the boat is a good un there will be nowt to hide, if u r at all unsure find one for sale by someone honest ( they are out there)

 

Tim

[bigcol]

confused with this post

 

A seller may not know any defects that his boat has

you want to buy the boat

either inspect the boat your self or

you employ a surveyor to make sure the boat is up to your standard on your behalf

if it is, you buy, or maybe get some money knocked of for minor defiects.

 

 

If theirs a major defect you get a bigger discount or you dont buy

Your choice to put a offer in

your choice of surveyer

your choice to procede with purchase

your choice to complete sale

 

Why on earth, should the seller who is also upset to know of any defects on the boat pay for your survey

Edited November 5, 2013 by bigcol

[blackrose]

I can also understand the OP's frustration, but personally I wouldn't trust any survey commissioned by a vendor - I'd want my own!

The next time I go through this process I will ensure that I have some agreement from the vendor/broker that in the event of the boat being a basket case there is some sharing of the survey/lift out costs.

 

Most vendors won't go into a sale on that basis. The only leverage you have is to use any faults a survey picks up to get the vendor to reduce the price - but whether they wish to negotiate is entirely up to them.

Maybe the bss should bring hull condition into the mix. that would help.

 

It might help you - it wouldn't help me! You want us all to be forced to lift our boats out every 4 years and have hull surveys for a BSC just so you don't have to pay for a survey on a boat that you're interested in buying?

 

Once you actually own a boat you'll realise how ridiculous your statement is - imagine how much a BSC would cost!

Edited November 5, 2013 by blackrose

[Daiboy]

I'll think you'll find that HIPs are no longer a legal requirement since about 2010 !!

[Traveller]

How ridiculous my statement is?

You are making statements that are borne of no knowledge of my circumstances past or present. I have owned boats for many years both canal and Broads based. All of those boats have come out of the water at least once every 3 years for blacking/antifouling. Would it be so difficult to have a hull integrity check at that time? If it were a general requirement I am sure the cost of the process would come down anyway. In any event better that than having rusty wrecks travelling the waterways.

There have also been comments made about having a good poke around and taking someone with you who knows about boats. Well, not everybody knows or knows someone who knows about boats. It seems though that we cannot trust the surveyors either - seems an unholy mess to me and one that requires sorting. Would I trust the sellers surveyor? Maybe, maybe not but then if the surveyor is trusted by insurance companies why should I doubt them.

Incidentally can some kind soul please explain how I poke around underwater?

Edited November 5, 2013 by Traveller

[nicknorman]

Yes, it would be a great imposition for someone with no intention of selling their good-condition boat to have to pay more, just so you might avoid a wasted survey when buying a boat whose age suggests a reasonable probability of hull degradation. BSS is about safety in terms of a few system items (gas, electricity, fuel, ventilation). It is not and should not be related to the value of the boat nor the need for future hull repairs.

 

I sympathise with your predicament, but please don't try to drag the rest of us down with you. Anyway, there is absolutely no chance of you getting your way so I suggest you try to swallow your annoyance and move on. There is no other course of action.

[comfortably numb]

I was lucky in that my surveyor checked the hull quite early into the survey and it was immediately aborted once we found it to be unacceptably (to me) pitted. So he only charged me £200 instead of £600 and the remaining £400 I could put towards the cost of the next survey.

 

If I bought another boat I would always ask for the hull and engine to be checked first as they are usually the points which affect the value of a boat most..,, are they???

[Traveller]

The surveyor has been good about it and has reduced costs. A true gent who also appreciates the problems.

Nicknorman I agree the bsc is about safety and the hull of a boat should form part of that. I do not mean to suggest that a 5 year old boat should have an integrity check but maybe a 15 or so year old should. My last Broads boat came up to twenty years old and the insurance company insisted I had a hull condition report before they would re-insure. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And how can I possibly drag the rest of you down with me, And we are not just talking hull degradation.

However I do agree I can only move on and that given the circumstances it is the best £650 I have ever spent - all I need now is my deposit back!

Edited November 5, 2013 by Traveller

[nicknorman]

By dragging us down with you, I mean making us pay more by requiring hull surveys just on the off chance that we might want to sell the boat in the near future. I agree it would be reasonable to require a seller to offer a survey from an accredited surveyor if the boat was beyond a certain age, but the mechanism to make that ruling -parliament - just doesn't have the time or interest for such stuff.

 

In fact ultimately the buyer has the power. If buyers declined to look at boats beyond a certain age that didn't have a seller's accredited hull and engine survey, sellers would soon get the general idea that if they really wanted to sell their boat they would have to get one.