Surveyor mistakes and legal advice

[DutchBargeFrancisca]

Hello

 

My full story is a complicated one, but I'll make my initial question as simple as possible. Just under year after buying my boat, I have had to have it out the water again due to a leak. My welder believes that my surveyor who did my pre purchase survey has missed numerous areas of thin steel and says he'd be 'hopping mad' if this were his boat and he'd been led to believe it was sound.

 

Does anyone know my legal rights, or who I can go to for advice. I have been in talks with the surveyor, but we have just found the the boat is far worse than we first believed, so those talks are likely to get more serious.

 

The thing is, had I known the state of the baseplate when I bought it.. I either wouldn't have bought it at all, or would have been looking to negotiate several thousand off the asking price. My decision to purchase was based on my surveyors report and thickness soundings.

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Has anyone else had a similar problem?

 

Thanks

[Guest]

Hello

 

My full story is a complicated one, but I'll make my initial question as simple as possible. Just under year after buying my boat, I have had to have it out the water again due to a leak. My welder believes that my surveyor who did my pre purchase survey has missed numerous areas of thin steel and says he'd be 'hopping mad' if this were his boat and he'd been led to believe it was sound.

 

Does anyone know my legal rights, or who I can go to for advice. I have been in talks with the surveyor, but we have just found the the boat is far worse than we first believed, so those talks are likely to get more serious.

 

The thing is, had I known the state of the baseplate when I bought it.. I either wouldn't have bought it at all, or would have been looking to negotiate several thousand off the asking price. My decision to purchase was based on my surveyors report and thickness soundings.

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Has anyone else had a similar problem?

 

Thanks

A lot will depend on the wording of the agreement you signed.

 

They are often full of get out clauses that absolve the surveyor of any responsibility.

 

You need to get proper legal advice.

[Bee]

If you cannot resolve this with your original surveyor then you have to move it on a step or two. Is he a member of a trade association or professional body? that is probably the next step. Its worth giving him a chance to right the situation and save face and reputation. As with anything legal it is well worth taking it in small and cheap stages, it builds up pressure and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg in one go. He probably has insurance anyway but you will almost certainly have to get another surveyor to give his professional opinion. That's it really. I did know someone who got a good chunk of money after a similar situation but that was years ago. Good luck.

[Mike Tee]

You mention 'your welder' - if you intend taking your complaint further, make sure you get another surveyor to report on the hull before your welder does any work. You may even have to leave any repair until the first surveyor has had a chance to refute your complaint. As said, legal advice is the first step, before any repair work is done.

[dmr]

How many "numerous" thin bits and what is the rest of the steel like?

A surveyor will test several spots on the hull, and hopefully use experience to choose potential bad spots..

If the boat s mostly solid but has just a very few very thin spots (as can certainly happen) then its quite likely they won't be found, but if the hull is in a bad way throughout it should have been spotted.

Rusting from the inside out in particular can give very localised pitting

Did the survey say the boat was solid, or just "ok"?

Don't get legal people involved unless you are sure that you have got a very strong case, better to spend your money fixing the boat.

[Stormbringer]

A mate of mine has just recently successfully challenged a surveyors findings in similar circumstances to yours.

When he took it out of the water (about 18 months after he bought it ) it took about 4 days for the water to drain from the over plated areas of the boat !!

 

A tame welder had a look and stated categorically that the welding was never done to anything like an acceptable standard when the over plating was done.

Boat owner used this information to challenge the surveyor - who had stated that all the over plating welds were of a high standard !!

 

Result - all the remedial work is to be paid for by the surveyor - he didn't even bother to come and have a look himself !?

 

I think he did have to threaten legal action to get this result though .......

 

Good luck !

 

Andy

[kevinl]

Some pretty god advise above but personally I'd get the work done and send him the bill. When it doesn't get paid go on-line and put in a claim in the small claims court (you can do this on-line) anything he/she says about what you've signed refer them to "unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999", basically anything they say in the contract is invalid is void if they've not done the job professionally.

Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you've signed away your rights an incompetent survey is a "fault good or service" no two ways about it.

Keep all the evidence, photos or whatever then hit him with a claim, put up or shut up, I doubt it'll ever get to court, he'll bottle it and pay up.

K

[patty-ann]

As above take photographs, get independent report highlighting exactly issues. Look carefully at wording of your initial report. Negotiation always better than court..both will cost. Get realistic estimate of cost of work/depreciation of value of boat due to inaccuracies in his report. You brought the boat based on your perceptions of the facts of the survey report.

Ensure you keep copies of all communications and send email and hard copy.

 

At the end of the day you need to work out approx cost of legal route and ensure you have a strong case by collating all fact together..Its evidence based facts that win cases...you could do lot of the leg work yourself but obviously you probably need another survey so you know what work needs doing....that can be used for your case against surveyor number 1.

Sometimes worded letters setting out the facts can help both parties to see clearly issues.

 

Good luck..please keep us posted as it all helps others facing similar problems.

[Alan de Enfield]

Had very similar problems to yourself but in a much shorter time span.

 

Bought a boat (£70,000) based on a 'good' survey commissioned by us. Surveyor member of a professional organisation.

Within a week it was identified that it needed in excess of £20,000 sending to make it seaworthy.

Surveyor refused any liability, threatened legal action, he said "try it"

 

Engaged a Marine Specialist Lawyer, read the small print and said its not worth even trying to go to court, he has everything covered you do not have a chance.

 

Never had a survey since ( almost 18 years and 6 boats ago)

[Giant]

Some good advice here already. An extra thing to note is that your surveyor ought to have liability insurance that covers this sort of issue. So be aware that you're not necessarily relying on them paying for the remedial work out of their own pocket.

 

You might also discuss with your own insurance. It's unlikely you're covered under your own policy for the repair work as the fault was pre-existing rather than the result of an accident or whatever. But they may have useful advice, and also you will want to make sure that any repairs are done to their satisfaction, as you want them to continue to cover the boat in the future. They might recommend you a surveyor to resurvey.

[Tony Brooks]

Consumer law has come a long way in 18 years so the above may no longer apply. See what Kenvini says above.

[Alan de Enfield]

Consumer law has come a long way in 18 years so the above may no longer apply. See what Kenvini says above.

 

Fair point.

Worth talking with a solicitor tho' to find out where you stand before spending too much money.

[blackrose]

A lot will depend on the wording of the agreement you signed.

 

They are often full of get out clauses that absolve the surveyor of any responsibility.

This is a common misconception. The wording of a particular contract is not necessarily legally binding and signing a document with "get out clauses" does not diminish ones statutory rights or necessarily absolve a service provider of responsibility.

 

You can't actually sign away your basic rights.

Edited September 13, 2015 by blackrose

[John V]

This is a complicated subject as it depends so much on the exact and "picky" details of each case.
I had problems with a survey that cost me a lot of work and money. I was unable to claim because the surveyor had taken his readings from one particular area of each plate where experience should have indicated that it was not the section that would be worn. I was advised that I was on very shaky ground trying to prove lack of diligence. It cost me fairly dear for nearly 90 foot of rolled 8mm plates plus welding, but less than losing a court case would have been.

Like Magnetman the only surveys I have had since are for the benefit of the insurance company, and I don't treat them as gospel but make my own inspections.

I would strongly advise that you get professional advice first (with the caveat, that they also will be looking to make money out of the situation)

[Bee]

All this raises interesting points about surveys. The thing most of us worry about is the hull. Ultrasonic testing is a useful tool but its not the only indication of condition. I honestly reckon that if I saw a boat out of water, cleaned off, before painting, I and many others could make a good estimate of the condition just using common sense. I would though, want some floorboards up. If the steel looked horrible I would drill a few holes (and weld them up again!) and that would be pretty much a definitive report. Its not magic, its not high tech. its a slab of steel that's been in the water.

[Rickent]

Doesn't this come under the same legal umbrella as something not being fit for purpose ?

If you buy something that doesn't do what it is supposed to then that item is not fit for purpose and should be replaced or put right by the seller. If a surveyor says a boat is sound and it then falls apart then surely the survey is not fit for purpose. Sure someone will correct me if this is not the case.

[Arthur Marshall]

If the boat had been overplated already, the survey would measured the thickness of both plates and may well have shown up a false result.

[Mike Tee]

This raises the question of identifying the surveyor.

I'm not looking for a boat, but if I were I wouldn't want a surveyor with this possible problem hanging over him. I know innocent until,,,, but I still wouldn't want one with a possible pending problem.

I'm a bit on the fence about naming him/her, so just glad I don't need one.

[Raz]

I have recently been through a very similar situation. Unfortunately my own outcome was not good, and I no longer own the boat.

From my own experience I would advise you to first attempt to use any legal expenses cover you might hold attached to an insurance policy. Your case will be assessed as viable or not before they accept it. Be aware though that this type of action will only ever attempt to chase the surveyor's own insurance for a negligence claim. It would not usually end up in court, unless a very last resort.

Forget about the surveyor being a member of a trade association. I found the BMF, of which the party concerned with my own problem was a member, turned out to be a complete waste of time. They will always fall on the side of their member.

If you chose to engage a solicitor, I would highly recommend one who is a marine specialist. Others won't have a clue about what went wrong and why. My own attempts to go down this route proved far too expensive though. I got three individual quotes, and all wanted around £10k for their initial viability assessment of my case. If they were to take it on then, it was estimated a successful outcome at court would cost a further £20k, which we could probably claim back. However, should we lose the case, then the other side's costs would also have to be paid, making this unthinkable in my book, far too risky.

There is the small claims court, but you would still require evidence to take there, probably provided by an independent surveyor. You would also have to fund his expenses to appear in court on your behalf. Be aware that costs are not awarded in small claims court actions, so even if you win, you will not get any costs back.

I would explore solicitor / legal expenses action before engaging a surveyor, as if you chose to go down that route they will want to engage their own surveyor who will have been agreed by the other side as truly independent, rendering any survey you have already had done redundant, and thus a waste of money.

 

If the OP would like to PM me I can provide much more detailed information about what happened to me. But over a year of sleepless nights I eventually conceded I was on a road to nowhere with my claim, and gave up.

[Giant]

All this raises interesting points about surveys. The thing most of us worry about is the hull. Ultrasonic testing is a useful tool but its not the only indication of condition. I honestly reckon that if I saw a boat out of water, cleaned off, before painting, I and many others could make a good estimate of the condition just using common sense. I would though, want some floorboards up. If the steel looked horrible I would drill a few holes (and weld them up again!) and that would be pretty much a definitive report. Its not magic, its not high tech. its a slab of steel that's been in the water.

 

The problem with ultrasonic testing is that it can supply meaningless numbers with very high precision, giving an impression of accuracy where there is none.

 

Anyone can buy an ultrasonic tester, take measurements at various places on the hull, and call the result a survey. It's often easy to spot these dubious surveys because they have measurements in a neat grid pattern.

 

(A good surveyor starts with a hammer of course. They will go round whacking and listening, learning by sound and feel and experience where the steel is thin. They will take measurements only to attach quantifiable numbers to what they've already learned.)

[Traveller]

 

 

(A good surveyor starts with a hammer of course. They will go round whacking and listening, learning by sound and feel and experience where the steel is thin. They will take measurements only to attach quantifiable numbers to what they've already learned.)

 

That is how mine went about the job. Trouble is, I think, there are many who chose their surveyor on the back of cost rather than the surveyors experience and "street cred". Not saying that is the case here - I have no idea.

[DutchBargeFrancisca]

Thank you for all these responses - they are very useful. I will do everything in my power to keep this out of courts to avoid all of the costs. So far the surveyor has proved helpful and willing to discuss - whether that is to try to avoid me suing him, or because he is genuinely concerned remains to be seen, but I have faith!

 

The complication comes int hat, after his survey, some overplating was done which, it turns out, was very badly welded, despite the welder being well known and trusted. The welder is now ignoring my emails and calls - I have sent him photos and videos of the water pouring out of his plates! But I am worried that surveyor and welder will try to point the finger at each other!

 

So gutted that I took every precaution, used surveyor and welder who were recommended by numerous people, and they seem to have totally failed me!

 

Luckily my new welder is a super nice guy and is helping us out at a very reduced price, so I can afford to fix all of this - but I do feel that these so called 'professionals' should admit mistakes and compensate me!

 

Will keep you up to date on how it progresses. To put it in perspective, we are talking about a 1968 harborough marine bought for 28k including overplating. So we're not talking hundreds of thousands. But its all I have, and she's my home!

 

Thanks again.

[Arthur Marshall]

Doesn't this come under the same legal umbrella as something not being fit for purpose ?

If you buy something that doesn't do what it is supposed to then that item is not fit for purpose and should be replaced or put right by the seller. If a surveyor says a boat is sound and it then falls apart then surely the survey is not fit for purpose. Sure someone will correct me if this is not the case.

I don't think I've ever read a survey that is fit for the purpose. My last house one (which my wife insisted on ) basically spent all the time criticising the decoration and layout and missed everything that mattered which we found when we moved in. Boat surveying must be even more of an art than a science - you can't be sure you haven't missed a mm sized weak spot is a sixty foot bottom. It can only ever be a guideline for you to make your own mind up based on your own experience. I got a couple of boating friends to look at mine when I bought it and crossed my fingers.

[Rickent]

I had my boat surveyed and as of now have had no problems, I saw it whilst out of the water and all looked good . I would recommend being present when survey is carried out.

[blackrose]

Boat surveying must be even more of an art than a science - you can't be sure you haven't missed a mm sized weak spot in a sixty foot bottom. It can only ever be a guideline for you to make your own mind up based on your own experience.

 

Yes, the accuracy of a hull thickness survey will depend on the pattern of the ultrasonic measurements taken in terms of building up a "complete" picture. Of course the picture will never actually be fully complete - only some kind of 3D imaging could do that, so the ultrasonic measurement pattern should result in an adequate resolution of measurements in order to enable the surveyor to interpret the data.

Edited September 13, 2015 by blackrose