Surveyor mistakes and legal advice

[dmr]

Take care here.

It sounds to me like your survey found some welding required and you had this done badly.

Others may correct me,as I may be wrong but I am not sure that it is the job of a pre-purchase survey to specify exactly what welding is required? The survey says welding needed then you discuss the extent and implementation of this with your welder (extensive plating vs patching etc) so I fear your claim may well fall somewhere between the surveyor and the welder which is not good...... And you have already learned that your welder was not a good one!

 

Get the work done by your new good welder, put this behind you, and enjoy living on your boat! Boating is all about learning!

 

..............Dave

[bassplayer]

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)

I am beginning to wonder if it's best to do it yourself for peace of mind. It's the hull thickness most if us worry about. As Clarkson says "How hard can it be?"

 

Would something like this work?

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/1-2%7E225mm-Ultrasonic-Thickness-Meter--Auto-Calibration/dp/B008JA4Y8C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1442144609&sr=8-2&keywords=ultrasonic+thickness+gauge

Edited September 13, 2015 by bassplayer

[John V]

I can't comment on the ultrasonic as I don't know enough to say what is good and what is not. I would say though that almost as important as the tester is the knowledge of where to use it. As has been said, a hammer and reasonable hearing is quite efficient for finding dodgy areas it just can't tell you exactly how dodgy (unless of course it dents, in that case you know it's INCREDIBLY DODGY)

[Alan de Enfield]

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.

 

The 'Fit for purpose' legislation and Trades Description Act only comes into force if a 'consumer' ( ie the man in the street) buys from a 'trader' or business, if a consumer buys from a consumer then there is no legal come back as 'fit for purpose'.

 

This is why a Broker will deny that the boat they are selling is owned by them ( they are then legally liable for any faults you find in a 'reasonable period' in the future). If they say the are purely acting as a broker for the seller, and, that the seller is not selling in the course of a business then there is absolutely no comeback if problems develop.

 

A well known broker (supplying cheap liveaboards to London bound boaters) in the midlands operate on this basis

[Bod]

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

 

Very interesting, well worth reading.

Thanks

 

Bod

[Alan de Enfield]

If you engage a surveyor, do you actually get to read the T&Cs / limitations AND get to sign them before actually commissioning the survey - I never did.

 

If you do not sign T&Cs are you bound by them ?

If you have not signed the T&Cs is the surveyor bound by them ?

If you do sign T&Cs are you bound by them (from the info above - not necessarily)

[Giant]

If you engage a surveyor, do you actually get to read the T&Cs / limitations AND get to sign them before actually commissioning the survey - I never did.

 

If you do not sign T&Cs are you bound by them ?

If you have not signed the T&Cs is the surveyor bound by them ?

If you do sign T&Cs are you bound by them (from the info above - not necessarily)

 

It's not a matter of anyone being bound by terms and conditions.

 

You engage the surveyor to come look at the boat and write you a report.

You get back a report that says, in effect, "looks OK to me but can't be sure and not promising anything".

You accept the report and pay the surveyor.

 

If you want a survey which makes an absolute guarantee about the boat, you could try asking for that in advance, or complaining upon reading the report and seeing all the disclaimers.

 

But if you complain months or years later when there's a problem, you've got an inherently weak case because you're leaning on a report that explicitly didn't promise anything, and you were happy with that report at the time.

[Paul C]

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.

 

What was the arrangement with the first welder - was it "look at this survey and do the bits on it recommended?" or "look at the boat yourself and do what's needed" or "I want you do to ............."? Or was it more that he did the required areas, but not to the standard. It sounds like your issue is with the welder more than the surveyor. One further possibility is that he simply didn't have anything to weld to - ie whilst it COULD have in theory been repaired, the welder discovered much more extensive corrosion than either a casual look at, or the surveyor, revealed. Sometimes this is because its corroded internally in an inaccessible area and the limits of the ultrasonic tester are met.

 

 

If you engage a surveyor, do you actually get to read the T&Cs / limitations AND get to sign them before actually commissioning the survey - I never did.

 

If you do not sign T&Cs are you bound by them ?

If you have not signed the T&Cs is the surveyor bound by them ?

If you do sign T&Cs are you bound by them (from the info above - not necessarily)

 

Yes, a contract can be formed even if its not a written one - ie you can agree to something verbally. Of course, its much harder to prove what was said, than what was written, but the principles apply.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Paul C

[DutchBargeFrancisca]

Yes. My welder said that, had the surveyor used a hammer, he'd have heard immediately how bad the steel was. He domed it for me and I could hear easily!

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

Yes, a contract can be formed even if its not a written one - ie you can agree to something verbally. Of course, its much harder to prove what was said, than what was written, but the principles apply.

 

Yes - I know there are such things as verbal contracts, but :

 

You ask a surveyor for a price to survey a boat. he gives you a price, you say "go ahead". Is that a 'verbal contract', if it is how can any 'conditions' be enforced when non have been discussed ?

 

If the surveyor (welder, plumber, electrician or any other trades person) gives you a quotation and states "this is based on my standard T&Cs that are available on my website" , then that's a very different 'kettle of fish'.

[Paul C]

 

Yes - I know there are such things as verbal contracts, but :

 

You ask a surveyor for a price to survey a boat. he gives you a price, you say "go ahead". Is that a 'verbal contract', if it is how can any 'conditions' be enforced when non have been discussed ?

 

If the surveyor (welder, plumber, electrician or any other trades person) gives you a quotation and states "this is based on my standard T&Cs that are available on my website" , then that's a very different 'kettle of fish'.

 

Exactly - it depends what is said, as to what is enforceable - nobody is expected to be a mind-reader and guess at T&Cs. I seriously doubt anyone would have a conversation that brief, to arrange a boat survey. After all they cost hundreds etc. I understand your point that something might not be mentioned though, which later on becomes important. When this occurs, one would need to do a "reasonableness test" - ie if there's a condition which restricts the ability to claim later, which is there due to fair wear & tear of the boat; or because the surveyor would need to eg deconstruct the boat to identify it, then its fair enough. If the restriction was a cover for sloppy work (and an average surveyor could have discovered it) then its not.

 

Given the above, I'd say the surveyor is covered partly because of the passage of time, and mainly because the boat has subsequently been changed - by the first welder. So, if the work is substandard then I'd be looking towards the first welder for compensation (but see my previous post).

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Given the above, I'd say the surveyor is covered partly because of the passage of time, and mainly because the boat has subsequently been changed - by the first welder. So, if the work is substandard then I'd be looking towards the first welder for compensation (but see my previous post).

 

Agreed.

The surveyor pointed out (correctly) work needed to be done.

Work was done to a poor standard

Surveyor had no control over who / how the work was done

Surveyor 'innocent'.

[MtB]

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.

 

No, If a surveyor says a boat is sound and it then falls apart then it's the boat which is not fit for purpose.

[DutchBargeFrancisca]

Hmm there's quite a bit of muddling of my story going on! let me try to make it clearer.

 

1. Surveyor takes soundings and recommends 2 strips of plating to either side.

 

2. Welder does said plating, blacks it, puts it back int he water and I pay him.

 

3. I take the boat out the water due to leaks and discover all 4 plates have failed due to visibly poor welding. Some of this is in easy to weld places with good steel. In another section we discover the baseplate is far thinner than the surveyor noticed. The welder obviously found this, and it is clear that he turned his welder right down so as not to blow right through resulting in even worse welds - but never said a word to me nor my surveyor (who he knows quite well).

 

4. Welder no2 and my surveyor know each other and have mutual respect, so welder no 2 is quite surprised/angry to see how much eh believes my surveyor missed. They have had several conversations and my surveyor has agreed to come to look t the boat out of the water next Thurs, and have welder no 2 show him quite how bad the baseplate actually is.

 

5. Still no response to calls, emails and texts form welder 1.

 

I do appreciate what you're saying that a survey can never be perfect. Initially we thought we were dealing with some small weak points that were missed, but welder 2 believes there are far bigger problems that absolutely should have been picked up by the surveyor, terms and conditions or no he is qualified and receives a lot of money to make a good assessment of the boat. At least he is admitting he may have missed something (he is quite distressed at this prospect I believe as he is proud of his record) and says he must get to the bottom of it and be fair to us.

 

IF we do reach the conclusion that he missed something very significant and, had we known, we'd never have bought the boat, how on earth do we work out how much he owes us for the mistake? It is more than the survey cost and cost of repairs, as it affects the whole value of the boat.

 

Ever such a headache

[Paul C]

What's the time gap between the survey and welder #2 inspecting the boat? What's the detail of the hull thickness on the original survey, ie does the document describe the methodology used etc?

[MtB]

IF we do reach the conclusion that he missed something very significant and, had we known, we'd never have bought the boat, how on earth do we work out how much he owes us for the mistake? It is more than the survey cost and cost of repairs, as it affects the whole value of the boat.

 

Ever such a headache

 

 

Well setting aside the obvious lesson "don't buy a boat that needs overplating, because overplating never makes it good as new or anything like", I'd say the only way to quantify your loss is to sell the boat to a trader (e.g. Whilton Marina).

 

This crystalises your loss. Your loss is the difference between what you paid and what you received (plus the money you spent on the surveys and work, arguably).

[Traveller]

Or presumably, should you decide to keep the boat following the work undertaken by your welder, just get it valued and then use MTB's calculation. I am not certain that actually selling to a boat trader gives you a fair value as said trader will always be buying with a view to selling on.

 

You never know, you might have a perfectly serviceable boat following the work that is being done. The arguments re overplating abound but the fact remains, there are many out there that are solid boats.

[dmr]

 

 

Well setting aside the obvious lesson "don't buy a boat that needs overplating, because overplating never makes it good as new or anything like", I'd say the only way to quantify your loss is to sell the boat to a trader (e.g. Whilton Marina).

 

This crystalises your loss. Your loss is the difference between what you paid and what you received (plus the money you spent on the surveys and work, arguably).

 

Is this even actually true?

If you find a 10 year old boat with overplating then that's alarm bells and its value might be reduced.

But, if looking at a 30 year old boat for a few thousand quid then its pretty standard for it to be overplated. Its not like new because its 30 years old! Likewise you would not expect to find just 150 hours on the engine.

For most new boaters its better to get a well plated boat than one that will need plating in a years time.

 

Surely once this boat is correctly welded it will be worth More than when it had holes in it!

 

...............Dave

[DutchBargeFrancisca]

gap between the survey and welder 2 seeing boat is 10.5 months. The survey mentions a calibrated ultrasonic thickness tester and hammer testing. I have the plan with readings, and he did take more than the minimum number of readings, but his baseplate readings were none under about 4.5 whereas welder2 has found numerous areas between 2 and 3mm -too many to just be luck!

[Paul C]

gap between the survey and welder 2 seeing boat is 10.5 months. The survey mentions a calibrated ultrasonic thickness tester and hammer testing. I have the plan with readings, and he did take more than the minimum number of readings, but his baseplate readings were none under about 4.5 whereas welder2 has found numerous areas between 2 and 3mm -too many to just be luck!

 

Thanks for getting back, I can kinda see where you're coming from - that the surveyor is partially to blame - but I have a funny feeling that 10 1/2 months is going to be an insurmountable obstacle to overcome if it gets awkward etc. Also, the fact that welder #1 is ignoring calls etc kinda makes you think he knows something's up and is partially guilty, so is stalling for time or hoping the issue will go away, or you'll give up on him.

 

I'd pursue welder #1 more strongly......its worth a go, right?

[Bee]

Your real need is a resolution to the problem, if you are talking to your surveyor you may perhaps get some sort of recompense. If you can then afford to get the thing overplated underneath then you will have a better boat than you had, this is a bit like looking for the silver lining in a big cloud but it could be the positive way out. If you do get the bottom overplated get a couple of coats of epoxy on it with the proper primer and you can sleep at night, slapping a bit of bitumen on is like tacking a patch on a car sill and bodging underseal all over it. Don't worry about rust between the plates, it can't be any worse than the damp bilge in most boats.

[Alan de Enfield]

Maybe the positive from all of this is that with a thickness of 2-3mm it isn't going to leak.

Some Springers were made (from new) with 3mm base plates.

 

It wont leak until it gets to 0mm - It will last for years.

 

Trying to overweld may end up blowing holes in what is basically sound, but thin metal.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[dmr]

I am still concerned that there is not a strong and clear case here.

 

Welder 1 turned the current down because he realised he was welding to thin steel?

Did surveyor say EXACTLY how big the repair patch was to be?

Sounds like welder 1 made his patch too small as he did not establish exactly where the metal was thick enough to be welded.

or is he just a poor welder?

What thickness was the steel patch?

 

2mm (or is it 3mm) steel?) is actually pretty solid stuff. Can a surveyor be expected to distinguish between 3 and 4.5mm steel from a hammer test??. Maybe the 4.5mm readings really were just very lucky. I am sure if surveyor had hit on a 2mm spot he would have been delighted....this is how he justifies the money you have paid and justifies the job he is doing!!!!..

 

As said above, you have a stronger case against welder 1 than the surveyor.

But did the welder 1 patches leak straight away, or 10 months later???

 

..............Dave

[Traveller]

When we had our last boat overplated we had the completed job inspected by the surveyor who recommended it. The insurance company insisted on this. Bit late for that now perhaps!

[MtB]

It wont leak until it gets to 0mm - It will last for years.

 

 

 

The OP says the boat was docked after 10 months because of the leaks!