Survey failure - worthless boat- any advice?

[GUMPY]

I sold a motorhome a couple of weeks ago. The buyer transferred £7k into my bank using his iphone once the deal was agreed, and it appeared in my bank withing a minute or so, whilst we were doing some paperwork.

Exactly the same when I sold my wife's Audi TT.

[MtB]

Or worse, if it turned out we had made a digit error and transferred it to some random other person's account.

[alan_fincher]

Or worse, if it turned out we had made a digit error and transferred it to some random other person's account.

 

Generally when you set up an account to transfer to, you have to give an account name, as well as a number and sort code.

 

I had always assumed, (perhaps wrongly!) that some basic checking is done on the account name, although clearly it would need to be a check for a close match, at least, not an exact match by every character.

 

And why on earth does just about every bit of bank software limit account names that can be entered to 16 (or maybe 18) characters. Just about every one I ever want to enter is longer than this, and I have to improvise abbreviations - another reason why exact matching to real account name is not a possibility!

[MtB]

 

Generally when you set up an account to transfer to, you have to give an account name, as well as a number and sort code.

 

I had always assumed, (perhaps wrongly!) that some basic checking is done on the account name, although clearly it would need to be a check for a close match, at least, not an exact match by every character.

 

And why on earth does just about every bit of bank software limit account names that can be entered to 16 (or maybe 18) characters. Just about every one I ever want to enter is longer than this, and I have to improvise abbreviations - another reason why exact matching to real account name is not a possibility!

 

 

Yes I find this too. And the fact that abbreviations are accepted proves there is no 'name matching' going on by the banks.

 

There is however, some verification of the account number and the sort code. There is a website you can use to do this for yourself. It returns the name and address of the branch and confirms (or denies) the account resides at that branch.

 

I worry though, that branches issue huge tranches of consecutive account numbers so the verification of an account one digit wrong might still succeed, in which case the random might be free to withdraw the dosh and fly to Barbados if s/he notices to erroneous transfer quickly enough!

Edited July 23, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[wrigglefingers]

I do this - transfer a £1 across, wait for the other person to confirm it's arrived, then transfer the rest. Saves anxiety.

[Richard10002]

I think that, when you are doing the security to enter the other persons account number, one of the numbers that shows up on your card reader ends with the last 4 digits of the account being sent to. Also, I dont think bank account numbers are consecutive.. I think part of the number may be consecutive, but there is a check digit or two, which reduce the risk.

 

Having said that, I always triple check an account number and sort code before adding the account and sending the money. The sending of £1 is a good idea.

[alan_fincher]

Also, I dont think bank account numbers are consecutive.. I think part of the number may be consecutive, but there is a check digit or two, which reduce the risk.

 

From what I could see from a bit of Googling, it looked to me that banks in some countries may include a check digit as part of the number, but that this did not apply in the UK.

 

It would be good if they did have, but from my quick look, I think probably not.

[MtB]

I do this - transfer a £1 across, wait for the other person to confirm it's arrived, then transfer the rest. Saves anxiety.

 

 

A BRILLIANT idea. Blindingly obvious now you've said it, lol!

[David Schweizer]

I do this - transfer a £1 across, wait for the other person to confirm it's arrived, then transfer the rest. Saves anxiety.

 

 

 

A BRILLIANT idea. Blindingly obvious now you've said it, lol!

 

You must live a very sheltered life Mike, loads of people do that, and most money sites recommend it.

[WotEver]

 

 

You must live a very sheltered life Mike, loads of people do that, and most money sites recommend it.

I must be sheltered too because this is the first time I've heard of it as well.

 

Tony

[MtB]

 

 

You must live a very sheltered life Mike, loads of people do that, and most money sites recommend it.

 

 

You could be right, but I rarely need to transfer large sums to other people. I arrange my life so the traffic is mostly in the opposite direction!

[Richard10002]

 

 

You must live a very sheltered life Mike, loads of people do that, and most money sites recommend it.

 

Me too.. blindingly obvious, but never considered it

[wrigglefingers]

I did it because I realised that was how PayPal established the link and it seemed eminently sensible to do it that way. As I'm paying, I don't want to see my money disappear into the Gaping Maws of the Vortex of Banking Hell and I assume the person being paid would prefer that too.

Edited July 23, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[patty-ann]

I must be sheltered too because this is the first time I've heard of it as well.

 

Tony

Same here

[ditchcrawler]

My bank also rings me to confirm I am setting up a payment to a new account.

[Lampyrichard]

My bank also rings me to confirm I am setting up a payment to a new account.

But that phone call (usually) just asks you to confirm the details you've already entered, so there's no extra check on whether the account numbers are correct.

 

The £1 transfer routine is very much worth doing as some banks (RBS I'm looking at you!) are known to be particularly unhelpful in recovering misdirected funds.

 

Also worth checking that both accounts are with banks signed up to the Faster Payment Scheme, as not all UK internet accounts are members, which means it can take a lot longer (days sometimes) for internet transfers to happen.

[ditchcrawler]

But that phone call (usually) just asks you to confirm the details you've already entered, so there's no extra check on whether the account numbers are correct.

 

The £1 transfer routine is very much worth doing as some banks (RBS I'm looking at you!) are known to be particularly unhelpful in recovering misdirected funds.

 

Also worth checking that both accounts are with banks signed up to the Faster Payment Scheme, as not all UK internet accounts are members, which means it can take a lot longer (days sometimes) for internet transfers to happen.

Quite correct, I also do the £1 trick if possible

[tonyt40]

Yes I thought that too. Not a hint of suspicion that the Bankers' Draft might have been forged and printed on a giclee printer.

 

I'll give Tony a call next time I need a caravan!

You didn't read it properly Mike. I wouldn't have accepted one from a stranger. The caravan was purchased with cash. The seller of the boat wanted the draft when I bought it.

[Jess--]

when my mother bought one of her boats she paid in cash (£16,000) part of the deal was that the last £500 was to be paid in £5 notes (to be spent in the pub over the following weekend)

 

everyone in the area knew of the sale and the amount involved so rather than leave thousands in cash on the sellers new shell (no windows or doors) they stashed the money in an old carrier bag in the hedge..... for 3 weeks

 

I'm surprised they got away with it in the 70s.

 

 

buying my own boat I used bank transfers and hit the maximum limit (£20k) on my main account and had to pay the rest from a different account

[nyima77]

So here's the latest.

 

We drove down the the broker-who-cannot-be-named (not until this is all over, anyway) on Saturday to pick up a copy of the survey they'd promised us. This was provided to us (with customer details redacted). We also asked for the folder of paperwork we'd supplied when we put it on brokerage as we wanted a copy of the previous (2012) survey which we were pretty sure we'd put in there. It was no longer in the folder, but the staff member on duty helpfully found the original in their files and copied it for us. This (dated 3 months before we bought it) states the broker as the customer. Tonight I looked for our copy of the 2012 survey in the papers we kept - I didn't find it but I did find an earlier (2010) survey also done by Craig Allen, also stating the marina as the customer.

 

[This may sound like a daft question, but can we (how?) establish whether the marina owned the boat or was selling it on brokerage? Because all the sale paperwork and the 2010 survey also have the name of the marina on it, but I don't know if this is standard practice to keep the identity of the seller private. It was very definitely sold to us as a brokerage boat, with the salesman telling us how much the owner had spent on the replating and sending us off for coffee while he rang him with our offer]

 

All 3 surveys state the base plate, hull sides and counter floor were originally fabricated using 6.0mm plate. Ultrasonic measurements show the thickness of this at the time of survey to be:

 

Base plate

2010:between 6.0 to 5.4mm with pitting up to 1.2mm

2012: between 6.0 to 5.4 with pitting up to 1.6mm. Recommendation to fully overplate the v bottom

2016: base plate fully overplated using 4.0mm plate, now measures between 4.1mm to 3.7mm with pitting up to 0.5mm. Due to pitting the repair works are outside insurance limits. Recommendation: remove overplating and replate with minimum 5.0mm

 

Hull sides

2010: 6.0 to 5.7 mm with pitting up to 1.2mm

2012: 6.0 to 5.6mm with pitting up to 1.4mm.

2016: overplated using 4.0mm plate, now 4.1 to 3.8mm with pitting up to 0.5mm

 

Counter floor

2010: 6.0 to 5.3 mm with pitting up to 0.5 mm

2012: 6.0 to 5.7mm [it's got thicker??] with pitting up to 0.7

2016: 6.0 to 5.2 mm with pitting up to 1.5 mm. Recommendation: fill all pits deeper than 1mm, ideally overplate aft counter floor

 

There are also recommendations in 2016 to raise the exhaust outlet and front door 10mm above the water line

 

2010 survey concludes the hull to be 'in a good insurable condition'.

2012 boat 'requires major repairs to the hull .. at present uninsurable'. Attached to the survey is a letter from the surveyor dated 3 months after the survey saying he'd inspected the boat and found all works carried out to a satisfactory standard and the boat to be ia 'satisfactory insurable condition and suitable for canal and river cruising.

2016 boat 'found to be in a condition that certain insurers would declare uninsurable'

 

First thing this morning my partner rang Craig Allen who was very helpful. He remembered the boat (and his earlier survey). He said that he would never recommend 4mm over plating as (as we've found) any pitting or wear makes it quickly below the 4mm insurance requirement - however at the time he reinspected it, the plate was above the insurable thickness and he had no choice but to sign it off. He also said he had no idea why the hull sides had been overplated as the 2012 survey had not recommended this - however having been overplated the outer plate is below 4mm and needs removing and replacing. He is going to send some local firms who would give us quotes to do the work.

 

I don't have much sense of what the cost would be - does anyone have any experience of this?

 

Kedian quote £135/foot for overplating (presumably + VAT) plus as it's a V-hull and the sides also need plating I am guessing this will push the price up, plus the cost of moving the exhaust outlet (Craig said that removing some of the extra ballast we put in the bow would probably raise the front doors above the required level).

 

It was put on sale for just below £18k. Assuming costs in excess of £5k plus (maybe) brokerage fees, temporary CRT licence (our old one's now expired) - anything else I've not thought of? A £10k offer to take it off our hands doesn't seem so very bad (it was originally put on sale just below £18k). On the one hand, it really irks me that I think we've been played along, and the marina will just do another cheap overplate and sell it to another unsuspecting buyer (though at least the survey specifies at least 5mm this time). So the most honourable thing would be to get the work done properly and sell at a fair price. Weighed against that, the stress and cost of organising that (with no guarantee we'll recoup what we pay) and then as complete newbies trying to find a buyer and handle the sale. I suppose we could try another broker if anyone can recommend one that won't charge us a fortune (the marina where we were moored has a minumum brokerage fee of £4k, I hope that's unusual).

 

Any thoughts from all you voices of reason and experience out there?

[Richard10002]

If I'm reading this correctly, the original steel was pitted in places such that it was "only" about 3.8mm thick. It was then overplated with 4mm steel, thus increasing the existing thickness by 4mm. Surely any pitting in the new plate has little/no chance of working its' way through both the new plate and the old plate, such that there might be a hole in the boat?

 

So I'm struggling to see why a bit of pitting in the new plate is such an issue.

 

Who did the 2016 survey for your supposed buyers? I cant tell if it suggests that the boat "might" be considered "uninsurable" by "some" insurers, or by "all" insurers.

 

What would their fee have been if the found you a buyer at £18k... you can deduct this from your calculations in deciding what to accept for the boat.

 

It sounds like you have been done up like a kipper by ******* both when you bought it and now that you are selling it, assuming the assumptions here about who is the broker are correct.

 

They have a fairly well known reputation for doing this type of thing, yet there seem to be plenty of unsuspecting customers for their business model to continue to make them many thousands of pounds.

 

I had a similar experience with a broker in Malta in 2009... They tried to convince me that the keel of my boat was misaligned, and that it needed removing, and realigning.... which they could do for me, at my expense. I arranged a survey from the UK, and was advised that there was nothing wrong with my keel that a bit of sealant, and a paint job would resolve. I sacked the broker, got myself out there, sorted things out, sailed it back to the UK, and sold it myself. It's now in the Pacific, the keel hasn't fallen off, and the cowboy in Malta didn't take several thousands of pounds off me.

 

Tough decision but what is absolutely certain is that if they give you £10k for it, they will make several thousands of pounds out of it, whatever they do - and I wouldnt be surprised if they did nothing, remarketed it at about £15k-£16k, and sold it to someone who was happy with about 8mm of steel over most of it.

Edited July 26, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[alan_fincher]

It was put on sale for just below £18k. Assuming costs in excess of £5k plus (maybe) brokerage fees, temporary CRT licence (our old one's now expired) - anything else I've not thought of? A £10k offer to take it off our hands doesn't seem so very bad (it was originally put on sale just below £18k). On the one hand, it really irks me that I think we've been played along, and the marina will just do another cheap overplate and sell it to another unsuspecting buyer (though at least the survey specifies at least 5mm this time). So the most honourable thing would be to get the work done properly and sell at a fair price. Weighed against that, the stress and cost of organising that (with no guarantee we'll recoup what we pay) and then as complete newbies trying to find a buyer and handle the sale. I suppose we could try another broker if anyone can recommend one that won't charge us a fortune (the marina where we were moored has a minumum brokerage fee of £4k, I hope that's unusual).

 

Any thoughts from all you voices of reason and experience out there?

 

 

I think you are being far too charitable to the broker when you assume they would carry out all the specified replating work on it before putting it to market.

 

Far more likely they will just try to market it "as is".

 

That is how they will make the fastest and largest profit.

 

EDIT; Did you try asking Craig Allen what he thought the value of the boat is, before any remedial work is done to it?

Edited July 26, 2016 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

This (dated 3 months before we bought it) states the broker as the customer. Tonight I looked for our copy of the 2012 survey in the papers we kept - I didn't find it but I did find an earlier (2010) survey also done by Craig Allen, also stating the marina as the customer.

 

[This may sound like a daft question, but can we (how?) establish whether the marina owned the boat or was selling it on brokerage? Because all the sale paperwork and the 2010 survey also have the name of the marina on it, but I don't know if this is standard practice to keep the identity of the seller private. It was very definitely sold to us as a brokerage boat, with the salesman telling us how much the owner had spent on the replating and sending us off for coffee while he rang him with our offer]

 

 

I think you have answered your own (not so daft) question.

 

If the sale to you shows the broker as the owner, then they were the owner, and were selling outright, not on brokerage.

 

If you were buying a brokered boat, then the paperwork would reveal details of the owner - or at least when I have bought or sold through a broker, the paperwork makes clear to the seller the name and address of the owner for which the brokerage are acting.

 

Selling a boat through a broker does not in my experience make the seller details invisible to the buyer.

 

I think you have experienced exactly the kind of sharp practice, (an understatement!) for which this particular brokerage has established such a reputation. I suspect that if they pretend they are acting as a broker when they are not they are almost certainly acting illegally. For a start you have greater consumer rights when buying a product from them directly, rather than them just acting as a selling agent for another person.

[keith.]

With the amount of work and probable expense I would take the offer of £10000. Middlemen in any business are going to make money on every transaction.

I would look at the numbers from the point of view of how much a year it has cost to own Little Miss and how much fun you have had. Lessons learned and life goes on.

[Athy]

.

 

Whatever else they are, they are certainly not philanthropists.

 

 

...and the Diplomat Of The Week award goes to Mr.Fincher.