Survey failure - worthless boat- any advice?

[matty40s]

I once viewed a boat with someone,but didn't go into the office with him when he put his suggested offer, I just perused the boats for sale boards.

When he was told to go to the cafe while the call to owner was made, he did, I didn't.

No call was ever made and when he came back, was told the owner would not sell at that price.

 

The OP has clearly made their mind up to ignore all advice on here and carry on dealing with the nameless brokerage.

Edited July 26, 2016 by matty40s

[MtB]

I'm

 

 

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

 

 

I'm staggered by how this broker has whipped up such a storm of uncertainty about a prefectly servicable boat. Pitting to only 1.6mm on a 30 year old boat is an excellent result, suggesting the boat has at least another 30 years of servicable life before any work is required from a technical standpoint.

 

All this twaddle about it being 'uninsurable' also seems to have been swallowed whole without question by all and sundry. As demonstrated earlier in the thread third party insurance is required for a licence and plenty of insurance companies offer this regardless of the condition of the hull.

 

As Alan says, if the offer of £10k is accepted I expect it will go straight back on sale at £18k, but this time if a potential buyer has it surveyed they broker will be reassuring the buyer how trivial the problems are an offering to sell it with a year's free insurance to prove the point.

[BlueStringPudding]

Completely layperson question here, unless I've missed something (which is probable):

 

If the boat was overplated because the original steel was down to just 1mm thick in places. And the new steel is now down to 3.7mm thick. Does that not mean that the overall thickness of the hull is a minimum of 4.7mm thick? Which is plenty for insurance purposes and for selling on fairly.

 

Or does it not work like that?

Edited July 26, 2016 by BlueStringPudding

[bargemast]

Completely layperson question here, unless I've missed something (which is probable):

 

If the boat was overplated because the original steel was down to just 1mm thick in places. And the new steel is now down to 3.7mm thick. Does that not mean that the overall thickness of the hull is a minimum of 4.7mm thick? Which is plenty for insurance purposes and for selling on fairly.

 

Or does it not work like that?

 

No, it doesn't work like that.

 

Peter.

[David Schweizer]

I'm

 

 

 

I'm staggered by how this broker has whipped up such a storm of uncertainty about a prefectly servicable boat. Pitting to only 1.6mm on a 30 year old boat is an excellent result, suggesting the boat has at least another 30 years of servicable life before any work is required from a technical standpoint.

 

All this twaddle about it being 'uninsurable' also seems to have been swallowed whole without question by all and sundry. As demonstrated earlier in the thread third party insurance is required for a licence and plenty of insurance companies offer this regardless of the condition of the hull.

 

As Alan says, if the offer of £10k is accepted I expect it will go straight back on sale at £18k, but this time if a potential buyer has it surveyed they broker will be reassuring the buyer how trivial the problems are an offering to sell it with a year's free insurance to prove the point.

 

I think you may be missing the point Mike, surely it is the 4mm overplate which has pits bringing the plate thickness down to 3.5mm in some places, and as the surveyor cannot test the thickness of the original steelwork, he has to assume the worst. Some Insurance Companies are now insisting on a minimum hull thickness of 4mm. for a fully comprehensive policy hence the survey fail.

[boathunter]

I once viewed a boat with someone,but didn't go into the office with him when he put his suggested offer, I just perused the boats for sale boards.

When he was told to go to the cafe while the call to owner was made, he did, I didn't.

No call was ever made and when he came back, was told the owner would not sell at that price.

 

The OP has clearly made their mind up to ignore all advice on here and carry on dealing with the nameless brokerage.

I once stood, as a prospective buyer, looking at those boards while a conversation on the phone took place. It involved lady trying to find out how repairs were going. She was on loudspeaker so I heard all. When sha asked a question, she was put on hold while they laughed at her, insulted her and decided what made up twaddle to tell her "tell her she needs a new alternator" was arrived at when they realised they'd not bothered to send hers off for a simple repair. They were being extremely rude about her "fat old cow" for instance. I wasn't hiding, I was standing in full view.

[Tuscan]

I suspect many boaters will chose third party insurance on a host of this value. The hull with regular blacking will no doubt last many years. I would put the boat on eBay / apolloduck for a midway price between the brokers offer and the original sale price for a month. If no takers go back to the broker and take his offer

[MtB]

 

I think you may be missing the point Mike, surely it is the 4mm overplate which has pits bringing the plate thickness down to 3.5mm in some places, and as the surveyor cannot test the thickness of the original steelwork, he has to assume the worst. Some Insurance Companies are now insisting on a minimum hull thickness of 4mm. for a fully comprehensive policy hence the survey fail.

 

 

I'm not missing any point s far as I can see. My point it the ortiginal overplate didn't need doing, and now it's done it doesn't need re-doing as insurance IS available, as amply demonstrated earlier in the thread.

[David Mack]

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?

Now you have copies of the three survey reports, just end your dealings with your current broker and take it to another broker, and ask them their opinion on the value and saleability of the boat in its current condition. Then put the boat up for sale with them.

 

There's a well regarded broker, who is a member of this forum, just down the canal from your current broker.

[Alan de Enfield]

.................. hence the survey fail.

 

The only way a boat can 'fail' a survey is if the surveyor fails to turn up.

 

A survey is not a 'pass' or a 'fail' it is solely a condition report such that the prospective buyer can decide if the condition of the boat justifies the asking price.

 

There is no such thing as 'failing a survy'

[nyima77]

There's a well regarded broker, who is a member of this forum, just down the canal from your current broker - could you name them?

[wrigglefingers]

Mod's hat on ...

 

I've been gently reminded that some, not all, of the content, mentions the broker's name. Whilst some of it is public record, some of it isn't, and I'm a little concerned about that, my own contributions included.

 

So, whilst I don't want to upset any of you, or negate your experiences with the broker, whilst I take some advice, I've blanked out the name.

 

Please don't mention them by name again until we get the go-ahead or not. It may be an over-reaction, maybe not, but until a wiser head than mine can be contacted, just bear with me. Thanks.

 

Mod's hat off ...

Edited July 26, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[nyima77]

Fair enough. I deliberately haven't (unless I slipped up somewhere) named the marina or said yea or nay to speculation.

The OP has clearly made their mind up to ignore all advice on here and carry on dealing with the nameless brokerage

 

Actually no. If we'd made our mind up I wouldn't be here asking. And not everyone is giving the same advice, there are at least a couple of posts saying £10k may be a fair offer.

[wrigglefingers]

Don't worry, it's not you, it's all the rest of us! I am currently in search of the file marked Wisdom of Solomon ... Anyone seen it?

 

Mod hat off ...

 

Pssst .... Go and have a chat with Dominic at Rugby Boats (really at Weedon). Good bloke.

[David Schweizer]

 

 

I'm not missing any point s far as I can see. My point it the ortiginal overplate didn't need doing, and now it's done it doesn't need re-doing as insurance IS available, as amply demonstrated earlier in the thread.

 

I understand what you are saying and agree with you up to a point, but, from a surveyor's position how are they supposed to know the condition of the original; base plate, if it has been plated over? They can only make recommendations on what they can see, not on what they mighy assume. I think if i was in the same position I would have to err on the side of caution.

 

The only way a boat can 'fail' a survey is if the surveyor fails to turn up.

 

A survey is not a 'pass' or a 'fail' it is solely a condition report such that the prospective buyer can decide if the condition of the boat justifies the asking price.

 

There is no such thing as 'failing a survy'

 

I am not sure that there is any need to be so repetively pedantic. The OP used the term "failure" and I am merely using his criteria, and frankly if a surveyor tells you you boat is not insurable, it does sound very much like a survey failure.

Edited July 26, 2016 by David Schweizer

[MtB]

I understand what you are saying and agree with you up to a point, but, from a surveyor's position how are they supposed to know the condition of the original; base plate, if it has been plated over? They can only make recommendations on what they can see, not on what they mighy assume. I think if i was in the same position I would have to err on the side of caution.

 

 

I am not sure that there is any need to be so repetively pedantic. The OP used the term "failure" and I am merely using his criteria, and frankly if a surveyor tells you you boat is not insurable, it does sound very much like a survey failure.

 

Or more accurately a deliberate attempt to mislead, given it isn't true.

[Athy]

 

.

 

I am not sure that there is any need to be so repetively pedantic.

I'm not sure that Alan's post does any harm at all. He is simply stating that a boat survey is different from an M.o.T. Judging by Nyima's first posts, she may not have been aware of this.

[bag 'o' bones]

The literal meanings of 'Survey' and 'Failure' - Lets not start picking peanuts out of poo............

[Dave_P]

Mod's hat on ...

 

I've been gently reminded that some, not all, of the content, mentions the broker's name. Whilst some of it is public record, some of it isn't, and I'm a little concerned about that, my own contributions included.

 

So, whilst I don't want to upset any of you, or negate your experiences with the broker, whilst I take some advice, I've blanked out the name.

 

Please don't mention them by name again until we get the go-ahead or not. It may be an over-reaction, maybe not, but until a wiser head than mine can be contacted, just bear with me. Thanks.

 

Mod's hat off ...

Fair enough, but I just got round to reading this thread for the first time, with the name blanked out all the way through. It's pretty obvious which broker is being discussed!

 

p.s. to the OP - I'll give you 11k for it!

[sueb]

Dominic wouldn't touch our boat when we wanted to sell. I agree he is first clas but won't sell everything/ anything.

[wrigglefingers]

Fair enough, but I just got round to reading this thread for the first time, with the name blanked out all the way through. It's pretty obvious which broker is being discussed!

 

p.s. to the OP - I'll give you 11k for it!

I know, Dave, but short of closing and hiding what has been a really good thread it's the best I can do until I get some advice.

[Dave_P]

I know, Dave, but short of closing and hiding what has been a really good thread it's the best I can do until I get some advice.

You're doing a sterling job Ms Fingers!

[Athy]

The literal meanings of 'Survey' and 'Failure' - Lets not start picking peanuts out of poo............

Whilst of course admiring your linguistic elegance, I am not sure what point your are attempting to make. It sounds malodorous, whatever it may be.

[wrigglefingers]

You're doing a sterling job Ms Fingers!

Ta!

[bag 'o' bones]

Whilst of course admiring your linguistic elegance, I am not sure what point your are attempting to make. It sounds malodorous, whatever it may be.

Glad you were impressed