Survey failure - worthless boat- any advice?

[Tam & Di]

Where on earth has this boat been for the past 4 years? A marina full of acid? Four years ago the surveyor recommended that the bottom was doubled with 4mm plate and signed the work off as satisfactory The same surveyor/broker, now acting for a potential buyer rather than an owner, now recommends that the original doubling is redone plus (presumably up to the waterline) some of the side with 5mm plate. It is not good practice to put doubling on top of doubling - is he recommending that the bottom is now replated with 5mm - i.e. the bottom removed and replaced with new? Your posts do not make this clear -the terms replating and overplating/doubling have different meanings.

 

There is something rather suspect about all of this, I have to say. I have no personal knowledge of the broker or what surveyor they apparently use, but I would always want to commission my own surveyor to avoid any possible bias.

 

As others have said, I can't see anything catastophically wrong with the bottom which was doubled 4 years ago being slightly under 4mm now. Someone would be bound to snap the boat up assuming you are not asking ridiculous money for it. You may not make a great profit, but I don't see why you would lose your all. (or probably even your much)

 

Tam

Edited July 21, 2016 by Tam & Di

[bag 'o' bones]

Where on earth has this boat been for the past 4 years? A marina full of acid? Four years ago the surveyor recommended that the bottom was doubled with 4mm plate and signed the work off as satisfactory The same surveyor/broker, now acting for a potential buyer rather than an owner, now recommends that the original doubling is redone plus (presumably up to the waterline) some of the side with 5mm plate. It is not good practice to put doubling on top of doubling - is he recommending that the bottom is now replated with 5mm - i.e. the bottom removed and replaced with new? Your posts do not make this clear -the terms replating and overplating/doubling have different meanings.

 

There is something rather suspect about all of this, I have to say. I have no personal knowledge of the broker or what surveyor they apparently use, but I would always want to commission my own surveyor to avoid any possible bias.

 

As others have said, I can't see anything catastophically wrong with the bottom which was doubled 4 years ago being slightly under 4mm now. Someone would be bound to snap the boat up assuming you are not asking ridiculous money for it. You may not make a great profit, but I don't see why you would lose your all.

 

Tam

You quite right, 4 years is not a long time unless the remedial work was substandard. I smell a rat.

[alan_fincher]

Did he resurvey the boat 4 years ago to confirm that the overplating has been fully and satisfactorily completed?

 

Or, even if he didn't do you know whether the survey done by your prospective buyers confirms a boat that really was overplated just 4 years ago, but which is already in need of replating again.

 

This makes no sense at all to me. Even replating in 4mm steel should give something that lasts decades, not 4 years?

 

The surveyor is clearly one of the respected ones, so I would be asking him to clarify what he either thinks went wrong 4 years ago, or has gone so wrong in the short period since.

 

I genuinely can't believe this is a "scrapper", unless there is some vital fact that has not (I think!) so far been recorded in this thread.

[alan_fincher]

Can I just ask anyone out there, if it was your boat, what would you do?

 

To repeat...

 

Talk to Craig Allen.

 

Although you have not commissioned a survey from him, and the latest survey is for your prospective purchasers use only, hopefully if Craig is halfway as good as some say he is, he will be prepared to have a conversation with you about this. If he really did pass an overplate as fully good just 4 years ago, I would hope he is very prepared to explain to you why he now feels it apparently all needs doing again in a thicker steel.

 

I have no experience of this surveyor, but have a lot of experience of one of the other regularly recommended names, and I have found they are always prepared to talk to me about a boat they have previously surveyed, even before any question I commission any survey myself.

 

It would help if you do go this route for you to tell us what he says, (or doesn't!)

 

EDIT: to correct typing errors, (or some of them!).

Edited July 21, 2016 by alan_fincher

[nyima77]

The impression we'd got is that anything under 4mm is uninisurable and therefore impossible to sell - as insurers expect older boats to be surveyed and work done before they will cover (insurer websites do seem to say this and don't mention a third party only option) We could of course just put it on private sale and hope that the buyer doesn't ask for a survey - but I would honestly rather cut my losses than rip someone else off.

 

As regards the quality of work, yes we're puzzled too - but neither survey was our survey, and the work was done for the previous seller. I can only assume it was done to minimum spec and is now down below 4mm by a fraction. But we've been told (by marina welder who took it our of the water again) that's it's too extensive just to spot weld the damage.

 

Assuming we're honest with a buyer about the issue - does anyone have a sense of what would be a fair price? It's a 30' Springer built in the early 80s with a 1.5 BMC engine, good condition inside.

It would help if you do go this route for you to tell us what he says, (or doesn't!) - yes I will post what happens next. Thank you. Really appreciate all the advice as it's left us a bit stumped.

[Athy]

 

.

 

Assuming we're honest with a buyer about the issue - does anyone have a sense of what would be a fair price? It's a 30' Springer built in the early 80s with a 1.5 BMC engine, good condition inside.

 

Start talking at £8 - 9,000 I would suggest.

 

 

the original steel was probably around 3mm thick,

That's most unlikely - 5mm, or even quarter-inch, would be standard for this type of boat.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Athy

[alan_fincher]

I think the "less than 4mm anywhere is uninsurable" just has to be common myth, as many older boats had plating no thicker than that when built, (including many short Springers like yours. Anyway, as has been said, if any insurer did apply such a rule, that would only be for fully comprehensive cover. You can 3rd party insure any canal boat irrespective of hull condition, and that is all that is needed for licensing purposes. Many people do no more than basic 3rd party, and you could enjoy a boat for many years on that basis.

 

If the surveyor believed 4mm is an absolute minimum, why would he have passed off as satisfactory a replate in that thickness - he would surely then believe that as soon as any of that 4mm is lost it would be "too thin".

 

Even the 5mm recommended now would only give you 1mm of margin if that were a rules, and 1mm pits are not that uncommon.

 

Talk to the surveyor - what is the worst that could happen? He might refuse to talk to you, I suppose, but assuming he does not, I think you should come away from the conversation with a better idea about your options now.

 

(For what it is worth the sides of my 1936 built historic tug were only specified as 5mm thick in the first place, and after 80 yeras, although it needs some selective steelwork done on it now, it is certainly not "uninsurable").

[Athy]

 

 

Only problem is that this we think this would probably sink the boat - it's already very low in the water and the exhaust and drainage would end up below the waterline - the guys from the marina's workshop have had a look and they agree.

Then raise the exhaust outlet. I had this done on an overplated Springer a couple of years ago. Not sure if raising the "drainage" would be as easy. If you mean the outlet for the bilge pump, it should not be a problem for skilled boatyard staff.

[RLWP]

The impression we'd got is that anything under 4mm is uninisurable

 

Try talking to insurance companies

 

Richard

[Athy]

 

Try talking to insurance companies

 

Richard

GJW of Liverpool insured my Springer four years ago without a hull survey. That was comprehensive insurance, too.

[magnetman]

 

 

I tend to think that a lot of replating is basically unnecessary and simply a way to generate work for boatyards. OK so some insurance companies say 4mm minimum for fully comp but as already mentioned you can just do 3rd party anyway if you can personally handle the risk of a total loss which is a pretty minute risk unless you do silly things.

[David Schweizer]

I think the "less than 4mm anywhere is uninsurable" just has to be common myth, as many older boats had plating no thicker than that when built, (including many short Springers like yours. Anyway, as has been said, if any insurer did apply such a rule, that would only be for fully comprehensive cover. You can 3rd party insure any canal boat irrespective of hull condition, and that is all that is needed for licensing purposes. Many people do no more than basic 3rd party, and you could enjoy a boat for many years on that basis.

 

If the surveyor believed 4mm is an absolute minimum, why would he have passed off as satisfactory a replate in that thickness - he would surely then believe that as soon as any of that 4mm is lost it would be "too thin".

 

Even the 5mm recommended now would only give you 1mm of margin if that were a rules, and 1mm pits are not that uncommon.

 

Talk to the surveyor - what is the worst that could happen? He might refuse to talk to you, I suppose, but assuming he does not, I think you should come away from the conversation with a better idea about your options now.

 

(For what it is worth the sides of my 1936 built historic tug were only specified as 5mm thick in the first place, and after 80 yeras, although it needs some selective steelwork done on it now, it is certainly not "uninsurable").

 

But wait until after the weekend, he is on holiday at the moment. I can pm his phone number if you do not have it.

[Lady Muck]

You quite right, 4 years is not a long time unless the remedial work was substandard. I smell a rat.

substandard happens though, I can think of two boaters who had replating done recently and it failed, I think you've got to go to yards who are known for doing a good job of it.

[David Mack]

Talk to Martin Kedian of Kedian Engineering (Kedian on the forum). According to his website he will overplate the base and sides to the waterline including blacking for £135 per foot, and he has said on here before that he can do this without harming the internal fitout or insulation.

http://www.kedianengineering.co.uk

[RLWP]

If the surveyor believed 4mm is an absolute minimum, why would he have passed off as satisfactory a replate in that thicknes

 

This is all getting quite convoluted

 

If the hull was overplated with 4mm, it will be more than 4mm thick.

 

I haven't seen any evidence that the surveyor passed off the work, just made recommendations

 

I haven't seen the survey so i don't know if the latest plating is to be where the old overplating was, or on parts left unplated last time, with the recommendation that previous plating was replaced

 

Richard

[nyima77]

Thank you - that name seems to come up (in a positive way) a few times so we will give them a call.

[GUMPY]

Start talking at £8 - 9,000 I would suggest.

 

That's most unlikely - 5mm, or even quarter-inch, would be standard for this type of boat.

A lot of springers were built with 3/16 plate which is less than 5mm...... well 4.8 to be close.

[nyima77]

Sorry if I'm not being clear - I don't have copies of either survey so this is just on what I recall of the old survey (we had a copy but the paperwork is now with the broker) and what we've been told by the broker about the new survey.

 

The previous survey found the original base had worn very thin (I think down to 1mm in places) and recommended overplating. This was done and there was a letter from the surveyor confirming that he'd reinspected and the work had been done.

 

The new survey found extensive pitting to the 4mm overplate, taking the thickness down to 3.7mm in places and recommended that the old overplate was removed and replaced with a new 5mm overplate up to the waterline. The hull is v-shaped.

[WotEver]

 

The new survey found extensive pitting to the 4mm overplate, taking the thickness down to 3.7mm in places...

Surely that's not 'extensive'. 0.3mm pit depths are nothing aren't they?

[nyima77]

I think they meant there's lots of them, too many to spot weld.

[David Mack]

4mm to 3.7mm in places certainly doesn't make the boat scrap, or uninsurable!

[nyima77]

The fact that so many of you are saying that is very reassuring - feeling better than when I started this thread

[Athy]

The fact that so many of you are saying that is very reassuring - feeling better than when I started this thread

That's good to hear. Ask yourself:

 

Did it float before the survey?

Does it float now?

Does it look as if it will still float tomorrow?

 

If the answer to all these is "yes", then your boat may still benefit from some remedial work but it's not yet in intensive care.

A lot of springers were built with 3/16 plate which is less than 5mm...... well 4.8 to be close.

Yes, I don't know when they changed from imperial to metric units. As far as I know, the only ones built with the 3mm hull plate which Jess suggests were the 20- and 23-foot Water Bugs churned out from the late '80s until the firm closed in 1994.

[WotEver]

I think they meant there's lots of them, too many to spot weld.

But... so what? 0.3mm pits over the hull is nothing. Fill them in with blacking.

 

Tony

[Tiggs]

You might ask what caused these 0.3mm pits - and stop them getting deeper..