Survey on a new boat....

[NealSmith100]

Hi everyone

 

Another in my continuing series of stupid questions (it is your own fault – you keep giving me loads of helpful advice and answers and never tell me I am stupid):

 

If I buy a new boat (i.e. already built but never sailed, not bespoke) from a named company (rather than first time individual). should I get a survey?

 

I am aware that there SHOULD be absolutely nothing wrong with the hull or any of the systems, so the answer is logically no and it will come with all the certificates but is it better safe than sorry? Or can I confidently assume all is ok?

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, NealSmith100 said:

Hi everyone

 

Another in my continuing series of stupid questions (it is your own fault – you keep giving me loads of helpful advice and answers and never tell me I am stupid):

 

If I buy a new boat (i.e. already built but never sailed, not bespoke) from a named company (rather than first time individual). should I get a survey?

 

I am aware that there SHOULD be absolutely nothing wrong with the hull or any of the systems, so the answer is logically no and it will come with all the certificates but is it better safe than sorry? Or can I confidently assume all is ok?

The quality of boats from some manufacturers is quite 'iffy'.

I'll repeat a story I have posted a few times here :

New Wide beam - well into £'s 6 figures, arrive in our marina. Following week a team of three chaps appeared and spent 3 days on rectification work, they left, the following week 2 chaps came back and did 3 more days rectification work, the third week they were back again.

I asked one of them if this was normal for a 'new boat' to which he replied " no, this one is a good one, it was built with a care and attention the workshop could put into it as it was our 'show boat' for the Crick Boat show - most of the boats are much worse than this"

 

Your choice - £500 for a survey, or ensure you get some guarantees from the manufacturer regarding paint, hull, water tightness and 'systems' all being fit for purpose.

As long as you are buying from a business 'selling the boat in the course of their business' (and not from a broker) then you have all the legal protection from the "Consumer Rights Act 2015"

 

The Act requires goods to be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.

Fit for purpose means both for their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller (for example, if you specifically asked for a printer that would be compatible with your computer, or wall tiles that would be suitable for use in a bathroom). 

Goods sold must also match any sample you were shown in store, or any description in a brochure.

The only time goods are not required to be satisfactory quality is if a defect or issue was specifically drawn to your attention before you bought them.

So, if you examined the goods and had the opportunity to notice (but failed to do so) that they were not of satisfactory quality; or, in the case of sale by sample, if the lack of quality would have been obvious on a reasonable examination of the sample, you would not be able to argue that the goods were not of satisfactory quality.

 

If you engage a surveyor and he fails to note any 'failings' in the boat then you have abrogated your rights as a buyer as you 'had the chance to find the faults', you would then need to sue the Surveyor.

I once tried to sue a boat surveyor for not noticing problems in a boat, My solicitor told me not to bother as the surveyors small print removes all responsibility for what he says, what he saw and what he missed on a survey.

 

I would suggest :-

 

1) Get guarantees for what ever you can

2) Buy the boat without a surveyor

3) cruise / use the boat for 3 weeks (you need to report failings within 4 weeks) and then inform the supplier of the problems and ask them to remedy the faults under the Consumer Rights Act.

 

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

[NealSmith100]

Thanks   it would be from the fitter / maker not a private individual so was aware we get some protection. I recall having seen that story around on here, Alan!

 

It was a general query so I don't want to name the company I am going to tomorrow - to be fair, I have reason to suspect that their makes are anything but good! 

 

Thanks again.

[zenataomm]

No, you'll be fine.

I can't think of a single person who would cough up tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds on a single item without either letting a professional have a butcher's at it or some form of underwritten safeguard.

 

Just go for it, the world is too full of "Worry Bugs" as it is. 

To help give you peace of mind, I watched a nearly new narrow boat in Shardlow go charging into the London Rd bridge after exiting the lock. His reaction to the wide beam trip boat that was easing its way into the bridge 'ole from the other direction was most encouraging.

Having bawled out "I have right of way" he then asserted his rights by trying to push the much heavier Trip Boat back out.

The resulting collision and then rebound which catapulted him into the bridge wall pushed his stem post back and left his top bend flapping about.

 

The engineer from the hire boat yard in the basin had a shufty and announced that the top bend had been tacked from the inside and the external join was painted over filler. He refused to weld it back on properly as he didn't want to be the last person to have worked on it. Not knowing how the rest of it was held together he refused to be associated.

 

I won't give the name of the maker, a lot of their boats are still around (it wasn't Springer) 

 

The moral of this story is …….

Don't worry OP now that this has actually happened what are the chances of it occurring again?  Just buy it and be confident. ?

 

 

[Horace42]

Insurance is compulsory for 'third party' - but optional for 'fully comprehensive.

I  suspect the insurance company will demand a certified inspection and valuation report from a qualified registered surveyor if you want to take out a fully comprehensive policy.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

49 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I can't think of a single person who would cough up ........hundreds of thousands of pounds on a boat without either letting a professional have a butcher's at it or some form of underwritten safeguard.

Would I come into your thinking ?

 

I have not had a surveyor on the last 12 or 18 (or so)boats I have bought.

The last one cost 'in the hundreds of thousands of pounds'. I did not have a survey.

The broker selling it insisted that it was lifted out of the water (at his expense) and he wanted to give it a 'once over' himself - he had to pay for it to be sailed from Croatia to Italy to find a yard with a big enough hoist to lift it out.

2 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Insurance is compulsory for 'third party' - but optional for 'fully comprehensive.

I  suspect the insurance company will demand a certified inspection and valuation report from a qualified registered surveyor if you want to take out a fully comprehensive policy.

 

I very much doubt it on a 'new, never yet been in the water' boat - now, if it was 30 years old you may well be correct.

[ditchcrawler]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I very much doubt it on a 'new, never yet been in the water' boat - now, if it was 30 years old you may well be correct.

Agree, The first company I insured with wanted a valuation and fit out survey on a self fit out but nothing on the hull, since then other companies have just wanted my bank card details

[Bee]

Its a tricky question as a new boat is not going to be like a new Ford Focus, it will not be identical to all the others, it'll be a bit longer/shorter, have windows in different places, Isuzu /Beta / Nanni etc, PRM gearbox or something else and many differences in wiring/lighting/heating from all the others that look identical bur aren't, that means that the fitters have had to use skills or ingenuity to successfully put the whole lot together, Think TVR instead of Ford. Some of that will result in difficulties later on (and as for plumbing....)  The shell and steelwork should be completely trouble free but I wouldn't be surprised to find a few problems with the rest, boats are complex. As for a surveyor, personally I would not bother, there is a good chance that he/she will not spot all the problems, they have not got x ray vision. Life, cars, boats, people, none of it perfect

[Horace42]

55 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I very much doubt it on a 'new, never yet been in the water' boat - now, if it was 30 years old you may well be correct.

That's understandable - the value of a new boat is surely the price agreed between buyer and seller.

An old boat is an insurance risk - especially if a 'rust-bucked banger' and a potential over-valued 'loss' fraud. 

But just a guess, I don't move in those circles - albeit I do have a 40 year old boat - which sadly has seen better days - and I was not able to get a better insurance quote without an independent valuation - the cost of which would have been more the any saving.

 

 

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, zenataomm said:

The engineer from the hire boat yard in the basin had a shufty and announced that the top bend had been tacked from the inside and the external join was painted over filler. He refused to weld it back on properly as he didn't want to be the last person to have worked on it. Not knowing how the rest of it was held together he refused to be associated.

Wise man!

[70liveaboard]

I got involved in a case whereby the owner of a new boat found out that welds had been tacked from inside then filled to get that great look so many boat builders, erm, say they can, wasn't a surveyer that found this for them.

The boat was built by a very well known builder that is considered 'high end' (still building). They (the builder) did all they could to keep under wraps and paid out the owner and took the boat back in for a complete weld check.

It happens a lot, where there should be welds, many would find filler. Its the 'bog' culture of keeping it as straight as possible. Cheaper end boats are always more honest, imo.

 

Regards survey, its being delivered with a RCD cert isn't it, I know that is the builder that does that, but they are the ones you'll go back too should you find anything wrong. Some surveyers have been known to find fault where no real fault exists. Once you get into that, its usually the surveyer that backs down, facing a court and all. But that can take months to sort, in which time the builder can state the owners are not to use the boat until the case is founded or not.

 

Like I said, the surveyer usually backs down in many of these instances. But wastes owners lots of cruising time.

Many builders, way back, had cosy relationships with surveyers, so cosy that a cert BSS would be issued via post.. Think about that..

Edited June 15, 2018 by 70liveaboard

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, 70liveaboard said:

 

Many builders, way back, had cosy relationships with surveyers, so cosy that a cert BSS would be issued via post.. Think about that..

 

Whereas now this is best done using the internet?

[70liveaboard]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Whereas now this is best done using the internet?

Sight unseen..

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, 70liveaboard said:

Sight unseen..

 

A 'drive by' BSS....

We get these in the world of gas too. "Can you email me a scan of the last certificate?"

[70liveaboard]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

A 'drive by' BSS....

We get these in the world of gas too. "Can you email me a scan of the last certificate?"

Reminds me of a fairly large builder in the late 90's sending a boat out and the customer then deciding to have it surveyed (just for peace of mind). The surveyer took one look at the gas and tagged it (dangerous don't use, or whatever the tag is). Customer got back intouch with the builder, the builder simply got the reg corgi fitter to ring the surveyer. Took around 5mins, apparently, for the surveyer to apologise and promise to go straight away to remove the tag. 

The fitter even got a letter of apology from the surveyer, as the fitter told him, he may report him, as his knowledge of gas installation on boats was virtually non existent. Whereas the fitter was, top notch..

 

Its a minefield where surveyers are concerned..

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, 70liveaboard said:

Reminds me of a fairly large builder in the late 90's sending a boat out and the customer then deciding to have it surveyed (just for peace of mind). The surveyer took one look at the gas and tagged it (dangerous don't use, or whatever the tag is). Customer got back intouch with the builder, the builder simply got the reg corgi fitter to ring the surveyer. Took around 5mins, apparently, for the surveyer to apologise and promise to go straight away to remove the tag. 

The fitter even got a letter of apology from the surveyer, as the fitter told him, he may report him, as his knowledge of gas installation on boats was virtually non existent. Whereas the fitter was, top notch..

 

Its a minefield where surveyers are concerned..

 

Yes I've seen some spectacular stupidity on gas from both boat surveyors and BSS bods. 

 

Some of it posted on here. 

[Detling]

Not a bad idea to get a decent BSS survey as I have heard of several boats failing when tested at 4 years old, on things that meet RCD (builder certified) but do not meet BSS due to slight differences in the standards.

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, Detling said:

Not a bad idea to get a decent BSS survey as I have heard of several boats failing when tested at 4 years old, on things that meet RCD (builder certified) but do not meet BSS due to slight differences in the standards.

I can’t think of any item where the BSS is stricter than the RCD. Can you give some examples?

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I can’t think of any item where the BSS is stricter than the RCD. Can you give some examples?

I agree, I believe that over the years the BSS has been bought more into line (up to) the RCD standards.

[ditchcrawler]

As the RCD is self certified the builder says its OK, 4 years on a BSS inspector may not agree

[70liveaboard]

If it was my new boat, I would say no to a survey. Its a little like buying a new car and running it around the corner to a local garage/testing centre and having them do an MOT on it.

 

But everyone is different and if you feel you need to survey it for some sort of peace of mind, then do it. But if you do feel that, then why did you pick that builder ?

[WotEver]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

As the RCD is self certified the builder says its OK, 4 years on a BSS inspector may not agree

This I agree with, but Detling wrote “do not meet BSS due to slight differences in the standards.” and I can’t think of anything that would fit this description. 

[MtB]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

As the RCD is self certified the builder says its OK, 4 years on a BSS inspector may not agree

 

In addition, a lot of stuff in the BSS is down to the judgement and opinion of the inspector so the same boat given to different inspectors can easily come up with different lists of fails. 

[Richard T]

If you are really concerned why no t ask for a warranty on the boat of a year and enter agreement like those used on commercial buildings where 5% of the contract sum is not paid until defects discovered during the year have been rectified. It is normal in the construction industry to do a defects inspection at one year from handover

[Alan de Enfield]

10 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

As the RCD is self certified the builder says its OK, 4 years on a BSS inspector may not agree

Which is a very good point (but does not address the question) as the self-builder may well not have complied with any BSS or RCD requirements and thought "its for my own use, I don't give a toss, I'll just sign it off to say I've complied". You never know what horrors lie 'behind the walls' on a self-build.