any help major damage to engine on just purchased boat

[Anthonyrmay]

I have just purchased a new boat Bavaria match35 for £55k through a broker and having had a survey where an overheating issue was noted instructed the owner to sort out the issue pre sale. He agreed taking it in a Volvo dealer who found a water pump failed this was replaced and the sale went through.

7days later I collect the boat and deliver from Brighton to Chichester where the engine was run for 35 -40 minutes and it failed never to start again.

Independent Volvo engineer has opened up to find cylinder and piston damage and has written the engine off, replacement bill £5k

What recourse if any do I have , previous owner sorry to hear that, broker what can I do to help? Surveyor detailed over heating , original volvo repairer , we replaced a faulty part which is still working ?....

£5 k out of pocket with a boat that can't move off the pontoon

Please can anyone help

 

[Anthonyrmay]

Bump

 

[sarabande]

"not fit for purpose"

Looks at first glance as if the Volvo dealer (fully accredited ?) who was told to sort out the issue is responsible.

Have a chat with your Trading Standard Authority before you fire off a letter to the broker (if he instructed the Vovlo dealer) and to the Volvo dealer himself.

I suspect it may come down to the detail of the instructions given to fix the overheating. What paperwork do you have. Does the invoice from the repair say "To repair overheating problem" or "To replace water pump", etc.

 

[prv]

I guess the first question is whether the fatal engine damage was due to overheating, or something unrelated.

Assuming the electrics were working, you shouldn't have been able to get to the point of damage because the alarm would have gone off.

Pete

 

[Talulah]

Frankly, I don't think you'll get anywhere with the broker/seller.
A friend of ours who was selling his boat was able to claim off the brokers insurance for a new engine when the skipper acting on behalf of the broker didn't turn on the cooling water at the start of a demo sail. He cooked the engine.

Incidentally, £5k sounds far too little. I suspect you probably have 27-30Hp engine. That's going to cost closer to £8k to replace.

I think key thing here is you bought through a broker, not off a broker. i.e. Not off a company but off a private individual. For the latter it will be "buyer beware".

 

[Andrew M]

Hmmm. tricky one that, and sorry to hear of the problem, that is a right bugger on a new purchase. we are just going through with a purchase so I sort of understand the issue. I would say that unfortunately you have been a bit too trustworthy and nice in the buying process, technically after the repair by the Volvo guy you should have repeated the test for the overheat prior to proceeding . I know what it's like and I too have taken someone's word that a repair has been carried out and an issue sorted by that repair, That does leave me in the same position as you are in if thre is still an issue though. On our last purchase there was a major engine issue so the sea trial stopped, the boat was handed back to the broker with the message that "this" has happened, if you and the vendor want to repair it then we will still be interested but the boat will need a new sea trial starting from sratch again. That was the surveyor's actions and with hindsight he was quite correct going down that route.

Hopefully someone will come along with a reply about what you can do but I can see how the vendor, broker and service guy will all try to disassociate themselves from it in the nicest sympathetic way .

 

[Jcorstorphine]

I am afraid that you are in the Caveat Emptor area here as you have bought a second hand boat through a broker rather than a second hand bought from a dealer who is selling his own stock. I feel for you as I had the same problem with a boat I bought where the water pump failed and flooded the engine with seawater. When buying through broker it is very much a situation of "Let the buyer beware"

However there may be some recourse and that is to look at the possibility of suing the previous owner in the small claims court for not ensuring that the fault was investigated completely and that the Volvo engineer had not carried out a full inspection.

Perhaps some other posts may give more help in terms of your leagal position.

Best of luck.

John

 

[Marsupial]

Hurry UP!!!!

Your best approach is formally reject the goods as being not fit for purpose, CITE the 1979 sale of goods act amended 2002

The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003. This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

There is also some verbage on the law of rejection but I cant find it, basically things changed in your favour in 2003 but you have to move fast.

The situation with the broker/owner aspect of the deal is unclear but the court will advise (it often gets resolved when the name on the cheque you provided is established) - don't be bullied by the broker stand firm. IF you delay you will not have a case even if you don't have one now (if you see what I mean).

You need to send a registered letter to the broker NOW formally rejecting the goods - and see what happens.

 

[Sandyman]

Hurry UP!!!!

Your best approach is formally reject the goods as being not fit for purpose, CITE the 1979 sale of goods act amended 2002

The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003. This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

There is also some verbage on the law of rejection but I cant find it, basically things changed in your favour in 2003 but you have to move fast.

The situation with the broker/owner aspect of the deal is unclear but the court will advise (it often gets resolved when the name on the cheque you provided is established) - don't be bullied by the broker stand firm. IF you delay you will not have a case even if you don't have one now (if you see what I mean).

You need to send a registered letter to the broker NOW formally rejecting the goods - and see what happens.

Does this apply to second-hand goods ?

 

[Tranona]

Hurry UP!!!!

Your best approach is formally reject the goods as being not fit for purpose, CITE the 1979 sale of goods act amended 2002

The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003. This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

There is also some verbage on the law of rejection but I cant find it, basically things changed in your favour in 2003 but you have to move fast.

The situation with the broker/owner aspect of the deal is unclear but the court will advise (it often gets resolved when the name on the cheque you provided is established) - don't be bullied by the broker stand firm. IF you delay you will not have a case even if you don't have one now (if you see what I mean).

You need to send a registered letter to the broker NOW formally rejecting the goods - and see what happens.

None of this applies in a private sale. It is up to the buyer to determine if the goods meet his requirements as once title has passed it is his problem.

The only way of any redress is if the vendor or the broker can be shown to have misled the buyer. In this case it is unlikely as the vendor engaged a qualified person to resolve the problem. If there is any negligence it is in the dealer, but his customer was the vendor, not the current owner.

OP needs to take legal advice from a lawyer specialising in marine cases - not your average high street solicitor. A call to the RYA if he is a member would be a good starting point.

BTW for the OP, the delay in responses is because you are a new member and your posts take a while to show. Stick with it, though.

 

[Marsupial]

Yes as far as I can see, as usual most of this consumer law gets tied up in the motor trade and it certainly applies to second hand cars. I have found this, yet another amendment to the 1979 sale of goods act, the 2008 amendment seeks to include private sellers in fitness for purpose disputes. Its a bit convoluted but the last sentence says it all.

"
A buyer from a private seller does not have any 'consumer rights', but still has the benefit of an implied contractual term that the seller has the right to sell the goods (s.12 SGA)

He also has the benefit of the implied contractual term that the goods, if sold by description, correspond with any description applied (s.13 SGA). There is no need for a buyer to have relied upon the description or for any fault on the part of the seller: if it counts as a description then it is a term of the contract and non-conformity is actionable as a breach of contract, since contractual liability is strict.

Even if it does not count as a description for the purposes of s.13, it may anyway be a term of the contract, if the buyer made sufficient point of it, and even if not a term of the contract an action lies for misrepresentation where a statement of fact is made prior to contract which has some influence, however small, on the
other party's decision to enter into the contract, and subsequently proves to be false, thereby causing loss to that party. All of this is equally applicable whether a seller is a trader or not.

The implied term in s.12 (seller has right to sell) cannot be excluded by any contractual term: s.6(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA). That in s.13 (description) cannot be excluded if the buyer is a consumer: s.6(2) UCTA. In either case the status of the seller is irrelevant.
"

 

[Tranona]

Yes as far as I can see, as usual most of this consumer law gets tied up in the motor trade and it certainly applies to second hand cars. I have found this, yet another amendment to the 1979 sale of goods act, the 2008 amendment seeks to include private sellers in fitness for purpose disputes. Its a bit convoluted but the last sentence says it all.

"
A buyer from a private seller does not have any 'consumer rights', but still has the benefit of an implied contractual term that the seller has the right to sell the goods (s.12 SGA)

He also has the benefit of the implied contractual term that the goods, if sold by description, correspond with any description applied (s.13 SGA). There is no need for a buyer to have relied upon the description or for any fault on the part of the seller: if it counts as a description then it is a term of the contract and non-conformity is actionable as a breach of contract, since contractual liability is strict.

Even if it does not count as a description for the purposes of s.13, it may anyway be a term of the contract, if the buyer made sufficient point of it, and even if not a term of the contract an action lies for misrepresentation where a statement of fact is made prior to contract which has some influence, however small, on the
other party's decision to enter into the contract, and subsequently proves to be false, thereby causing loss to that party. All of this is equally applicable whether a seller is a trader or not.

The implied term in s.12 (seller has right to sell) cannot be excluded by any contractual term: s.6(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA). That in s.13 (description) cannot be excluded if the buyer is a consumer: s.6(2) UCTA. In either case the status of the seller is irrelevant.
"

Long winded way of saying what I said. The buyer will have to show that he has been misled, but he has engaged a surveyor who has found a fault and the vendor has engaged a qualified person to remedy the fault. Not a lot of wriggle room there. Would be different if the vendor had done nothing about the fault and had stated it had been fixed - or some other scenario that meant the boat was not as described.

 

[prv]

The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003. This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

I haven't re-read the Act for this purpose, but I'm fairly sure this only applies if you're buying from a business. The OP bought from another private individual (albeit one who employed an agent to handle the sale) so his rights are much more limited.

Pete

 

[Marsupial]

not your average high street solicitor. A call to the RYA if he is a member would be a good starting point.

You wont take it from me I know but I KNOW this is not the case, I have plenty of experience in this area of consumer law and just because its a boat makes no difference at all.

Most of the time these things get settled amicably but its worth noting that amicable settlements come about when the buyer rejects the goods formally - thus forcing an out of court amicable settlement. The grief happens when the buyer is strung along into not acting and eventually losses his ability to act because time passes.

At the end of the day it comes down to whether or not is reasonable to assume on a balance of probabilities that a boat that has been surveyed and "fixed" should be fit for duty and not fail within 6 months. If it did fail then the law says the fault was there when it was purchased and the loss lives with the vendor, he may want to seek redress from the repairer but that's his business.

 

[Anthonyrmay]

Big thanks to all who have replied it really has been a dreadful time, all savings into the new wonderful family boat / holiday home / race machine for friends and this happens, I have had no joy from anyone in the loop all still being very nice but that will not pay the bill.

One point was that the previous owner admitted that he did his own servicing to the surveyor ( i also dont believe that he knew there was a problem and I dont believe that he was underhand at all ) and someone (who i dont know) had removed the thermostat that the engine was designed to have , so someone knew there was a problem previous. Also the alarm did not go off, they were only 3 of us on board but none of us heard anything and we were all in the cockpit, the engine just stopped.

My only hope is that the insurance company Towergate mardon have pointed me towards their marine legal department who are assessing whether they can do anything, just hope that even a letter or two from them to the previous owner would make him offer some money towards this, because if he would of kept this boat another few days this would of happened to him .


ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

again big thanks to all

Anthony

 

[Jcorstorphine]

As others have said, even the threat to sue could bring some results. All well and good with the seller being nice and all that but you have a boat you canot use and it's time to stop being nice. Formal letter of intent to sue or even start procedings in small claims court as you can claim up to £10K.

Worth a try.

I assume you are in England as the limit for claims in Scotland is only £3K

 

[StuE]

To be fair it is a second hand boat, therefore expecting the seller to pay for a brand new engine is a little unreasonable. I would think a contribution (%50) of the cost of having the engine rebuilt would be much more reasonable. In any case I would be pricing a rebuild.

 

[Sandyman]

Did the engineer who condemned the donk give any indication, or do you know, what caused the damage to the cylinder (s) and pistons (s) ?

If it was due to overheating then the initial damage was more than likely caused before fitting of the new pump !!!!

I would also question whether the donk is beyond repair.

Also, if the surveyor picked up on the overheating then surely the vendor would have been aware of this ??

Not trying to throw a spanner in the works, just trying to get a better understanding of exactly what happened & the events which lead up to the donks demise.

 

[Anthonyrmay]

Did the engineer who condemned the donk give any indication, or do you know, what caused the damage to the cylinder (s) and pistons (s) ?

If it was due to overheating then the initial damage was more than likely caused before fitting of the new pump !!!!

I would also question whether the donk is beyond repair.

Also, if the surveyor picked up on the overheating then surely the vendor would have been aware of this ??

Not trying to throw a spanner in the works, just trying to get a better understanding of exactly what happened & the events which lead up to the donks demise.

Hi the engine showed me as he opened the engine up ( excuse me lack of technical knowledge ) that cylinder number 2 was "wet" where he believes fuel had been pumped in , causing piston damage, and cracking / deeply scoring the cylinder. as he was dismantling the engine that is when he discovered the themostat had been removed , to me the dumb layman that has to point to the fact that there "had" been an issue for a long time. I believe replacing the water pump did not solve the issue. His view point ( fully trained Volvo engineer from authorised volvo dealers) was that the engine has being overheating for a while.

with regard to the it being written off, with the work that has to happen , costs time etc verses the cost of the new engine with 2 years warranty there is little difference.

The vendor was aware of the overheating and in front of the surveyor said when it does this I wash the sea water filler out, the surveyor nicely pointed out "thats great but that will not solve the problem and you need to get it fixed"

I am kicking myself that when I get sight of a bill showing £1k has been spent on repairing this and replacing another hose by a volvo dealer and that it had been run for 30 minutes and all ok that I didnt push harder and check myself or get a full engine survey. But who would on a 20Hp 2006 engine that has been lightly used ?

 

[Talulah]

When you ran the engine was there a good flow of seawater coming out?
If not I would be removing the rest of the cooling pipework. Looking for blockages. i.e. Impellor parts. As you say, having the thermostat removed shows there was some history.
You may well find pieces of broken impellor still there but check the current impellor still has all the blades in tact.