fishy
New member
Over the last couple of weeks I've had some helpful advice from this site on a developing situation. The position is now very clear so i wonder if i could ask for more?
In Dec 2001 I bought a ten year old boat. I paid to have it taken out of the water and professionally surveyed. The surveyor stated in the report"...the underwater area of the hull was in sound condition , with no evidence of structural damage or any blisters showing through from beneath the layers of paint." When he surveyed it the boat was only one day out of the water and he quoted the meter readings as between 6 and 14 on the Sovereign meter.
When we took the boat out of the water this new year(13 monthes after the survey)there was clear evidence of blistering. Being appalled by this I asked the surveyor to come back(at his own expense) and look at the hull. This he did.He reported back " On inspecting the hull small blisters were visible over a large proportion of the underwater area". He said this was due to wicking. He also reported that the readings had gone up to between 12 and 17.( and that was after three weeks out of the water)
The surveyor claims that he acted entirely in good faith and presented an accurate picture of the hull at the time he did the original survey. His only suggestion by way of explanation is that it has spent the last year in an area of mixed salt and fresh water. In fact that is where it had been kept for several years immediately prior to my buying it.
My questions are a)do i just have to accept the surveyors denial of any responsibility for this situation.b)would it actually help to move the boat to a more salt water mooring c)If i go for professional remedial action e.g. paying about £4k on stripping off the gelcoat and replacing it would the boat be likely to be "as good as new". Any comments on any of this would be gratefully received. Many thanks.
In Dec 2001 I bought a ten year old boat. I paid to have it taken out of the water and professionally surveyed. The surveyor stated in the report"...the underwater area of the hull was in sound condition , with no evidence of structural damage or any blisters showing through from beneath the layers of paint." When he surveyed it the boat was only one day out of the water and he quoted the meter readings as between 6 and 14 on the Sovereign meter.
When we took the boat out of the water this new year(13 monthes after the survey)there was clear evidence of blistering. Being appalled by this I asked the surveyor to come back(at his own expense) and look at the hull. This he did.He reported back " On inspecting the hull small blisters were visible over a large proportion of the underwater area". He said this was due to wicking. He also reported that the readings had gone up to between 12 and 17.( and that was after three weeks out of the water)
The surveyor claims that he acted entirely in good faith and presented an accurate picture of the hull at the time he did the original survey. His only suggestion by way of explanation is that it has spent the last year in an area of mixed salt and fresh water. In fact that is where it had been kept for several years immediately prior to my buying it.
My questions are a)do i just have to accept the surveyors denial of any responsibility for this situation.b)would it actually help to move the boat to a more salt water mooring c)If i go for professional remedial action e.g. paying about £4k on stripping off the gelcoat and replacing it would the boat be likely to be "as good as new". Any comments on any of this would be gratefully received. Many thanks.