Boat surveys....why not survey them prior to selling??

[markspark7]

Something thats bothered me for a while.
Why not survey the boat prior to putting it up for sale rather than numerous potential buyers surveying the same boat??

My first boat was 30 years old and only £7000 so i never bothered with a survey , neither did the buyer who bought it. However I surveyed another boat I was going to buy (£40000) at the cost of £700 only to find the surveyor walk off the boat after half an hour telling me "dont touch it with a barge pole".

He did actually refund me most of my money against surveying another boat which was nice but the boat which he kindly referred to as "F@@@ed" as been put back up for sale even though the Marina in question even though they now know of its issues (even if they didn't in the past).
If they had to survey the boat prior to being able to sell it so potential buyers could see the condition of the boat surely that would be beneficial in the long run for honest and truthful sellers???

 

[CX54WEK]

Because potential buyers could not rely on the survey. The survey is the property of whoever commissioned it.

 

[Whitelighter]

Would you trust a survey from a seller that said his boat was perfect?

Some boats sit on the market for up to a year, some for over a year. Would you want to trust a survey that was 12 months or more old?

Your spending more than the average income on a toy, if a boat is that bad a surveyor walked on and walked off I suspect with a little effort on your part you probably could have come to the same conclusion. I have never instructed a surveyor until I have completed my own detailed inspection and I expect him to find technical things I couldn't.

 

[gjgm]

Would you trust a survey from a seller that said his boat was perfect?

Some boats sit on the market for up to a year, some for over a year. Would you want to trust a survey that was 12 months or more old?

Your spending more than the average income on a toy, if a boat is that bad a surveyor walked on and walked off I suspect with a little effort on your part you probably could have come to the same conclusion. I have never instructed a surveyor until I have completed my own detailed inspection and I expect him to find technical things I couldn't.

I am with you on that one. Of course if you don't know the pointy end from the blunt one, you cannot assess this, but IMHO, especially on simpler boats, you can do most of it yourself.
Actually, I did once have a survey that basically said it is sharp and one end and blunt at the other and white...I was delighted that they key attributes were as expected and immediately bought it.

 

[Wavey]

Actually, I did once have a survey that basically said it is sharp and one end and blunt at the other and white...I was delighted that they key attributes were as expected and immediately bought it.

Sometimes they even get the number of engines right.

When I sold my last boat I offered prospective purchasers a copy of the survey done the year before (which was done at the request of my insurers, the boat being 20 years old). I always said they should get their own survey done and not rely on mine, but gave them a copy to be completely open with them and demonstrate no major faults existed that I was aware of. Especially useful with a steel hull to prove no deterioration in hull thickness.

 

[elton]

The first boat I nearly bought was an ostensibly great looking Gibsea 76, which when lifted out at my expense for a survey, also at my expense, showed nothing but true horror. Osmosis like I've never seen since, delaminated rudder with a rotten core, leaking stern window, exhaust leakage into the cabin; the list goes on.

The owner was in total denial, insisting all was well, and kept it on the market at the same price. I pity the sucker who bought it, unless he got it for a fiver.

I have little doubt I wasn't the only one to pay for a survery, and I'd wager the same surveyor saw it more than once.

It's a pity the surveyors aren't obliged to disclose whether a boat has been surveyed previously, through some kind of registry.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Because potential buyers could not rely on the survey. The survey is the property of whoever commissioned it.

Exactly, so if the surveyor fails to pick up a defect that he should have done, the buyer has no recourse against the surveyor because the surveyor is contracted to the seller. At best, a survey carried out on behalf of the seller would be a marketing tool but of no real value to the buyer. I suspect also that if the boat is being financed by a marine mortgage, the finance company will want to see a survey carried out on behalf of the buyer too. Somebody flame me if I'm wrong on that

 

[prv]

Exactly, so if the surveyor fails to pick up a defect that he should have done, the buyer has no recourse against the surveyor because the surveyor is contracted to the seller.

Some surveyors will "reassign" the survey, for a fee. It's cheaper than getting them out to look at the boat again, but covers their additional risk in being potentially liable to an extra party. We did that when we bought Ariam, the survey was originally done for a different buyer who changed his mind.

For Kindred Spirit we paid a nominal fee, again to a surveyor previously hired by another potential purchaser, to be given a copy of the survey but with no liability attached.

Pete

 

[Momac]

Putting the cost aside.
Is it not possible a survey might reveal fault or concern - in which case you could could have an opportunity to put it right in advance of advertising the boat for sale ?

 

[henryf]

Yes, I agree that a sellers surveyor might turn a blind eye here and there or flavour their findings with positivity but.....

It is a starting point. Major faults are just that, either the hull has osmosis or it doesn't. I'm not saying that buyers wouldn't still carry out their own survey but it helps weed out the absolute crud. As it is boat sales are still in the dark ages and people wonder why there's no confidence in the market

This thread does highlight the benefit of buying a stock boat from a dealer. They as professionals have legal obligations towards the customer. If they say a boat is in tip top condition then be prepared for legal action if it isn't. Before taking a boat into stock the dealer will have commissioned their own survey so they know how it stacks up. A good dealer will show you that survey together with receipts that demonstrate any major flaws have been corrected.

Brokers on the other hand merely carry on bullsheeting punters in the hope that by firing enough bullets one will eventually hit the target and they get their 8% for wandering round with a £100 camera photographing whatever the owner happened to leave lying around. If faults are found then the holier than holier broker wrings their hands in sorrow and agrees with you that the owner who was previously a saint has indeed let their tub descend into ruin. Of course as soon as you are out of the office the next enquiry for that boat will be met with positivity.

By insisting owners have a survey prior to listing a broker would not only cut through much of the uncertainty they would also focus the sellers mind. Having committed a couple of grand you will be amazed how more realistic they are when it comes to pricing. Of course the broker will also have to re-think their laughable commission which currently merely acts as one more stumbling block to a sale. On a £300,000 boat how can you honestly justify £24,000 for wandering round with a camera - usually badly. On a £600,000 boat that fee rises to a staggering £48,000. As the owner you naturally want the buyer to pay some of that, as a buyer you quite rightly laugh and walk away.

Keep in mind that brokers have no financial involvement in their listings. Unlike dealer stock boats brokerage craft owe the broker not a penny.

So yes, I think pre-listing surveys would be an excellent idea and they would set a shrewd broker apart from the competition. It would require commitment and risk from the broker (you'll have to look up risk in the dictionary all you brokers because at the moment you have none). Initially sellers would question why they should shell out a lot of money up front when all the other brokers just list for free, but once established your listings would be much sought after, sales would follow and although the revenue from each sale would be a fraction of "the good old days" the volume of sales would ensure you were justly rewarded.

The caveat to all this - it probably only works at the higher end of the market, I'm thinking 100-150k upwards. It might be possible lower down the scale, possibly as numbers of surveys increase costs would reduce, let's not forget surveyors will probably get 2 bites of the cherry now, a vendor and a buyer survey.

All in my humble and naive opinion.

Henry

 

[Nigelpickin]

Sorry Henry, but do you not remember HIP's? What next, an energy performance certificate as a condition of listing?

Bit of a bonkers idea really, but out of interest...would the owner of the boat be able to use the boat post survey? All you would end up with is a report with a 24 hour shelf life.

Could keep some pen clicker in work for a while though

 

[henryf]

Sorry Henry, but do you not remember HIP's? What next, an energy performance certificate as a condition of listing?

Bit of a bonkers idea really, but out of interest...would the owner of the boat be able to use the boat post survey? All you would end up with is a report with a 24 hour shelf life.

Could keep some pen clicker in work for a while though

I'm not suggesting anything that a buyer wouldn't be doing anyway. The energy performance certificate is a load of ballax, everyone ignores it and of course I'm not suggesting anything like that be proposed. Let's not forget why HIPs were introduced, to try and reduce gazumping. I hardly think the used boat market is in a frenzy when boats regularly stay on the market for a number of years.

Or do you think everything is great and brokers (the source of the vast majority of craft for sale) are doing a wonderful job?

Re-read what I've suggested. What harm would it do?

If a vendor wants to continue using their boat then so be it but I would argue a boat that's seriously for sale would have been prepped and so the owner wouldn't want to ruin anything. They would have to do a lot of cleaning each time they finished using it. In my proposal the hope is boats will no longer languish for several years. The whole market will speed up.

Where did I suggest the sellers survey replaced the buyers survey?

Henry

 

[prv]

Of course the broker will also have to re-think their laughable commission which currently merely acts as one more stumbling block to a sale. On a £300,000 boat how can you honestly justify £24,000 for wandering round with a camera - usually badly.

Agree. There's no good reason for brokerage fees to be a percentage of the boat's price, his costs don't scale that way. It should be a fixed fee - perhaps even a choice of fixed fee for different levels of service (then you can include the option of the cleaning you want brokers to do on the other thread ). By all means have different price bands for JFM's last Match versus a tired old Westerly (since they will reasonably involve a different standard of service) but not just a straight percentage.

I've seen adverts suggesting that some estate agents are beginning to adopt this model.

once established your listings would be much sought after, sales would follow

I think this is where it breaks down. You're suggesting that buyers will choose the boats you list, because of your superior brokerage arrangements. But however much the buyers might like them, I expect the actual boat itself will be a bigger factor in their choice.

Pete

 

[Richard10002]

I think this is where it breaks down. You're suggesting that buyers will choose the boats you list, because of your superior brokerage arrangements. But however much the buyers might like them, I expect the actual boat itself will be a bigger factor in their choice.

Pete

In the housing market seller's buy the estate agent, but buyers buy the house. A lot of the time, the buyer isn't even aware of which agent is showing them a particular house, and it only matters once they have decided to view again, or offer.

Same will apply to boats -

 

[Nigelpickin]

I'm not suggesting anything that a buyer wouldn't be doing anyway. The energy performance certificate is a load of ballax, everyone ignores it and of course I'm not suggesting anything like that be proposed. Let's not forget why HIPs were introduced, to try and reduce gazumping. I hardly think the used boat market is in a frenzy when boats regularly stay on the market for a number of years.

Or do you think everything is great and brokers (the source of the vast majority of craft for sale) are doing a wonderful job?

Re-read what I've suggested. What harm would it do?

If a vendor wants to continue using their boat then so be it but I would argue a boat that's seriously for sale would have been prepped and so the owner wouldn't want to ruin anything. They would have to do a lot of cleaning each time they finished using it. In my proposal the hope is boats will no longer languish for several years. The whole market will speed up.

Where did I suggest the sellers survey replaced the buyers survey?

Henry

Ok, seeing as it's Friday....
HIP reports were imagined as a means to reduce Gazumpimg, but it was a pre '97 shadow idea, when the DOH realised how tiny a problem Gazumping was the idea was repackaged as a means to expedite sales, increase consumer awareness and add transparency...so I think my comparison was fair but of course, I'm just spitballing.

You are right, boats do stay on the market for a couple of years in some cases, that's a real reason why the idea does not fly, how long would any report actually be good for. What has seized up, dried out, shorted or generally given up the ghost since the report..now there's one potential 'harm'.
Of course another issue that would arise is the power a vendor will be handing to the broker, it's in the brokers interest to list a boat at either bang on or slightly below the index, they just want the sale. Give them any excuse to negotiate you down, especially with a negative report and you've actually worsened the position of the boat selling public. This would happen, I've seen it first hand.

You did not say it was a replacement for a buyers survey, I certainly didn't get that impression from your post.

But of course, I agree with you; in the main brokers do an appalling job. I find it hard to believe that no one has come in and shaken things up but it's surely just a matter of time.
I suspect when this happens it will be in the form of quality listings, proper fact finds, indemnified client accounts, professional photography, open days, pre sale valets, full PDI's and proper customer service.

In fact, fancy a challenge Henry? I've got some time coming free if you fancy having a crack?

 

[henryf]

I think this is where it breaks down. You're suggesting that buyers will choose the boats you list, because of your superior brokerage arrangements. But however much the buyers might like them, I expect the actual boat itself will be a bigger factor in their choice.

Pete

You've got a choice of several Fairline targas for sale all circa 2000-2004. Old enough that there will be significant differences in terms of what's on the market. Everyone says their boats are ready for the next season, well presented and so on but you know the score. You've been to see a load of crape and people on here have posted likewise.

All of a sudden there's a broker who offers boats of a known quantity. You could even look at the survey on line before setting off to view so far less chance of a wasted journey. Not only that but because the owner has committed money to a survey they are a motivated seller. This isn't just someone who's listed their boat at no cost to them on the basis that if it makes 125% of market value I'll let it go otherwise we'll keep using it. They even had the hull polished, teak cleaned a valet inside.

The broker, knowing how committed the seller is actually puts in some effort themselves and will work with the vendor to try and ensure they don't get in the way of a sale. Wages are due but we're completing on 3 boats this week so less money off more units.

Any major faults are known in advance so the vendor can either choose to have them corrected - invoices posted with survey, or else price accordingly. Surely that is the first boat you are going to view.

I'm not suggesting that you by a Trader instead of a Targa but of the boats that are listed hopefully they will be the cream of what's out there.

What I will say is an owner who's boat falls short of the mark will be in for a bit of a shock once the survey comes in. But I haven't got a problem with that. If your boat's no good then that's your problem not someone looking to buy. why should several buyers have their time and money taken from them repeatedly because owners and brokers bury their heads in the sand?

Let poor quality boats languish on traditional brokers listings, let the very best on the market shine through.

Henry

 

[prv]

Surely that is the first boat you are going to view.

It probably is, if only because such a super-broker is probably going to get back to me instantly and arrange a viewing to suit me. But it may not be the one I buy, if another perfectly good boat at a good price is listed with a "traditional" broker because the owner hadn't heard of super-broker.

Pete

 

[Chris_d]

Exactly, so if the surveyor fails to pick up a defect that he should have done, the buyer has no recourse against the surveyor because the surveyor is contracted to the seller. At best, a survey carried out on behalf of the seller would be a marketing tool but of no real value to the buyer. I suspect also that if the boat is being financed by a marine mortgage, the finance company will want to see a survey carried out on behalf of the buyer too. Somebody flame me if I'm wrong on that

When I bought my current boat the broker had just had the boat surveyed for his own purposes before he bought the boat as stock, I was fairly satisfied that the boat did not require a full survey and didn't really want the expense. Fortunately I had used the brokers surveyor before and that he was independant and trustworthy (used by MBM incidently for boat reports), he signed the survey over to me for a small fee so that it became mine and I could hold him liable or use it for finance etc...

 

[henryf]

You are right, boats do stay on the market for a couple of years in some cases, that's a real reason why the idea does not fly, how long would any report actually be good for. What has seized up, dried out, shorted or generally given up the ghost since the report..now there's one potential 'harm'.

Of course another issue that would arise is the power a vendor will be handing to the broker, it's in the brokers interest to list a boat at either bang on or slightly below the index, they just want the sale. Give them any excuse to negotiate you down, especially with a negative report and you've actually worsened the position of the boat selling public. This would happen, I've seen it first hand.

But of course, I agree with you; in the main brokers do an appalling job. I find it hard to believe that no one has come in and shaken things up but it's surely just a matter of time.
I suspect when this happens it will be in the form of quality listings, proper fact finds, indemnified client accounts, professional photography, open days, pre sale valets, full PDI's and proper customer service.

In fact, fancy a challenge Henry? I've got some time coming free if you fancy having a crack?

But that's just it, do the job right and they won't hang around for years. Priced properly I think boats sell in around 1-3 months. Not every time but as a guide.

According to the general feeling on here boats are listed considerably over their index and that's before any faults are found. If a boat has faults then there's no point in listing it for too much money, you're just wasting buyers time and worse - money. Saying it gives brokers ammunition to reduce prices, yes - because if you don't reduce the price of a poor quality boat it won't sell. Seen the other way good boats can truly be marketed to their full potential.

I think establishing the market confidence enjoyed by something like the car industry is going to take a lot more than good photos. Until a boat is surveyed no one knows if it's any good or not. As has been shown even brokers have boats surveyed before taking them into stock. How can a brokerage boats possibly compete with a surveyed, sale of goods act warrantied stock boat ? I think people are mad buying off a broker as things currently stand. Dealer stock every time for me. My suggestions should go somewhere to redressing the balance.

If only I knew what the true value of boats was I'd love to do boat brokerage.

 

[Nigelpickin]

But that's just it, do the job right and they won't hang around for years. Priced properly I think boats sell in around 1-3 months. Not every time but as a guide.

According to the general feeling on here boats are listed considerably over their index and that's before any faults are found. If a boat has faults then there's no point in listing it for too much money, you're just wasting buyers time and worse - money. Saying it gives brokers ammunition to reduce prices, yes - because if you don't reduce the price of a poor quality boat it won't sell. Seen the other way good boats can truly be marketed to their full potential.

I think establishing the market confidence enjoyed by something like the car industry is going to take a lot more than good photos. Until a boat is surveyed no one knows if it's any good or not. As has been shown even brokers have boats surveyed before taking them into stock. How can a brokerage boats possibly compete with a surveyed, sale of goods act warrantied stock boat ? I think people are mad buying off a broker as things currently stand. Dealer stock every time for me. My suggestions should go somewhere to redressing the balance.

If only I knew what the true value of boats was I'd love to do boat brokerage.

Bit of selective paraphrasing there Henry

When you deconstruct what I do for a living it amounts to a similar model, we market a product owned by someone else. We don't own stock, (well not much), and there are other choices for investors in terms of bringing their homes to market...Aggregate sites, peer to peer and so on. They choose to use Agency because of the value we add, so payment protection, conflict management, maintenance, accreditation, visibility and outreach. But mostly they choose to use us because we can comand a higher average booking value and volume than most other solutions; so we provide volume and drive value upwards.
By the same nature, our guests choose us because we are quality assured, visible, contactable, protected and accredited, they are happy paying agency prices, anecdotally more than 90 percent of them sort search results from high to low in terms of price.

The forum is not, IMHO, reflective of the broader market. I imagine that there are plenty of potential buyers who would be swayed by good photos that's just one aspect that's being done badly. There are so many other easy wins but for me I think that in terms of price, I would be trying to drive upward through the provision added values.

So if your plan meant that the broker insisted that the client rectified faults and that it allowed for a warrantee then it's got legs, otherwise I think it would be a bit of an own goal...

As far as pricing goes, I think you'd have as good a handle on that as anyone else? So what are we waiting for???