Boat valuations and action available.

[Purple Velvet]

I need to be relatively discreet about details for the time being, but I could do with some advice about valuations. A quick summary of the facts are that I bought a vessel last June which was advertised as "Turnkey, ready to use" and was listed as a 2000 year model. Well, the first statement was utterly wrong, there was a great deal wrong with it which has taken me until now to refurbish it, just a few odds and ends to complete. I did a deal at the time after being presented with the fail sheet which although high, I was OK with.

I recently applied for a CRT licence and they had it recorded as being eight years older and a search on the registers confirmed it. I have communicated with the previous owner, who responded with enquiries about the progress made and compliments on the work, but ignored the friendly enquiry about the discrepancy. I have since asked the question separately and more pointedly and have still had no response.
The problems it creates are that the insurance will be invalid because they would have insisted on a hull survey and that the resale value will be quite a bit lower as a result.

I am well versed and experienced in civil legal actions so need no advice there, but what I do need is a way that I can estimate my total potential losses so that I can make a definite claim against the seller which needs to be evidenced. Is there a way that I can get a written report from an expert in the field please?

 

[PaulRainbow]

I need to be relatively discreet about details for the time being, but I could do with some advice about valuations. A quick summary of the facts are that I bought a vessel last June which was advertised as "Turnkey, ready to use" and was listed as a 2000 year model. Well, the first statement was utterly wrong, there was a great deal wrong with it which has taken me until now to refurbish it, just a few odds and ends to complete. I did a deal at the time after being presented with the fail sheet which although high, I was OK with.

I recently applied for a CRT licence and they had it recorded as being eight years older and a search on the registers confirmed it. I have communicated with the previous owner, who responded with enquiries about the progress made and compliments on the work, but ignored the friendly enquiry about the discrepancy. I have since asked the question separately and more pointedly and have still had no response.
The problems it creates are that the insurance will be invalid because they would have insisted on a hull survey and that the resale value will be quite a bit lower as a result.

I am well versed and experienced in civil legal actions so need no advice there, but what I do need is a way that I can estimate my total potential losses so that I can make a definite claim against the seller which needs to be evidenced. Is there a way that I can get a written report from an expert in the field please?

A broker should be able to give you a valuation.

 

[All_at_Sea]

Get an insurance value from a qualified surveyor. It might cost upfront but overall you will be saving some money?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

What did your surveyor say at the time of purchase, on these two matters (condition and identity)?

 

[Purple Velvet]

What did your surveyor say at the time of purchase, on these two matters (condition and identity)?

I did my own survey before paying, being green to the boating business I didn't feel it was necessary to do more than the BSS.

 

[Purple Velvet]

A broker should be able to give you a valuation.

That thought came to me after writing the post. Thank you.

 

[Tranona]

Did you buy this boat from a trader/dealer or a private individual? It is an important distinction as your legal rights are different. If from a private individual (even through a broker) your claim will be under contract law and essentially it is "buyer beware" - in other words it is up to you to satisfy yourself that the information given you about the boat is correct. Your claim about age would be about misrepresentation by the seller which is very difficult to prove depending on the evidence. If you bought from a trader you are covered by consumer law which gives you greater rights.

The difference between a 1992 boat and a 2000 boat is immense and should have been obvious when you bought it. Did you not check with the HIN and the documentation? A 1992 boat would not have a CE plate whereas a 2000 boat would. You don't say what model boat it is, but it would be easy to check whether the boats would be physically sufficiently similar to mistake one for the other. Did you have a survey when you bought the boat? as these are the sort of details a surveyor would check. The loss to you would be very difficult to establish. As suggested a broker or surveyor would give you an estimate - but market values have dropped in the last year.

On the scant evidence you have given suspect you will have great difficulty in claiming against a private seller. If you had a survey that should satisfy you insurer. If not then I fear you have no valid claim. It is up to you to satisfy yourself that the boat was what was claimed when you bought it. If you bought from a trader and making a claim under consumer law you will need good evidence that the seller mislead you with documentation. However I doubt a trader would make such a claim that could so easily be shown to be wrong.

 

[ylop]

I did my own survey before paying, being green to the boating business I didn't feel it was necessary to do more than the BSS.

I think your “claim” is likely to fail. A reasonable prospective buyer would have likely made enquiries as to the provenance of the boat, and if they were not suitably experienced to do so would have engaged a surveyor. Discovering after the fact that your vessel is perhaps worth less than you paid is a reality of boat purchases. You haven’t suffered a loss from your hypothetical insurance claim so can’t claim that. So unless you can convince the court that the seller set out to deceive you I think your efforts and cost will be wasted. I imagine most brokers and surveyors will run a mile as soon as you say you want their “expert” opinion to use in legal proceedings.

 

[Dellquay13]

The difference between a 1992 boat and a 2000 boat is immense and should have been obvious when you bought it. Did you not check with the HIN and the documentation? A 1992 boat would not have a CE plate whereas a 2000 boat would. You don't say what model boat it is, but it would be easy to check whether the boats would be physically sufficiently similar to mistake one for the other. Did you have a survey when you bought the boat? as these are the sort of details a surveyor would check. The loss to you would be very difficult to establish. As suggested a broker or surveyor would give you an estimate - but market values have dropped in the last year.

Whilst I agree with everything you posted, I think the differences in the actual practicalities of owning either a 1992 boat or 2000 boat are minimal. They may have been built to different regulatory standards, but they are both relatively old boats, and I don’t think there would be much difference in their values, if in comparable condition. I too think it would be hard to prove any substantial loss from that misrepresentation.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

That's true assuming similar maintenance standards etc. The OP's issue may be more about value in that the older boat would potentially be worth less than the newer one. I definitely don't see the 1992 boat would be worth the same money as a 2000 boat of the same size, manufacturer, style and standard. The older one would definitely be worth less albeit at this stage, maybe the difference may not be very significant.

 

[Dellquay13]

That's true assuming similar maintenance standards etc. The OP's issue may be more about value in that the older boat would potentially be worth less than the newer one. I definitely don't see the 1992 boat would be worth the same money as a 2000 boat of the same size, manufacturer, style and standard. The older Boat would definitely be worth less albeit at this stage, maybe the difference may not be very significant.

26 or 34 years old? If viewing two boats of the same model in comparable condition but at those ages, I wouldn’t expect to see much difference in value, not enough to get litigious

I bought my boat through a broker described as 1980, I think it more likely nearer to 1975 but I don’t see that much harm done, even though it may have already passed the 50year milestone for insurance survey purposes.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Whilst I agree with everything you posted, I think the differences in the actual practicalities of owning either a 1992 boat or 2000 boat are minimal. They may have been built to different regulatory standards, but they are both relatively old boats, and I don’t think there would be much difference in their values, if in comparable condition. I too think it would be hard to prove any substantial loss from that misrepresentation.

If you think that then a search of several models of boats with differing ages similar to what you report will change your mind as to there being little difference in value.
You should also have noticed the age of the boat on the original bill of sale which should have been part of the documents transferred during the sale.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Based on the information we have been given, I do not believe that he has a case to get litigious with any party, although he may come back later and reveal more information to change that view. I think this is a case of an inexperienced buyer failing to undertake due diligence before buying a boat, painful though it may be. Of course, if this turns out to be a trade sale, then there may indeed be a case to answer, although I would expect that to be somewhat unlikely to say the least.

 

[Purple Velvet]

Based on the information we have been given, I do not believe that he has a case to get litigious with any party, although he may come back later and reveal more information to change that view. I think this is a case of an inexperienced buyer failing to undertake due diligence before buying a boat, painful though it may be. Of course, if this turns out to be a trade sale, then there may indeed be a case to answer, although I would expect that to be somewhat unlikely to say the least.

It was a private sale and I have a copy of the original advert. Private sellers are immune to the sales legislation to a large extent, but not where it was a deliberate fraud or grossly not as described. Yes I was naive, but I am going to take one hell of a hit on this as I have already spent getting on for £10k to bring it up to condition. My costs stand at just under £30k and I think I may be lucky to achieve half of that on sale. My guesstimate is that the "fraud value" is about £5k. That would include the cost of the mandatory hull survey for insurance purposes, so my insurance is currently invalid as a result.

 

[Purple Velvet]

You should also have noticed the age of the boat on the original bill of sale which should have been part of the documents transferred during the sale.

Yes it was clearly listed as 2000 and the seller's silence on the matter speaks volumes.

 

[Purple Velvet]

That's true assuming similar maintenance standards etc. The OP's issue may be more about value in that the older boat would potentially be worth less than the newer one. I definitely don't see the 1992 boat would be worth the same money as a 2000 boat of the same size, manufacturer, style and standard. The older Boat would definitely be worth less albeit at this stage, maybe the difference may not be very significant.

Absolutely the point.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Yes it was clearly listed as 2000 and the seller's silence on the matter speaks volumes.

Original bill of sale, not the one you got.

Did you see/get any previous BoS or other receipts ?

 

[Purple Velvet]

Original bill of sale, not the one you got.

Did you see/get any previous BoS or other receipts ?

No previous sales paperwork, just receipts for work carried out. All very smelly with the benefit of hindsight. Waiting for a call back from a broker now.

 

[ylop]

It was a private sale and I have a copy of the original advert. Private sellers are immune to the sales legislation to a large extent, but not where it was a deliberate fraud or grossly not as described. Yes I was naive, but I am going to take one hell of a hit on this as I have already spent getting on for £10k to bring it up to condition. My costs stand at just under £30k and I think I may be lucky to achieve half of that on sale. My guesstimate is that the "fraud value" is about £5k. That would include the cost of the mandatory hull survey for insurance purposes, so my insurance is currently invalid as a result.

OK so if I am understanding correctly in very rough terms:

- you paid £20K for a boat that you thought was yr 2000
- you paid £10K for renovations / repairs

your non-expert opinion is that the boat which is actually 1992 (assuming that is correct) would sell today for ~£15k.

you think you've been "defrauded" of £5k (that's a very serious accusation with a rather difficult legal test), but that includes a survey which you would need because the boat is older. My guess is that survery plus lift out costs is about £1k - perhaps more? I'm sceptical that this is really part of your "losses". So the question is whether the 1992 boat was actually worth £16k or 20k? I can't imagine any broker, surveyor or other professional being able to convince a court one way or another. Boat values are subjective, vary with time of year etc. I'm surprised that none of your renovations/repairs have added any value - although you will never get all your money back for that stuff.

Out of interest, will your insurer (or no other insurer) not accept the BSS certificate?

The only way I'd think this is going to be treated as "fraud" is if either: (a) he was the original purchaser and so could not be mistaken about its true age; OR (b) he has ground off the HIN / put a fake CE plate on it to make it appear younger or produced false paperwork.

No previous sales paperwork, just receipts for work carried out. All very smelly with the benefit of hindsight. Waiting for a call back from a broker now.

OK so if you were mad enough to take this to court, they would bring an "expert" to tell the judge about the normal process of buying a boat and the sort of dilligence available. That expert would point to things like magazine articles, the RYA website, etc all of which would tell you what checks are considered normal for the buyer to make and most of which will say "get a survey" unless you know what you are doing or can afford to take the risk. The judge may never have bought a boat, but is likely to be familiar with the sort of diligence reasonable buyers take with high value cars, houses etc and is probably unlikely to accept that you based your assessment of value on the words in the advert rather than inspection of the goods.

 

[Tranona]

It was a private sale and I have a copy of the original advert. Private sellers are immune to the sales legislation to a large extent, but not where it was a deliberate fraud or grossly not as described. Yes I was naive, but I am going to take one hell of a hit on this as I have already spent getting on for £10k to bring it up to condition. My costs stand at just under £30k and I think I may be lucky to achieve half of that on sale. My guesstimate is that the "fraud value" is about £5k. That would include the cost of the mandatory hull survey for insurance purposes, so my insurance is currently invalid as a result.

This is very confusing. The advert and what it says is largely irrelevant as is the money you have spent on it since you bought it. An advert is only an invitation, not a contract. How was the boat described in the contract? and the original paperwork? What are the identification marks on the boat? As I said earlier if it is 2000 it will definitely have a HIN and a CE mark plus documentary evidence such as a Certificate of Conformity. If 1992 then it may have little markings on it to identify its date of build. What is the make and model of boat and how do they differ? These are very basic pieces of information that you should have checked. Relying on the seller's advert alone will get you nowhere - it is your responsibility in a private sale to satisfy yourself that the boat is what you think it is.

I suspect the seller is silent because he knows you won't get anywhere if you pursue him, not because he knows he has defrauded you. You claim for your "loss" again will get nowhere. Differences in current value are irrelevant. What you have now is a very different boat from what you bought. Equally a claim for the cost of a survey is irrelevant as that is your choice and nothing to do with the seller - you did not buy a boat with a survey to satisfy your insurer, so how can you claim that cost from him?

I think you have to accept that you made a mistake buying a boat in the way that you did - no due diligence to check the boat's provenance and no professional survey from a private seller. The advert is not enough to show misrepresentation. You would need more such as falsified paperwork, altered marks on the boat specific description on the contract, correspodence confirming the age of the boat etc to show that there was a deliberate and concerted effort to mislead you into paying a higher price.