Boat valuations and action available.

[Fr J Hackett]

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

If the original bill of sale said 2000 then it was a 2000 boat or it was a forged document, which was it. I mean the original bill of sale not the one made to cover your purchase because if you didn't see the original bill of sale then that's your problem.

 

[Tranona]

If the original bill of sale said 2000 then it was a 2000 boat or it was a forged document, which was it. I mean the original bill of sale not the one made to cover your purchase because if you didn't see the original bill of sale then that's your problem.

See post#18. No previous paperwork.

 

[steve yates]

What makes you think that a boat you paid 20k for under a year ago and spent 10k on is worth 15k?
I mean you may well be right but it could be just as likely that you paid too much from i experience rather than were defrauded. Telling us the model of boat would go a long way to getting more accurate answers, there is a vast difference if the boat was. Moody 31 or a Halberg Rassy 31 for instance ( names picked at random) On the (very) little you have revealed it sounds like you would be far better to just get sailing and enjoy your new boat.
And the fact you have to get an insurance survey because of the age difference is neither here nor there, it will cost you about £500, hardly worth litigating about.

 

[dunedin]

What makes you think that a boat you paid 20k for under a year ago and spent 10k on is worth 15k?
I mean you may well be right but it could be just as likely that you paid too much from i experience rather than were defrauded. Telling us the model of boat would go a long way to getting more accurate answers, there is a vast difference if the boat was. Moody 31 or a Halberg Rassy 31 for instance ( names picked at random) On the (very) little you have revealed it sounds like you would be far better to just get sailing and enjoy your new boat.
And the fact you have to get an insurance survey because of the age difference is neither here nor there, it will cost you about £500, hardly worth litigating about.

The OP’s use of acronyms had me confused, but suspect “CRT license” might refer to Canal and Rivers Trust, and the BSS the associated inland waterways Boat Safety Scheme.
So probably not a sailing yacht but some form of inland waterways craft?
But yes little information to work with to assist him/her.

 

[ridgy]

Since the OP was a talking about the CRT and BSS then I assume it's a steel hulled canal boat and the age related survey is to do with the steel hull needing to be inspected at 30 years. Requirements for yachts to have insurance surveys come much sooner of course.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

His boat features in his avatar. Small river cruiser.

 

[Dellquay13]

His boat features in his avatar. Small river cruiser.

Shetland 27? The outboard version would be around £15-20k?
I used to frequent the Shetland owners Association forum when I had a family4. The later 27s had a poor rep for build quality amongst owners, nothing was screwed down properly after James the jnr accounts clerk bought the company

 

[steve yates]

Shetland 27? The outboard version would be around £15-20k?
I used to frequent the Shetland owners Association forum when I had a family4. The later 27s had a poor rep for build quality amongst owners, nothing was screwed down properly after James the jnr accounts clerk bought the company

So maybe having an older boat could work in the op’s favour

 

[Purple Velvet]

I hesitate to offer more facts at the moment as I need to decide where I go with this. I am very au fait with Small Claims litigation so will need no advice with that. ;-) I have a dozen or so cases under my belt and won every one, including taking on the NatWest who tried to financially destroy me after the 2008 crash. This may not go to court, it depends on the evidence I can put together to prove deliberate misrepresentation.

I am going to talk to the broker and see what the verdict is there and will likely ask them to handle the sale.

To clarify the survey "loss", If it had been a 2000, I would not be required by the insurance company to have a "30 year hull survey". With it being 1992, not only does it require one at expense I wasn't expecting, but my insurance policy is probably void without one.

 

[Purple Velvet]

His boat features in his avatar. Small river cruiser.

A widebeam Viking 26.

 

[steve yates]

How much is the hull survey? A grand? Is it worth the hassle?

 

[Dellquay13]

A widebeam Viking 26.

for sale on Apollo Duck if anyone wants look at it

 

[Sticky Fingers]

I think PV's sore and spoiling for a fight, although IMHO this is self inflicted due to failure of due diligence. Maybe the vendor made a simple mistake in the advert? PV might be relying on the vendor caving in when faced with a case in the small claims track.

 

[Bodach na mara]

The lack of historical documentation is a concern. How do you know that the seller is the owner, and that they have a right to sell the boat?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

for sale on Apollo Duck if anyone wants look at it

So it is. The OP isn't helping his case of claiming demerit due to its age, by advertising it as a 2000 model (caveat in text noted).

 

[Sticky Fingers]

The lack of historical documentation is a concern. How do you know that the seller is the owner, and that they have a right to sell the boat?

That's a whole 'nother can o' worms.

 

[Jim@sea]

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?

Find a couple that are 8 years older, get an average valuation, work out the difference between what you paid, add £2000 for the work you have done and send him a bill wit 1 month to pay or you will start a small claims action.

 

[sigma38dave]

Buyers desire has made way for buyer’s remorse.

 

[Dellquay13]

Find a couple that are 8 years older, get an average valuation, work out the difference between what you paid, add £2000 for the work you have done and send him a bill wit 1 month to pay or you will start a small claims action.

the £10k remedial work seems to be in large part consumer electronics and cabin furnishings. Would that be classed as bringing a defective boat back up to the advertised ‘turnkey, ready to use’ standard, or betterment?

I bought my current boat in 2021 in turnkey ready to go condition. It was ready to go, but in a tired way, and I sailed it loads without big expense at first and fell in love with it. I have since spent at least the purchase price again in betterment, my boat is now much nicer, but only worth about 10% more than the original price. Not a problem for me because it is now a keeper.

(Sorry about the messy quote/reply at the top, I was replying to jim@sea)

 

[Purple Velvet]

I think PV's sore and spoiling for a fight, although IMHO this is self inflicted due to failure of due diligence. Maybe the vendor made a simple mistake in the advert? PV might be relying on the vendor caving in when faced with a case in the small claims track.

I don't want it to turn into a legal fight, it should not be necessary; just a 'bullet in reserve'. Besides that, I am waiting to go into hospital for open heart surgery and don't want the stress of having to brush up on my knowledge, my last case was a few years ago (invoices owed by a Housing Association).

All of the undeclared faults point to is being deliberately mis-described but I'll keep my powder dry for now. It may all be able to be resolved amicably, or the broker might get far more than I expect on its sale.