Brand New boat - unfit for purpose - advice ?

[Boatbore]

Last Spring I bought a brand new £45,000 RIB from a very reputable manufacturer. I had the boat delivered to my house in the South of France and used her all summer. The boat was great with the only slight niggle being some small cracks that I spotted in the gelcoat along the chines. I know that this is an area where voids are most likely to occur and I decided to do nothing about it. Unfortunately a few months later I noticed a flat section of the hull about 3inches by 5 inches had simply cracked and fallen off, not as a result of any impact or knock but just through everyday use, revealing a large patch of ominously dry glass matting underneath and no epoxy to be seen.... I immediately got in touch with the dealer and manufacturer who suggested I get the boat repaired locally (at their expense). I had concerns over a local repair being up to standard, that the gelcoat colour might not match, that there might be an impact on furture resale value and that the further warranty might be damaged by this action so I insisted that the boat be returned to the manufacturer. There was a bit of sucking of teeth as no-one wanted to take the transport charges, so we agreed to get a survey done to show the extent of the problem before deciding. This I paid £560 for and it revealed that there were 17 separate problems in the gelcoat, including further voids and repairs done at time of manufacture. The survey was very blunt about the boat not being "fit for purpose". In fairness the manufacturer was horrified when he received the survey and immediately offered to replace the boat, simply transferring my engine and electronics onto a brand new boat..... this seemed very reasonable but I am still faced with the problem of transporting the boat back to the UK, and then the new boat back to France, something that even with some luck finding "return" transport is likely to cost me £3000. The warranty on the boat is specific in that it states that the boat must be returned to the factory for warranty action to take place. So I am looking at a potential bill of £3,000 plus £560 for the survey as an additional expense to the dubious pleasure of owning this boat...... I have not yet taken a more aggressive stance with the manufacturer and would be interested to know if anyone has any knowledge or experience on a similar theme. I believe that because the survey found the boat "unfit for purpose" it is not just a question of warranty but that it should never have been sold in the 1st place so I think I am entitled to have my costs borne...... anyone got any views ?
To be clear, both the manufacturer and the dealer have been professional and friendly to date and it is very evident from the excellent reputation fo the firm that this boat was likely a one off...... a friday boat of some sort..... but I am keen to get it resolved without lawyers if possible. All suggestions welcome.

 

[Pinnacle]

As they have offered you a new boat at no cost, I would have thought the transport costs were less than the depreciation you will have suffered on a one year old boat. I would take whats offered.

 

[Erik C]

I think you are lucky the manufacturer made you that offer, I wouldn't push my luck.

 

[jfm]

As they have offered you a new boat at no cost, I would have thought the transport costs were less than the depreciation you will have suffered on a one year old boat. I would take whats offered.

I assume you bought it under UK law? (That's fndamental!)

I agree wholeheartedly wih Pinnacle and WbS. You have a very nice offer there from a supplier who seems to be behaving impeccably.

It's a fundamental part of UK retial contracts that you if you have moved the item from the place of sale then you are responsible for the transport, and so you should be. If you buy, say, a motorbike in London and export it to Oz it is totally unreasonable to expect the Uk supplier to ship it back and ship the new one out to you. Moving the boat to France and the costs flowing from that are things you are and should be responsible for

I too have bought new boats in UK and moved them to Frnace and wouldn't pursue transportation charges when i have warranty repairs. It's totally unreasonble to do so imho

Of course, it might be that someone agrees or ought to (if they had any sense) agree to pay out of goodwill, on grounds you might buy more boats from them, but that's a totally separate point

 

[Boatbore]

Thanks

Thanks very much for both of those replies, much appreciated. The depreciation point is a fair one, and one I had not considered, although I am not so sure I completely agree with the idea that "i am lucky the manufacturer has offered to replace etc...." I may be incorrect but I believe, that because the manufacturer has sold goods that have been found unfit for purpose, he must, under the Trades descriptions Act, either replace those goods with a suitable replacement or refund in full..... so I don't think he has a huge amount of choice - although I agree that in this day and age you don't always get such a simple solution and I am indeed fortunate that the manufacturer has offered this so quickly and easily so you may well be right..... perhaps I should just accept and stop whingeing !

 

[volvopaul]

As they have offered you a new boat at no cost, I would have thought the transport costs were less than the depreciation you will have suffered on a one year old boat. I would take whats offered.

Two ways of looking at that, firstly yes a year newer boat great idea but, in my opinon the boat should not have fallen apart in the first place, id say the manufacturer is lucky the OP didnt have his precious family and friends on board for it to fall apart and sink with maybe a net result of loss or life or injury ( the rib which centre console came adrift to poor design and build quality result death) springs to mind.

On that basis id say id be looking into the dealer /manufacturer paying the transport costs or return his money less some useage charges as the rib is fit for the skip by the sounds of it, id say it that way because when you have bought a boat you expect it to be fit for purpose, clearly this is not the case.

Before survey investigation id have sent pics of the damage as £560 sounds a lot for a rib hull survey to me.

Is the current price of the boat more or less than the transport costs? if more than maybe your on a slight winner, then theres the case when you come to sell that the motor is a year older than the rib, questions will be asked why its a missmatch in years.

Answer , to buyer well the first one fell apart! not really what a punter wants to hear!

 

[dmmbruce]

There is negotiation, and commonsense involved. Being polite and sweetly reasonable seems to have got you this far. Don't spoil it by being stroppy and forcing them into a corner.

Take it, and move on.

Mike

 

[longjohnsilver]

Have you discussed the survey and transport costs with the manufacturer? If not then why not ask them how they intend to satisfy you in that regard. Seems they have been straight so far, so ask the question.

 

[MapisM]

there were 17 separate problems in the gelcoat, including further voids and repairs done at time of manufacture. The survey was very blunt about the boat not being "fit for purpose".

In general terms, I agree with those who considered the builder offer reasonable.
The bit I'd be more worried about, based on what you're saying above, is whether it really was a "friday boat" problem, or rather the manufacturing standards are generally poor.
I'm not sure I would be happy with another boat with just 4 problems instead of 17, which might not show up immediately, if you see what I mean...

 

[SimbaDog]

I think that in your situation I would ask them if they would perhaps consider sharing the transport costs with you, you never know
On the other hand, as has already been said, with the potential depreciation over that period, you won't come out of it too badly anyway.
Worth asking for a contribution though IMHO

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

In general terms, I agree with those who considered the builder offer reasonable.
The bit I'd be more worried about, based on what you're saying above, is whether it really was a "friday boat" problem, or rather the manufacturing standards are generally poor.
I'm not sure I would be happy with another boat with just 4 problems instead of 17, which might not show up immediately, if you see what I mean...

He can get a survey on the new build. Usually resin starved areas can be found.

To VolvoPaul thats why there is waranties I guess.

This looks a case of a couple delaminted areas, no joke really.
Welcome to the era of fire retarding resins, vacuum baging etc Where good Fridays will bring more of this.
I wonder if the law of enforced vacuum baging construction for Enviromental issue will pass for 2013 in Europe how much more we will see of this. Have been seeing quite a few from reputable builders around yards, the more time passes by. And most of them are new boats less to two years old.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Agree with the others. It would have cost you a lot more than £3k in depreciation for a season or a lot more than £3k to charter a RIB for the season. Looked at another way you're p/xing your 1 yr old boat for a brand new one for £3k. Pretty damned good deal I would say.
I strongly urge you to get a thorough survey done on your new hull though. The main reason for this is that RIB builders rarely mould their own hulls and most buy in hulls from specialist grp moulders. For this reason, the builder actually has limited control over his hull quality and you could just as easily be stuck with another lemon. And this will be why the RIB builder has rolled over on replacing your boat so easily. Very likely he will invoke his warranty with his moulding company and hit them with some or all costs of replacing your boat

 

[simon barefoot]

I'd say just pay for the transport costs, but insist that the dealer pays for an independent survey of the new hull. That would seem to be a reasonable compromise. You seem to have been gentlemen (or ladies) so far, keep it that way, it wont take much for a solicitor to charge you FAR more than that!!

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I'd say just pay for the transport costs, but insist that the dealer pays for an independent survey of the new hull. That would seem to be a reasonable compromise. You seem to have been gentlemen (or ladies) so far, keep it that way, it wont take much for a solicitor to charge you FAR more than that!!

Isn't there a risk that if you do this then the surveyor is working for the supplier rather than the customer - and as a consequence his (professional) duty of care to the customer is removed?

I guess if it was me I'd be thinking that (a) the settlement offer is a good one and I'll take it but (b) rather than try and negotiate a contribution to transport/survey costs, I'd be more interested in getting the manufacturer to extend the warranty period on the replacement hull. I would however agree with the advice to get the replacement hull surveyed.

Cheers
Jimmy

 

[Nick_H]

Yep, i'm with everyone else on this. Suppliers offer is fair, but i'd want to know more about why the problem occurred, and how I can be sure the next boat will be OK. You could ask that a surveyor is present during the lay up of the hull?

 

[gjgm]

If the maufacturer agreed it was best to get a local survey, it seems reasonable that he pays for that;then why not try to get a contribution towards the other costs.
As the warranty requires the boat to go back to UK, maybe you could argue/agree that ok, that is your bill, but perhaps he could help in some way getting the fixed boat back to you.
If you have no legal grounds for him paying, it seems the best hope is by playing Mr Nice and Reasonable.
You want a nice new rib; do not make him so pi**ed off you dont get it til Sept 2012 !

 

[henryf]

Take the offer, by all means try and get a contribution towards your expenses then have a survey done yourself in the UK prior to transporting the boat out of the UK again.

Also get another year added to the warranty.

Henry

 

[fergie_mac66]

Not up on the legals really but as far as I know goods not fit for purpose in uk ,legally under trade description you are only entitle to a full refund, accepting an offer limits your remidies if the replacement goods are also faulty.

 

[admillington]

I would get hold of the replacement boat as soon as possible - currently your asset is worth very little and if anything happened to the dealer or manufacturer, you would left with it!

 

[Fantasie 19]

I think that in your situation I would ask them if they would perhaps consider sharing the transport costs with you, you never know
On the other hand, as has already been said, with the potential depreciation over that period, you won't come out of it too badly anyway.
Worth asking for a contribution though IMHO

+1 for me...