Fairline 43 Owners

[kashurst]

I can understand the owner being extremely unhappy with the dealer and fairline.
However whilst they are squabbling/avoiding responsibility more water damage is being created. So choices are:
Reject the boat and take the legal risks- no
Keep on at the dealer to try and get them to sort it - yes and keep doing that anyway, but if they haven't done it by now they clearly don't want to. Who are they?
Start paying lawyers to write letters to and fro - waste of time and money.
Fix it yourself or pay someone else to do it.

If it was me I would be getting someone else to find and repair the leak. Winter is coming and if the boat is in the UK things will get worse rapidly if that water freezes. Then I would be presenting the bill with pictures to the dealer and Fairline.
For the legal eagles: could you get the cost of repair money back through the small claims court ? (if it's in the UK). Shouldn't cost much or take too much time to identify the source of a leak that is soaking the carpets etc.

 

[MapisM]

I think jfm makes a very good point about losing title to the boat if it is rejected and neither was I aware of that either and, of course, it does seem logical.

Easier/simpler to apply, maybe. But logical? Naah.
Logical (in the sense of "fair") would be that upon rejection the seller takes possession of the thing, with the property reversal pending subject to repayment.
I understand that this could open another can of worms (and it's pointless to get into that), but reversing the property just against an unsecured credit isn't logical by any stretch of imagination, imho.
I mean, that's the equivalent of a dealer transfering the property to the buyer before being paid in full, which is unheard of - and rightly so.
Btw, the fact that two Brits pretty far from being uneducated (i.e. yourself and jrudge) were surprised to hear how rejection works speaks volumes about how weird that bit of law is...

Besides, this debate is now making me curious also about how the acceptance of a rejection works.
I mean, property transfer aside, surely there must be a sequence of actions required to finalize the rejection, as Assassin hinted in his post #18 (but I didn't really grasp, TBH).

 

[petem]

I can understand the owner being extremely unhappy with the dealer and fairline.
However whilst they are squabbling/avoiding responsibility more water damage is being created. So choices are:
Reject the boat and take the legal risks- no
Keep on at the dealer to try and get them to sort it - yes and keep doing that anyway, but if they haven't done it by now they clearly don't want to. Who are they?
Start paying lawyers to write letters to and fro - waste of time and money.
Fix it yourself or pay someone else to do it.

If it was me I would be getting someone else to find and repair the leak. Winter is coming and if the boat is in the UK things will get worse rapidly if that water freezes. Then I would be presenting the bill with pictures to the dealer and Fairline.
For the legal eagles: could you get the cost of repair money back through the small claims court ? (if it's in the UK). Shouldn't cost much or take too much time to identify the source of a leak that is soaking the carpets etc.

A previous owner of my boat spent over £2k just trying to trace a leak (turned out to be drain pipe from the chart recess in front of the helm, or something like that). But I certainly agree that eliminating the obvious suspects would be cheap and likely to fix the issue.

 

[kashurst]

this story has shades of the "out of the water for 14 months" because of a split exhaust pipe rubber. That ended up with rebuilt engines!
The sooner the leak gets stopped- even if only temporarily the better. As Deleted User pointed out, it's probably one of the windows or a deck fitting or a deck drain. If it can be positively identified with a hose pipe etc, blather it externally with some sealant to stop the water doing anymore damage. Then the owner can work on the dealer/fairline to sort it properly.

 

[MapisM]

Kashurst, I fully agree with you on the urgency of doing something, but I wouldn't bother taking action myself on a boat still under warranty.
There is another alternative on top of those you listed in your post #21, and it's sheltering the thing.
That's what I think I would do, considering the silly rejection regulation.
Of course, I'd notify the dealer/builder that the boat has been sheltered due to its defects, hence at their cost, awaiting a perfect fix from their part.

 

[petem]

Kashurst, I fully agree with you on the urgency of doing something, but I wouldn't bother taking action myself on a boat still under warranty.
There is another alternative on top of those you listed in your post #21, and it's sheltering the thing.
That's what I think I would do, considering the silly rejection regulation.
Of course, I'd notify the dealer/builder that the boat has been sheltered due to its defects, hence at their cost, awaiting a perfect fix from their part.

P, covered boat storage is extremely rare (and expensive) in the UK. Of course, we still don't have any idea where the boat is based.

A variation of your idea would be to have it covered with a tarpaulin or shipping wrap (both of each might make diagnosis a bit harder).

 

[Portofino]

I would be very grateful to hear from any 2019 Fairline 43 Open owners, either in the UK or abroad. We have experienced many issues which we are having extreme difficulty in getting resolved - are we alone in this? Many thanks

Clue is “ extreme “

? Does that mean the base of the diagnostic tree has already been climbed by the dealer ?
You know drains checked , plumbing fittings etc as well as leak test and window seals ....let me used the word refreshed !

So if it’s a banana boat and flexes out any new resealing done by the conscientious dealer then what .
Op reports other issues , they probably are all related to the base problem .
1- poor design
2- 1 with poor execution .....ie newby staff or experience taken away to Hythe for example.

I recall Desty a fibreglass repaired having to modify after build the first few of a Sealine after the hull started to delaminate somewhere ....they added / glassed up more strength.
I think iirc the manufacturer came clean and hands up ....sorted it all contacting owners .

I know FL have moved away from there grid and glue twin ,system where they added an inner skin and made a arguably by JFM , PeteM a boat with more rigidity .I never disputed that .We wrangled on the terminology, I called the second inner skin a liner .

How ever I think they are on something else now ....... so the guys in the factory ( when not traveling ) are on a learning curve , or where .

So reading between the FEW lines from the OP I think we are past polite ness and the dealer has exhausted all he can do with a glue gun .imho .

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Easier/simpler to apply, maybe. But logical? Naah.
Logical (in the sense of "fair") would be that upon rejection the seller takes possession of the thing, with the property reversal pending subject to repayment.
I understand that this could open another can of worms (and it's pointless to get into that), but reversing the property just against an unsecured credit isn't logical by any stretch of imagination, imho.
I mean, that's the equivalent of a dealer transfering the property to the buyer before being paid in full, which is unheard of - and rightly so.
Btw, the fact that two Brits pretty far from being uneducated (i.e. yourself and jrudge) were surprised to hear how rejection works speaks volumes about how weird that bit of law is...

Besides, this debate is now making me curious also about how the acceptance of a rejection works.
I mean, property transfer aside, surely there must be a sequence of actions required to finalize the rejection, as Assassin hinted in his post #18 (but I didn't really grasp, TBH).

Arguing on points of law is way beyond my pay grade and I would prefer to leave that to jfm and others but the reason I used the word logical is that by rejecting the boat, I assume you are effectively voiding the sales contract with the dealer and therefore by definition title to the goods returns to the dealer and the money should return to the buyer which then makes the buyer a creditor of the dealer. Maybe I'm completely wrong on that and I'm happy to be flamed or maybe there are elements of UK consumer law which change that position, I dont know. But this is an interesting subject and as we are all buyers of goods we should all try to understand our legal position when it comes to rejection

 

[petem]

Presumably, if rejecting a vessel you wouldn't complete a BoS until you had your money back?

Pete

 

[Portofino]

A builder is not gonna in a first reply to a punter after all dealer fixes have failed ....go straight to “ cheques in the post , just drop it off back at the dealer at your convenience when the moneys cleared “ .
CC to dealer .
That’s not gonna happen .
They will push back and it’s entirely reasonable for them to be given the opportunity by the customer to attempt to resolve the issues with fixes at there expense.
Theses days all the stages can be documented, pics email trail etc .....results of investigations, fixes and further trials etc .
How ever there will become a stage ( not sure when ?) after a long period of factory activity that the problem just wont go away ...unresolvable .It at this stage that the customer may have to fund independent surveys and engineers reports to start them mounting a case of rejection and money back .
Hopefully the factory ( possibly with there own investigations and knowledge of others with similar issues ) would come clean and do the honourable thing .
Bit like Sealine instructing Destys to fix .

They could just say ......we have started a new vac infusion technique and the there’s been some latent quality control issues around the structural integrity of the hull of [ insert modal + year ]
Your boat unfortunately falls into this group .......blah ,blah ,blah .

Put yourself in the dealers shoes for a moment ....night mare for him I guess .

So really despite technically JFM s correct with the legal position the MD should do the right thing less expenses like delivery charge etc if it is indeed substandard .The Substandard view is arrived after dealer and factory interventions have been fruitless and independent reports say so .

 

[jrudge]

We still have heard nothing more from the OP so this is getting a bit out of hand!

Where I do agree is the manufacturer is not going to say the cheque is in the post. Bear in mind that Oyster was bought down by a dispute .... and of course Tideman went to Fairline!

However before we consign Fairline to the dustbin of the forum I do think we need to hear back from the OP as to the extent of the issues and the steps taken to rectify.

I would suspect FL know of this post by now ( no prizes as to how) and more likely than not wish to rectify the issue (s).

Mike re your earlier reply I agree to a point re the dealers but there are things only the factory know. We had groaning door issues and the only people who could really resolve were the factory as they knew how it came to bits without destroying it! The factory is also the place where common issues (should) come together.

 

[petem]

I would suspect FL know of this post by now ( no prizes as to how) and more likely than not wish to rectify the issue (s).

Well I haven't told them if that's what your insinuating!

Why would I with the scant information supplied by the OP? At a minimum we need to know where the OP is based and what's been done so far to resolve the issue.

 

[jrudge]

They will figure it out.

They won’t have sold enough to make it a mystery I suspect !

I agree we know little !

 

[volvopaul]

Blimey Paul, we have absolutely no idea what is causing this. As others have said, could be something as minor as a blocked drain or a some crappy / damaged windscreen sealant in which case rejecting the thing would be totally OTT.

The OP needs to tell us where he is based and what has been done to date to solve the issue.

Regarding other owners, if others have experienced this issue and found a fix then it could save a lot of time and trouble as leaks can sometimes be hard to trace without dismantling half the boat.

I may have replied in a little haste , however it seems this year I’ve heard what I’d describe more boat owners having a moan about build quality , they seem to compare the older boats they have owned to the new ones .
Some stating that they can’t remember having the on going faults , the on going battles to have faults fixed in a reasonable time scale without endless emails and constant fobbing off. .
I won’t mention makes as it’s not fair .

I refer to the Princess v39 14 months to get it fixed post , sadly this isn’t a one off problem as I was only in discussions with someone who mentioned another that suffered exactly the same issue , who was without his boat fir a considerable period of time .

I remember the old days when builder, dealer and engine supplier all got there heads together to sort an issue , today this seems a thing of the past.

Sorry if I’ve offended anyone , Fairline in the past have been rock solid boats , I’ve owned 3.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

We still have heard nothing more from the OP so this is getting a bit out of hand!

I think we've scared him off!

Mike re your earlier reply I agree to a point re the dealers but there are things only the factory know. We had groaning door issues and the only people who could really resolve were the factory as they knew how it came to bits without destroying it! The factory is also the place where common issues (should) come together.

Agree 100% but my point was that it shouldnt get to the point that a customer becomes so exasperated with the lack of action by the dealer that he feels compelled to contact the factory. It is the dealer who should be calling for help from the factory, not the customer. If my customers started to call our manufacturers direct because they were so pissed off with the service we gave them, I wouldnt be in business much longer

 

[hullabaloo]

I think we've scared him off!

No I don't think so,
Who is op ?
where is the boat?
what has happened so far?
no photo's?
where is the op now ?
if you had a brand new boat to the value of 600k plus that is in a poor way, you would be banging the door down at fairline not asking for a little help on here as if it was a 10 year old boat.
sorry I smell a rat.

 

[Illetas]

Four pages of discussion following a single message from a disgruntled owner and no further response from the original poster? Trick or treat?

 

[rubberduck]

No I don't think so,
Who is op ?
where is the boat?
what has happened so far?
no photo's?
where is the op now ?
if you had a brand new boat to the value of 600k plus that is in a poor way, you would be banging the door down at fairline not asking for a little help on here as if it was a 10 year old boat.
sorry I smell a rat.

Think you may be right, having asked for help with £600k on the line you would at least follow up some of what has been said here.

 

[jfm]

I would disagree Jfm as sale of goods act means going back to the manufacturer/seller and giving them the opportunity of identifying the problem and the opportunity of rectifying the problem and under this rejection doesn't arise.

At least keep up with the conversation. Two posters advised OP to reject and I commented "be careful", for the reasons I gave. You're now talking about a scenario where the OP does not reject, but just negotiates on the problem. That's fine, but that scenario by definition doesn't involve a rejection, so the consequences of rejection that I described obviously don't occur. There is nothing to disagree with me about.

The UK's Sale of Goods Act was repealed 2015 so far as B2C transactions are concerned. The relevant UK law for B2C is Consumer Rights Act 2015. Keep up.

 

[MapisM]

J, my understanding of Assassin post was that he just wanted to point out that rejection can't materialize just upon buyer's decision, but requires some steps instead.
Therefore, he couldn't fall in the trap that you highlighted even if wanted to, after reading a wrong suggestion from myself, VP or anyone else on a forum.
Which stands to reason - hence my last para in post #22.