Seller/ broker disclosure

[volvopaul]

Just thought I’d give my feelings on this subject , I am interested in your views on this factual event .

This week I was tasked with an engine and drive inspection working alongside a surveyor I regularly work with.

The subject was a sports cruiser from 2006 build with Volvopenta machinery .

The usual engine , trim operation, engine bay , fuel lines etc was carried out prior to river trial and lift out .
While I was carrying out my work the surveyor was looking over the boat making his checks , from both sides all seemed fairly good , the boat had a few minor faults while the engines of this popular model had all the usual faults many of which I can already list prior to a visit, not wishing to be blazee on this sadly they all seem to suffer the same issues and require the upgrades that some owners tend to not bother with.

The river trial was carried out , the yard men were eagerly awaiting our return to lift the boat into the slings , power wash the hull and enjoy their lunch while I inspect the drives , take the oil samples and the surveyor gets going with the hull inspection .

As soon as the boat was lifted a couple of feet from the water my heart sank for the purchaser who was with us , the reason being judging by how clean the patches of shiny white gel where told me this boat has had a recent survey , the last surveyor not re painting the patches he had scraped.

That is one of my pet hates leaving a boat not as you found it , anyway I started to inspect the drives to find a few problems that after reading the very recent service invoices there should not be faults present .

The surveyor got to work to find his moisture meter bouncing off the scale , thinking his meter could be faulty he used his spare to find exactly the same readings all over the hull.

A few small blisters were burst to reveal what we all know as osmosis , so after a short discussion the buyer informed the broker he was rejecting the boat .

Now my view on this is the fact , the boat has had a recent survey , the boat had both mechanical faults of which some were rectified , obviously some were either missed or ignored by the owner , however the big issue is that the owner knew fully that his boat has a defective hull.
As the previous deal fell through and the owners agent the broker knows that the boat is faulty , my question is what is everyone’s view on this ?

Should the owner or and his agent disclose the defects prior to a new survey , or is it the old case of buyer beware .

I am high lighting this subject because it seems to be happening a lot more these days , yes I know not every boat is perfect but my thoughts are based on the fact that this purchaser has wasted best part of £1000 on surveys and lift out plus his own time on a boat that carried a major fault with its hull plus service history that in theory should produce a clean bill of health which sadly in this case the engines and drives both required dismantling to renew seals , removal of heat exchangers and intercoolers.

So what’s your view folks? Who is in the wrong on this one , Thought this might make a nice topic for a Saturday evening .

 

[Seastoke]

Well if faults are found and the seller won’t put faults right , then they should pay for survey, also brokers need more policing.

 

[sarabande]

One way round the problem would be to include a question from the interested party to the broker:-

"Are you, to the best of your knowledge, aware of any recent (x months) survey, or that the boat has been rejected as a result of any inspection ?"

 

[chrisharris]

I had almost exactly the same experience buying a boat many years ago, the boat I was buying had been surveyed recently enough to have left patches of gelcoat exposed, and sure enough the moisture readings were rather disappointing. I felt significantly let down (and mislead) by the broker as they would have known that a previous survey had not gone well. I did press the point (as I had obviously spent a fair bit on the survey) and was told that the boat had never been surveyed before, the patches were made by another interested buyer and the brokers knew nothing about it. Possibly could have been the case, but I was not convinced, and would not deal with that broker again. In contrast, the broker I bought my current boat from was professional and honest, he genuinely worked hard to get the right deal for both parties, or at least as a buyer that's what it felt like.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Paul, might this possibly be a boat I’d had surveyed recently? Sounds a bit familiar ...?

If not, no matter. Nonetheless, I totally agree with your point; my own experience with that vessel cost about £1300 in survey, lift, pressure wash and travel costs. The boat had multiple material faults, was not as described, and I'm 100% certain that its owner knew of some or all of these issues. And the broker in question had sold it previously, and also knew of at least some of the defects identified. That same broker had also paid for remedial works in the past when it was a broker-owned vessel, which were not disclosed.

In advance of making an offer, I asked ... "are you aware of any faults or defects that I should be aware of when considering an offer?..." and got "Nothing I am aware of and I would be surprised if there was anything much knowing XXX". XX being the name of the owner.

So. I felt deceived. I can afford the 1300 quid. But I would value honesty above all.

 

[Rocksteadee]

If buying privately, ie without a broker, it is a case of buyer beware but if buying through a broker there is some path for compensatio. Only a degree as the boat is not owned by the broker.
last boat I bought the broker stated that they have a legal obligation to disclose any faults or problems which they know about. As such if it was the same broker as for the previous survey he would have known about the boat being defective enough to have been rejected.

 

[Chris H]

A broker just wants his commission, I viewed a boat, made an offer that was too low for the owner, so be it, the boat was under offer then came back up for sale at less money........after a little digging the boat had a survey and mechanically hadn’t been looked after and had major engine/pod problems but was still on the brokers web page.

 

[Mr Googler]

I can see a train of thought “maybe the next buyer won’t be worried about that” but in any circumstance, why not be upfront about it as a seller or broker.

as a seller I would ask for a copy of any survey (as I have done previously)....even if I had to pay something towards it which also helps offset your now out of pocket buyer.

osmosis is a classic case and point. Some people would get very upset about that but personally......I wouldn’t get upset.....at the right price point and maybe that’s the rub. If your upfront....your price point is going to get hit. Better than a deal falling through though. ive always found selling boats much more stressful than buying but maybe that’s because I like to think I’m honest!

there should definitely be some recourse but it’s proving the broker knew....maybe with the power of the forum that could be achieved if you can find the previous potential buyer?

 

[BruceK]

You'll never make a salesman honest. The only way round this is as a professional body the respective surveyors belonging to it should publish their surveys to a central public accessible location and charge membership at a subscription or individual surveys at a reasonable premium. Job done

edit. It would be real handy on older boats where there is then an audit trail of refitting etc. As mine's refitting continues from a project boat it's value has increased but trying to get insurance to understand that can be difficult.

 

[A_8]

Just pointing out that the broker may not have been aware, the owner could very well have switched broker following the previous survey.

I wonder how these type of issues are regulated between the owner and broker, there should be a clause stating any known issues and if not truthful should let the broker recover costs. Its a gray zone but at least it would make it more difficult to try and sell a boat like this through reputable brokers.

 

[oldgit]

onus on broker and /or seller to reveal results of any previous survey carried out on this sale ?

 

[Montemar]

You have ten replies giving good suggestions but ultimately it becomes "let the buyer beware" .

 

[oldgit]

Even a bit of boat pox is not going to put some buyers off, if the price is right ?

 

[Momac]

What does the owner and the broker intend to do now?
Is the boat still advertised for sale ? Is so another victim may be along shortly - who may decide to buy without a survey.

Perhaps the lesson is ........ always ask whether any survey reports are available before arranging your own survey.

 

[Seastoke]

I can see a train of thought “maybe the next buyer won’t be worried about that” but in any circumstance, why not be upfront about it as a seller or broker.

as a seller I would ask for a copy of any survey (as I have done previously)....even if I had to pay something towards it which also helps offset your now out of pocket buyer.

osmosis is a classic case and point. Some people would get very upset about that but personally......I wouldn’t get upset.....at the right price point and maybe that’s the rub. If your upfront....your price point is going to get hit. Better than a deal falling through though. ive always found selling boats much more stressful than buying but maybe that’s because I like to think I’m honest!

there should definitely be some recourse but it’s proving the broker knew....maybe with the power of the forum that could be achieved if you can find the previous potential buyer?

Honest , and 34 knots ha ha

 

[Seastoke]

Buying a house is very much the same, where most just have a survey e a walk around more like a valuation . When they should be having a structural survey.

 

[jrudge]

I always ask if there was a prior survey.
I did this on a light aircraft I was buying once. They said no. I called the engineering companies on the field to get a survey price. Oh we have done that one before. Can I have a copy. Sure. Was not that bad as I recall.

called vendor. Said they had lied and given it was a plane and I was risking my neck in it I would not proceed.

estate agents are covered by property mid description. I assume brokers are not?

 

[Greg2]

I always ask a series of detailed questions when we have a serious interest in a boat, including if there have been previous offers and any surveys done - usually via e-mail because my understanding is that any false representation by the Broker carries liability. I have occasionally got the sense that the detail in my questions has not always been welcomed ?

 

[volvopaul]

Paul, might this possibly be a boat I’d had surveyed recently? Sounds a bit familiar ...?

If not, no matter. Nonetheless, I totally agree with your point; my own experience with that vessel cost about £1300 in survey, lift, pressure wash and travel costs. The boat had multiple material faults, was not as described, and I'm 100% certain that its owner knew of some or all of these issues. And the broker in question had sold it previously, and also knew of at least some of the defects identified. That same broker had also paid for remedial works in the past when it was a broker-owned vessel, which were not disclosed.

In advance of making an offer, I asked ... "are you aware of any faults or defects that I should be aware of when considering an offer?..." and got "Nothing I am aware of and I would be surprised if there was anything much knowing XXX". XX being the name of the owner.

So. I felt deceived. I can afford the 1300 quid. But I would value honesty above all.

I don’t think so as from memory your last survey was a Sealine .

 

[volvopaul]

Well if faults are found and the seller won’t put faults right , then they should pay for survey, also brokers need more policing.

There was no question in the seller putting it right , the boat would have been out of action for a season , my clients wants a boat he can use immediately.