Seller/ broker disclosure

[volvopaul]

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.

Ohh the broker was perfectly aware , prior to the survey I had invoices for engine and drive work sent to the purchaser for me to look over , in other words here are the recent invoices for service work , so it’s all good mate .
What It actually was , the faults from the previous survey the owner had to make good , obviously there was no way the hull defects were going to be dealt with in the hope that someone comes along with the no survey attitude.

When we asked the broker to submit the previous survey he stated that he wasn’t privy to the last survey as the contract is between buyer and seller , that absolute rubbish . In order to reject a boat the survey is submitted to both the vendor and broker so that the held deposit can be returned to the buyer on good grounds to refuse the vessel, I’d never heard so much crap in my life.

 

[volvopaul]

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.

Let’s wait and see if it’s back on the market , seller obviously did a few remedial work but the hull is a different question, I’m wondering if it’s a stock boat .

Quite likely another victim will be lined up hence the reason for the discussion.
Had this been something that could be put right with little cost and time then I wouldn’t be posting ,most survey faults are every day occurrence, because it’s this scenario second time round it’s a different situation as there are already 2 victims.

 

[Portofino]

I think I have cracked it ? .....if that’s want you want Paul ?

You need effective leverage on the surveyor community.

Assume the seller is a numpty and knows nothing about boats so you asking him is pointless , because you can,t prove he knew before your lift / survey if a concealed defect becomes apparent like fresh white recent patches at the lift out .Or leaky intercoolers...ones hard to get to etc etc .Assume the seller tells lies as well .

That’s your best starting position as a buyer

But having said all that the only way ahead is somehow get access to previous surveys done .So you need traction on the surveyors .
These I understand are connected to a professional body , who I assume rightly or wrongly has some regulatory standards and membership requirements??? If not change the law by statutory instrument to do so .

That’s why you can,t blame the broker as you don’t know how many broker companies there are before him .Or if in a chain if the local to the boat broker has just left the office permanently under a cloud , and the remaining staff are having trouble accessing his computer etc etc .And brokers require no mandatory membership of a regulator body .Like estate agents btw.

A central data base like land registry were surveys are stored electronically is needed for this to work .
Cardiff collect the admin fee from the surveyor to put it on .
There’s a fixed time limit ( and fine able ) for the surveys to be sent to Cardiff .
Not sure how much law making this would need hopefully just a new statutory instrument by the civil service to draw up and gov minister for transport to sign if off without the idiots in house getting there hands on it !
Cardiff now open for another income stream from the fee ( HMGov rubbing there hands ) from a prospective buyer for a online search of the data base .

Entering various parameters , boat name ...throw up 100 s , Hid , reg number, make - throw up 100s . Owners name , Date search etc .....ALL of the above etc

Once up and running......takes a few early test cases of fines dished out by Cardiff ( using there new found powers ) the odd surveyor to be stuck off from his professional body , for the surveying community to fall into line , the whole thing is suddenly now transparent.
Additionally Cardiff have to redistribute the subsequent fees from sending out copies back to the first client who’s can opt into giving details ( prospective buyer ) who arranged the first survey ( within a time cut off ) .

So first buyer gets in quick 2 days after listing .....goes through the motions .
Within 2 weeks Cardiff have his survey(s) inc any other notes , like a marque engineers report which the surveyor is obliged to add in an appendix with provisos he’s not responsible for this part , the machinery advice #
First buyer rejects ,

So in this example the Op posted ...

Broker needs to know if there has been a survey done because sooner or later it’s gonna pop up at Cardiff and you can see what’s it’s gonna look like if he does not play ball .
Keeping the assumed numpty owner out of the equation .

“ Mr X [ insert qualifications] [ insert professional body number ] did a survey 3 weeks ago .”
Or 4 days ago .....in which case “ wait until next week and it will be @ Cardiff “
” This is the best tag to use when searching “

Once Cardiff receive funds from further perspective buyer(S) the owners of the surveys start to get partial reimbursements .But on a sliding scale so,s not to profit .Cardiff do all the refund admin .
This does not stop you as a buyer commissioning further surveys .....which then end up @ Cardiff and if a prospective buyer enquires he’s given the option which to purchase ......obviously if 2 or even more surveys are recently registered @ Cardiff and the boats still for sale .....figure it out .
The Cardiff fee scale should encourage an initial search say £25 to say yes there has been 2 or what ever number surveys on theses dates .
Then for ( £ insert a reasonable charge ] you can purchase on line each or all .50 % of the fee(s) you pay is returned to the original client(s) .
The charge Cardiff return to the clients comes from the purchaser of the survey s could be a fixed amount or % of the fee which the surveyor has to disclose ....Bang goes cash in hand for the survey community whoops !

# @ Paul ....you do realise while nice to ranting ( we all do it ) the above scheme facilitating access to recent surveys in saving wasted time for buyers is actually YOUR time thats gonna be cut .....and income stream ?
Shooting your self in the foot ?
Additionally the master surveyor will be obliged to disclose your details and fee in the pro forma sent to Cardiff .

Once the Wild West is sanitised theres no room for the cowboys ..brokers .

 

[BruceK]

It took you nearly a page to say what I said in two sentences Porto

 

[BruceK]

However I wouldn't suggest a sliding scale of payment. A interested party can pay the same for the same survey. Bonus to the surveyor. Or a a reduced flat fee taken onboard. i.e. say instead of a 1000 survey. Every copy goes out for 500 or so.

But it doesn;t even need to be this. Just the fact that it has been surveyed is kept on record. On older boats for insurance this is already the case it's just not accessible.

 

[volvopaul]

I think I have cracked it ? .....if that’s want you want Paul ?

You need effective leverage on the surveyor community.

Assume the seller is a numpty and knows nothing about boats so you asking him is pointless , because you can,t prove he knew before your lift / survey if a concealed defect becomes apparent like fresh white recent patches at the lift out .Or leaky intercoolers...ones hard to get to etc etc .Assume the seller tells lies as well .

That’s your best starting position as a buyer

But having said all that the only way ahead is somehow get access to previous surveys done .So you need traction on the surveyors .
These I understand are connected to a professional body , who I assume rightly or wrongly has some regulatory standards and membership requirements??? If not change the law by statutory instrument to do so .

That’s why you can,t blame the broker as you don’t know how many broker companies there are before him .Or if in a chain if the local to the boat broker has just left the office permanently under a cloud , and the remaining staff are having trouble accessing his computer etc etc .And brokers require no mandatory membership of a regulator body .Like estate agents btw.

A central data base like land registry were surveys are stored electronically is needed for this to work .
Cardiff collect the admin fee from the surveyor to put it on .
There’s a fixed time limit ( and fine able ) for the surveys to be sent to Cardiff .
Not sure how much law making this would need hopefully just a new statutory instrument by the civil service to draw up and gov minister for transport to sign if off without the idiots in house getting there hands on it !
Cardiff now open for another income stream from the fee ( HMGov rubbing there hands ) from a prospective buyer for a online search of the data base .

Entering various parameters , boat name ...throw up 100 s , Hid , reg number, make - throw up 100s . Owners name , Date search etc .....ALL of the above etc

Once up and running......takes a few early test cases of fines dished out by Cardiff ( using there new found powers ) the odd surveyor to be stuck off from his professional body , for the surveying community to fall into line , the whole thing is suddenly now transparent.
Additionally Cardiff have to redistribute the subsequent fees from sending out copies back to the first client who’s can opt into giving details ( prospective buyer ) who arranged the first survey ( within a time cut off ) .

So first buyer gets in quick 2 days after listing .....goes through the motions .
Within 2 weeks Cardiff have his survey(s) inc any other notes , like a marque engineers report which the surveyor is obliged to add in an appendix with provisos he’s not responsible for this part , the machinery advice #
First buyer rejects ,

So in this example the Op posted ...

Broker needs to know if there has been a survey done because sooner or later it’s gonna pop up at Cardiff and you can see what’s it’s gonna look like if he does not play ball .
Keeping the assumed numpty owner out of the equation .

“ Mr X [ insert qualifications] [ insert professional body number ] did a survey 3 weeks ago .”
Or 4 days ago .....in which case “ wait until next week and it will be @ Cardiff “
” This is the best tag to use when searching “

Once Cardiff receive funds from further perspective buyer(S) the owners of the surveys start to get partial reimbursements .But on a sliding scale so,s not to profit .Cardiff do all the refund admin .
This does not stop you as a buyer commissioning further surveys .....which then end up @ Cardiff and if a prospective buyer enquires he’s given the option which to purchase ......obviously if 2 or even more surveys are recently registered @ Cardiff and the boats still for sale .....figure it out .
The Cardiff fee scale should encourage an initial search say £25 to say yes there has been 2 or what ever number surveys on theses dates .
Then for ( £ insert a reasonable charge ] you can purchase on line each or all .50 % of the fee(s) you pay is returned to the original client(s) .
The charge Cardiff return to the clients comes from the purchaser of the survey s could be a fixed amount or % of the fee which the surveyor has to disclose ....Bang goes cash in hand for the survey community whoops !

# @ Paul ....you do realise while nice to ranting ( we all do it ) the above scheme facilitating access to recent surveys in saving wasted time for buyers is actually YOUR time thats gonna be cut .....and income stream ?
Shooting your self in the foot ?
Additionally the master surveyor will be obliged to disclose your details and fee in the pro forma sent to Cardiff .

Once the Wild West is sanitised theres no room for the cowboys ..brokers .

A great answer Porto but sadly a distant dream for any buyer , let’s face it we haven’t even got a system yet that is foolproof on title , finance etc which in my view is far more important to protect the buyer from fraud , the industry needs a system like HPI but as this is a cottage industry it won’t happen .

im not shooting myself in the foot or the surveyors someone has to do it , my point is all about disclosure and honesty nothing more .
I have been thinking about writing this post for a long time now as I have seen it happen too many times now , not every boat is rejected after survey on these grounds it’s just the fact that this one prompted me more than ever to discuss openly .

 

[ashtead]

I would have thought the prior survey belonged to the previous abortive purchaser so would it not be subject to confidentiality as between the surveyor and his client. I suspect the surveyor nor his PI insurers would be prepared to extend their duty of care to an infinite class of people. If the broker is under instruction from his client not to reveal the survey the only way to my mind to protect innocent parties is for a proper professional regulation of brokers to be mandatory with proper client account rules. It amazes me how little regulation exists for brokers when for many it’s their second largest purchaser after property asserts.

 

[BruceK]

I suspect the surveyor nor his PI insurers would be prepared to extend their duty of care to an infinite class of people.

I dont understand how you can say this. It is a professional body, trained to a relevant degree and should be correct and repeatable or it is of no value. Every time the report is purchased covers additional liability by PI insurers. That's easy enough to set up. You cannot really regulate a broker, his position will always be biased.

 

[Portofino]

I would have thought the prior survey belonged to the previous abortive purchaser so would it not be subject to confidentiality as between the surveyor and his client. I suspect the surveyor nor his PI insurers would be prepared to extend their duty of care to an infinite class of people. If the broker is under instruction from his client not to reveal the survey the only way to my mind to protect innocent parties is for a proper professional regulation of brokers to be mandatory with proper client account rules. It amazes me how little regulation exists for brokers when for many it’s their second largest purchaser after property asserts.

The statutory instrument, the law making to make this happen makes it clear that subsequent purchases of surveys can not in future sue the surveyor ,
This does not effect the existing rights of the current relationship with surveyor and commissioner ....that stands .
Some sort of no liability clause (s) protecting Cardiff and the author of the surveys they hold .
Indeed Cardiff could send it out anonymised of the author , with clear statement wording along the lines .
” no liability for accuracy “ etc
“ recommend the purchaser takes his own professional advice , due diligence before acting on “ etc etc .

But I get your point no community likes regulation and naturally are fearful of thin end of wedge = suffocating evolvement towards over regulation.
But it’s in there ( marine surveying ) hands and if they have any sense ...it’s best they get in 1 st and take control otherwise it will be imposed by 3 rd parties ( with different drivers ) and they will be underrepresented.....unable to call the shots and loose out .

 

[Momac]

I’m wondering if it’s a stock boat .

If taken in part exchange to become a stock boat then the brokerage would almost certainly have arranged their own survey before finalising their part exchange deal.
That doesn't necessarily mean the brokerage did anything about remedy of defects before putting the boat on the market. In any case it sounds like the broker (or the company if not the individual sales person) should not have been surprised about the findings of the hull survey.

 

[volvopaul]

If taken in part exchange to become a stock boat then the brokerage would almost certainly have arranged their own survey before finalising their part exchange deal.
That doesn't necessarily mean the brokerage did anything about remedy of defects before putting the boat on the market. In any case it sounds like the broker (or the company if not the individual sales person) should not have been surprised about the findings of the hull survey.

Indeed he wasn’t surprised but wouldn’t comment about the previous survey the previous buyer had done , yes they were brokering the boat then so knew the issues .

 

[A_8]

Ohh the broker was perfectly aware , prior to the survey I had invoices for engine and drive work sent to the purchaser for me to look over , in other words here are the recent invoices for service work , so it’s all good mate .
What It actually was , the faults from the previous survey the owner had to make good , obviously there was no way the hull defects were going to be dealt with in the hope that someone comes along with the no survey attitude.

When we asked the broker to submit the previous survey he stated that he wasn’t privy to the last survey as the contract is between buyer and seller , that absolute rubbish . In order to reject a boat the survey is submitted to both the vendor and broker so that the held deposit can be returned to the buyer on good grounds to refuse the vessel, I’d never heard so much crap in my life.

Ok, sounds like a very ethically challenged broker

 

[BruceK]

Less than honest broker. Name and shame is about the only way then to weed out the truly undesirables. Something like the works trade reference sites then?

 

[volvopaul]

Ive just checked , the said boat is listed for sale .

 

[ashtead]

I dont understand how you can say this. It is a professional body, trained to a relevant degree and should be correct and repeatable or it is of no value. Every time the report is purchased covers additional liability by PI insurers. That's easy enough to set up. You cannot really regulate a broker, his position will always be biased.

Bruce the surveyor has carried out one survey for one client and his report specifically prohibits disclosure to both future potential purchasers and use by current owner technically so the owner should destroy and not pass on to any other purchasers if the original one is not prepared to take on issues disclosed. This isn’t just for marine surveys it applies to all professionals eg accountants etc. Therefore of no real value unless a new purchaser recommission a new report.

 

[Mr Googler]

Bruce the surveyor has carried out one survey for one client and his report specifically prohibits disclosure to both future potential purchasers and use by current owner technically so the owner should destroy and not pass on to any other purchasers if the original one is not prepared to take on issues disclosed. This isn’t just for marine surveys it applies to all professionals eg accountants etc. Therefore of no real value unless a new purchaser recommission a new report.

don’t agree. I’ve paid for a survey....I can pass it on to whomever I want. Granted I’ve only ever had 3 surveys done but have always passed it on to prospective buyers if they want it. Surveyors involved had no issue with that and why would they? Up to the Buyer if they accept it or want another one done.

this whole thread is about trust. I sold my last boat to a chap who never stepped foot on the boat....took the last survey recently done....paid in full....collected it 4 months later. Couldn’t have been happier. I wouldn’t do it again as it was a terrible 4 months when I was super worried about the boat!

you would expect to be able to trust a broker who is a professional within the industry and taking a healthy percentage. What’s stupid is a bit of honesty up front would probably ensure more sales go through.....even if more issues are inevitable found.

 

[BruceK]

Bruce the surveyor has carried out one survey for one client and his report specifically prohibits disclosure to both future potential purchasers and use by current owner technically so the owner should destroy and not pass on to any other purchasers if the original one is not prepared to take on issues disclosed. This isn’t just for marine surveys it applies to all professionals eg accountants etc. Therefore of no real value unless a new purchaser recommission a new report.

Just had a look at a few of mine. Dont see that limiting clause anywhere.

In fact if you cant give a copy of the survey report to the current owner how do you sit at the bargaining table? I can see how that conversation would go.

 

[ashtead]

Yes you can pass on but in this scenario the original client wasn’t involved who instructed the survey based on info disclosed. Clearly if the vendor commissions on his own boat he is going to gain agreement from his surveyor to disclose but I believe here we have a survey carried out by a previous party who cried off due to the survey.

 

[Mr Googler]

Yes you can pass on but in this scenario the original client wasn’t involved who instructed the survey based on info disclosed. Clearly if the vendor commissions on his own boat he is going to gain agreement from his surveyor to disclose but I believe here we have a survey carried out by a previous party who cried off due to the survey.

Agree all that but if the purchaser wanted to....they could pass on the survey.

Whether that connection could be made is another matter. That’s why this forum is a gold mine! I’m going to look at boat X 200 miles away....oh god.....I know that boat...don’t bother.

the reality is the seller will no doubt be gutted today which is sad too but sometimes you have to suck it up. No ones going to put in the advert.....”got osmosis“ or “generally knackered” however.....”priced to take into account works required“ will attract the right buyer. People like me with more enthusiasm than skill who like a challenge ??

 

[Momac]

...”priced to take into account works required“

Good suggestion
Alternatively the hull problem and any other significant faults now known should be rectified .



What a minefield boat buying can be .