Survey etiquette ???

[JumbleDuck]

Years of experience from the professionals who have to deal with the problem people who do not behave in the same way as you claim to do.

Ask yourself why they bother with all the extra work involved in doing it properly if it can all be done with a nod and a wink from a total stranger.

Then ask yourself why estate agents in Scotland and England - professionals with years of experience who have to deal with the problem people who do not behave in the same way as you claim to do - have evolved two completely different solutions to the precisely the same problem?

Still, yacht brokers work for free, which makes a difference

 

[JumbleDuck]

+1
Imagine that you are the buyer. You agree £50,000 subject to survey with the seller, but put down no deposit and sign no agreement, though you agree to pay for the survey and maybe the liftout as well (as is usual). On the day of the liftout someone else comes along, has a quick informal chat to the surveyor and looks at the hull himself, and goes to the seller with a no-survey offer of £51,000 - and he can complete tomorrow.

Do you still think you have a purchase? Even though you've spent maybe £750+ on the lift and/or surveyors fee......

Even with a contract the seller just breaks it, hands you £750 (and your deposit) and walks away, £250 and a lot less hassle better off.

 

[JumbleDuck]

When you sell a boat you have to sign on the Bill of Sale that the vessel is free of all charges. You cannot do that if there is an outstanding boatyard or marina bill.

What stops you?

 

[JumbleDuck]

,

It's not an insurmountable problem this yard fees business then...

Earnest professionals on commissions tell us that it is.

 

[JumbleDuck]

No, don't agree it's a shame. Too long in the tooth. Safer to follow good practice than to rely onpromises from strangers. Large sums of money often involved in such transactions. Why would one take risks if they can be avoided?

And yet people buy and sell boats through brokers, who require no qualifications or indemnity insurance whatsoever. Bizarre.

However can you possibly say that? A broker earns his living from successful transactions. It is in his interest to keep both parties happy to ensure the deal goes through and he gets paid. Ever wondered why they prefer to dal in this structured way?

I presume that brokers broke in order to make money, unless they take on pro bono cases, and that each part of th ebroking process has evolved to maximise broker income. Just like any other business.

I love these discussions. When do we do CE marks?

 

[GrahamM376]

Why is the buyer expected to give the seller a deposit to cover costs for which the seller is not responsible?

It's quite normal for a deposit to be put down on a brokerage boat.


Love it when people say "It's different" without attempting to make any explanation.

Quite simple, when having a house surveyed, there's nothing done which could cost the seller any money whereas having a boat done there are extra expenses which could lead to conflict if the buyer backs out. As others have said, yard charges are levied against the boat so the owner could well ending up footing the bill.

 

[Tranona]

Then ask yourself why estate agents in Scotland and England - professionals with years of experience who have to deal with the problem people who do not behave in the same way as you claim to do - have evolved two completely different solutions to the precisely the same problem?

Still, yacht brokers work for free, which makes a difference

You clearly have no experience of the boat sales business. In house sales a buyer is not a buyer until a contract is signed in England, he is just an interested party. If he wants to spend money on a survey before signing a contract that is his risk. Most surveys are required by prospective lenders, not the buyer. Neither type of survey involves the seller in any potential costs.

I am astonished you are unable to see the difference despite others such as Dom Buckley sharing their experiences of what can go wrong. There are of course similarities between house and boat transactions, but the differences require a different process, just as the differences between English and Scottish law require different processes in house transactions. You also seem to forget that in both our countries the house buying process is proscribed by law and you are forced to use a limited range of people to complete the transaction.

So your comparisons are flawed and of limited value in this discussion.

 

[Tranona]

And yet people buy and sell boats through brokers, who require no qualifications or indemnity insurance whatsoever. Bizarre.



I presume that brokers broke in order to make money, unless they take on pro bono cases, and that each part of th ebroking process has evolved to maximise broker income. Just like any other business.

I love these discussions. When do we do CE marks?

You have a warped view of how markets work. Brokers stand or fall on the value they offer to buyers and sellers. It is not a protected occupation and there is no compulsion to use them. Using your usual warped logic to maximize income they would minimise costs. As it is they choose to carry out time consuming work because they know that it maximized the chances of a successful outcome.

 

[xyachtdave]

Quite simple, when having a house surveyed, there's nothing done which could cost the seller any money whereas having a boat done there are extra expenses which could lead to conflict if the buyer backs out. As others have said, yard charges are levied against the boat so the owner could well ending up footing the bill.

Other than a lift out and back in, the solution to this problem solved by Jumbleduck - the buyer pays in advance - what other costs can there be other than touching up a bit of anti fouling?

 

[sailorman]

No. A deposit takes the boat "off sale" while the prospective purchaser has a survey or closer look.
If the boat was owned by a Boatyard then a deposit would be an intention to buy as buying a boatyard boat you would expect a warrenty and be sold something of merchantable quality, just like a second hand car.
But when buying from a Broker is like buying a car from an Auction, if the mast falls down or the engine seizes up the day after your cheque has cleared you have no claim against either the Broker or the seller. (No Warranty implied of given) Hence having Surveys.
Paying the deposit ensures that once you have paid a surveyor a considerable sum of money that someone cant come along and buy the boat whilst you are waiting for the surveyor to do his job.

Deposit = intention to buy

 

[GrahamM376]

Other than a lift out and back in, the solution to this problem solved by Jumbleduck - the buyer pays in advance - what other costs can there be other than touching up a bit of anti fouling?

We're just going over old ground here, if people don't want to follow normal practice then don't buy via a broker. Brokers will require a contract to be signed and deposit paid and, until that's done, the purchaser has no right to have anything done to the boat and the seller is within his rights to sell to someone else. Even if the potential purchaser has paid in advance for the lifts/yard charges, there may be more expense and work than "just touching up antifoul" if the surveyor has damaged an epoxy coating for instance.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Quite simple, when having a house surveyed, there's nothing done which could cost the seller any money ...

There most certainly is, in some cases.

As others have said, yard charges are levied against the boat so the owner could well ending up footing the bill.

So the buyer pays the yard upfront. Done.

 

[Tranona]

Other than a lift out and back in, the solution to this problem solved by Jumbleduck - the buyer pays in advance - what other costs can there be other than touching up a bit of anti fouling?

Of course that is one solution, but if buyer is serious enough to have placed a deposit and entered into a contract, it is unnecessary because the broker can always deduct any unpaid bills from the deposit.

As to other costs - you don't know until they happen, probably rare but when it happens you will be glad you have the deposit.

Remember your view is based on your direct experiences of your own transactions, which inevitably are limited in number. As I pointed out in an earlier response to JD, brokers see the whole gamut and they have evolved processes that work and deal with the problems. It is not in their interest to incur work or do anything to inhibit a transaction. Just as in houses the process has been developed to safeguard everybodys interests and ensure clean transactions.

It is not compulsory and there is nothing to stop private individuals from doing their own thing and live with the consequences. However, a seller engaging a broker is explicitly stating that he wishes to deal with potential buyers using the broker's process, so a potential buyer should respect that.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You clearly have no experience of the boat sales business. In house sales a buyer is not a buyer until a contract is signed in England, he is just an interested party. If he wants to spend money on a survey before signing a contract that is his risk. Most surveys are required by prospective lenders, not the buyer. Neither type of survey involves the seller in any potential costs.

In boat sales a buyer is not a buyer until a contract is signed anywhere, he is just an interested party. If he wants to spend money on a survey before signing a contract that is his risk. Most surveys are required by prospective insurers, not the buyer. No type of survey need involve the seller in any potential costs.

I am astonished you are unable to see the difference despite others such as Dom Buckley sharing their experiences of what can go wrong. There are of course similarities between house and boat transactions, but the differences require a different process, just as the differences between English and Scottish law require different processes in house transactions. You also seem to forget that in both our countries the house buying process is proscribed by law and you are forced to use a limited range of people to complete the transaction.

There is, I am told, absolutely nothing in law to stop the Scottish house sales procedure being used in England or vice versa.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You have a warped view of how markets work. Brokers stand or fall on the value they offer to buyers and sellers. It is not a protected occupation and there is no compulsion to use them.

Yes, I've pointed out how odd that is. As you say, you need professional qualifications to handle the transfer of a house, but anyone can do the same "professionally" for boats. And yet those who bang on endlessly about how tricky boat sales are, how many things can go wrong (CE marking!) and how important it is to use a professional continue to recommend members of a wholly unregulated trade to do the job. Odd is hardly the word.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Other than a lift out and back in, the solution to this problem solved by Jumbleduck - the buyer pays in advance - what other costs can there be other than touching up a bit of anti fouling?

The staggering costs of replacing a square foot of antifouling which the next surveyor will scrape off anyway. We mustn't bother our pretty little heads about these things.

 

[JumbleDuck]

We're just going over old ground here, if people don't want to follow normal practice then don't buy via a broker. Brokers will require a contract to be signed and deposit paid and, until that's done, the purchaser has no right to have anything done to the boat and the seller is within his rights to sell to someone else.

And once again you are recommending that the person taking the biggest and inescapable financial risk should pay the other party for the right to bear that risk, because reasons.

 

[Tranona]

In boat sales a buyer is not a buyer until a contract is signed anywhere, he is just an interested party. If he wants to spend money on a survey before signing a contract that is his risk. Most surveys are required by prospective insurers, not the buyer. No type of survey need involve the seller in any potential costs.

The "buyer" would need permission from the owner before a survey is carried out. If he is sensible he will seek some commitment before allowing that, whther he is selling privately or through a broker. So back to square 1.

You are simply wrong about the survey. The purpose of the survey is for the buyer to satisfy himself that the boat is as described by the seller as once he has bought it he has no recourse to the seller. Its use by the insurance company is incidental.

Every time you try to make a point on this subject you seem to display your ignorance.

Can't comment on your last point, but seems improbable to me. Do you have a reference that is more reliable than "I am told"?

 

[Tranona]

Yes, I've pointed out how odd that is. As you say, you need professional qualifications to handle the transfer of a house, but anyone can do the same "professionally" for boats. And yet those who bang on endlessly about how tricky boat sales are, how many things can go wrong (CE marking!) and how important it is to use a professional continue to recommend members of a wholly unregulated trade to do the job. Odd is hardly the word.

That old saw again! Why do you think there is a need for regulation? What is it about the job that cannot be dealt with within the law as it applies to any trade? There are dozens of intermediary functions - auction houses, car dealers and brokers. livestock brokers, art dealers etc that operate quite successfully without any special regulation.

On the other hand regulation is required when the occupation has protected status such as lawywers medics and accountants. However does not seem to help given the number of members of those regulated professions who are found guilty of misconduct every year.

As I said before, brokers stand or fall on the value of the service they offer. No compulsion to use them and they operate within the law. Once again I am astonished you seem not to understand this.

 

[xyachtdave]

,

We're just going over old ground here, if people don't want to follow normal practice then don't buy via a broker. Brokers will require a contract to be signed and deposit paid and, until that's done, the purchaser has no right to have anything done to the boat and the seller is within his rights to sell to someone else. Even if the potential purchaser has paid in advance for the lifts/yard charges, there may be more expense and work than "just touching up antifoul" if the surveyor has damaged an epoxy coating for instance.

If you follow this logic you'd need a deposit before viewing. What if someone scrapes the woodwork or breaks an item on the inventory etc when looking around?

I'm amazed that arranging a survey for £500 and if applicable paying lifting fees somehow still has you ear marked as a time waster and more cash up front is required.

It reads to me as 'We know the surveyor will find faults and we don't want the buyer to get cold feet,'

No wonder some of those AWB's are difficult to shift...