survey not worth the money

[actionoptics]

Due to the dreaded words "For sale due to health reasons" I recently sold my LM 30.
The surveyor almost lost me the sale. His survey had so many mistakes.
1. He said the boat was made by Scanyachts instead of LM Glasfibre.
2. He said the vendor and purchaser were present during the inspection. He had actually insisted that I was not to be present so I wasn't
3. "Repairs had been carried out to the bow above the waterline" No, a coat of Toplac had been painted on for cosmetic reasons.
4."Stress cracking around both aft lowers. An attempt has been made to paint over them" No, they had been ground out more than 3mm and filled with two part epoxy and then an attempt made to match the deck colour.
4. "The saildrive to hull rubber diaphragm was last replaced 10 years ago and so its replacement is overdue. It should be replaced every seven years as recommended by Volvo." Firstly there was nothing to show when it was last replaced and anyway it is a complete Bukh installation with the double seal and warning alarm. Bukh do not make any recommendation.
5. "Gearbox oil is dirty and does not appear to have been changed for some time" The saildrive leg and gearbox were drained, flushed twice and refilled within the last year. I have the receipts for the flushing and filling oils.
6. "A blanking plug should be located near to the speed log paddlewheel in case of emergency" It is and always has been. It is tied to the tube in which the paddlewheel is inserted.
7. "The aft lower chainplates are not bolted to the bulkheads" No, they are bolted to a strong s/s 'cage' that is bolted to the boat.
8. "The age of the standing rigging could not be established and it is likely that it is the vessel's original equipment." If he had only asked I could have shown him the receipt for the new rigging a few years ago and the receipt for the very recent electrical testing and the new forestay.
9. "An automatic fir extinguisher is located inside the engine compartment". Actually there were two fitted.
10. He did not think the main anchor, a Fortress FX 16, was big enough. OK, his opinion but it has held us without dragging in a force 8 in Studland.
11. He said the 30m anchor chain should be increased to 50m. The last thing this boat needs is more weight in the bow and 30m plus warp worked well for us. We cruised from the Solent to the Scillies; across to the CIs; north France; round into north Biscay down to the Ilses of Glenan.
12. " The distress flares have expired." There were no flares on board.
13. " The liferaft should be serviced." The information on the valise clearly showed date of manufacture; date when first service was carried out and date when next service due which was 16 months away.
14. He also said the rudder had osmosis but the holes were too small to measure and no fluid could be observed. The rudder, along with the whole hull, had been stripped back to the gel coat and three coats of Simocon 2 part epoxy resin applied. Two coats of antifouling then applied but the tin ran out by the time came to paint the rudder with a second coat so a half empty can of a different make had been used. Seems a slight reaction had caused tiny bubbles but it certainly wasn't osmosis.

So, rant over and when/if I buy another boat I won't be using that particular surveyor.

 

[sarabande]

That's utterly unprofessional surveying. Name and shame ?

 

[johnalison]

It is a bit like a survey done on our boat many years ago, only a good deal worse. Maybe a word with the selling agent would put him out of work for the future.

 

[prv]

I get the impression most surveyors' reports are largely assembled from a repertoire of stock sentences pasted in as applicable - and it sounds like in this case he's accidentally included many which don't apply.

Some of those don't really matter and just make him look stupid, but others could very easily have put the buyer off. Suggesting that there were structural problems that you had tried to hide :hopeless:

Pete

 

[Spyro]

There's so many mistakes. Was he looking at the right boat?
Should something like an anchor really be included in a survey. It's only relevant the day the survey is done. It could be changed tomorrow or removed completely.

 

[Biggles Wader]

As a buyer what I would really want from a survey is a thorough inspection of the engine,which they don't do,the rig,which they don't do,and the structural integrity of the hull and deck,which they should be able to do properly.All the rest is peripheral stuff which the buyer could look at themselves like flares,liferaft, ground tackle specs and other equipement.This one sounds like a total waster.

 

[lw395]

but it's the buyer's money not yours....

 

[Graham_Wright]

Is there a professional body to whom he can be reported?

 

[penberth3]

Is there a professional body to whom he can be reported?

If he's a member of a professional body? The big ones will have a complaints and disciplinary procedure e.g. RINA, IMarEST. But surely the first step is to speak to the surveyor about it.

 

[Champagne Murphy]

IME the quality of surveyors is so variable as to make it a complete lottery when hiring one. We had one who was great, he was more like the Dutch model who fight your corner. Sadly for us he retired. The next one was 2 hours late for the (insurance) survey, had forgotten his moisture meter and didn’t produce the survey for 3 months by which time he’d forgotten what he’d found out, all compounded by leaving his notebook on the boat for the three months. Oh, and then he rang up less than a week later and demanded payment ASAP! Guess whether we’ll be using him again?

 

[Tranona]

If he's a member of a professional body? The big ones will have a complaints and disciplinary procedure e.g. RINA, IMarEST. But surely the first step is to speak to the surveyor about it.

Difficult to do that when the sale has gone through and it is the buyer's surveyor not the seller's (who is the OP)

 

[prv]

but it's the buyer's money not yours....

It's his money not being received when the buyer cancels the sale, though. Didn't happen in this case but it easily could have.

Pete

 

[Bathdave]

I would only use someone who had been recommended by people I trust

I had an excellent surveyor, recognised as an expert of my make of boat when I bought it

You're obviously at a disadvantage when someone is buying your boat, but it should be fairly easy to point out the incompetence of the surveyor to the buyer if he's making obviously factually incorrect statements

 

[chewi]

I have had similar... Mine said my teak decks were in good condition, as was the mizzen mast. I have neither.
the mat wa inspected from teh deck as far as was practicable.. It was laid horizontal. at waist height.

He folded the diesel connection to the engine, it cracke, but he left it like that and mailed me the report 3 weeks later, by which time the newly painted bilge had all the diesel.
He recommended a fireblanket. There was one within 2ft of the stove.

 

[Tulkinghorn]

I had a survey done by a well known Hamble based surveyor last summer on a 40 footer we bought.

We are experienced buyers but chose to have the survey simply to rule out anything major that we hadn't spotted ourselves. In fact, we agreed with the surveyor that he didn't have to count every single sheave or block that was a bit iffy and suchlike because we were aware the boat had been properly used.

In the main, the survey satisfied our needs, although again, there were many points which were overall extremely overcautious or just plain wrong (e.g. the windlass couldn't be made to work and needed urgent replacement - yes it could, you just have to turn it on!). Some things were also just missed completely - sometimes you just need to live with a boat for a while to really find out what doesn't work as it should.

You could have looked at our survey and concluded that all he gave us was a list of things that we either knew about already or which we now had to deal with before the insurance company would put us on cover. On the other hand, the boat had had a bit of a history (well used as a racing and professionally skippered charter boat) and so there could have been something more fundamental that we would have missed. At least for the £600 or so it cost us, we got some reassurance in that respect.

Of course, quite a few of these "problems" are made out to sound much worse than they are because the surveyor is acting for the buyer. That said, there is emphasizing certain deficiencies and areas that require remedial action, and there is getting it wrong/lying.

As for the insurers, when they asked about what I proposed to do about certain things like a skin fitting elbow which was corroded I told them that I'd deal with it when it was out of the water next because (i) it wasn't as bad as it was made out and (ii) I'd rather sheer the whole bloody thing off ashore than afloat, as could happen. The exhaust hose skin fitting was showing rust on the interior of the hull according to the report. I couldn't see any and nor could my camera, so I told the insurers as much although I did eventually replace it to be on the safe side whilst doing other things in that area. They were eminently sensible and accepted my various proposals, although I think it helped that I'd already done a few of the jobs required and was able to show them that I was on top of the most important things.

 

[Plevier]

We had one who was great, he was more like the Dutch model who fight your corner.

When I bought in Holland 4 years ago, I was unimpressed with the Dutch surveyor and the HISWA standard box ticking form he used. Expensive, shallow and couldn't wait to get off site.
You can't generalise!

 

[<152587>]

M I Mech E, Ch Eng, surveyed my boat made big issue of stern light not present. Copied relevant paragraph, enclosed photo, short length of white stick. Phoned me and went absolutely ape, accused me of fitting it after the survey and then changed the story to "This is not the boat I surveyed" despite the name being clearly visible on the shot of the stern. Loads of cowboys around in this profession in my opinion

 

[Keith 66]

I remember a surveyor who described a marine diesel engine as follows, "The vessel is fitted with a four cylinder, single acting, trunk piston, compression ignition oil engine made by thornycroft". This when it had BMC cast in the rocker box. The boat was also described as "being inspected out of the water & found free of osmosis". She was inspected in a creek up to her waterline in mud. This surveyor was a senior member of the ydsa & iims. Personaly i would not engage anyone from either organisation.

 

[<152587>]

I remember a surveyor who described a marine diesel engine as follows, "The vessel is fitted with a four cylinder, single acting, trunk piston, compression ignition oil engine made by thornycroft". This when it had BMC cast in the rocker box. The boat was also described as "being inspected out of the water & found free of osmosis". She was inspected in a creek up to her waterline in mud. This surveyor was a senior member of the ydsa & iims. Personaly i would not engage anyone from either organisation.

But the insurance companies revel in these idiots

 

[seaangler23]

Think I might become one as I went through mine and voided half the points including the exhaust silencer and drainage tap were badly corded, stainless silencer and brass tap albeit the epoxy used to seal it was rust coloured, the more worrying thing was I spoke to him after and he said no major issues so we continued with buying the boat(arranging travel to see it ect before agreeing on purchase) , the report came through a couple days later stating the ruder was completely shot and requiring rebuild, crapped it and phoned him to find out it was an error obviously a cut and paste!