Surveyor in Clyde Area

[Nudge]

PM sent, fellow club member!

 

[claymore]

Would you be prepared to share experiences as it would be useful to understand why not?

I think not - we are not commenting on why we recommend so best to avoid potential public criticism of a good surveyor who works hard to earn a living.
Its enough to note that 1 person would not. On balance, more people are endorsing his work than are not and you cannot please all the people etc.....

 

[Deleted member 36384]

I think not - ...

I think it would, so we can just diasagree. It's rhumlady's choice not to in the post and I respect that. However, it's my opinion that negative comments should be explained for others to understand the context, hence my query.

 

[claymore]

I agree to a point but as we both know, the Scottish Sailing'industry' is relatively small and once we start listing all the reasons why you or I wouldn't recommend a sailmaker or a surveyor then it could quickly become damaging to a business, or litigious and I don't feel that we should be encouraging that.
Jim Mc is a personal friend of mine so I am naturally keen that his good name isn't damaged - hope that makes my case.
How are you going on with your sling search?

 

[West Coast]

Thanks all, have made enquiries to those suggested and will go from there!

 

[ianj99]

I would not recommend Murray Cormack and Associates. I specifically asked for an engine survey on the yacht for various matters I observed when I looked at the yacht. I don't think they did it, just rattled off some comments - an engine mount was completely loose and the shaft coupling was heavily corroded. On the first trip, at the marina entrance, the shaft sheared off the coupling. The work to reinstate the shaft discovered that all the engine mounts were completely shot. The loose mounting nut would have been obvious to the surveyor if he had inspected the mounts. The shot rubber I can appreciate would not have been obvious as they are slim line mounts with the rubber bushing buried inside the mount.

When the hull was surveyed on a 'lunch time lift and lower' it was pouring down all day long, heavy rain without any exaggeration. The moisture readings were irrelevant and pointless and the survey should have been postponed. Again, I specifically asked for an osmosis opinion because of the history of the yacht made available to me and the surveyor from the owner.

I had also requested an evaluation and that was not forthcoming. It took a while to get that from them and when it did, it reflected exactly what I had negotiated with the seller, luck, maybe. The written survey itself was very poor and it took me a few readings to extract all the items that he had found. I phoned the surveyor a few times to talk about the survey but it was a very one sided telephone conversation with nothing really extra offered to explain the surveyors opinions. I distinctly remember the feeling that he could not be bothered with me, the replies being quite ambiguous. Eventually I talked to Ian Nicholson and he kindly gave me advice on some matters that Murray Cormack and Associates could or would not answer. I was quite naive regarding surveys and trusted the professional opinion very much. The conclusion I came to, much, much later, is that the surveyor couldn't get on and off the yacht quick enough because of the rain and that I received a sub standard service from them; that's my experience. Make your own mind up about them but make sure you take ownership and get what you paid for.

My experience was not dissimilar. All the obvious areas were spotted but the two areas that could have led to a total loss and fatalities were not. (corrosion from the inside under the chain locker and heads that came to light when the slurry blasting went right through). The other areas mentioned were nitpicking but this was enough to cause the insurance company to want them attended to, but in reality they were not urgent. Also, why would a surveyor not ultrasonically measure the steel thickness - surely this is a basic necessity or are there pitfalls?
Alarm bells should have rung when the surveyor said he knew the boat and owner....
Ian

 

[penfold]

My experience was not dissimilar. All the obvious areas were spotted but the two areas that could have led to a total loss and fatalities were not. (corrosion from the inside under the chain locker and heads that came to light when the slurry blasting went right through). The other areas mentioned were nitpicking but this was enough to cause the insurance company to want them attended to, but in reality they were not urgent. Also, why would a surveyor not ultrasonically measure the steel thickness - surely this is a basic necessity or are there pitfalls?
Alarm bells should have rung when the surveyor said he knew the boat and owner....
Ian

TBH a full ultrasonic hull survey is a long and involved task so I'm not surprised it's not included in a standard yacht survey; that said if there are inaccessible areas on the inside(particularly ones which have built-in sources of corrosion like the chain locker and heads compartment) it makes sense to pay close attention to the outside and plenty of tickling with the tickling stick.