Surveyor Negligence / Compensation

[nickansc]

Prior to purchasing our boat in February we had her surveyed, the report came back with (a) no osmosis, and (b) no mention of problems with hull fittings / seacocks.

Having completed the purchase and on looking around the boat we noticed seacocks which were heavily corroded, some of which the handles could not be turned, one where the handle was only half in existence as the rest had corroded away, and one where the handle was missing(!). The majority (2/3) of the seacocks were in locations where the surveyor did not have to move/remove any equipment or panels, i.e. easy to see locations where he would have seen them and should have looked at them.

Suffice to say we have taken the boat out of the water to have them all replaced. On taking her out of the water we immediately noticed the typical pox of early stage osmosis. Having been out of the water for ~3hours the bumps had reduced in size but were clearly visible, after 2 days (the amount of time the surveyor waited before returning to complete the out of water stage of the survey) the bumps were still visible, albeit less clearly. In the opinion of the guys running the boatyard, osmosis like this would not just have developed in the past 8 months (i.e. would have been visible at the time of the survey).

We relied on the survey report in making our decision to continue with the purchase and negotiating the price. Clearly if the report had turned up the above factors we would have seriously reconsidered / renegotiated price. What recourse do we have against the surveyor? What course of action do people recommend? If we were to pursue a claim, do we need a second surveyor to verify the existence of the osmosis (we have photographs of the seacocks and the osmosis, although the latter is harder to see)?

Many thanks in advance

 

[V1701]

Very sorry to hear all that and I sincerely hope you are able to get some sort of recompense for it. I think the standard, basic test of the outer hull (tapping with a ball pein hammer) should for sure have picked up those blisters. What is the exact language used in the survey report, the bits about the hull and the seacocks?

 

[Beadle]

You would appear to have a claim for professional negligence.

Whether its worth persuing is the real question.

Did the surveyor have professional negligence cover?

Did the survey clearly say it was free of osmosis?

Was there any negotiation over the cost of the survey?

If you feel you are right to make a claim get estimates (or settled bills) for the boat and go find a lwayer who understands these things.

PS you will need to prove that it is osmosis so perhaps a report from a specilist on the state of the hull.

Just make sure you have read all the small print on the surveyor's documentation first.

 

[Crabman]

Surveyed in Feb and you mention it now ? Why did you not take it up with the surveyor at the time .Whats the boat ? I would get independent advice on the matter .

 

[nickansc]

What is the exact language used in the survey report, the bits about the hull and the seacocks?

"no signs of excessive moisture, osmosis or delamination present"

"the exterior hull, fittings and stern gear were examined ... no signs of any current damages or previous repairs."

No mention of seacocks at all.

Did the surveyor have professional negligence cover?

I presume so, they are a member of the usual associations

Did the survey clearly say it was free of osmosis?

yes, see above

Was there any negotiation over the cost of the survey?

If you mean, did we get cheaper cost for focussed / reduced survey, then no - we requested a full survey focussed on structural integrity and condition of key equipment

 

[Crabman]

All full condition surveys I have had done cover seacocks, everything. When the moisture meter readings were taken did they scrape the hull?

 

[ffiill]

When I had my purchase survey done all seacocks were examined some of which are hard to access from inside the lack of double clipping and emergency bungs being noted for some of them.
Every crack,stress mark etc was examined commented upon and given either a good bill of health or a fix it advisory.
This was the survey done as a matter of course by surveyor.
Some things he missed but overall a thorough examination.
This one does sound very lax unless a so called valuation survey for insurance purposes-
A keep the Insurance company happy survey!

 

[Bobc]

I would suggest 2 things:-

1./ Get the boat re-surveyed by another surveyor. If this survey shows up these faults then you have proof of them.

2./ Go see a lawyer.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I've just had an insurance survey carried out.

Every sea cock was checked and noted. The hull was also checked for osmosis and moisture despite the fact that I had told him that it didn't need checking as I was confident it was OK. (I was right...thankfully). It was good to see somebody just wanting to do a thorough job.

I'll happily use him again.

 

[exfinnsailor]

You only have the yard guys assessment of the situation. I take it you did what most of us do when buying have a look yourself first and see if you can spot anything wrong. Its a bit late after 8 months. Your marine solicitor will be more than happy to take your money. Don't try an ordinary solicitor you need a specialist and they don't come cheap. What good will another survey do now. All they can do is report what they see now not what it could have been like 8 months ago. I take it the yard guys have got all the qualifications to write you a report that will stand up in court.

You are going to be fighting an insurance company so you are going to need proof that he was negligent. A few none working stopcocks 8 months after the event is hardly negligent on his part. It could of course be negligent on your part for not closing them when you left the boat in the water unattended.

..

 

[longjohnsilver]

Bumps that reduce in size in 3 hours does not sound like osmosis to me, more like bubbling of anti foul. I would suggest you get another opinion.
There's no excuse for him missing seized seacocks

 

[VicS]

Bumps that reduce in size in 3 hours does not sound like osmosis to me, more like bubbling of anti foul.

+1 on that

 

[Tranona]

On the face of it you need to take some action with the surveyor. First stage is to list the thing you think he missed/got wrong and write to him asking for an explanation and perhaps a meeting at the boat to discuss. That in itself may get you some redress.

If the reaction is negative, then taking it further will probably require a second opinion as you will then have to persuade a third party that your claim is legitimate. You may try and resolve it through arbitration with his association. Almost certainly he will have insurance so if you decide to make a claim on him, you will end up dealing with his insurance company.

All this is time consuming and will have a cost, so for just the seacocks, probably not worth it - just replace them. The potential osmosis is more difficult as you are likely to end up with differing opinions so you may well need to get an "expert" to challenge the original opinion. Your decision to pursue him will depend on the strength of your case and the size of your loss.

Probably no need to involve a lawyer to start as you have to establish the strength of your case before you start legal proceedings.

 

[Grajan]

What I could read out of the "no signs of excessive moisture, osmosis or delamination present" is that at the TIME of the survey there was no EXCESSIVE SIGN of a problem but that it could have been there( unfortunately blistering can appear suddenly) and as one of the other forumites mentioned now is not the time to be complaining about Seacocks the problem should have been observed and commented on at the time of your first sail.

Sorry to be a bit of a downer but know of several people who have discovered they had purchased not what they thought and trying to get recompense VERY difficult

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

What I could read out of the "no signs of excessive moisture, osmosis or delamination present" is that at the TIME of the survey there was no EXCESSIVE SIGN of a problem but that it could have been there( unfortunately blistering can appear suddenly) and as one of the other forumites mentioned now is not the time to be complaining about Seacocks the problem should have been observed and commented on at the time of your first sail.

Sorry to be a bit of a downer but know of several people who have discovered they had purchased not what they thought and trying to get recompense VERY difficult

Also, if there are stray currents about, corrosion can occur in seacocks remarkably quickly. Surveyor might argue that the damage was not there when he/she surveyed. I have been amazed how quickly an anode has wasted away and a P bracket go "pink" because of an earth leakage (on account of my carelessness!)

 

[npf1]

FWIW - I had an issue with a surveyor in the US. He acknowledged that he had screwed up but, after spending a few $ on legal fees, I was advised to drop it as the limited liabilty company that had next to no assets nor insurance to make it worth chasing.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Would it be worth contacting those associations on your surveyors headed paper to check him/her out at this stage?
He/she may be not as 'associated' as first appeared.
Surely if he/she is 'associated' to institutions, then they should have some system of checking things out for their own good?

I would ask for written opinions from everyone associated with your boat be they the professionals at your yard or other surveyors.. more 'power to the elbow'.

I would consider asking the surveyor to have a second survey (Insurance survey??)of your boat done, without alerting him as to why, to meet at the boat and take it from there.

In a similar situation, a friend had a surveyor give a duff survey on a house.
They met on site to clarify things on some pretext, and low and behold my pal had an official survey team from the building society who provided the mortgage and solicitor waiting in the wings to greet him. They also 'innocently' boxed his car in with other friends who quietly walked off out of sight whilst the meeting took place....
food for thought??

How about small claims court to keep the expenses down?

You would most probably settle if the work was done and paid for by him to bring your boat close to the surveyed report wouldn't you?
Make sure you have those quotation values at hand.

 

[E39mad]

First of all I would go back read the surveyors T & C's very carefully. If you still feel you have a stonewall case against him and you have legal cover on your household insurance give it them to deal with.

I like some others think that the time between the survey and notifying the surveyor of a potential claim is too great and there are so many potential variances from using the boat since the survey took place.

 

[ripvan1]

Scotty - agree with your first suggestions re associations but have to say that life's too short for all the other palaver for what is a few seacocks that might or might not have been seized at time of survey and some blisters that might or might be osmosis.

OP hasn't said (I think) why he missed the seacocks, sort of thing most of us would look at when looking over a prospective purchase.

Personally I'd contact surveyor and see what he's got to say about the matter,
then decide if you want to go the legal route and do battle with an insurance company, not sure small claims would be viable.

Save your blood pressure and go sailing, these irritating things fade into insignificance when out of sight of land.

Good luck

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Was there any negotiation over the cost of the survey?

.

Absolutely irrelevant.