Surveyor Negligence / Compensation

[Stu Jackson]

WADR, you're sounding like an "Americun!"

When we had two different boats surveyed, I made sure I was there with our surveyor, both times. One boat failed, the other passed with flying colors.

I find it pretty hard to believe that with almost every message board I review, just about everyone says to BE THERE when the survey takes place. Of course, folks have "real day jobs" which may preclude that, but it would seem to have been a good idea to attend.

It is hard, given the information provided, to actually KNOW if the bubbles are paint related or actual blisters. And, if so, whether or not they are structural or only cosmetic.

As earlier noted, the condition of the seacocks could well have changed over the past 8 months. That is sure a looong time to wait to note these issues, unless you were, for instance, out of the country. When we bought our boat, I was all over it for months on end, right at the start. While the condition may have changed, the locations most surely did not.

It is, I am sure, very disappointing to you. But getting into a legal squabble with little chance of success in a business with little profit margin may not be the best way to get started with your new boat.

I wish you all the best of luck in resolving this issue to your satisfaction. Perhaps sometimes biting the bullet and putting the effort and expenses into correcting the issues instead of litigating may be a preferred option for you.

 

[nickansc]

Thank you all for taking the time to respond to my initial post. Having digested the advice we received online, as well as from other yachties generally, we did two things – we sought legal advice from a litigation specialist and we had a different surveyor visit the boat whilst she was out of the water.

With regards to the potential osmosis, without stripping off all the hull coatings it was inconclusive as to (a) whether osmosis currently exists on our boat (it may merely be bubbling of the various coatings), and (b) whether it would have existed or been detectable at the time of the initial survey.

With regards to the seacocks, there was no doubt that (i) the total lack of reference to seacocks in the survey report, and (ii) the extreme degradation of the seacocks, represented negligence on behalf of our surveyor.

Given the inconclusive nature of the evidence regarding osmosis we decided only to pursue the issue of the seacocks. With the assistance of the lawyer we wrote to our surveyor detailing and evidencing their negligence with regards to the seacocks and presenting our claim for compensation. We claimed only for actual costs incurred: new seacocks, labour time, materials and haul-out / boat yard costs.

I am pleased to say that our surveyor responded within a matter of days and agreed to settle our costs in full. To their credit, the surveyor handled the matter professionally and politely. We received the funds shortly thereafter and are happy the matter is closed so we can enjoy the coming cruising season (we live aboard).

I hope our experience encourages others in a similar situation as it shows that it is possible to successfully pursue a claim against a surveyor and that the process doesn’t have to be expensive or particularly arduous. I am not proposing that we move to an American model of suing coffee shops for selling hot coffee, but in this instance the negligence caused us significant expense and we felt it was right to seek reimbursement of that expense.

Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss or be put in touch with the lawyer I consulted.

Many thanks again for everyone’s contributions and advice.

 

[Spyro]

Sounds like a good result but did the surveyor give any reason why the seacocks were not included in the survey?

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Sounds like a good result but did the surveyor give any reason why the seacocks were not included in the survey?

+1

 

[Elessar]

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

He should pop the bubbles and check the pH of the water within.
Acid = osmosis, alkali and you are probably right
No pH paper? If it tastes like battery acid on the end of your tongue it's osmosis.

 

[Terra-Loon]

He should pop the bubbles and check the pH of the water within.
Acid = osmosis, alkali and you are probably right
No pH paper? If it tastes like battery acid on the end of your tongue it's osmosis.

Vinegar, surely?

 

[chinita]

Vinegar, surely?

Whatever it is, once tasted - never forgotten.

 

[chinita]

This looks like a satisfactory result.

One or two things worry me. Was the surveyor a member of the YBDSA? If he was not, it is possible he would not have carried Professional Indemnity Insurance and any substantial claim would have been difficult to progress.

The statement about no osmosis seems to have been made after just a visual examination. No surveyor would do this. Readings would be taken on a specified moisture meter (probably Sovereign) with an indication of where the control reading was taken on the topsides in order that relative readings on the hull make sense. In addition air temperature, dew point and photographs of where the readings were taken may also be included on the report.

Anyone thinking of buying a grp boat, and having a survey done, could do a lot worse than buy this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Surveying-Yachts-Small-Craft-Stevens/dp/1408114038

 

[chrishelen]

Seacocks

Absolutely no excuse for missing these.

Did he give a reason why they we not checked? Why didnt you have a quick look at the seacocks when viewing the boat?

 

[Clyde_Wanderer]

On similar lines I bought Hummingbird in feb 2006, she had been surveyed in 2003 when the previous owner bought her.
In the 03 survey report the surveyor had reported on the cross floors beneath the cabin sole, and stated, "there is some delamination of the tabbing on these cross floors but this is Imaterial"
Firstly these cross floors/struts are strengthening in the area of the keel stub and deadrise.
I used HB for the first season but when lowering her on the cradle for the first time I noticed the keel kick out.
Anyway I ended up having to cut out the cabin sole, remove the cross floors (actually was able to pull some of them out by hand) clean the hull area laminate it and fit and glass in new cross floors.
I could never understand how the surveyor could class such a defect as imaterial.
There's a bad apple in every orchard.
C_W

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Was there any negotiation over the cost of the survey?

That at least is totally irrelevant.

I dont know whether the seacocks would have been included in a normal survey since they are "mechanical" but I guess they would have been. But then freeing off a seacock is small beer anyway.

The pox is different but you have the problem of proving that the pox actually was visible when he did his survey. Given what you say about the bubbles disappearing over a few days and given the time that has elapsed since his survey, you are going to need lots of professional support to prove this in court.

One of my surveys, thankfully a problem free one, I discovered when I received the survey and read the fine print was done by a foreign registered company. This would have made it impractical for me to sue if I had wanted.

My last survey was unsatisfactory and I negotiated compensation of £3500. The surveyor was very reasonable about it ( I ended up feeling sorry for him) but the compo was less than the costs to me of the problems. However it was the limit of his excess with his professional indemnity policy and had I pursued the matter I would have been dealing with his insurance company lawyers. Life is too short for that.

TBH, you need to steer clear of the courts if you can and see if you can strioke up a reasonable compromise with the surveyor. Best of luck!

 

[Tranona]

TBH, you need to steer clear of the courts if you can and see if you can strioke up a reasonable compromise with the surveyor. Best of luck!

If you read the whole thread, you will find the OP has indeed done what you are suggesting and has achieved a satisfactory settlement. This old thread has only come up because he is reporting the outcome.

 

[Spyro]

I dont know whether the seacocks would have been included in a normal survey since they are "mechanical" but I guess they would have been. But then freeing off a seacock is small beer anyway.

I would have thought seacocks would be one of the most important things in a survey, mechanical or not

 

[Bosun Higgs]

If you read the whole thread, you will find the OP has indeed done what you are suggesting and has achieved a satisfactory settlement. This old thread has only come up because he is reporting the outcome.

Brain fade! But at least I'm consistent!

 

[uxb]

On similar lines I bought Hummingbird in feb 2006, she had been surveyed in 2003 when the previous owner bought her.
In the 03 survey report the surveyor had reported on the cross floors beneath the cabin sole, and stated, "there is some delamination of the tabbing on these cross floors but this is Imaterial"
Firstly these cross floors/struts are strengthening in the area of the keel stub and deadrise.
I used HB for the first season but when lowering her on the cradle for the first time I noticed the keel kick out.
Anyway I ended up having to cut out the cabin sole, remove the cross floors (actually was able to pull some of them out by hand) clean the hull area laminate it and fit and glass in new cross floors.
I could never understand how the surveyor could class such a defect as imaterial.
There's a bad apple in every orchard.
C_W

I wonder if you had the same useless Clyde based surveyor I did? Today I found another leak that this imbecile missed.

No wonder he's got such a bad name- I only wish I'd found out about his poor rep before I engaged him.

No wonder he's cheap.

 

[PeterGibbs]

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.

. 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

Put it like this: you have a survey and nothing adverse is reported. You notice (say, within 28 days) that some items are not as described in the survey. In the meanwhile you have relied on the survey to purchase. An independent survey then proves the discrepancy and you take your not inconsiderable claim to the county court and win an out of court settlement.

Now, transpose this scenario to an 8 month interval between initial survey and noting the faults. What are the chances a judge will agree you have a case?

Stanger things have happened, but applications of law are chancey and probabalities are against you.

Your best bet is to take a firm line with the original surveyor, let them re-survey and try to make a settlement.

BTW -when the vessel was offered for sale was there a specific about hull in good condition etc? You might be able to sustain a case if misrepresentation has taken place.

For readers of this sad case, I need hardly add the imperative of not relying on the validation of "professionals" The faults in this case were seemingly all visible to the naked eye! QED.

PWG

 

[Spyro]

I wonder if you had the same useless Clyde based surveyor I did? Today I found another leak that this imbecile missed.

No wonder he's got such a bad name- I only wish I'd found out about his poor rep before I engaged him.

No wonder he's cheap.

Did he have his wife with him?

 

[chinita]

If you read the whole thread, you will find the OP has indeed done what you are suggesting and has achieved a satisfactory settlement. This old thread has only come up because he is reporting the outcome.

Yes, I realised that about three seconds before clicking 'submit' on my thousand word reply!

Doh! It was a good reply as well!!

 

[Tranona]

Put it like this: you have a survey and nothing adverse is reported. You notice (say, within 28 days) that some items are not as described in the survey. In the meanwhile you have relied on the survey to purchase. An independent survey then proves the discrepancy and you take your not inconsiderable claim to the county court and win an out of court settlement.

Now, transpose this scenario to an 8 month interval between initial survey and noting the faults. What are the chances a judge will agree you have a case?

Stanger things have happened, but applications of law are chancey and probabalities are against you.

Your best bet is to take a firm line with the original surveyor, let them re-survey and try to make a settlement.

BTW -when the vessel was offered for sale was there a specific about hull in good condition etc? You might be able to sustain a case if misrepresentation has taken place.

For readers of this sad case, I need hardly add the imperative of not relying on the validation of "professionals" The faults in this case were seemingly all visible to the naked eye! QED.

PWG

Please read the whole thread, including post 22 where the OP reports that he followed earlier advice, has pursued his claim with the surveyor and achieved a satisfactory outcome.

 

[uxb]

Did he have his wife with him?

Dunno, wasn't there.

There could have been a team of them for all I know.