Surveyors responsibilities

[jockster]

Hi, I would be grateful for some advice re the following. last year I bought a boat following a survey which indicated mostly cosmetic damage, but did not include, apparently looking at the internal woodwork . Early this year I had to have the gunnels resealed at a considerable cost and would have absorbed the cost of this. However, as a result of this work it was found that there was substantial water damage to wheelhouse and structural cross members as a result of the water ingress via the gunnels. I had another survey done which highlighted the damage which ws clearly of long standing and repair costs would be astronomical. Could anyone advise me as to what I could about this. My insurance does not appear to cover this. Thanks.

 

[moondancer]

Sorry can't help. But bang goes my suggestion to talk to a surveyor on another thread!!

 

[Aeolus]

The original surveyor may be liable depending on precisely what they stated was excluded from the survey. Surveyors are supposed to carry indemnity insurance precisely to cover these situations.

You should write to your original surveyor informing him of the situation, enclosing an estimate of the cost of remedying the damage and asking them to pay. If the cost is high, it may be worth having a solicitor involved.

 

[jockster]

Dear Jonathon, thanks for the suggestion, I will pursue it although I am not looking forward to a legal tussle.

 

[ChasB]

I've had precisely the same problem. I'm shocked at what he missed.

I doubt they're liable, even if they say something entirely wrong. You would have to prove genuine negligence.

 

[rhumlady]

As a result of similar but not so serious problems I would have difficulty in trusting surveyors in future. I would do most of the work myself and just use them as a sop to the insurance industry.

 

[jockster]

Thanks chasb and rhumlady I'll give it a go but Im sure you are right

 

[ThereAndBack]

Firstly, all the following is just my opinion and should not be relied upon as it comes with no guarantee of its accuracy.

I think this is purely a legal matter, that happens to be boat orientated.

You 'bought' a service from a surveyor - therefor a contracted existed. His part of this contract was to use his specialist knowledge in surveying and to provide his findings to you. Your part was to pay him.

Legally, either the contract was fulfilled or it wasn't (specific performance). If it wasn't, the party who failed to complete his side of the contract is liable to the other party.

So far, so good?

Generally speaking, if one party to a contract suffered a (fiscal) loss, due to the 'performance' of the other party, a claim for (fiscal) damages should be very possible.

I can't agree with other posters who talk about 'having to prove negligence' because we are taliking contract law here.

Now, it may be that the survey you received has 'disclaimers' in it (won't be responsible for errors, etc.). Do not be put off by these, they usually have no bearing and are put there to discourage you from following up on your rights.

It wouldn't worry me to take legal action under such circumstances as you have described.

Good luck

Alan

 

[jockster]

Thanks Alan, that makes sense.

 

[Birdseye]

Dont reach for a lawyer without thinking carefully about it - often the only winner is the lawyer who will persue the case with an eye to his own benefit. And dont forget that the surveyors PI insurance have bigger pockets than you have.

It is highly likely that the surveyor fulfilled his contract with you - what you need to get clear in your mind is whether the problem you have resulted from his failing to do the survey competently. But just like with a house survey, the surveyor cannot be expected to strip the boat to its component bits (would the previous owner have allowed that anyway?) so inevitably there is a defence that says "this fault could not be detected by a thorough survey". It may well be that the surveyor has made clear the limits of his survey in the documents.

In short, dont reach for a lawyer unless you can honestly say to yourself - he should have seen this and reported it to me.

 

[jockster]

THANKS TO ALL RESPONDENTS. I CONSIDER THIS NOW CLOSED UNLESS SOMEONECAN RECOMEND A GOOD SOLICITOR (EVER HOPEFUL!)

 

[Guest]

I am a Surveyor and also cover from Yachts to Supertankers ............. but that's another story ...

Usually in the case you cite - the original surveyor will have made statements regarding spaces or items he could not access at time etc. So usually difficult to prove negligence - Because that is what you have to prove. Forget about all else - NEGLIGENCE ........... that is the real crux.

 

[jockster]

Thankyou sbc, that is correct, but there was a statement to the effect that the boat would recover with little more than cosmetic filling. The most recent survey opined that the damage should have been identifiable at the initial survey. I believe I will pursue the matter. many thanks for your, and all the other respondents, advice.

 

[landaftaf]

ok with the negligence clause, but at the price they charge - about 650 squid for a 33 ft boat, you would expect them to spend at least 6 hrs looking at it, not report they couldnt get access to here there and almost everywhere as its in/out of the water..... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif