The ethics of boat surveys.

[AntarcticPilot]

Agreed, but there are those who wouldn’t know how to do this - those new to boating perhaps.

My non-boaty friend bought a ferro Broads cruiser that had been repaired ‘incompetently’ after a very serious collision with something. His bad in a way as he didn’t have a pre-purchase survey done - I only write this to show that people do cover up potentially dangerous stuff. When a pro boat restorer saw my friends boat he warned him not to launch it until remedied, but he launched anyway and sure enough, it sank a few weeks later; fortunately with no one on board. It has since been broken up by a JCB.

I wonder if at some point in the past, a survey of this boat, post-collision, had a strongly worded warning of the very poor repair done. Which is what this thread about really- should surveys be recorded by some body or other in an effort to stop people covering things up - as rare as that might be, I accept.

Assuming it was sold by the person responsible for the bad repair, and presuming that the repair was either not disclosed to the buyer or the seller assured the buyer that the repair was of suitable quality, then the buyer would have a claim against the seller, as I understand it.

As @Tranona says, the law of tort covers that kind of thing.

I am not a lawyer, but my first wife worked in consumer advice.

 

[MisterBaxter]

I would say that if a buyer doesn't get a survey then ignores the specific advice of an expert not to launch, they bear a significant share of responsibility for the outcome.
That's not to say that the previous owner doesn't share some responsibility, if they repaired it with parcel tape and polyfilla (or whatever) but to my mind the owner of a boat has primary responsibility regardless of its history.
Deliberate fraud would be another matter - a falsified survey shared with a buyer, or a careful, knowingly cosmetic cover-up of an unrepaired fault accompanied by verbal or written assurances of structural soundness, for example.

 

[fredrussell]

Assuming it was sold by the person responsible for the bad repair, and presuming that the repair was either not disclosed to the buyer or the seller assured the buyer that the repair was of suitable quality, then the buyer would have a claim against the seller, as I understand it.

As @Tranona says, the law of tort covers that kind of thing.

I am not a lawyer, but my first wife worked in consumer advice.

A fair point. But what if buyer, on discovering bodgery, is told by previous owner “I had/have no knowledge of that repair, it must have been the previous owner to me”? Hard to prove otherwise I would have thought.

 

[Caer Urfa]

Hi Guys, putting my surveyors hat on lets be clear that any boat survey is the property of the person who employed the surveyor to do it.
The survey should be completed with a full written report on the boats condition and what the surveyor found on the day of the survey

In regards to covering up problems sadly you would not believe what we find some of which have been evident for some time but the owner has done nothing or little about it some of which could endanger both his and anyone aboard's life.

We must also remember not everyone is an expert on boats, typical last week I spoke to a gentleman who had just bought a 65' Princess (£230.000) and did not even know why he should have a boat survey, to the opposite end of buying when another gentleman was going to purchase a Colvic 26 (£2.800) who had the sense to get it surveyed even though the boat 'looked' good, that was until I found a 1 m long crack on the keel line which had simply been covered over by fresh anti foul.

When the potential buyer asked the seller why he had not mentioned the damage his reply was 'Oh he knew it was there but only a scratch so not worth mentioning and had been for years !! (It's pity he never looked 'inside' the boat bilges to find the same 'scratch' clearly visible, no surveyor wants to tell a potential buyer to 'walk away' but sadly this was one occasion, but had a happy ending when he found another one in much better condition

 

[AntarcticPilot]

A fair point. But what if buyer, on discovering bodgery, is told by previous owner “I had/have no knowledge of that repair, it must have been the previous owner to me”? Hard to prove otherwise I would have thought.

If the boat was unusable (and the account of the ferro boat makes it clear it was) then that is prima facie evidence that the previous owner knew of the fault. Yes, we can imagine scenarios where the previous owner might not be at fault, but in most cases a fault of that magnitude would be apparent to the owner; indeed it was apparent to knowledgeable bystanders.

 

[Tranona]

A fair point. But what if buyer, on discovering bodgery, is told by previous owner “I had/have no knowledge of that repair, it must have been the previous owner to me”? Hard to prove otherwise I would have thought.

That is what courts are for - to establish the truth in a dispute. equally going that route is expensive and time consuming which is why the things you say might happen do. Not sure why you think boats should be "special" in this context as it happens with just about anything you buy.

There is 200 years of experience refining the law and bringing in legislation to protect consumers who buy from traders. However the law has always relied on caveat emptor for dealings between private individuals - that is the buyer has to satisfy himself that the product is suitable for his needs and is worth the price paid. He may engage a surveyor or other expert to advise him. Because he is an expert if the surveyor fails to find the fault you can claim against him as he owes you a duty of care, whereas a seller does not. Depending on the details of the case there are other possible remedies such as fraud by misrepresentation.

Thousand of boats change hands each year privately and inevitably there will be some horror stories, but when you dig deeper almost always the buyer has not taken the necessary steps to protect himself (see examples above). Much as we criticise surveyors, doubt that any would miss a major defect or hide it from his client.

 

[capnsensible]

This is a Very British Thread.

 

[Babylon]

My non-boaty friend bought a ferro Broads cruiser that had been repaired ‘incompetently’ after a very serious collision with something. His bad in a way as he didn’t have a pre-purchase survey done - I only write this to show that people do cover up potentially dangerous stuff. When a pro boat restorer saw my friends boat he warned him not to launch it until remedied, but he launched anyway and sure enough, it sank a few weeks later; fortunately with no one on board. It has since been broken up by a JCB.

I wonder if at some point in the past, a survey of this boat, post-collision, had a strongly worded warning of the very poor repair done. Which is what this thread about really- should surveys be recorded by some body or other in an effort to stop people covering things up - as rare as that might be, I accept.

My view is that your friend was a fool: someone who really knew his stuff warned him and he blithely ignored the advice!

More generally, the principle of 'caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware) is the relevant notion. The sooner people accept that they alone are responsible for their lives and their property the better. Yes, there is plenty of regulation for good reason in, for example, commercial aviation, rail operators, bus companies, car ownership, food and product manufacture, etc where completely innocent lives are at stake, but if you buy a used boat then just get it properly looked at by a competent professional of your own choice, or not. Its up to you!

 

[ridgy]

When I boat my last boat I had it surveyed by a somewhat local surveyor. When I spoke yo him afterwards he said that it was actually the third time he had surveyed this boat, the first being being about 10 years ago. He said that much to his amusement nearly all of the faults that he found for me had been there on the first survey and that the two owners involved had done nothing even though a couple of the faults he found for me I would not go sea with.
He also said that the boat had effectively been uninsured for that period as in his experience an insurance co would probably not have paid a claim.

 

[fredrussell]

I certainly don’t disagree with anything said thus far. The less bureaucracy the better as far as I’m concerned. Just thinking aloud really. I do think the easy availability of car MOT test histories has made it a lot harder to cover things up in that area, but I accept it’s not a system that lends itself well to the boat world.

Caveat emptor indeed, but anything that protects the ‘naive’ (like my mate) from the unscrupulous is no bad thing. At the cheaper end of the market court costs may well discourage those with a genuine grievance from action.

 

[rogerthebodger]

The problem with every service that a "professional" provides is one of accountability.

If there is no accountability the service is of little value.

The term professional is misused as it only means some won who charges a fee for the service provided. It doe not give any indication of the quality of the service

With most real professional there is some controlling organisation that can hold members accountable

 

[Tranona]

With most real professional there is some controlling organisation that can hold members accountable

So there is for surveyors. Most belong to YDSA or IMS or RINA. however you only have to look at the legal profession which has a statutory regulatory body to realise how ineffective they are.

 

[rogerthebodger]

So there is for surveyors. Most belong to YDSA or IMS or RINA. however you only have to look at the legal profession which has a statutory regulatory body to realise how ineffective they are.

Same with the Engineering Profusion

I graduated and became a C Eng but the only thing they really did was to collect my fees.

 

[benjenbav]

That is what courts are for - to establish the truth in a dispute. equally going that route is expensive and time consuming which is why the things you say might happen do. Not sure why you think boats should be "special" in this context as it happens with just about anything you buy.

There is 200 years of experience refining the law and bringing in legislation to protect consumers who buy from traders. However the law has always relied on caveat emptor for dealings between private individuals - that is the buyer has to satisfy himself that the product is suitable for his needs and is worth the price paid. He may engage a surveyor or other expert to advise him. Because he is an expert if the surveyor fails to find the fault you can claim against him as he owes you a duty of care, whereas a seller does not. Depending on the details of the case there are other possible remedies such as fraud by misrepresentation.

Thousand of boats change hands each year privately and inevitably there will be some horror stories, but when you dig deeper almost always the buyer has not taken the necessary steps to protect himself (see examples above). Much as we criticise surveyors, doubt that any would miss a major defect or hide it from his client.

I very much agree, and would also observe that the courts don’t have the power to give you back what you’ve lost; only to order compensation for that loss.

 

[Egbod]

If someone ends up bying a defective boat there may be redress under misrepresentation law. Any misrepresentation, deliberate or accidental is not legal.
A few years ago I bought a used wind generator. It was available with an instruction book with it naming the manufacturer and the seller stated that it was that make. It turned out that it was only similar in appearance to that make and very inferior. The small claims court agreed with me that it had been misrepresented and I got a full refund.
If the seller had not shown me the incorrect instruction book or falsly claimed who had made it, then I may have bought the wind generator based on my own inspection. That may not be a misrepresentation.
Beware of people selling things and being very quiet about them. So- ask lots of wide ranging questions, then they can tell you everything about it. You have got to let them state something about the condition of what they are selling, preferably in writing. Ask about previous damage and repairs. Make your own contemporaneous notes as well. Do not assume anything.

 

[Babylon]

You make a very good point, illustrating how a purchase can be more legally nuanced than the over-riding principle of buyer-beware, however that it is still incumbent on the buyer to keep his wits about him - which comes to the same thing! Usually, with a house or a boat rather than a component part like a wind generator, this starts with getting a survey done, where redress is then through the surveyor's indemnity insurance rather than from the seller.

 

[steve yates]

I’ve owned two boats that didn’t require insurance surveys. One £3k and the other £10k. Both were fully comp. I assume it’s higher value boats that need an insurance survey.

Not anymore as far as I can tell. I insured my boat in 2017 without a survey, yet had to have a survey done last year to reinsure. That was with the original insurers and every single other one I tried. If you know of an insurer that currently will provide cover without a survey in the last 5 years, let us know. (Though now I do have one ) This was for a 70’s longbow valued between 10-20k, so not a new expensive boat.

 

[Babylon]

This is my own recent experience. It seems that the new norm for the industry is to require a re-survey every ten years. A bean-counter somewhere probably worked out that it would save their insurance company 0.7% of their costs (don't quote me, it's a rhetorical figure!) then told someone else while they were pissed at an insurers convention, now they all seem to have adopted the requirement.

 

[Helidan]

While age of boat is now a common reason for existing customers being asked to have a survey, the requirement for new customers and/or new boats is almost universal for all risks insurance.

I know of two brand new fast fishing boats that were essentially condemned by the surveyor when they were presented for coding. Major structural faults in the hulls and decks along with wafer thin layup in places and generally poor build quality. If I were ever to purchase a new build I would get a trusted surveyor to go through the vessel with a fine tooth comb.

 

[benjenbav]

This is my own recent experience. It seems that the new norm for the industry is to require a re-survey every ten years. A bean-counter somewhere probably worked out that it would save their insurance company 0.7% of their costs (don't quote me, it's a rhetorical figure!) then told someone else while they were pissed at an insurers convention, now they all seem to have adopted the requirement.

Sounds about right.