What to do if surveyor is negligent
- Thread starter Paddingtonbear
- Start date
lw395
Well-Known Member
I think you may have some valid complaint with the surveyor, but there are limits to that.
I don't think surveying the boat in strops is at all unusual or poor practice.
The way wood rots when covered in fibreglass is hard to see until you remove the fibreglass.
If the deck is non original, then it is possibly not that valuable a part of the boat.
Re-decking in GRP sheathed ply would not be your biggest cost.
What outcome are you hoping for?
You say you are committed to the boat, which implies your main issue is you paid too much given the state it is in?
TBH, I think the amount you have overpaid may pale into insignificance in terms of paying people to do the work.
If the boat is genuinely historic and worth repairing, maybe a charity/trust/museum might take the work on. Maybe one of the boat building colleges might do some work on a non-commercial basis? (they seem to be on the increase?)
I've sailed (raced) pre-war wooden boats, you can spend tens of thousands on them and it does not make them any quicker than doing the minimum to preserve them and keep them floating. Perfectionism and an old wooden boat are a recipe for a lot of spending.
Just some thoughts which may not sound as helpful as I hoped them to be.
Good Luck.
I don't think surveying the boat in strops is at all unusual or poor practice.
The way wood rots when covered in fibreglass is hard to see until you remove the fibreglass.
If the deck is non original, then it is possibly not that valuable a part of the boat.
Re-decking in GRP sheathed ply would not be your biggest cost.
What outcome are you hoping for?
You say you are committed to the boat, which implies your main issue is you paid too much given the state it is in?
TBH, I think the amount you have overpaid may pale into insignificance in terms of paying people to do the work.
If the boat is genuinely historic and worth repairing, maybe a charity/trust/museum might take the work on. Maybe one of the boat building colleges might do some work on a non-commercial basis? (they seem to be on the increase?)
I've sailed (raced) pre-war wooden boats, you can spend tens of thousands on them and it does not make them any quicker than doing the minimum to preserve them and keep them floating. Perfectionism and an old wooden boat are a recipe for a lot of spending.
Just some thoughts which may not sound as helpful as I hoped them to be.
Good Luck.
Paddingtonbear
Well-Known Member
What I should have put Sailorman was fibreglassed from when the deck was last renewed.
oldfatgit
Well-Known Member
I think you need to have a word with your "wooden boat specialist surveyor" with a view to getting him to provide some expert evidence/opinion which can be cited against your original surveyor. This is a cost with a risk; but if he is prepared to provide such evidence at reasonable cost then you might judge it worth taking. Before you do, however, from the information provided by your original surveyor you need to find out what professional accreditations he holds. From that you should be able to find out what mechanisms they have for dealing with complaints. The point is that if he has performed as badly as you describe he needs to be stopped and you need some just compensation. Only take this route if you are very sure that eventually you will recoup your costs because you are likely to have to spend a lot up front before you get satisfaction. If he is a responsible surveyor he will have some form of professional indemnity insurance which is there for a purpose, to protect him from justified claims which are upheld. If yours is then you will be compensated. However, this is a risk that only you can decide to take.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You will have to show that AT THE TIME he carried out the survey, any competent expert should have been able to identify the problems you have since encountered. The only way you can do this is to get another "expert" to demonstrate that this is so. There are two main problems in doing this. First you are trying to show what it was like in the past and time may have changed things. Secondly you are questioning his professional competence, so it becomes your new expert's word against his.
It is quite possible to do this. I was involved in a similar case when I looked at buying a boat that was the subject of a negligence claim. It was clear to anybody who knew about the boat that it was riddled with rot and would have been obvious 6 months earlier when the disputed survey was done. It may not be so clearcut in your case. GRP sheathing on top of conventional decking is well known as a potentially bad thing to do as it can hide rot. Look carefully at his comments on the deck, as he may well have qualified his report by saying that he was unable to confirm the underlying structural soundness because of the sheathing.
As he is clearly trying to walk away, you probably have no option, if you want to pursue it, but to get another surveyor who can talk the same "language". You have to decide whether you want to throw more money at it, bearing in mind the level of compensation you might achieve.
It is quite possible to do this. I was involved in a similar case when I looked at buying a boat that was the subject of a negligence claim. It was clear to anybody who knew about the boat that it was riddled with rot and would have been obvious 6 months earlier when the disputed survey was done. It may not be so clearcut in your case. GRP sheathing on top of conventional decking is well known as a potentially bad thing to do as it can hide rot. Look carefully at his comments on the deck, as he may well have qualified his report by saying that he was unable to confirm the underlying structural soundness because of the sheathing.
As he is clearly trying to walk away, you probably have no option, if you want to pursue it, but to get another surveyor who can talk the same "language". You have to decide whether you want to throw more money at it, bearing in mind the level of compensation you might achieve.
Paddingtonbear
Well-Known Member
Thank you for all your thoughts. This is just the sort of attitude that I expected the 'surveyor to have had.
I have spent the majority my working life restoring old buildings mainly for English Heritage and if I turned up at a property to repair the electrics I would have a duty of care to my customer to comply with all the relevant regs as well as acting in their interests for the period that I am in there employ, bringing to there notice any problems that manifest themselves. I could not say, when the lights did not work, " I am sorry you did not specifically ask for the lights to work and also the leaking roof, which caused the problem is nothing to do with me". These sort of activities rely in large measure on trust, it is not like buying a tin of beans which is a known quantity. If I 'knew' about wooden boats I would not have needed him at all. The only reason to have a surveyor it seems is to satisfy the demands of another of the mafia - insurance companies. If I was the 'surveyor' in question, with regard to the front deck I would have said something like " I have noted that the front deck is fibre glassed and therefore I cannot inspect it but this method of construction is not recommended and I therefore I suggest a more detailed examination is required", this would have at least put me on notice althoug originally it would have been canvassed over I expect. I note from his website that a "Pre purchase survey WILL expose ALL the problems with the boat and give you peace of mind"
Had he have gone on board he would have no doubt fallen through, he would have to have noted it then
.
The point about lifting it is well made as he did not know the integrity of the hull and lifting it rather than putting it in a dry dock or running up on a trolley might have put excessive strain on the hull. This indicates his general slapdash attitude which I now wish I had addressed at the time.. I have been contacted by 27 forumites over the last few days, from this and other forums, expressing extreme dissatisfaction with their 'surveyors', so it seems to be a fairly common problem. It also seems common that brokers, surveyors and insurers all work far too 'hand in glove' to allow them to act in their clients best interests. They all have the same 'nothing to do with me guv' attitude, what is the point of any of them?
It would be hard for me to call on the two wooden boat experts as one is in Holland and the other is in Scotland.
I have spent the majority my working life restoring old buildings mainly for English Heritage and if I turned up at a property to repair the electrics I would have a duty of care to my customer to comply with all the relevant regs as well as acting in their interests for the period that I am in there employ, bringing to there notice any problems that manifest themselves. I could not say, when the lights did not work, " I am sorry you did not specifically ask for the lights to work and also the leaking roof, which caused the problem is nothing to do with me". These sort of activities rely in large measure on trust, it is not like buying a tin of beans which is a known quantity. If I 'knew' about wooden boats I would not have needed him at all. The only reason to have a surveyor it seems is to satisfy the demands of another of the mafia - insurance companies. If I was the 'surveyor' in question, with regard to the front deck I would have said something like " I have noted that the front deck is fibre glassed and therefore I cannot inspect it but this method of construction is not recommended and I therefore I suggest a more detailed examination is required", this would have at least put me on notice althoug originally it would have been canvassed over I expect. I note from his website that a "Pre purchase survey WILL expose ALL the problems with the boat and give you peace of mind"
Had he have gone on board he would have no doubt fallen through, he would have to have noted it then. The point about lifting it is well made as he did not know the integrity of the hull and lifting it rather than putting it in a dry dock or running up on a trolley might have put excessive strain on the hull. This indicates his general slapdash attitude which I now wish I had addressed at the time.. I have been contacted by 27 forumites over the last few days, from this and other forums, expressing extreme dissatisfaction with their 'surveyors', so it seems to be a fairly common problem. It also seems common that brokers, surveyors and insurers all work far too 'hand in glove' to allow them to act in their clients best interests. They all have the same 'nothing to do with me guv' attitude, what is the point of any of them?
It would be hard for me to call on the two wooden boat experts as one is in Holland and the other is in Scotland.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Is he a member of a professional body? Sounds like that is your next move. The two weapons you have are taking him to court - expensive and needs to be supported by challenging professional opinion, or reporting to his professional body focusing in the inadequacy of his survey.
lw395
Well-Known Member
Lifting in strops is absolutely standard.
I don't think anything much under a hundred tons will go in a dry dock.
Trolleys are great if you have the chocks exactly right to support the hull properly.
That is not going to happen surveying an unseen boat. The surveyor will you use whatever the yard you choose has.
On a wooden or lightly built boat, you can have issues if the strops pull inwards at the deck, but good yards should have no problems.
I think you should focus on the real issues, not get drawn into criticising things that are common practice and irrelevant to your problems.
Keep it simple, there were major defects he did not find.
I think you should contact his professional body. Ask them about getting another surveyor to look at the boat.
You also need to make plans to move forwards, which may mean deciding whether the boat is repairable or not.
The danger is you could spend a great of money and end up with a boat with ongoing problems and not much value. Presumably it is already costing shed space on a weekly basis.
Have you got quotes to get where you want to go?
What would be your desired outcome from the surveyor? Do you think he should take on all your costs because you have bought a valueless boat, or is his failure more a matter of things being a bit worse than you thought, so he should be picking up a small part of the bill?
DanBurrill
Active Member
Thank you for all your thoughts. This is just the sort of attitude that I expected the 'surveyor to have had.
I have spent the majority my working life restoring old buildings mainly for English Heritage and if I turned up at a property to repair the electrics I would have a duty of care to my customer to comply with all the relevant regs as well as acting in their interests for the period that I am in there employ, bringing to there notice any problems that manifest themselves. I could not say, when the lights did not work, " I am sorry you did not specifically ask for the lights to work and also the leaking roof, which caused the problem is nothing to do with me". These sort of activities rely in large measure on trust, it is not like buying a tin of beans which is a known quantity. If I 'knew' about wooden boats I would not have needed him at all. The only reason to have a surveyor it seems is to satisfy the demands of another of the mafia - insurance companies. If I was the 'surveyor' in question, with regard to the front deck I would have said something like " I have noted that the front deck is fibre glassed and therefore I cannot inspect it but this method of construction is not recommended and I therefore I suggest a more detailed examination is required", this would have at least put me on notice althoug originally it would have been canvassed over I expect. I note from his website that a "Pre purchase survey WILL expose ALL the problems with the boat and give you peace of mind"
The point about lifting it is well made as he did not know the integrity of the hull and lifting it rather than putting it in a dry dock or running up on a trolley might have put excessive strain on the hull. This indicates his general slapdash attitude which I now wish I had addressed at the time.. I have been contacted by 27 forumites over the last few days, from this and other forums, expressing extreme dissatisfaction with their 'surveyors', so it seems to be a fairly common problem. It also seems common that brokers, surveyors and insurers all work far too 'hand in glove' to allow them to act in their clients best interests. They all have the same 'nothing to do with me guv' attitude, what is the point of any of them?
It would be hard for me to call on the two wooden boat experts as one is in Holland and the other is in Scotland.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with decks covered with GRP, although for preference I'd suggest that plywood covered with glass cloth and epoxy resin is best practise when using this method. Yes the GRP will prevent the outer surface of the deck from being visually examined, which is why I'd be tapping it with a rubber mallet to look for soft spots and testing it with a moisture meter looking for water saturation. I'd also be examining the deck as best I could from the underside, along with the deck beams, carlins, beam shelf, etc, where these are visible.
With the best will in the world, no survey can be guaranteed to find every issue that may exist with a particular boat. The best that any surveyor can state is that they looked at every part of the boat it was possible to look at, and they didn't find any sign of a problem at the time of survey. They should also clearly state what parts of the boat they weren't able to look at. If they find something that might be a problem, but aren't able to determine whether it is or not, it should be mentioned in the survey with a recommendation for monitoring or further investigation as appropriate.
If the surveyor's terms & conditions are anything like mine (which are fairly standard), then organising the lift out is your responsibility. They should make you aware of what they require in order to do a proper survey, and if they did take on responsibility for arranging the lifting of the vessel then they also take on the liability of ensuring it's done properly (which is why I won't do it). Personally, I would not be willing to survey any boat being held in slings, particularly if they're hanging off a telehandler or forklift. This is not so much because it's bad for the boat (although it's not a good thing to do with an old wooden boat of unknown soundness), but because I value my life and won't trust it to somebody else's lifting equipment.
It's certainly not unheard of for a surveyor to cut and paste from a previous report done on the same boat, or on a sister vessel. I've never done so myself, but I've read previous reports on boats that I've surveyed where sections had obviously been cut and pasted in from a report on a sister vessel (because the surveyor in question had neglected to read through them and change a few details that could not have been correct if they were actually writing about the vessel that I examined).
Some surveyors may have working relationships with brokers, yards, insurers, or other businesses. I'm not one of them. I work for my clients and only my clients, and there are plenty of other surveyors who operate in the same way.
chinita
Well-Known Member
Not entirely relevant but I would like to know how a yard which has charged £30k for recent work managed to miss a rotten deck, breasthook and apron - only discovering the problem when the yard manager put his finger through the deck whilst having a cup of tea?
Do you have a detailed list of work carried out and was the surveyor aware of this?
Do you have a detailed list of work carried out and was the surveyor aware of this?
KINGFISHER 9
Well-Known Member
If the same yard did £30k's worth of work on her, what exactly did they do? In my experience you have to beware of boatyards equally as much as surveyors!
jonic
Well-Known Member
Sorry to hear you have issues with the boat but is this her, built 1934?
KINGFISHER 9
Well-Known Member
That must have been before they spent the £30k !!
Paddingtonbear
Well-Known Member
No, if that is Greece it is Singapore l. The are both Little Ships but not connected despite the name. Very similar but mine is slightly bigger I think
clyst
Well-Known Member
Being involved in wooden boat building ,repairing and surveying I have to say that any self respecting surveyor would have picked up the described problems with a very high reading on a decent moisture meter . you were there ....... He did use a moisture meter as well as his other tool ......a light hammer didn't he ??
Chrissie
Well-Known Member
I was wondering how long it has been since the survey, and how long the boat has been in the yard with the experts working on it, having replaced the apron, and many planks, they only found the rot in the fore deck when the foreman put his fingers through it?
Did the surveyor not walk round the decks at the time of the survey? surely he hammer tested the area?
There will be photos that he took, has he given you copies?
The response you had from the surveyor will be totally inline with the response his PI insurance company will have approved, he will not be allowed to inadvertantly put them at risk of higher claims, and should you take it further they will step in, and investigations will be carried out. The main idea is that for negligence to be proven, he needs to have missed something that his peers would have found, and that it could have been found at the time of the survey.
Its very unfair to suggest that surveyors are not impartial, several on here have tried to offer you advice yet you throw it back with your generalisations. Follow the advice you have been given, put everything in writing, timelines, photographs, and above all keep it specific and keep calm.
Did the surveyor not walk round the decks at the time of the survey? surely he hammer tested the area?
There will be photos that he took, has he given you copies?
The response you had from the surveyor will be totally inline with the response his PI insurance company will have approved, he will not be allowed to inadvertantly put them at risk of higher claims, and should you take it further they will step in, and investigations will be carried out. The main idea is that for negligence to be proven, he needs to have missed something that his peers would have found, and that it could have been found at the time of the survey.
Its very unfair to suggest that surveyors are not impartial, several on here have tried to offer you advice yet you throw it back with your generalisations. Follow the advice you have been given, put everything in writing, timelines, photographs, and above all keep it specific and keep calm.
oldfatgit
Well-Known Member
An excellent post from Chrissie, however, I do not agree with this bit:
Don't want to divert the thread, but if this is true perhaps the OP needs to be told exactly where he has done as you suggest.
Don't want to divert the thread, but if this is true perhaps the OP needs to be told exactly where he has done as you suggest.
Chrissie
Well-Known Member
"Thank you for all your thoughts. This is just the sort of attitude that I expected the 'surveyor to have had.....
....The only reason to have a surveyor it seems is to satisfy the demands of another of the mafia - insurance companies.
.....This indicates his general slapdash attitude which I now wish I had addressed at the time..... I have been contacted by 27 forumites over the last few days, from this and other forums, expressing extreme dissatisfaction with their 'surveyors', so it seems to be a fairly common problem. It also seems common that brokers, surveyors and insurers all work far too 'hand in glove' to allow them to act in their clients best interests. They all have the same 'nothing to do with me guv' attitude, what is the point of any of them?"
Well, I see these comments as generalisations, perhaps you disagree, your perogative.
....The only reason to have a surveyor it seems is to satisfy the demands of another of the mafia - insurance companies.
.....This indicates his general slapdash attitude which I now wish I had addressed at the time..... I have been contacted by 27 forumites over the last few days, from this and other forums, expressing extreme dissatisfaction with their 'surveyors', so it seems to be a fairly common problem. It also seems common that brokers, surveyors and insurers all work far too 'hand in glove' to allow them to act in their clients best interests. They all have the same 'nothing to do with me guv' attitude, what is the point of any of them?"
Well, I see these comments as generalisations, perhaps you disagree, your perogative.
jonic
Well-Known Member
Oldfatgit
As a diligent and professional broker who only puts the client's interest first my initial sympathy and interest in adding helpful comment also waned somewhat when he posted the above (untrue) generalization.
I understand Chrissie entirely. I'm sure in retrospect he is just upset with his current surveyor but to read all does stop some of us wanting to post helpful comment.
Chrissie
Well-Known Member
The OP is angry and upset and very disapointed, but my point about the generalisations is a valid one, if he approaches further specialists, insurance companies and the like, with the same attitude it will go against him, he must remain calm and specific, and not throw out accusations, take the deep breath.
Follow the advice given throughout the thread, including talking to his surveyor, believe me, the worst possible feeling for any surveyor is that they might have missed something or let their client down, and he would probably happily look again at the boat, but if there is lots of hostility, this becomes very difficult.
Some people might wrongly believe that as a surveyor has PI, they might not be as dilligent, and that claims against a surveyor are shrugged off like water off a ducks back, but the reality is very different. The financial penalties aside, a surveyor is only as good as his or her reputation, once that is ruined, their work would quickly dry up.
The PI company would put up the annual premium massively if there is a case brought, even if it is later dropped, and / or found unproven.
Follow the advice given throughout the thread, including talking to his surveyor, believe me, the worst possible feeling for any surveyor is that they might have missed something or let their client down, and he would probably happily look again at the boat, but if there is lots of hostility, this becomes very difficult.
Some people might wrongly believe that as a surveyor has PI, they might not be as dilligent, and that claims against a surveyor are shrugged off like water off a ducks back, but the reality is very different. The financial penalties aside, a surveyor is only as good as his or her reputation, once that is ruined, their work would quickly dry up.
The PI company would put up the annual premium massively if there is a case brought, even if it is later dropped, and / or found unproven.