Wansworth
Well-known member
He seemed well pleased with his boat.
What's going on at Discovery yachts?
- Thread starter Seven Spades
- Start date
Daydream believer
Well-known member
So why do they not meet the claimed seaworthiness standards? Or is that a false claim that was never actually challenged.
If so, that might lead to one doubting the validity of some other, "armchair" claims.
I am not speaking in support of any party, just raising the question
doug748
Well-known member
Exactly, a very murky business. Continental yards have been getting away with it for years and some wont even disclose to their own customers.
RickMac
New member
If this is indeed your question then, as previously mentioned in my original posting, I am writing quite specifically in respect of our Northshore produced Southerly craft which clearly did not meet the claimed seaworthiness standards.
It took a lot of digging but after my survey "...I then studied ISO 12217-2 issued 2002 which is titled ‘Small Craft-Stability and Buoyancy Assessment and Categorisation’ and discovered that the vessel did not comply. I also went so far as to hunt down the author of the ISO who reluctantly confirmed that this was indeed the case he had not considered a lifting keel build in his formulations..".
The specifics are in the mathematical measurements of our model, of which there were over 100 hundred produced, and the directive requirements.
This was then followed on by our marine surveyor concluding from his surveys - "...that it was evident that the vessel did not conform with the requirements of the Recreational Craft Directive in respect of ISO 12212-2 and, therefore, has been sold illegally, by contravening current European legislation...".
That - after almost 2 years of trying to get Northshore to see some sense and repair our vessel, unsuccessfully, this was then put to them as part of a final legal claim (letter before action) along with the evidence that the ISO author had also agreed that the build was illegal - they then capitulated should allow you to make your own decision on it's merits.
We could only surmise at the time that NS decided that it was better to settle with us than open up the other 100+ can of worms and undoubtedly lose. The most disappointing factor in this appeared to us is that somewhat ironically the RYA, in full knowledge of the situation, decided to play a Pontius Pilate role - read into this what you will.
pvb
Well-known member
If the management had spent as much time on quality control as they have on financial manoeuvring, the company might be in a better position. As it stands, they have supposedly just "restructured", with a new MD. They raised £2.2 million in crowdfunding earlier in the year, and I hope those investors get their money back. Meanwhile, the major shareholder (a German company) has a charge over everything. We'll have to wait to see how this plays out.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
So were the builders missled by the designers, who may not have actually actually designed a boat to meet the correct design standard? I am sure that somewhere along the design process they would be legally obliged to point out to their customer ( in this case the builder) that the boat did not meet current standards that one might expect of a boat of this type. It is a bit like an architect designing a house for me that did not meet building regulation standards. Simplifying things but the principle is the same, is it not. I am not making accusations here only raising a question.
So now the question might be asked- does the designer have any legal liability to the end user? If I was the customer spending £ 400K on legal fees I might be tempted to explore that avenue. I know that in my professional capacity , if I do consultancy work for a builder, I still have a duty of care to their customer & have to carry indemnity insurance for that very purpose. If I am requested to write a specification for a builder & he does not use it, but someone else does; even though I did not prepare it for him. I am still liable for that spec. if it subsequently fails I am liable. That is why you will often see notes on documents saying that they are prepared expressly for the use of the first instance customer & no other party.
A yacht designer has a duty of care to the yacht owner. But of course the designer could have designed the yacht to the directves current at the time & they were subsequently updated. Bearing in mind that earlier directives were pretty good & updates were probably not critical, it stands to reason that the yacht was not unduly unseaworthy. So the customer's claim of unseaworthiness along these lines is not so substantial. Missrepresentation is less important in that case
Last edited:
ip485
Well-known member
Building a modern large yacht is hugley complex. Inevitably they are often not mass produced, so the advantages of scale production are absent. I think this is why those that mass produce such as Bavaria and Beneteau produce such a good and consistent product. Ok, it is made to a price, and the materials chosen will often not stand the test of time, but the product comes off the production line without too many issues. Makers like Oyster, Discovery and Rustler (to stay with UK manufacturers) produce a very different product. Their challenge is to recognise the importance of quality control, thorough post production inspection and a willingness to build into the price adequate margin to ensure the product is not spoiled by stupid mistakes. I am a great believer this isnt the job of the owner, albiet sadly perhaps a prudent owner is wise to take precautions! It seems to me in this case so many of the issues were not fundamental designs concerns (as should be the case with a now relatively well proven product). They would appear to be poor quality control at each stage of production when they could easily have been caught. I wonder whether part of the problem is in this case they did not employ people with sufficient experience and knowledge to identify these faults and / or there were inadequate sea trials? Whatever the reasons, it is terribly disheartening, because it will make many wary of buying the product in the future, and in turn make the yachts even more costly as investment will be required to restore the brand image and volume will b e less. Unfortunately, it also suggests a company that is inadequately funded, in that they would rather run to the Receiver, than invest in protecting their reputation, however popular the former seems to have become.
RickMac
New member
1. You do indeed have an appropriate monicker on here. You seem at pains to absolve the designer (and the builder) when both are equally culpable and have a legal responsibility to ensure that any vessel sold under their design is fully and legally compliant at the time.
2. Your comment "...Bearing in mind that earlier directives were pretty good & updates were probably not critical, it stands to reason that the yacht was not unduly unseaworthy...." is quite frankly both laughable and insulting.
3. You were not onboard when during a very short test run outside the harbour, our marine surveyor further observed that "...when in moderate seas, no more than force 4, he viewed the water in the keel box through the open top and witnessed seawater splashing over over the top of the division and down the compartment containing the hydraulic ram. He also saw that the surface of the water frequently rose to a height of within approximately 15cm of the top of the division. Considerable amounts of salt water entered into the vessel in a very short period of time...".
4. He also "...considered that the current design where significant amounts of water entered the hull by passing up the keel box, over the division and into the hull was not an acceptable arrangement for a category A, ocean cruising yacht that is intended to undertake extended passages across oceans. Furthermore, he also had real concerns that in the event of the vessel becoming partially flooded by other means, such as through a damaged area of the hull, the arrangement of the keel box could very significantly add to the danger of the vessel becoming inundated and sinking...."
5. Perhaps you might hold a different viewpoint if you had spent a not inconsiderable amount of money on a yacht that you were assured by the boatyard was fully compliant with all current legal requirements, then sailed with your wife and children across moderate seas only to find that it was quite literally coming apart at the seams and large measures of sea water (tens of gallons) were flooding into the vessel. Then on reaching safe haven had it surveyed and discovered that it had over 97 significant build faults, including a damaged keel casing, failed shroud plate attachments, the keel with a hydraulic ram fully seized by sea water, the side deck to bulkhead connections had come apart, deck leaks from the two forward deck hatches and from the area of the top of the mast support post, transom and cockpit leaks, to name but a few, and to top it off was not legally compliant with current RCD's.
6. I have been describing facts not hypotheticals; the one sentence I do agree with you is where you state that "...a yacht designer has a duty of care to the yacht owner...". The circumstances described in para 3 and 4 above should not exist in a Cat A ocean vessel regardless of directives updates or otherwise - so to my mind the designer, and the builder, failed in their duty of care.
E39mad
Well-known member
RickMac - an extremely interesting read. As a ex-Northshore salesman of Southerly (as well as Vancouver Fisher & others) from 1990 - 1996 and having been trained as Yacht & Boatyard Manager I used to really enjoy watching the boats being built for the customers and obtained an intimate knowledge of all aspects.
By the time your boat was built in 2010 (if I remember correctly) I distinctly remember that the quality of the boats was not was it used to be. They appeared more show and glamour than practical and sturdy. Clearly there had been a change of ownership of the business from Bryan Moffat to the ex-owners Lester Abbot and the ladies name I can't remember. Also I think in 2010 they were starting to hurt before the first business failure and that clearly and unfortunately affected the quality of the product.
Presume your boat was a 38? I say that because I think the because of the internal layout and design the keel box is not as high as those with a deck saloon.
I suppose thinking about the modern Southerly shaped keels (instead of the much older triangular shape) that with the keel fully down there is a large gap behind the top of the keel (distance aft from the back the keel to the end of the keel box) which can cause serious turbulence. I presume there were no flaps or similar to try and reduce water entering the box.
I left the industry when I left Northshore in 1996. Rather good move on my part even though I loved the job and products at that time.
By the time your boat was built in 2010 (if I remember correctly) I distinctly remember that the quality of the boats was not was it used to be. They appeared more show and glamour than practical and sturdy. Clearly there had been a change of ownership of the business from Bryan Moffat to the ex-owners Lester Abbot and the ladies name I can't remember. Also I think in 2010 they were starting to hurt before the first business failure and that clearly and unfortunately affected the quality of the product.
Presume your boat was a 38? I say that because I think the because of the internal layout and design the keel box is not as high as those with a deck saloon.
I suppose thinking about the modern Southerly shaped keels (instead of the much older triangular shape) that with the keel fully down there is a large gap behind the top of the keel (distance aft from the back the keel to the end of the keel box) which can cause serious turbulence. I presume there were no flaps or similar to try and reduce water entering the box.
I left the industry when I left Northshore in 1996. Rather good move on my part even though I loved the job and products at that time.
Last edited:
Resolution
Well-known member
RickMac
I sympathise with you over the problems with the Southerly you bought in 2010. But at that time Discovery and Southerly were two entirely separate brands and unrelated groups of companies. To conflate the two at that time is entirely wrong.
Bathdave
Well-known member
I too am a southerly owner though an older boat from 2002 so I too have always taken a close interest in southerly and discovery
Someone has speculated that you are talking about a S38 but you say over a 100 built which makes me think it may be S110? Do you still have it ?
I have been looking at an S38 built in 2010 so your observations and experiences are especially interesting to me
The other southerly owners I have met seem to a man very happy with their boats
I have heard of questionable practices by the last management team at Southerly before their second demise. There is no connection at all, as I m sure you are aware with the management of the Discovery Group who bought the brands and IP of southerly ...Discovery is not a reincarnation of Southerly despite the fact that brand is in their portfolio now...although it may be going the same way!
As far as I can see the new Southerlys built by Discovery are only the larger ones...I know for a fact they don’t have a full mould for the old S38 and I don’t think they have any smaller ones in build.
I think I heard that they had an order book of 18 Southerlys
Daydream believer
Well-known member
RicMac, You have me wrong, I was not trying to criticize you. You have been lumbered with something that is clearly faulty.
Bad workmanship aside, I was wondering if the problem was one of faulty design.
Your point 1) I was not trying to absolve anyone. I was just asking a question.
My comment to which you refer under item 2) is not laughable at all. It would be quite acceptable defence for a designer to state that he had designed a yacht to the known design standards in existence at that time. On that basis you could not sue for design failures. But they still have to prove that they complied with those directives & designed a seaworthy yacht & to those standards. That was the point I was making. - is that laughable?
So avoiding the issue of the manufacturing points- because there is no point claiming against an insolvent company- go to Item 6) and then consider the chances of looking to the designer for retribution due to faulty design. Did your lawyers ever suggest that?
Going to your final points, I think that I might consider it prudent to engage in proper sea trials before setting off to sea on extended voyage. More so in such a complex craft. Seems to me that water coming up the keel box would have happened early onand should have meant that the boat stayed in the UK.
As for leaking hatches etc; in the grand scheme of things,they are not so serious. Most yards would have dealt with those items at home quite easily.
Joker
Active member
All of this is too familiar to me.
Some years ago, I bought a brand-new yacht which had been built in Poland, but I bought it through the UK agent. After a couple of years, it began to delaminate big time.
From the legal position, I could not sue the builders but I could sue the UK agent who sold me the boat. The UK agent was one man and a dog. He decided to employ solicitors who sent me letters which, to a layman, meant nothing.
The affair dragged on for months. We spent as much on legal fees and surveyors' reports as it cost to repair the boat.
Did I get my money back? No. The UK agent shrugged and said, "This is a limited company with no assets."
There are times when the purchaser gets screwed big time, and this was one of them.
Some years ago, I bought a brand-new yacht which had been built in Poland, but I bought it through the UK agent. After a couple of years, it began to delaminate big time.
From the legal position, I could not sue the builders but I could sue the UK agent who sold me the boat. The UK agent was one man and a dog. He decided to employ solicitors who sent me letters which, to a layman, meant nothing.
The affair dragged on for months. We spent as much on legal fees and surveyors' reports as it cost to repair the boat.
Did I get my money back? No. The UK agent shrugged and said, "This is a limited company with no assets."
There are times when the purchaser gets screwed big time, and this was one of them.
obmij
Active member
Total incompetence by Discovery Yachts, or whoever they are this time. They should have made good regardless of cost, or defended the action. Probably both
By folding the company they have shown prospective purchasers how exactly how things will pan out if there are problems.
The purchasers do not sound like the sharpest of instruments..but it looks Discovery Yachts did everything the possibly could to make a bad situation worse.
Sad
By folding the company they have shown prospective purchasers how exactly how things will pan out if there are problems.
The purchasers do not sound like the sharpest of instruments..but it looks Discovery Yachts did everything the possibly could to make a bad situation worse.
Sad
Birdseye
Well-known member
There are some problems reported that should not be there on a new yacht but thing like an exploded block! Sounds to me that the judge had no practical experience of what is involved in building such a complex piece of machinery and expected a hand built item to bec100% at delivery. Result is he destroys the company with what sounds based on that report as a wildly excessive award. Much the same thing has happened to other yacht builders Inc Oyster and Bowman.
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
You're blaming the judge for making an award in a case that Discovery did not even turn up to contest?
Seven Spades
Well-known member
Two different things are being conflated here.
1. Discovery built a lemon for some reason during the transition from on owner to another. I can’t understand how it has happened but I will be surprised if this is more than a one off problem. Did they rush to meet a number?
2. A design fault with a model not made by Discovery and not in the Discovery range today.
I don’t know why Discovery didn’t put the boat right instead of letting it get this far but the top man has gone as well as the holding company. I do not understand who actually is the beneficial owner of Discovery and if this represents a line in the sand for them I hope so. Traditional Discovery yachts have been on a par with Oysters and have been well built and designed. All the old models seem to have been swept away and now we have the Southerly range offeredwith fixed or swing keel versions. I am not sure that this was a wise decision. For example the old 55 half 1300l of Diesel the new 54 holds only 800l. For a Blue water cruiser of this size it seems a little light.
1. Discovery built a lemon for some reason during the transition from on owner to another. I can’t understand how it has happened but I will be surprised if this is more than a one off problem. Did they rush to meet a number?
2. A design fault with a model not made by Discovery and not in the Discovery range today.
I don’t know why Discovery didn’t put the boat right instead of letting it get this far but the top man has gone as well as the holding company. I do not understand who actually is the beneficial owner of Discovery and if this represents a line in the sand for them I hope so. Traditional Discovery yachts have been on a par with Oysters and have been well built and designed. All the old models seem to have been swept away and now we have the Southerly range offeredwith fixed or swing keel versions. I am not sure that this was a wise decision. For example the old 55 half 1300l of Diesel the new 54 holds only 800l. For a Blue water cruiser of this size it seems a little light.
doris
Well-known member
I have been giving very serious thought to a S38. Disco have the hull mold but not the deck but now have sufficient interest to invest in the tooling.
Can't see anyone wanting to continue a conversation in the light of all this.
Also the comments about the seaworthiness of a southerly makes on ponder.........RicMac's problems are serious. There are a few 38s on the market, maybe go back to my original thoughts ie. a proper keel!
Can't see anyone wanting to continue a conversation in the light of all this.
Also the comments about the seaworthiness of a southerly makes on ponder.........RicMac's problems are serious. There are a few 38s on the market, maybe go back to my original thoughts ie. a proper keel!
Bathdave
Well-known member
You can’t blame the judge, Discovery clearly knew they were going to lose and chose to put the holding company into administration before the court date
The judge then decided to proceed anyway to try to come up with a basis of assessing loss with the benefits of expert witness statements
What is also interesting in the judgement is the fact the judge looked through the corporate veil and said that the new company which succeeded the original company in the management buyout had clearly stated they wanted to make good the defects and used the boat to represent the new company at the annapolis boat show and had therefore accepted legal responsibility for it
Bathdave
Well-known member
I too have been thinking about secondhand S38
I suspect RiCMac issues are with the S110 as he talks of 100 boats built, and I don’t think there were anything like that number of S38s
Interesting the Southerly Owners Association has a thread running about water coming in through the keel box in rough weather on a newly bought secondhand S110
The knowledgeable people on the owners site say that the issue has been reported before but Southerly management were unable to replicate the issue in tests ...perhaps they would say that!