When the seller deliberately withholds material information on the underwater hull condition ?

[eebygum]

Dont really think its encumbent on the owner to know about all his boats issues, especially under the waterline, and these things are always degrees of etc.
I always ask for docs at first contact and then ask the pertinent Q's. I think it'd be impossible to prove the owners behaviour unless a previous survey had the problem written up in black ink.

That’s the issue, the owner had commissioned a hull inspection report only two years ago which reported the issue in black and white. That was the basis for the owner going back to the boatyard for remediation. OK he may have genuinely thought it was now resolved and therefore decided not to disclose; personally I would have disclosed.

Anyway as many have suggested I’ve walked away and will just put it down to more learned experience in the rich tapestry of buying a boat.

 

[eebygum]

I have specifically asked the RYA legal department this. Their answer was that neither the seller or broker are legally required to divulge any information. They must not knowingly give false information when asked.

Yes I assumed that unfortunately is the case…. I went to look at another/different boat earlier this year, and as part of my due diligence I always google the name of the boat which can provide history on racing, or lead you to social media posts/blogs or YouTube channels. Before visiting the boat I say to the broker; could I see the survey following the remediation work after the fire ? ‘What fire ! He says’ … well the one mentioned on the owners YouTube channel and the survey he refers to at min xx in episode n; I guess I always now need to add the question ‘has there been a fire onboard to my due diligence questions in the future !

 

[Seven Spades]

I think you have learned that you must ask questions of the seller before getting to the point of having a survey. the seller must answer truthfully.

 

[eebygum]

Was the sequence of events that the seller said through the listing that X work and Y work has been done. You commissioned a survey which found that the Y work hadn’t been successful. Then mentioned this to seller/broker. Seller then disclosed that he not only knew the Y work had been unsuccessful but also had spent two years trying to get it fixed?

If so, I quite understand why you’re fed up.

At least you’ve dodged a bullet on purchase.

That’s an excellent summary of the situation.

I guess that’s why you pay surveyors to help you dodge any undisclosed bullets; so as recommended I’ve put it down more learnt experience to take into the viewings lined up for next week.

 

[Tranona]

Is it just me, but I am still not clear about the actual sequence of events (see post#37). For example, did you have details of the work carried out before you made your offer? Was the evidence provided sufficient for you to believe that the work was satisfactory and therefore you did not anticipate anything negative showing up in the survey? when was the second report to the seller saying the work was still not good enough carried out ? When was it disclosed to you?

What prompts these questions is your latest post which indicates that the seller may well not have intended to mislead you, believing the issue had been resolved.

As always in these sorts of disputes there is more than one side to the story, and I found your description of timelines and who said what very difficult to follow. Without hearing from the broker and seller it really is impossible to come to any view as to who (if anybody) has not been open in describing the boat for sale and providing accurate information in answer to questions..

 

[Poignard]

Before I decided on a Twister I fancied buying a wooden Folkboat, and spent weeks traipsing around England looking at some real shockers.

The widow of the owner of one I drove more than 100 miles to look at had assured me her late husband had cherished it, and lavished much time and money on maintaing and improving it. As I walked up to it I realised that I could see right through it from one side to the other through the gaping seams in the planking. Another I went to look at on its berth in South Humberside would have sunk had it not been for its electric bilge pump running continuously.

Buying boats is not for the faint-hearted!

 

[steveeasy]

I understood that if a broker becomes aware of defects or whatever, he’s obliged to divulge them to subsequent potential purchasers?

Is that correct. Id be surprised if it was so. Most boats have matters that could be described as faults, it’s not the broker or sellers responsibility to raise them. It is the buyers responsibility.

Now if you asked a specific question like has there been any reports carried out recently or work undertaken to the broker he in turn should ask the seller. If he said no and this was false or misleading then you may have a very valid claim.


Steveeasy

 

[ylop]

Did you have a conversation with the broker or seller about the fact you felt misled and has incurred significant avoidable cost if they had been more transparent?

A good compromise might be for the vendor to cover the survey costs, get the survey report which they can then share with prospective buyers and this save the time and hassle of aborted purchases?

 

[eebygum]

Is it just me, but I am still not clear about the actual sequence of events (see post#37). For example, did you have details of the work carried out before you made your offer? Was the evidence provided sufficient for you to believe that the work was satisfactory and therefore you did not anticipate anything negative showing up in the survey? when was the second report to the seller saying the work was still not good enough carried out ? When was it disclosed to you?

What prompts these questions is your latest post which indicates that the seller may well not have intended to mislead you, believing the issue had been resolved.

As always in these sorts of disputes there is more than one side to the story, and I found your description of timelines and who said what very difficult to follow. Without hearing from the broker and seller it really is impossible to come to any view as to who (if anybody) has not been open in describing the boat for sale and providing accurate information in answer to questions..

Apologies if I was too vague; I’m trying to give the boat and seller anonymity.

Rather than prolong the discussion; I’ve walked away and banked the experience for the next two viewings booked in for next week.

Thank you everybody’s helpful contributions.

 

[eebygum]

Did you have a conversation with the broker or seller about the fact you felt misled and has incurred significant avoidable cost if they had been more transparent?

A good compromise might be for the vendor to cover the survey costs, get the survey report which they can then share with prospective buyers and this save the time and hassle of aborted purchases?

Yes I fed back to my displeasure to the broker and asked for a 50% contribution to the survey costs otherwise …. (Insert your own conclusion here).

But… after sleeping on it overnight and getting all the feedback, I went back said just forget it; life is too short.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Tbh I think that’s the right decision. Move on. I’d guess that many buyers who have offered on a used boat then pulled out after the survey, have had similar experiences or thoughts. Me included. Water under the bridge now and written off to experience.

 

[Graham376]

There's a "buyer beware" video here -

 

[Baggywrinkle]

Next time suggest splitting the cost of the haul-out 50/50 and ask before haul-out if there is anything the seller would like to disclose before the boat is hauled out - then you can both decide if the haul-out is worth doing or not.

The deal to offer is: Split the cost of the haul out 50/50 and if it leads to a sale, I'll refund your 50% - most sellers who are confident in the state of the underwater components will take that deal.

I bought a boat from a charter company and asked to charter it for a week with a refund of my charter cost if I subsequently bought the boat - it worked a treat, got to go over the boat with a fine toothed comb, lifted it out and checked it in the slings, and by the time I'd finished I knew the condition of everything on the boat, had photographs of every nook and cranny, and wrote a list of repairs I needed doing before hand-over. Went very well until I turned up to collect the boat at handover - it had been grounded and the grid in the floor had been cracked - got another boat from the fleet which was in even better condition for the same price.

When I sold my boat I encouraged the seller to have it lifted ... I had already showed him photos of the hull when it was last antifouled (6 months prior) and pointed out a few small blisters in the rudder. He decided not to haul it out after the test sail, maybe he took my suggestion as a sign that there was nothing untoward - which there wasn't AFAIK.

 

[michael_w]

I've walked away from 3 boats that have failed their survey, taking the losses on the chin. By contrast, I have always disclosed the faults to the potential purchaser as then with full knowledge they can't beat you down when the faults are found on survey.

 

[Tranona]

Next time suggest splitting the cost of the haul-out 50/50 and ask before haul-out if there is anything the seller would like to disclose before the boat is hauled out - then you can both decide if the haul-out is worth doing or not.

The deal to offer is: Split the cost of the haul out 50/50 and if it leads to a sale, I'll refund your 50% - most sellers who are confident in the state of the underwater components will take that deal.

I bought a boat from a charter company and asked to charter it for a week with a refund of my charter cost if I subsequently bought the boat - it worked a treat, got to go over the boat with a fine toothed comb, lifted it out and checked it in the slings, and by the time I'd finished I knew the condition of everything on the boat, had photographs of every nook and cranny, and wrote a list of repairs I needed doing before hand-over. Went very well until I turned up to collect the boat at handover - it had been grounded and the grid in the floor had been cracked - got another boat from the fleet which was in even better condition for the same price.

When I sold my boat I encouraged the seller to have it lifted ... I had already showed him photos of the hull when it was last antifouled (6 months prior) and pointed out a few small blisters in the rudder. He decided not to haul it out after the test sail, maybe he took my suggestion as a sign that there was nothing untoward - which there wasn't AFAIK.

That is unlikely to work here as for most newly purchased boats a full out of water survey is required to get insurance. I think one has to accept that a lift (if the boat is afloat) and a survey is a given. The issue here is whether the buyer (OP) was misled about the underwater work before making his offer and survey.

I walked away from a purchase where we had already agreed in the contract that only structural issues would be reason for walking away as the seller was at that point confident there were none. Unfortunately his confidence was misplaced and 2 significant areas of water ingress and rot (wooden boat) were found. Deposit refunded minus cost of hauling.

I think you have to take each situation on its merits. I bought my present boat without a survey and then had one for insurance. I was with the surveyor all the time and he found nothing serious that I did not know about.

 

[prestomg27]

That’s a fair summary.

I’ve walked, but it does not sit well with me that the seller will pull the same trick with the next prospective buyer.

The money is sunk and I’m not expecting to get any back.

I’m minded to publish and be damned.

At least what I publish is factually true and based upon independent surveyors reports and if it saves one buyer wasting several hundred pounds then fair enough.

If what you say is accurate and you can demostrate it to be so then you have little risk in publicising and might help another buyer if on here.

 

[eebygum]

If what you say is accurate and you can demostrate it to be so then you have little risk in publicising and might help another buyer if on here.

As a final update…

The seller did come back through the broker and offer to pay for half the survey cost; if he could then use it himself (to go back to the boatyard to negotiate more remedial work); that seems a reasonable outcome. Ive put my additional costs down to experience.

I don’t think name and shame helps anybody, I believe the broker is honourable and probably don’t know; the buyer probably regrets not disclosing even if he thought the original issue was remediated.

Hopefully this thread has helped other buyers about to go shopping; it’s definitely helped me.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

That’s a positive outcome IMHO.

 

[Capt Popeye]

The issue is about disclosure. The nature of the work and type of boat is irrelevant.

Yes maybe , but if one is aware of the nature of the remedial works one can judge better the reasons for Seller Non Disclosure , surely ? Matbe the Seller thought that the Remedial works were simple ad not involved or could mean structural importance , for example maybe if it Ismosis , then maybe someone newish to boating would not appreciate the poss Can of Worms that might generate in some Peoples ?
Just thoughts

 

[Tranona]

Yes maybe , but if one is aware of the nature of the remedial works one can judge better the reasons for Seller Non Disclosure , surely ? Matbe the Seller thought that the Remedial works were simple ad not involved or could mean structural importance , for example maybe if it Ismosis , then maybe someone newish to boating would not appreciate the poss Can of Worms that might generate in some Peoples ?
Just thoughts

You need to read the thread to appreciate why I made that observation. The OP already knew there had been an issue and work undertaken on the hull, but assumed it was resolved given the information provided by the seller. His beef is about there being further information held by the seller that said the remedial work was in dispute. Therefore irrelevant what the work was, nor what the boat is.

The discussion is about the sequence of events and whether he would have made an offer and incurred the cost of lifts and survey if he had known about the dispute. There is obviously now some recognition that the seller might have been more open as he has offered to pay part of the lift costs.