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

[ridgy]

You've been silent on the nature of the alleged defect, the value of the boat, and it's price relative to the market.
Also a surveyor condemning the work of someone else may well fit in to the essential surveyor remit of arse covering.
Personally I wouldn't offer on a boat not already out of the water having enjoyed vaguely related difficulties in the past.

 

[Poignard]

Then name the boat, make and model and current location. Stop anyone else falling into the same trap.

The Broker appears to be innocent.

If you mean name and shame here , I think you'll find the moderators taking a dim view of any post that tries to use this forum as a platform from which to launch accusations of dishonesty, which may turn out to be unjustified, against anyone.

 

[eebygum]

I guess the vendor could just say he paid for remedial treatment and thought it had been successful, might even be true?

No, the boat was lifted out every winter for two years to continue the remediation. The last time only 9 months ago.

 

[eebygum]

If you mean name and shame here , I think you'll find the moderators taking a dim view of any post that tries to use this forum as a platform from which to launch accusations of dishonesty, which may turn out to be unjustified, against anyone.

I guess the vendor could just say he paid for remedial treatment and thought it had been successful, might even be true?

If that was true then no harm in sharing the independent surveyors report and details of the remediation taken over the last two years ?

 

[eebygum]

I understand the point your making which is why I’ve deliberately not named the owner and boat or mentioned the word dishonesty, which some politicians might call being disingenuous with the truth… but I am raising the question of how your address a seller who is deliberately misleading buyers.

If I get my mate to phone the broker tomorrow and ask a specific question on the hull and either the broker or the seller do not divulge the material information then I think we can agree that one or both of them are being dishonest ?

 

[eebygum]

You've been silent on the nature of the alleged defect, the value of the boat, and it's price relative to the market.
Also a surveyor condemning the work of someone else may well fit in to the essential surveyor remit of arse covering.
Personally I wouldn't offer on a boat not already out of the water having enjoyed vaguely related difficulties in the past.

Over twenty years I’ve bought 4 boats with or without surveys, privately or through a broker and risk vs reward is factored into the price. Buyers and sellers have always been happy.

I’ve not experienced the situation where a seller has withheld material facts and left the buyer to go through the time and expense of finding out what they already knew and only disclosed later.

 

[eebygum]

I guess the vendor could just say he paid for remedial treatment and thought it had been successful, might even be true?

Then he would have no issues sharing his surveyor's report (which he funded to question the original work) and details of the remediation work provided by the boatyard over the last two years.

In America you might call it taking the 5th amendment, I would call it taking the p***

 

[Poignard]

I understand the point your making which is why I’ve deliberately not named the owner and boat or mentioned the word dishonesty, which some politicians might call being disingenuous with the truth… but I am raising the question of how your address a seller who is deliberately misleading buyers.

If I get my mate to phone the broker tomorrow and ask a specific question on the hull and either the broker or the seller do not divulge the material information then I think we can agree that one or both of them are being dishonest ?

I don't want to labour this point (it's past my bedtime ) but is he deliberately misleading potential buyers ?

He is if he says when asked that the hull has never had major repairs when it has, and he knows it has, but if he is not asked, then how is he misleading anybody?

 

[eebygum]

You've been silent on the nature of the alleged defect, the value of the boat, and it's price relative to the market.
Also a surveyor condemning the work of someone else may well fit in to the essential surveyor remit of arse covering.
Personally I wouldn't offer on a boat not already out of the water having enjoyed vaguely related difficulties in the past.

To be clear my surveyor was very professional and did not call into doubt or condemn the boatyard… he did say that it was VERY surprising that given the work reported in the brokers sales details this issue was only being identified now…. Ie it must have been known about since the boatyard performed the work two years ago.

Your absolutely right in that for significant sums an offer following an out of the water survey is the only way way to go. You may have guessed that I’m just pissed that the buyer did not divulge details he knew about when it was in the water !

 

[eebygum]

I don't want to labour this point (it's past my bedtime ) but is he deliberately misleading potential buyers ?

He is if he says when asked that the hull has never had major repairs when it has, and he knows it has, but if he is not asked, then how is he misleading anybody?

It’s nearly past my bedtime too so this is my goodnight post and maybe I will feel better tomorrow. I’ve got some other boats to look at next week and I’m sure I will find the right boat in the long run.

But when a seller says to the broker and it’s in the sales particulars that I’ve had X work done on this date and then later I’ve had additional Y work on this date done then you sort of assume the issue is resolved.

If they don’t tell you that …. they were not happy with the Y work, they have paid for an independent review and spent two years going back to the boatyard to get Y work fixed, most recently 9 months ago, then in my book that is a bit misleading… particularly when you ask them if there are any issues with hull (as I did not have my scuba diving gear with me at the time)

Nite nite

 

[Poignard]

It’s nearly past my bedtime too so this is my goodnight post and maybe I will feel better tomorrow. I’ve got some other boats to look at next week and I’m sure I will find the right boat in the long run.

But when a seller says to the broker and it’s in the sales particulars that I’ve had X work done on this date and then later I’ve had additional Y work on this date done then you sort of assume the issue is resolved.

If they don’t tell you that …. they were not happy with the Y work, they have paid for an independent review and spent two years going back to the boatyard to get Y work fixed, most recently 9 months ago, then in my book that is a bit misleading… particularly when you ask them if there are any issues with hull (as I did not have my scuba diving gear with me at the time)

Nite nite

You didn't tell us you had specifically asked if there were any issues with the hull.

You misled us!

Sleep tight, I hope the bedbugs don't bite.

 

[penfold]

That does make a claim more feasible, especially if they mislead you in writing.

 

[Bobc]

Life is too short. Mark it up to experience and move on.

 

[Graham376]

Many years ago, I arranged a boat survey which advised us to walk away as over £10k would need spending on it. Hole in encapsulated keel, deck planks lifting and many other items, all of which the owner obviously knew about but hadn't mentioned. We just paid the surveyor and put it down to experience. Surprised to see the boat advertised by a broker a month or so later, described as in excellent condition. I think his guide dog must have been blind as well as him.

 

[winch2]

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.

 

[tillergirl]

Have you considered the alternative view. If the vendor had sent you the report you might have accepted the report and not had a survey. I suspect you might have been fortunate.

 

[benjenbav]

It’s nearly past my bedtime too so this is my goodnight post and maybe I will feel better tomorrow. I’ve got some other boats to look at next week and I’m sure I will find the right boat in the long run.

But when a seller says to the broker and it’s in the sales particulars that I’ve had X work done on this date and then later I’ve had additional Y work on this date done then you sort of assume the issue is resolved.

If they don’t tell you that …. they were not happy with the Y work, they have paid for an independent review and spent two years going back to the boatyard to get Y work fixed, most recently 9 months ago, then in my book that is a bit misleading… particularly when you ask them if there are any issues with hull (as I did not have my scuba diving gear with me at the time)

Nite nite

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.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Just had hoped that the Boat manufacturer and model had been mentioned , as others might have a view on its merits and construction , plus worthyness ?

Guess the remedial works might have been to do with GRP blisters etc , which to my mind have had many ways of dealing with them , from a year hanging from a crane to picking them blisters each one then filling them in

Guess that a buyer might choose which method they will live with , when they know its been done

 

[Tranona]

Just had hoped that the Boat manufacturer and model had been mentioned , as others might have a view on its merits and construction , plus worthyness ?

Guess the remedial works might have been to do with GRP blisters etc , which to my mind have had many ways of dealing with them , from a year hanging from a crane to picking them blisters each one then filling them in

Guess that a buyer might choose which method they will live with , when they know its been done

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

 

[ithet]

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

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.