Where do we go from here?

[robmcg]

Having received some sage advice from the forum before, I now approach your collective wisdom again to help sort out a bit of a problem. When I bought my boat last year, it was confirmed at survey that it suffered from osmosis and would require a full treatment of peeling, blasting, washing and re-epoxy. This was explictly stated in the recommendations section of the survey. Indeed, you could see hull blisters throughout the underside of the hull. I decided to sail the boat for this season and have her treated this winter. She was duly lifted and commenced treatment this month. The hull was peeled and blasted as per the standard treatment regime. Hull moisture readings were then taken prior to drying. Here is the problem, the hull was bone dry - moisture levels were below that needed to have her re-epoxied. Also there was no evidence of blistering on the surface of the laminate i.e. it appears that the boat never had osmosis and the blisters may have been below paint or another epoxy that was applied at an earlier time. The net result is, I probably didn't need such extensive treatment done on the hull as was recommended in the survey. What should my course of action be? Is this an insurance job or should my insurer be contacting the surveyors insurer or should I just pay for the new treatment anyway and chalk it up to bad luck? I think this is a potentially difficult situation so at this stage I am open to your more experienced suggestions! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[sarabande]

If your surveyor said "osmosis" that is a pretty definable term. If the boat ain't got it, then invite him back to re-inspect and amend his report if he thinks it necessary. That way he's in a corner of his own making.


What a blindingly frustrating thing to happen, though !

 

[Csail]

I had a similar thig with our boat.When we bought her the surveyor said osmosis treatment was reqd. We had it done in Ipswich where the boat was bought as it was cheaper (£5k!)
That was 6 yrs ago and there are blisters back again!? Some reckon it is just water under the anti foul but???
Osmosis really isn't a problem, just a money making thing for boatyards etc.

 

[tillergirl]

I think sarabande's advice is sound. It's interesting that if the vendor dropped the price on the basis of your survey, he also has suffered. I have a nasty feeling that the surveyor may wriggle out through the blisters if they were under a previous epoxy treatment. But it's worth a bit of a fight.

 

[MoodySabre]

I don't think that your insurers have any part to play. Your solicitor might have if the surveyor doesn't want to respond. I think it would be fair if he made a contribution to your costs so far. Judging by the sound of it you would have done something to tackle the blisters but perhaps not as much as you have. Having gone this far you might as well resign yourself to the expense that you had expected to incur and have the full job done. At least you know it is done and any future sale will be easier as a result.

Presumably the price was fixed accordingly so it could be worse. The vendor might not be happy if he knew that you had a reduced price under false pretenses!

 

[CPD]

I presume that as a result of the original survey, that you negotiated the price on the boat, expecting to pay for it at a later date, as you have started now. I would carry on and have the work done, giving you a boat which will be more saleable than before you had it done, at a cost to you (at least partially) covered by the purchase price.

I can see the frustration but can also see the route of blaming the surveyor as being a waste of time. I am sure he will say that omn that particular day, his particular (calibrated) wettometer gave a reading of x and therefore he . . . . . . etc etc etc.

Swallow it, get the job done, enjoy the fact that the boat has been done, and go sail.

Not great I know, but thats what I would do.

the person with the real claim IMHO is the seller who presumably received less for his boat than he perhaps should have done.

 

[john_morris_uk]

The trouble is that the surveyor has got to be shown to be negligent for you to have a claim against him.

You have got to show that any reasonable professionally qualified surveyor would have come to a different conclusion from the evidence that he had before his eyes.

Its not enough that he was wrong - you have to show that he was negligent in coming to the wrong conclusion which is rather different. If you can show that it should have been easy to spot that the blisters which he pointed out were NOT osmosis then you might have a case. Might be difficult to prove at this stage?

 

[michael_w]

Sound like solvent entrapment within paint layers rather than the "classic" osmotic blisters.

Before solvent free epoxy became common, there was a school of thought that it was a good idea to coat new hulls with 2-part polyurathane paint. My father's boat had it done, few years down the line and lots of blisters. 2-part paint being a complete bugger to get off the treatment is the same as for osmosis.

Some Bendytoys where made with duff catalyst and those hulls have untreatable osmosis. My chum's boat was treated 3 times and it still got the pox.

 

[robmcg]

I suppose I can see all sides of the arguement. My only question is then - why pay for a surveyor to look at the hull if any diagnosis of problems is just an opinion and not backed up with anything? The surveyor also commented that the hull had unusually low moisture readings for a boat that exhibited osmosis.

 

[CPD]

If you were told however in a survey that your intended had osmosis, then you would negotiate on the price. If you find that all the work (or even some of it) wasn't required, then good for you. I dont see a basis from you for a claim against the surveyor. I do however see a very strong one for the seller. proving it however would be as good as impossible.

A case of ignorance is bliss(ter /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ) for the seller.

 

[Bajansailor]

"The surveyor also commented that the hull had unusually low moisture readings for a boat that exhibited osmosis".

I am baffled - so why did he choose to apparently ignore the moisture readings, and just go on (what appears to be) visual inspection of these blisters?

Did he not open up any of the blisters? If they were osmosis in the conventional sense, you would find out soon enough if you puncture the blisters.

Our boat has a fair number of blisters on the bottom every time she is hauled out - but these are all (so far) just in the layers of paint and / or the WEST epoxy we put on 10 years ago.

 

[boatmike]

It is difficult as you have already commenced treatment. If the gel-coat has been removed there is no way of telling if the blisters were in the gel-coat or paint.
Now you have gone this far you have no alternative but to complete the treatment. If you try to say the surveyor was wrong he will simply say the blisters were in the gel-coat (not uncommon so they might have been). Personally given a low moisture reading at the outset ( and there is no need to remove gel-coat to check this) I would have removed the paint in the affected areas to check the gel-coat before peeling. That's not a helpful comment now though I recognise. For others in the same position though it's a warning. Don't peel gel coat without having removed all other paint and antifoul first and checking for blisters and or moisture. Only if the gel coat itself is blistered should it be removed and you can't tell with several coats of epoxy or other stuff on top.

 

[Pasarell]

What a lousy situation to find yourself in! Not sure if I can add anything to what has already been said but I will try.

The word osmosis is much misused in the context of boats but there is a chemical definition of the word that could possibly help you.

Osmosis has come to be used as a generic term for any kind of blister and catches all sorts of problems already mentioned by others. To make a claim on a surveyor I think you would have to establish whether he was using that generic word or the strict definition of the word. If the surveyor stated that you needed the full treatment then presumably he was using the strict definition but if your hull is actually dry he has got it wrong and may be liable.

Whoever ends up paying you will have to fully reinstate with solvent free epoxy, filler etc and you will probably end up with a better boat than before. From a resale point of view I would take lots of photos and moisture readings to show there wasn't a problem as a buyer will be very suspicious as to why a boat that didn't have osmosis was treated in this way.

 

[Spyro]

Presumably the price you paid for the boat was negotiated down to include the work that needed done. So don't see how you will be out of pocket. If the boat had a good survey that reported no signs of osmosis then you would have to have paid considerably more for it.
Down side is you have had to organise getting the work down and loss of time afloat but as it is the winter that may not be a problem.
Upside is you will have a boat with a new epoxy coating and no worries about selling in the future.

 

[Twister_Ken]

If you do decide to go after the surveyor, in all probability you won't be fighting him, but his Professional Indemnity Insurer. Such companies are not known for giving in and paying-up without a battle.

 

[oldsaltoz]

I would expect the yard to confirm it was the pox prior to stripping. OK the surveyor may have made a mistake, most will not go busting blisters as this means they must be repaired or at the very least resealed before putting her back in, and this could take 24 hours and cost a lot more.

I would be talking to the yard and find out why they did not confirm the cause prior to peeling, its a lot of cash being spent so a simple check should be in order.

If I'm asked to provide a quote to remove a few blisters, my response is "I have no idea whats involved untill I remove some of the outer layer". Because I repaied what looked like a 2 bob size blister that resulted in a area about 4 inches wide and almost 3 feet long before I found the end of the brown track to hollow section.

Avagoodweekend......

 

[Sequoiah1]

You should live with it and learn the lesson that the surveyor only 'offers an opinion in good faith' alarm bells should have rung for him when he observed the low readings but you wont be able to prove anything and the PI insurers of the surveyor will run rings around anyone and will not allow admittance of any fault or wrong doing. I hope the Vendor isnt reading this forum, as its him I feel sorry for, where as you have won hands down with the exception of having to take the time out.
Make sure your chosen contractors for carrying out the work are using a correctly calibrated instrument, and why did they not point out the low readings as well. I would be marginally concerned about them!!

 

[david100952]

I read all the replies previously and with time on my hands started thinking afterwards:
Legally you seem to have little chance of winning a case but what about a moral case? Have you approached this man and what did he say. For many years I have followed a simple rule that you make more of an impression by admitting your mistake and making good than with any other transaction. When the people I deal with dont share my morals I have another rule: Tell anyone who asks when you get good service but let everyone know the someone who has given you otherwise.
Either that or know several large freinds who owe you favours