anyway as monty says " look on the bright side of life" sounds like you were after this particular boat, so take the hit and perhaps do the repairs and then you will know it will last a long while yet, its only few thousand right, chicken feed for for a classic restoration ....... id say name and shame the "professional" inspection to help prevent this from happening again and forget about legal action , you wont win ....wake up tommorrow and reset with new goals..
Take this matter up with your consumer affairs department. You paid for a service that was not dutifuly or professionally carried out. In Vic it would be a VCAT case and you would very likely win. Your equivalent is NCAT. Ensure you have copies of any email or text messages directly relating to your inspection request. A report from a local boat repairer will be invaluable also.
You paid for a service whilst distant and vulnerable and they failed to deliver. You have a very valid claim.
I agree BM but would this guy get back his inspection fee only or do u think they will have to cover the cost of repairs? be a bit sucky if they only refund the inspection cost however i am thinking they would be legal to pay the full cost of repairs since the OP wasted his money
Me not so sure unfortunate OP has much to go on. He did the right thing and paid for a report and that report came back and the OP proceeded on a " appeared ok " report . The OP then went and prior to handing over his money conducted his own " superficial inspection " and proceeded with the purchase . He clearly satisfied himself upon the completion of his own inspection things were in order.
This is the killer i believe for the OP in the fact that it was only after he got inside for himself and and started going about doing some minor work himself that he picked up on the issues at hand. Here is the kicker unfortunately ,Was the OP performing work ( fitting accessories ) the sort of stuff somebody doing a pre purchase inspection is not able to do in the course of a inspection ?. I don't know ?. Have we been told in a previous post what minor work and that me being a dopey ass has missed reading ?.
Like i say not trying to be a downer by any stretch but just throwing up opposite views and ones surely the OP will come up against if he chooses to pursue. You can't say these were obvious issues on one hand and then say they were only picked up on after commencing some minor work yourself i think on that basis your argument would get torn apart by any professional defending the inspector.
As hard as it is you need to detach yourself emotionally from it and as best you can look at every claim you have made and see what sort of opposing counter claim can be put and only then will you get some real perspective as to just how solid a ground you stand on.
There is a lot of bush lawyer going on here inc from myself but i do wish you well, i do.
DoNotFeedTheTrollsAandBelligerent
Define service..
As per my earlier post they will have a disclaimer or clause that covers them for this, something along the lines of..
All boat inspections offered by XYZ are carried out to provide an independent opinion of the general appearance and overall condition of the vessel, and its inclusions, only. There is no destructive testing, dismantling of any assemblies, x-rays and/or thermal imaging conducted so the condition of internal components cannot be verified unless there are visible and/or audible abnormalities apparent during the boat inspection.
Under no circumstances will any guarantees and/or warranties be implied in relation to any part of a boat package including but not limited to the general condition, mechanical status, reliability and/or structural integrity of any part of the boat, motor, trailer and/or accessories.
Any fault/s, damage/s and/or issue/s noted and/or reported both verbally and/or in writing should be followed up by the appropriate trade specialist (i.e. outboard mechanic, boat builder).
As all inspections are performed by XYZ out of the water it is strongly recommended that any potential boat buyer requests a water test to ensure the performance, handling and overall satisfaction of the boat is met.
XYZ and/or any contractors will not be held responsible for any costs, loss and/or damages as a result of any information supplied or otherwise.
Originally Posted by Watto79
IMO this is the most probable position Jeremy will find himself in.
DoNotFeedTheTrollsAandBelligerent
Steeler I'd imagine the guy next door cannot just start up a marine inspection business he/she will need formal training and certification showing this person is to carry out such work, you don't pay a non qualified mechanic to change your car brakes.
i think the OP will win this in court and any fee's incurred for his legal representative will be charged to the company who carried out the inspection after the case is finalized
this bloke bought a boat for X amount i think its not stated yet than he needs to spend i think i read $6500 that is all this boat is worth i would string this company up by the balls they would have charged in excess of $500 just for their inspection fee
they probably done the same thing again today and yesterday... make them accountable for there worthless inspections!
I beg to differ hence why i asked what work it was Jeremy went about performing before he realized all was not what it seemed. Did he start to remove or attempt to fasten equipment and realize damp issues ??? , The sort of stuff a inspection company would not do and really i could not imagine any owner selling a rig would allow an inspection mob to do. This is very important to clarify and tells us if it were reasonable for a inspection to not pick up on
No way do i see it as wise to blow false hope up some guys backside without having the answers to these questions.
Jeremy said so himself the floor was " obviously " spongy. If it were that " obvious " why buy it and not confront the inspector for missing it ??? . If he pursues this as you suggest Gazza these are very types of opposing views he can expect to be asked under the pump. Hence why i said in an earlier post there are comments that Jeremy has made on here that do not help his own cause as they are stated and suggested some editing to help his own cause.
Sorry champ but just have to agree to disagree.
DoNotFeedTheTrollsAandBelligerent
The " work" I was talking about was simply cleaning the inside of the boat out and repairing a broken battery tie down. All it involved was me getting inside the boat and walking around on it, nothing invasive.
At this stage I am going ahead with repairs. I have requested a letter from the fibreglass repairer detailing what they found with their initial non-invasive inspection, and then I will be contacting the yard which did the inspection in writing with a statement of facts and demands. How they respond to that will determine where it goes from there. I will update this thread again in about 3-4 weeks once I have their response.
So you pay for a professional to inspect a boat and give an unbiased report...but they are protected by a "no liability " clause?
Not onski
If you pay a lawyer for the same service and he lies or is incompetent in the task, you get protected...and they have to answer to an authority.
Sorry I have nothing helpful to offer; just disgust at this "service "
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Bet you he can Gazza. While I assume it would be illegal to misrepresent any qualifications, to the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement to have any to work on recreational vessels. The marine industry is extremely poorly regulated beyond minimum safety requirements to do with flotation. It is something that as a trade qualified electronics tech, we came up against continuously with any Tom, Dick or Harry starting a business in competition and cutting the guts out of margins and labour rates while basically having no idea. The onus is left on the consumer to actually ask what qualifications there chosen "tradie" actually has - much the same with liability insurances etc.
Just playing Devils advocate Jeremy - I wouldn't touch a thing until you have made a firm decision as to which way to proceed. The inspection mob may be able to argue that the quoted cost of repairs was excessive and incorrect - if you have fixed it, it becomes a he said she said thing and without something to present to a court appointed independent third party for inspection it may leave you holding the bag. Good luck mate. Put in a shit spot by a couple of pricks.
[QUOTE=TheRealPoMo;1647974]So you pay for a professional to inspect a boat and give an unbiased report...but they are protected by a "no liability " clause?
Not onski
If you pay a lawyer for the same service and he lies or is incompetent in the task, you get protected...and they have to answer to an authority.
Sorry I have nothing helpful to offer; just disgust at this "service "
Agreed a mongrel of a position and Scottar makes a great point about qualifications.
When you employ these types of services are you employing a ticketed qualified marine mechanic to give a qualified condition report on the mechanicals and a unqualified condition report on the structural integrity of a hull or are you paying somebody ticketed and qualified to provide a condition report on the structural integrity of a hull and a unqualified mechanical report.
Because i am tipping there are not too many getting around with formal qualifications for both. Just out of curiosity Scottar how many would you know in the industry with duel qualifications
DoNotFeedTheTrollsAandBelligerent
[QUOTE=Steeler;1647979]None that do trailer boats - most surveyors would simply run the engines as far as a trailer boat goes and give a general "condition" report based on appearance. In commercial shipping there are surveyors that have a marine engineering / mechanical background but even then a lot don't - they rely on a report from a mechanical specialist to pass the engine side of the survey
Hey Steeler, Jeremy did mention once he had the boat inspected he proceeded on with the purchase where he drove to nsw picked up the boat and towed it home where he later climbed inside the boat and noticed the floor was soft
This is really sucky that our system can let anyone open a business with no knowledge at all thousands of people would be left high and dry across our country
I think it is very shady that a inspector passes a soft floor as ok this is one of the most critical and the most basic checks
Feel sorry for u Jer can u imagine if u were like me at 21 and u took this boat 15k off shore
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
