Hi Martin, Like you, I would have thought that if the rot had been deliberately concealed than you ought to have had a claim under the sale of goods act :-(
Unfortunately, its been about 15 years since I last needed to look at that act so I guess it is quite possible it would not cover a private sale (the old 'caveat emptor' raises its ugly head here) but I still have a feeling that there is some protection against fraudulent descriptions, or acts, by the vendor ".. its fine, apart from that little bit of corrosion on the cabin roof ...". The other problem for purchasers is that the surveyor will invariably ignore anything (and everything) outside of that which he has subsequently told you, in his written report, that he has looked at - or was very specifically asked to check out; almost certainly he will have shown you, at some point, what he was going to be surveying, and to what degree. I do feel for you though - I would have been spitting mad! Trevor Martin Chadwick wrote: > A general word of caution, based on my experience of a few years ago. > The boat was much older than the ones you are looking at. I purchased > the boat through a reputable brokerage and had a survey done. The > surveyor did not find the rotten part of the floor at the rear of the > cabin nor the rotten lining, which the seller had hidden with false > panelling. I was so angry when I discovered the extent of the rot that I > consulted a solicitor. He told me, after looking at the sale documents, > the survey and my photographs of the 'damage' that I would be most > unlikely to succeed in any claim against either the seller or the surveyor. > > Martin > > rigdent wrote: > >> If we are looking at young (say less than 4 years) well cared for second >> hand boats from reputable builders is a survey really necessary ? >> Is it a good precaution or just jobs for the boys. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
