Jump to content

Fishy boat deal – or paranoid buyer? You decide!


captain flint

Featured Posts

20 minutes ago, Mike Hurley said:

Why is a Beta 1.5 suspicious?

http://betamarine.co.uk/narrowboat-engine-range/

as i say, I think it was that descripion, there may be the model they described, in whch case a simple photo of the actual engine and the plate would let me verify, I am not saying they got it wrong, I am saying it does not tally with the Beta Range I googled, so all they need do is explain if I am misunderstanding. 

One question, no answer.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Athy said:

The Beta 38 and Beta BV1505 are 1.5 litre engines - the first two are model numbers, the last figure is the cubic capacity.

But their poor response to your enquiries is, as you point out, more important.

Thats probably right, but in the engine model description they said Beta 1.5, and that is what I googled.

I am no expert, and it seems, neither are they.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike Hurley said:

Beta 35 and 38 are both 1.5 4 cylinder diesels. Probably the most common engine on the cut.

 

OK. then describe as Beta 35 or Beta 38, if that is the model I can find out the rest. 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 

They can't get out of Sale of Goods Act just by a dubious disclaimer. If I ask a direct question, then it would be reasonable to expect a direct reply.

You may well notice a disclaimer in the boat details, saying " the seller is not selling in the course of a business" (remember the broker is not the seller)

Therefore the Sale Of Goods Act does not apply.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Hurley said:

Well they should do but as it is a sellers market right now the broker does not have to try too hard. If i liked the boat i would go see it.

I don't like it that much.

I feel agravated already by getting the bums rush, twice from same brokerage. 

Let someone else hand over their cash.

It might be a sellers market, but I won't be buying.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, captain flint said:

Thanks for your reply, Mike!

As for that unsual boat, it was so wonderful seeming to this newby idiot that I think I should descibe it. She is called Stornoway, made by French & Peel in 1997.

Who? You ask (perhaps). And - hmmm, bit old

They were ship builders, not boat builders, and they must have built it as a kind of one off pet project or something. THe recent survey by Cetec marine which the owner showed me noted several unusual things:

The steel used appears to be in imperial, not metric, thicknesses, indicating marine grade steel, which is never used on narrow boats normally. 2 pack epoxied from new, the base plate read just over 12mm (due to imperial) and almost no pitting.  

The vessel had a lovely (to me), large drop window, the kind that were in vogue briefly with narrow boat builders in the (?)80s - where the gubwhale drops down to accomodate a very large window. The problem with this design is that the gunwhale is strucural, and this drop possibly creates a weak point. However, the survey notes with surprise again that the ultrasound suggested a section of thicker steel used for the cabin side and the window area in general, to counter this, although the joins were not visible to the eye.

But here's the weird part. Her propulsion was via diesel electric. A diesel generator which powers an electric motor. The generator was a large Fischer Panda, in a soundproof box. Very quiet. The electric motor just purred, of course. And the generator gave out a fair whack of power.

Twenty five kilowatts of the stuff.

Well, ok, that's what it gave out nominally, when new. Nowadays maybe a bit less. Still, enough for a whole line of boats. 

I have no doubt that once every 2-7 years the genny would need expensive fixing to the tune of a gran or maybe even two, but it might still be worth it, no? Apparently the system in the boat was used a lot in coastal working boats the French and Peel made.

A gas free boat, and the owner claimed it was the driest he'd ever had, and thought that might be part of the reason

(I'll forward the survey from my email if you like, if that's not in some way inappropriate!)

Bob French and Don Peel worked for Dunstans Ship Builders, in Thorne until it closed in the 80s. They then joined forces and formed French & Peel Boat Builders remaining in Thorne. Primarily leisure boat builders, but occasionally built commercial boats. I have owned 2 of their craft. There are at least 5 French & Peel boats in Goole. My current boat was built by them in 2006. My first French & Peel boat was funnily enough bought in 1997, and I vaguely remember a boat answering the description of the boat you are suspicious of in the yard, but I will ask around. As someone has already mentioned Bob French died suddenly a few years ago. They were real Craftsmen and built all sorts of craft, inland waterways or sea going. My current boat pictured here.

IMAG0175.jpg

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LadyG said:

Having got them to agree to email me, the company sales administrator stepped in and told me to phone the broker onsite. I won't. Wasted my time, and not for the first time. There is no point in having fancy software, but can't deal with a simple sales query.

 

Speaking bluntly, it is YOU who is wasting the brokers' time. You are not in a position to buy a boat as you've yet to sell the house.

You've been hassling brokers with detailed questions like this for about a year now (if not more). Brokers speak to each other you know! You've probably got your self a reputation as a time-wasting fender-kicker now, which explains why they CBA with your stream of requests for ever finer details about boats they know you cannot buy.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, captain flint said:

To be honest I'd do the same again, walk away – but I'm curious to know what people think

Just as an aside - I purchased a boat last year which had the CE/RCD paperwork missing, and there was no previous Bills of sales, or VAT certificate.

The boat had originally been registered in the USA to 'minimise taxation' and was owned by a company registered in Gibralter to also 'minimise taxation', but then sold to a 'European national' who appeared to be ignorant of the law.

The seller was looking for a reasonably quick sale and, after having explained the complexities of selling / buying a boat without the correct paperwork he agreed to reduce the price by £80,000.

Everything is now 'legal and above board' as I was able to contact the manufacturer and get a copy of the CE/RCD approvals documentation, and I also managed to get a copy of a EU 'T2L' form Customs stamped as being VAT Paid (for the cost of a 'donation to the coffee fund')

 

If it is the boat you want, don't give up, there are 'ways & means'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Bourke said:

Bob French and Don Peel worked for Dunstans Ship Builders, in Thorne until it closed in the 80s. They then joined forces and formed French & Peel Boat Builders remaining in Thorne. Primarily leisure boat builders, but occasionally built commercial boats. I have owned 2 of their craft. There are at least 5 French & Peel boats in Goole. My current boat was built by them in 2006. My first French & Peel boat was funnily enough bought in 1997, and I vaguely remember a boat answering the description of the boat you are suspicious of in the yard, but I will ask around. As someone has already mentioned Bob French died suddenly a few years ago. They were real Craftsmen and built all sorts of craft, inland waterways or sea going. My current boat pictured here.

IMAG0175.jpg

Oh that was a real beauty

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, I note with interest that where Joe moors, Goole I presume, a landing stage or wharf is a "staith", whereas where we live, in East Anglia, it's a "staithe" - unless the Goole signwriter ran out of paint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Athy said:

As an aside, I note with interest that where Joe moors, Goole I presume, a landing stage or wharf is a "staith", whereas where we live, in East Anglia, it's a "staithe" - unless the Goole signwriter ran out of paint.

This was on a trip to York, and I reckon it should be Staithe too. I do Moor in Goole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Athy said:

No, I wouldn't ask "who"? French & Peel did indeed build commercial and seagoing craft, but they built a fair number of canal boats which were noted for their good quality steelwork. There are CWDF members who own, or have owned, them, and who have spoken well of them. I once looked at a graceful tug-style boat of theirs which I considered buying. The firm, which was Yorkshire-based, no longer exists, as Mr. French passed away some three or four years ago. So don't dismiss the boat simply because of the maker's name.

   I am not sure that the dropped gunwale, often used to provide picture windows in hire boats, is a structural problem; it is, however, possible, that it will be a "trip hazard" when you're walking along the side.

oh yeah, sorry, now I remember - I looked on here and found out about French and Peel, and Bob French passing away, so I should have known better!

I've heard it suggested it could be a weak spot, but it seems like worrying a bit too much, but obviously French & Peel felt it was worth worrying a little bit about or they wouldn't have gone to the tiresome effort of reinforcing that section, I guess - good point about the trip hazard, though! 

16 minutes ago, thebfg said:

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. But before you start court proceedings you will need to follow protocol and send him a letter before action.

Already did, as I think I mentioned - can't blame you if you didn't pore over every detail of a very long post, though!

But thanks for the reminder. In fact, I think I need to send another before instigating proceedings - the first I sent (and received no reply to) was very short, hand written, offering to take him out for a coffee, pint or meal and tell me his side of the story.

The second urged him to get in touch saying we really should talk and nobody likes chasing or being chased for money so please get in touch, and if I don't hear from you I will have to assume you don't want to talk. But I stopped short of mentioning actual proceedings. So I should send one more, spelling things out clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

Come on then Joe, get your brush back out! 

:D

7 minutes ago, captain flint said:



I've heard it suggested it could be a weak spot, but it seems like worrying a bit too much, but obviously French & Peel felt it was worth worrying a little bit about or they wouldn't have gone to the tiresome effort of reinforcing that section, I guess - good point about the trip hazard, though! 

 

...and a very fair [point from you. I didn't realise that it was reinforced - if you said so and I missed it, my apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BWM said:

My biggest concern would be about any finance that may be held against the boat.

Yes, I think so, too. 2 things spring to mind (over and above the vendor's unwillingness to sign a proper delcaration):

1. The fact that the yard where it lies and was built, and who stood to gain commission from the sale, were unwilling to dig up the old invoices for when they sold it, even after I offered to pay someones wages and expenses to do that

2. There was some trouble getting an answer from the yard about the craning date for the survey. They went quiet and time was ticking, so the broker and I organised for it to be done a couple of miles up the canal at another yard. We thought it was all confirmed but when the vendor got wind of it, he managed toget a date from the yard and said he didn't want it to leave the yard as he was afraid of losuing the mooring. Why would they give it away if he was paying for it, and they stand to gain for the sale? More untruths, I feel.

Neither of these is remotely conclusive - bottom line is I don't know what the story is, I can only guess. But it's hard not to think the yard/fabricators and/or other suppliers involved with the boat's build and fit out aren't in some way involved.

This is one reason I'd like the vendor to talk to me. Maybe he's the victim here, too. But, unless he picks up the phone, I don't feel like I've got much choice but to chase him for the money I lost. And anyway, it's probably him who owes the money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LadyG said:

Well I'm sorry, but if the broker can't be bothered to get the basic, checkable facts right, and won't go and check the facts or look at the engine, then I for one won't look at any of his boats. If he can't be bothered to go and take a photo but instead expects me to travel hundreds of miles to look for myself, well its not going to happen.

They can't get out of Sale of Goods Act just by a dubious disclaimer. If I ask a direct question, then it would be reasonable to expect a direct reply.

I agree with both of you - we should expect brokers to do their jobs well and be annoyed when they don't, but that's not necessarily to say the broker had been legally negligent, or that he should be held liable or responsible, in the eyes of the law or any grievances arising from the deal or attempted deal.

On the other hand, you'd think that others would be like you - prefer, on the basis of experience, stories, or general reputation, to use another broker. So you'd think it's definitelu something a decent broker would want to avoid, in order to run a thriving business.

Which is the point I made to the brokerage in my case.

On the other hand, we all know that if you found the right boat ad you could agree a price you're happy with, you won't pull out because you don't like the brokerage. in this sense, the brokerage hold the cards, to some extent.

Ideally, it would become regulataed. Well, that's what I think, but I suspect there will be lots of people who like it as it is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. I did see you wrote but dident take it all in

 

Your right make it very clear why your writing you should include. 

  • a summary of the facts
  • what you want from the party you're claiming from
  • how you've calculated the sum you want to claim
  • copies of the key documents that you'll use to support your case
  • a list of any documents you want from the other party 
  • a reasonable deadline for a response (usually 28 days).

 

Then pays ya money and Have a day out.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MartynG said:

I does  sound like the broker has been deceived. But he became an accessory  to the deceit. The broker should not have allowed the survey to proceed without proof of vat paid and ownership.

in an ideal world, but there's nothing against it in black and white. It might make him an ass, but it doesn't necessarily mean I have a leg to stand on in terms of holding them responsible. so far as I understand it.

What makes him even worse is that after it became clear that he would not sign, and that we were being deceived, the broker kept saying he didn't think we were being deceived by the vendor. I had to ask him to stop saying that, telling him that I liked him well enough, it is not personal, but nobody can take verbal assurances of goodwill in a deal from someone on the other side of the deal, as it were, and I said ti doesn't look very good that he's trying, to be honest. Maybe I was harsh, but it was annoying to be told, "I really don't think he's hiding anything" from someone trying to make the sale, and when the vendor's actions clearly suggested he was hiding something.

8 hours ago, BruceinSanity said:

I don't think you are too suspicious, nor do I blame you for going as far as you did without seeing the papers. Smellls like there's a very big rat somewhere behind the arras. Good luck with both getting your grand back and finding another boat. My guess is either an outstanding loan secured on the boat or disputed ownership post divorce.

yes those were the two things uppermost in my mind, and that of the lawyer.

Still, I won't get that far without seeing the papers in future! Lesson learnt. If I don't get the grand back, rather an expensive lesson, admittedly!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I opened the post and saw how long it was and though jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus no way jose. Plenty of people have obviously read it though so fair play :D

You didn't even read the bit at the very beginning which said, feel free to walk away now out of boredom?! ;-)

I enjoyed writing my yarn, and had no idea if anyone would read it - but since I enjoyed scrawling it, that didn't bother me. 

Like you, I was somewhat surprised how many did. So, I guess, fair play to me, but as far as I'm concerned, fair play to them!

Does it make you feel like you've missed out on a gripping tale of intrigue? (clue: probably not! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.