Getting full refund on rib not fit for purpose .

[kerny]

As most of you know, through recent posts, hadd is having problems with the hull on his seapro rib. Some of the gel coat on my seapro has come away and I am not happy with the strength of the hull.

I did not know hadd prior to joining RIBnet so was unaware of the problems he had encountered previously. We are both looking at getting a full refund on our packages as a result of the rib not being fit for purpose. As of yet we have not approached our dealer, Bill Higham Marine, as we would like to find out first where we stand legally i.e is he just obliged to keep repairing faults until the 3yr warranty runs out .

I purchased the seapro 4,70 rs for £8,000 with some extras, it's advertised as a sports rib or small dive boat, here is the link.


http://www.billhigham.co.uk/ribs.php

I know through some recent posts that BH is not well liked by some people on RIBnet but I must admit that I have only ever had good feedback from people that have had past dealings with him re engines and servicing etc. That was one of the reasons why I bought my boat off him, although I had never heard of him before. I suppose we will find out when we ask for our money back. We would appreciate any advice that anyone can give on this matter.


Many thanks ,

Steve .

[Xk59D]

have you contacted CAB?

i'm pretty sure you need to give them attempts at a repair.

with that said there is no harm trying to ask i suppose but i would think you'll get a new hull at best case scenario and they will re-use your tubes etc.

cheers

[Pikey Dave]

Kerny, this is a good place to start. Remember that you must be able to prove that you have been fair & reasonable. First thing to do is start a diary & log all your correspondence, calls etc. Speak softly & carry a big stick

[hadd]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Kerny, this is a good place to start. Remember that you must be able to prove that you have been fair & reasonable. First thing to do is start a diary & log all your correspondence, calls etc. Speak softly & carry a big stick

Spot on ,

[C-NUMB]

There are two main ways to go from the dealer points of view. To find a "commercial" solution or just go by the minimum requirements of the law. Its up to the dealer how to act. Full refund would be a pretty expensive thing for the dealer so Xk59D comments are very realistic.

If you two are in it together you will have a stronger position and better possibilities for a commercial solution.

Consumer protection is bound by the directives of the EU and generally consumers have a pretty strong position, but also the dealer have a right to repair the fault. Thus its also important that You report the faults to the dealer, he has not much obligations so far as he is not aware.

Make sure You have both Your claim and dealer response on black and white, including dates of messages. If you find that dealer don't take this seriously, you need to do an independent survey of the hull, inviting the dealer to the same.

Good Luck and hope your problem can be settled smoothly !

[Poly]

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/aft...nowyourrights/

When can I get a refund? When will I be entitled to only a repair or replacement?

If you are returning goods that are not of satisfactory quality or not as described and you inform the trader of the problem within a reasonable period of time, you may be entitled to full refund. If you have had some use from the goods or have had them for a while before you take them back you could ask for a repair or a replacement item. You, as the consumer, have the option of which solution you would like, however you must not require the trader to repair or replace the goods if this would be too costly, as compared to another remedy.
If a repair or replacement is not possible for the trader to provide, then you may be entitled to a reduction in the price of the goods to reflect the use up to that point or a refund. These remedies exist alongside the remedies available to you under the general law to terminate the contract for breach of condition and obtain a full refund.
Any remedy that is carried out by the trader must be carried to be within a reasonable time for the consumer and without causing significant inconvenience.

That suggests to me (and is consistent with my previous understanding) that as you have used the goods for some time you may not be entitled to a full refund. You are still entitled to repair, or potentially a partial refund that reflects the fact you've had it for some period. Its worth bearing in mind that whilst people here don't think the quality is great, you bought a budget boat so it would be unrealistic to expect it to have the same build quality as a premium boat. The published specs also make it quite clear that this is a lightweight boat (which should suggest that the build integrity may not be as good as heavier boats). e.g. the 470 weighs just 130 kg, when a 4.7m searider weighs almost double that, a ribcraft 4.8 and the 4.7 m humber assault are both 210 kg.


If I were BH Marine, and not feeling cash rich or overly bothered about my reputation then I'd either be offering to buy back the whole package at fair second hand value (assuming the specific defects were not present). That is likely to be 25-30% below the price he sold it to you for (for a 12 month old boat). Alternatively assuming there was no repair that you and him could agree on then I'd argue that the defect is only with the hull, and not the engine or trailer. Therefore I'd refund the cost of the hull - but then you'd need to find a suitable alternative to put the engine etc. on.


Good luck, and I hope you get a solution that works for you.

[yoyo]

Originally Posted by Polwart

Alternatively assuming there was no repair that you and him could agree on then I'd argue that the defect is only with the hull, and not the engine or trailer. Therefore I'd refund the cost of the hull - but then you'd need to find a suitable alternative to put the engine etc. on.

This is the exact outcome that I had with another importer/dealer when I bought my first "cheaper" rib which encounterd similar problems to Hadd. At the time I managed to trade in the engine with the dealer for a "fair" price who then sold me a larger engine at near trade cost. I then went elswhere for a british built hull

[kerny]

Originally Posted by Polwart

That suggests to me (and is consistent with my previous understanding) that as you have used the goods for some time you may not be entitled to a full refund. You are still entitled to repair, or potentially a partial refund that reflects the fact you've had it for some period. Its worth bearing in mind that whilst people here don't think the quality is great, you bought a budget boat so it would be unrealistic to expect it to have the same build quality as a premium boat. The published specs also make it quite clear that this is a lightweight boat (which should suggest that the build integrity may not be as good as heavier boats). e.g. the 470 weighs just 130 kg, when a 4.7m searider weighs almost double that, a ribcraft 4.8 and the 4.7 m humber assault are both 210 kg.


If I were BH Marine, and not feeling cash rich or overly bothered about my reputation then I'd either be offering to buy back the whole package at fair second hand value (assuming the specific defects were not present). That is likely to be 25-30% below the price he sold it to you for (for a 12 month old boat). Alternatively assuming there was no repair that you and him could agree on then I'd argue that the defect is only with the hull, and not the engine or trailer. Therefore I'd refund the cost of the hull - but then you'd need to find a suitable alternative to put the engine etc. on.


Good luck, and I hope you get a solution that works for you.

Like you say polwart budget boats maybe, but they are not advertised as budget boats but as ribs good for safety work and diving boats like it says in your link .To a newbie buying a new boat the weight between a searider and a seapro means nothing to somebody not in the know. I think possibly advertising a rib that is not fit to do what it says is more of the way to go . What do you think ?

[fred bolton]

Originally Posted by kerny

As most of you know, through recent posts, hadd is having problems with the hull on his seapro rib. Some of the gel coat on my seapro has come away and I am not happy with the strength of the hull.

I did not know hadd prior to joining RIBnet so was unaware of the problems he had encountered previously. We are both looking at getting a full refund on our packages as a result of the rib not being fit for purpose. As of yet we have not approached our dealer, Bill Higham Marine, as we would like to find out first where we stand legally i.e is he just obliged to keep repairing faults until the 3yr warranty runs out .

I purchased the seapro 4,70 rs for £8,000 with some extras, it's advertised as a sports rib or small dive boat, here is the link.


http://www.billhigham.co.uk/ribs.php

I know through some recent posts that BH is not well liked by some people on RIBnet but I must admit that I have only ever had good feedback from people that have had past dealings with him re engines and servicing etc. That was one of the reasons why I bought my boat off him, although I had never heard of him before. I suppose we will find out when we ask for our money back. We would appreciate any advice that anyone can give on this matter.


Many thanks ,

Steve .

If the gelcoat is peeling off then it is clearly a manufacturing defect and I ain't a solicitor but I think you are entitled to a refund not a repair a REFUND. reject the goods ( the whole package) as unfit for purpose.

[kerny]

What if I said to BH I will keep the trailer and engine and the extras fitted and refund me the price of the rib it might be a better and fairer option to go for. Not sure if hadd agrees with this but it is another option .

[Xk59D]

call them tomorrow and see what happens is best solution, he might surprise you!

unfortunately you have no legal right to a refund-your trying to lean on his customer service counter and see where it gets you at this stage i'd say.

if you get no where then by all means start digging a little deeper with your heels.

if you want a refund (understandable) then just tell him this and see what they say.

cheers

[BogMonster]

Sorry to go off topic slightly but what is a "contract exchange engine" off that website? I've seen them with the ads for the same boat in RIB Mag and they looked like a fairly new engine but a really old model?

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by BogMonster

Sorry to go off topic slightly but what is a "contract exchange engine" off that website? I've seen them with the ads for the same boat in RIB Mag and they looked like a fairly new engine but a really old model?

Ex-RNLI motors. Usually Mariner 40/50hp 2-strokes off the D-class IRBs (the 50hp units are Twatsoos with Mariner decals)

[nitrox]

go and see the man, i,m sure there is a solution. repairing the troublespot is goin to be a lot cheaper then trading in or swapin, for sure you both are having trouble good luck neal

[Poly]

I would assume BH Marine read the forum, so I wouldn't be too open here about your negotiating position!

The good thing about just "claiming" the refund on the boat is it brings you back into the limits of the small claims court - which gives you a bit more leverage (i.e. BH marine will see it as more likely you will take action to enforce your rights).

The Berr link Pikey Dave gave above is actually better than the Consumer Direct site.

The problem you face, if BHM are not forthcoming with a solution, is it is for you to prove that the boat was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose. That is tricky, certainly there is a problem with one boat posted here where the hull is flexing on the trailer. This might indicate bad trailer setup and a bit of a weak hull. Would a court agree that it is not fit for purpose? I'd expect the dealer or manufacturer to claim that (1) it complies with ISO/RCD requirements (2) the hull thickness conforms to "normal industry standards" for lightweight leisure boats (e.g. bowliners). Of course its possible that you got a friday afternoon hull and they'll replace or reinforce the hull with no issues. Likewise their may be some Gelcoat issues with the other hull, but Gelcoat issues are not going to be uncommon - especially on budget built boats - if they offer to fix these then it might be tricky to claim that is an inherent fault, which makes the whole boat worth rejecting.

"ideal for small diving parties or serious sports and fun!!" do you really think that is misselling the boat? until about 2 weeks ago would you have questioned that? if someone had met you at the slipway and said they were thinking of buying one to go diving - would you have said "noway, its not strong enough for that". The reality is you could go diving / ringoing / cruising etc in the boats you have for many years and never have a serious problem.

You see - not fit for purpose would suggest it was fundamentally unsafe or that nobody would take it to sea. Now unless you can get a surveyor to say that then you might have an issue convincing BH Marine or the court.

To a newbie buying a new boat the weight between a searider and a seapro means nothing to somebody not in the know.

I get your point, but playing devil's advocate I would say:

- if you are spending £8k on anything you will look at the options/alternatives (unless you are rich enough not to care).
- if you look at the market and discover that your possible boat is at the low end of the price spectum for its size, then a reasonable person might assume it is a budget/lower quality option.
- if the dealer had a demo model (similar or equivalent) on display and you were able to examine it - and the quality of this boat was similar to that of the demo boat then your lack of expertise is (at least partly) not the dealer's issue.
- I'm not sure if you bought your boat before or after the RI article (http://www.seaproboat.co.uk/pdf/RIB%20Multitest.pdf) but that alludes to the wieght/build thickness. They also hint at longevity and resale being possible concerns.



Now I'm not convinced it is actually helpful for both Kerny and Hadd to "claim" together. It looks like they have different boats and different problems so BH Marine may see different solutions to the problems. By all means you can use the "I'm aware of other boats with structural issues" to argue why a simple repair is not good enough.

Hope that helps, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear.

[hadd]

Originally Posted by nitrox

go and see the man, i,m sure there is a solution. repairing the troublespot is goin to be a lot cheaper then trading in or swapin, for sure you both are having trouble good luck neal

I nitrox, i,v emailed some pic,s off the hull, to BH the same pic,s i put on the thread ( spider cracks in hull ) he as also see the cracks him self ,he said that he would email the pic,s to the manufacture,s to see what they had to say ,he did say to me that the hull can,t be repaired and the warranty would get me a new boat ,if i did get a new boat i will make an agreement that if the same happens again with the new boat ,as i think it will, then i will go for a full refund ,that way he,s had the chance to sort it out, but won,t get another chance.

[kerny]

Originally Posted by Polwart

I would assume BH Marine read the forum, so I wouldn't be too open here about your negotiating position!

The good thing about just "claiming" the refund on the boat is it brings you back into the limits of the small claims court - which gives you a bit more leverage (i.e. BH marine will see it as more likely you will take action to enforce your rights).

The Bar link Pikey Dave gave above is actually better than the Consumer Direct site.

The problem you face, if BHM are not forthcoming with a solution, is it is for you to prove that the boat was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose. That is tricky, certainly there is a problem with one boat posted here where the hull is flexing on the trailer. This might indicate bad trailer setup and a bit of a weak hull. Would a court agree that it is not fit for purpose? I'd expect the dealer or manufacturer to claim that (1) it complies with ISO/RCD requirements (2) the hull thickness conforms to "normal industry standards" for lightweight leisure boats (e.g. bowliners). Of course its possible that you got a friday afternoon hull and they'll replace or reinforce the hull with no issues. Likewise their may be some Gelcoat issues with the other hull, but Gelcoat issues are not going to be uncommon - especially on budget built boats - if they offer to fix these then it might be tricky to claim that is an inherent fault, which makes the whole boat worth rejecting.

"ideal for small diving parties or serious sports and fun!!" do you really think that is mis selling the boat? until about 2 weeks ago would you have questioned that? if someone had met you at the slipway and said they were thinking of buying one to go diving - would you have said "noway, its not strong enough for that". The reality is you could go diving / ringoing / cruising etc in the boats you have for many years and never have a serious problem.

You see - not fit for purpose would suggest it was fundamentally unsafe or that nobody would take it to sea. Now unless you can get a surveyor to say that then you might have an issue convincing BH Marine or the court.


I get your point, but playing devil's advocate I would say:

- if you are spending £8k on anything you will look at the options/alternatives (unless you are rich enough not to care).
- if you look at the market and discover that your possible boat is at the low end of the price spectrum for its size, then a reasonable person might assume it is a budget/lower quality option.
- if the dealer had a demo model (similar or equivalent) on display and you were able to examine it - and the quality of this boat was similar to that of the demo boat then your lack of expertise is (at least partly) not the dealer's issue.
- I'm not sure if you bought your boat before or after the RI article (http://www.seaproboat.co.uk/pdf/RIB%20Multitest.pdf) but that alludes to the weight/build thickness. They also hint at longevity and resale being possible concerns.



Now I'm not convinced it is actually helpful for both Kearny and Had to "claim" together. It looks like they have different boats and different problems so BH Marine may see different solutions to the problems. By all means you can use the "I'm aware of other boats with structural issues" to argue why a simple repair is not good enough.

Hope that helps, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear.

Thanks Polwart for taking the time to write out this reply , my boat is not 6 months old yet and it has 3 or 4 months ago been in for some minor gel coat repairs which fell off after a couple of months, also it does flex if I get underneath and push on the hull our concern is that there is no support on the inside of the hull and that even basic cheaper models should have this. I have already contacted BH Marine about my concerns and he also agreed on this, I have been told to bring it in so something can be sorted out and like Xk59D Say's he might surprise us . I have not yet asked him for a refund but hopefully with the good reputation that they have he might come to an amicable agreement.

[Searider]

Sounds like BH Marine are trying to help you guys.

[Channel Ribs]

I cant see anything about RCD categories, I would have thought this would be useful in measuring the designed purpose of the boat?

[fred bolton]

If you can ditch the boat how about this - http://rib.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39107