URGENT!
If you have bought a boat built by EM Yachts of Poland, have it surveyed now!
My own boat has a defect which is potentially life threatening, and it is possible that yours might as well.
Get it surveyed!
EM Yachts build faulty boat; deny responsibility.
In 2006, I bought a Huzar 30 yacht, built by EM Yachts of Poland, and sold to me in the UK by the agents, Wittey Marine. At the moment, it is sitting ashore in Germany, totally unseaworthy. Three surveyors who have examined the boat have said that the construction of the boat by EM Yachts is responsible for its condition.
It is possible that the faulty construction of 'Prospero' is a 'one off', but it is worth having your own boat checked, just in case.
The Huzar is built of foam sandwich construction. This means that there is a layer of foam between the inner and outer GRP mouldings. These should be securely glued together. In the case of Prospero, my Huzar 30, the glue sticking the foam to the GRP was completely inadequate, and the boat basically has come unstuck. There are some accompanying pictures to show the problem (click on the pictures for an enlargement):
)
)
These show the core samples taken by Herr Gregor. The foam interior should be very firmly glued to the outer GRP, but, as you can see, there simply is no glue. The lack of glue must be a fault in construction and cannot be due to any subsequent handling.
If you have a yacht built by EM Yachts, then it is possible that your boat may also suffer from the same problem, and your life could be in danger if you carry on using it. Get it surveyed now!
As a consequence of EM Yacht's shoddy construction and Wittey Marine's procrastination, I have a useless boat, I am out of pocket by several thousands of pounds, and have suffered a large number of sleepless nights. My boat is rotting in a German boatyard for a second winter. I have spent around £13,000 on legal fees without no tangible result.
This page has been written for two reasons:
- to warn you about the poor quality of the construction of boats built by EM Yachts;
- to warn you of the consequences of buying imported boats from dealers who may not have the resources to cope in the face of a major claim. You may think you are protected by the Sale of Goods Act, but if a dealer does not have the necessary financial resources, and does not have the backing of the builder, then you may have a problem.
If you have bought a boat from either EM Yachts of Poland or from Wittey Marine, I would be very grateful if you could get in touch with me.
- What did the surveyors have to say?
- Wittey Marine
- EM Yachts and Wittey Marine's defence
- Mr Wittey's response
The surveyors
The boat went ashore for the winter in October 2009 at the Marina Neuhof in Germany. Soon after I arrived back in Britain, I received an email from the local boatbuilder, who had done various bits and pieces of work on the boat over the past couple of years. He had noticed bulges in the hull, and suspected delamination of the outer GRP from the foam core. I asked him to investigate further, and also contacted my insurance company.
The boat has now been examined by three surveyors. One was appointed by me, one was appointed by the insurance company, and the third was a joint appointment by myself and Wittey Marine.
Her Luermann from Hamburg represented the insurance company: his conclusion was that
‘The damages are not a result of an accident. They are producing failures of the builder.'
(Whilst his English grammar is not perfect, the meaning is quite clear.)
Herr Gregor,the boatbuilder at Neuhof, was also quite clear in his conclusions:
'It is very likely that there is no sufficient bonding between outer laminate skin and sandwich core in the whole topsides. It is very likely as well that there will be more separation in the future even if the actual bulges would be repaired. The boat was delivered with this defect. It was invisible to the owner and has to be described as a hidden fault'.
Mr Freeman was appointed as a joint surveyor, Wittey Marine and myself sharing the costs of the survey. I am now making his report available here.
His conclusions were:
In addressing such defects, please identify in respect of each defect, whether it is the product of
(i) Poor design – No
(ii) Inadequate construction – Yes
(iii) Neglect - No
(iv) Mis-use – No
(v) Inadequate post-delivery repair - No
(vi) Servicing – No
It is a direct or indirect result of the grounding of the vessel in 2007 – No.
The defects found are an effect of the grounding in 2007 or any works undertaken in respect of repairs at that time – No.
It is the natural consequence of fair wear and tear given the vessel’s age and usage by Mr Hill – No.
These are the opinions of the qualified experts who have personally examined the boat.
Wittey Marine
Wittey Marine, run by John Wittey, acted as UK agents for EM Yachts, and it was they who sold me the boat. I have a contract with Wittey Marine, but no contract with EM Yachts, who built the vessel. If the boat is faulty, then I can claim against Wittey Marine under the Sale of Goods Act. A fault of this sort - one that was present when I bought the goods but which was not apparent - is sometimes described as a 'latent' or 'inherent' fault.
They were notified of the problem in November 2009, when I sent them preliminary reports from Herr Gregor of Neuhof Marina, and Herr Luermann who was acting for the insurance company. These reports they dismissed ('unless we are supplied with the reports from which you “quote” we are unable to progress this matter').
I commissioned a further and fuller report from Herr Gregor and sent it to Wittey Marine; it was ignored. I phoned and emailed several times without success, until one day they sent me a solicitor's letter!
My dealings with them were painfully slow. Wittey Marine attempted to defend their position for several months without ever having seen the vessel or instructing anyone to look at it. One of their 'defences' was that I had, to quote, 'exposed the vessel to intensive use causing significant wear and tear, as is evident from his online blog'!
We eventually came to an agreement to commission a joint survey, available here. Mr Wittey has not made any admission of liability, but did offer to pay half the costs of the repairs. I was quoted a figure of €24,000 + VAT to have the repair done by EM Yachts in Poland. I am slightly sceptical of this, since on investigation, I have discovered that it would be cheaper to have the boat transported to the UK and repaired by a reputable firm in Gosport! I have never had this offer confirmed in writing, despite many requests, nor has any mechanism of payment ever been established.
I could, at further legal expense, refused the offer and pushed Wittey Marine to court. Whilst, on advice, I was confident of success, I had to bear in mind the possibility that Wittey might have declared bankruptcy, and I'd have spent even more money and gained nothing. This is not to say that Wittey does not have the financial resources - that I do not know one way or the other - but it was a possibility to be borne in mind.
This has implications for anyone who has bought a boat from Wittey Marine. First, if you do have a major problem, it has been my very strong impression - and I must stress that this is only a personal opinion - Wittey Marine may not have the resources to put matters right. You are basically relying on the good will of the boat builder, who may not be based in the UK and with whom you do not have a contract. Secondly, if Wittey Marine does go out of business at some stage in the future, then you have no one to turn to if you have a problem. You have been warned.
Currently, Wittey Marine are acting as agents for Delphia Yachts of Poland and Salona Yachts of Croatia.
Wittey Marine have been aware of the problem since November 2009. Thirteen months later, and £13,000 pounds worth of legal fees later, I still had no firm indication of their intentions. Further legal action was, I felt, throwing good money after bad.
Throughout, Wittey Marine have procrastinated or delayed, grasping at the tiniest of straws in order to deny their liability. The saddest part of the whole affair is that our combined legal bills plus survey fees probably would amount to the cost of repairs - and it has all been wasted.
EM Yachts and Wittey Marine's defence
EM Yacht's defence is based on a grounding incident in 2007. Unfortunately, they have got many of their facts wrong. Why? Because they have not bothered to find out the true facts of the grounding.
EM Yachts also suggest that perhaps the surveyors have 'insufficient qualifications'. Possibly. Or that they are 'biased'. Possibly. Or they haven't been told the truth about the grounding. Possibly.
But none of this matters. Why? The question is whether the boat was built properly in the first place, and it obviously wasn't. See for yourself:
Where's the glue?
Mr Wittey's reponse.
I offered Mr Wittey the right of reply, and his letter is given below. (I should add that he was responding to the page as it stood on 18 December 2010. The page has changed since then, but Mr Wittey is very welcome to amend his remarks if he wishes.) In light of what I have said elsewhere, I will pass no further comment:
Since the first communication from you regarding the accident you had with “Prospero”, you have been offered help and advice from Wittey Marine – by the managing director on a personal level. You are aware that we believe the present condition of “Prospero” is a result of three actions:-
- the accident you had when you went aground – an incident that could happen to anybody and is simply a matter of bad luck
- the decision you made in which you allowed the boat to be forcibly dragged through the sandbank, using incorrect techniques – this was human error, once more but one that significantly stressed your boat and this mistake could have been limited within your own control
- the decision you made to allow large portions of the hull to be removed “for inspection” without first reverting to Wittey Marine to allow them the opportunity to examine “Prospero” and offer advice. This particular action we have always regarded as somewhat out of character because you had never shown any hesitation in contacting us or the manufacturer (in particular) concerning all aspects of your boat.
Furthermore, you will also be able to confirm that Wittey Marine have at all times offered to assist you by carrying out repairs to your boat in EM Yachts’ yard. We, of course, have not offered to pay for the repairs ourselves (as we do not accept liability for the state of your boat) but as a gesture of goodwill we have offered to undertake the work to your boat at cost price and further offered to assist you with the payment of that cost price. You have been given a choice of repairing the hull (the damage is now significantly more serious to the hull due to the conditions in which you have stored your boat, but nevertheless our offer still stands and is still viable) or replacing the hull (which in meetings with solicitors you indicated would be your preference).
We will reiterate for the sake of clarification, that we remain positive in our attitude towards you and the problems you are facing with your boat as detailed above. We will always give our customers our support. We remain at your disposal should you wish to take up our offer to repair or replace your hull, which we will be very happy to do for you at very attractive rates already communicated to you, thereby allowing you to once again use “Prospero” for your well documented and extensive travels on the seas.
Please do not hesitate to let us know how we may assist you further.
JOHN R WITTEY
Managing Director
Wittey Marine Limited
Read the survey for yourself. Mr Wittey paid £2350 for this survey. The survey flatly contradicts almost everything Mr Wittey says. Who would you believe: an expert who has examined the boat, or an amateur who has never ever seen the boat?
'Prospero' in October 2010. You can see the 'large portions of the hull' which have been removed - really enormous areas. Note also the conditions in which the boat is being stored.