Prospero, EM Yacht and Wittey Marine

Prospero is an Huzar 30 built by EM Yachts of Poland, bought through the UK agents, Wittey Marine, for £60,000 in 2006. In 2009, it was diagnosed as suffering from delamination in the foam sandwich topsides.

Prospero under repair at Endeavour Boat Yard in Gosport.
Put your mouse over the picture to see a larger version.

Both EM Yachts and Wittey Marine deny any responsibility or the condition of the boat, despite reports from four surveyors. They themselves have never examined the boat.

Neither EM Yachts nor Wittey Marine have ever examined the boat. Four qualified surveyors have!

A joint expert was appointed by Wittey Marine's lawyers and mine. His report can be downloaded here. His conclusions were simple: the fault was a fault in construction.

On receipt of the surveyors' reports, Wittey Marine replied through their lawyers, forcing me to engage a lawyer. After more than a year and more than £11,000 in legal fees, it was clear Wittey Marine (Managing Director John Wittey) had no intention of honouring any of their obligations.

The whole business has cost me around £40,000, so that my £60,000 boat became a £100,000 boat.

One of the purposes of these pages is to provide a warning. Firstly, that if you have bought a boat built by EM Yachts, it may have the same problem. Get it surveyed now! Secondly, that while you might think you have legal protection under the Sale of Goods Act when you buy a boat, there is a snag. If the agent doesn't have the resources, he can simply declare bankruptcy and walk away. Of course, a reputable builder, mindful of their reputation, would sort the problem out for you.

The way EM Yachts and Wittey Marine have behaved is dishonourable, disgraceful and often deceitful. Be warned if you intend to do business with either of these companies.

Unanswered questions

• Why have EM Yachts never examined the boat themselves?
• Why have EM Yachts never contacted the German Search and Research boat?
• Why have EM Yachts never contacted the Danish boatbuilder that fixed the rudder after the grounding?
• Why have EM Yachts dismissed the reports of three qualified surveyors?
• Why did EM Yachts refuse my offer of a further joint survey?
• Why did EM Yachts not contact the boatyard repairing the boat to ask them what they had discovered?
• Why is EM Yachts telling stories about the grounding that are untrue?
• Why is EM Yachts behaving in such a disgraceful and dishonourable fashion?

The Repairs

The topsides of the Huzar 30 are a 'foam sandwich' - that is, there is a foam core surrounded on each side by GRP laminate. The hull is initially built on a mould, then foam is glued to the inside of the hull, and finally another layer of GRP is laminated over the foam. Such a construction should be stronger and lighter than a solid hull. The 'sandwich' is illustrated on the right.

One problem with this type of construction is delamination: that is, the GRP laminate separates from the foam core. In the case of Prospero, the outer layer of GRP has separated from the foam core - but the question is why?

It does help if the foam is adequately glued to the GRP laminate. That was not the case in Prospero. When the topsides were pulled away, it was very obvious that large areas had never been in contact with any glue.

The photo above shows the hull of Prospero with the outer GRP laminate removed. It wasn't difficult to pull the GRP off, since it had never been stuck on properly in the first place.

And here is a close up of the foam behind the GRP. It's not entirely true to say there's no glue at all: the the whitish streaks are actually glue, but elsewhere there are whole blocks of foam with no glue at all. They've never been touched by glue. You can see the gaps between the foam blocks are completely dry - there has never been any adhesive there. The boat hasn't delaminated; it's never been stuck in the first place.

And in this picture, as well as there being no glue, the blocks seem to be stuffed in random places and random lengths, almost as if they were using up the last bits and pieces:

How about the laminate? Well, you can see how much glue there is here:

These photographs do show how appalling the build standard of this hull was. However, despite this, EM Yachts are still denying responsibility for the state of the boat.

Now I know I am capable of many things, but causing glue to vanish like magic from the hull of a boat is not one of them. Neither EM Yachts nor Wittey Marine have ever examined the boat, yet they know what's wrong with it - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

So, would you buy a boat from Wittey Marine or EM Yachts?

EM Yachts

When the problem was first discovered, I didn't contact EM Yachts directly. Under UK Consumer law, I had no contract with them. I got in touch with the company after abandoning any hope of getting redress from Wittey Marine. After I told them that I was not interested in them repairing the boat, they became most unhelpful.

There were several reasons why I wanted it repaired elsewhere. First, if it was being repaired by EM Yachts then I wouldn't be able see what was being done (and Poland is a long way away!) - I wouldn't feel confident that it was being done properly. Secondly, they had got it wrong once - what guarantee would I have they'd get it right the second time? Thirdly, if the estimate Mr Whittey had given was correct (an interesting question), then it would be cheaper to have it brought to the UK and done there. Finally, having it done in the UK meant some possibility of redress if the repair went wrong later.

With regard to the damage to the hull, they stuck to their story of the grounding, even when I sent them Mr Freeman's survey report. When I offered to go halves with them on another joint survey, with the surveyor of their choice, they refused. Since then they have stuck to their story of the grounding 'fracturing' the hull, despite minimal knowledge of what happened, and all the surveyors' reports to the contrary. They have never examined the boat themselves. They have dismissed all the surveyors' reports, saying that the surveyors were biassed, incompetent, or not in full possession of the facts. These allegations againt professional people are disgraceful, particularly when they have not bothered to inspect the boat themselves.

The stories they have been putting out about the grounding incident have been untrue, and they have been told they are untrue. They are still repeating their lies.

I consider their behaviour to have been dishonourable, dishonest and deceitful.

This is a picture Herr Gregor of Neuhof took in November 2009 whilst taking a core sample of the hull. EM Yachts and Wittey Marine have known of this survey for nearly two years. I would love to hear an explanation from them as to where the glue has gone. Rubbed off? I think not. It was like that from the day it was built, and the shoddy workmanship is obvious. If EM Yachts cannot admit this, then they are being dishonest with themselves and their customers.

Wittey Marine

Wittey Marine's idea of customer care: send you a solicitor's letter!

When I bought the Huzar, Wittey Marine (managing director John Wittey) were acting as UK agents for EM Yachts, although they parted company in 2007. Wittey Marine, based on the Hamble, are now acting as agents for Salona and Delphia Yachts.

Wittey Marine were not at all helpful when I first contacted them, and insisted on a survey report. I asked Herr Gregor at Neuhof to produce on, and sent it to them. Their response was to send me a letter from their solicitors!

This in effect was an attempt at intimidation: engaging a solicitor of my own would be expensive - which it was.

Progress was slow: costs mounted because it was very difficult to get responses from Wittey Marine. Eventually a joint expert was appointed; he went off to Germany to look at the boat, wrote his report, and sent it to us.

His findings were unequivocal: the faults in the boat were those of the builders and were in no way related to anything I had done to the boat. Faced with this, Wittey Marine arranged a meeting at which our lawyers would be present.

It was made clear at the meeting that Wittey Marine as a company had no assets, and that pursuing them through the courts would be both futile and expensive. Mr Wittey did make offers to help with the repair of the boat, quoted some figures, and said he would pay 50%.

I never did get the offer on paper, and my solicitor worked out it would be cheaper to transport the boat to the UK and have it repaired here. Mr Whittey never responded to that.

It was becoming clear that legal action was getting nowhere and that I had a legal bill well into five figures. No point throwing good money after bad. I thanked my solicitor and paid him off.

Mr Wittey's tactics throughout were to delay and delay, pushing up the costs. His answers to the questions from Yachting Monthly were deceitful in the extreme. If you do want to buy a Delphia or Salona yacht, buy it from some one else!

Yachting Monthly August 2011

This issue carries a three page investigation: 'How my Dream Boat Turned Into a Nightmare'. The article has responses from EM Yachts and from WIttey Marine. They are less than honest in their answers.

Wiktor Witwicki of EM Yachts, who I met when I collected the boat, says in the article:

'She was pulled through the sand and subjected to such stress that the hull fractured … The boat was then sailed for two years and the friction between the core and the laminate has sanded away the glue: the two surfaces were grinding away on each other. We offered to repair the boat for €4,000, but Mr Hill started litigation against Wittey Marine and later abandoned the case because he did not feel confident he could win. He is playing very unfairly. He has discredited us and Polish boatbuilders in general, yet he has abandoned his legal case.'

I would have more respect for Mr Witwicki's description of the grounding if he had actually bothered to find out more about it. His knowledge of the grounding is based on a couple of hasty emails by me sent at the time. He has never followed up these emails. He has never contacted the German Search and Rescue Team. He has never contacted the Danish boatbuilder who fixed the rudder. He has never inspected the boat. His description of the grounding is wrong, and he has never bothered to get it right.

How does he know the hull fractured? Was he there? Has he surveyed the boat? Has he investigated the grounding in detail? It is arrogance indeed to be able to diagnose the cause of the delamination without ever inspecting the boat.

EM Yachts have never seen the boat since it was launched. They have never examined the boat. They turned down my offer of a joint survey. They have ignored the surveys from people who have examined the boat. They have not bothered to contact witnesses to the grounding. Worse still, I have told them the correct details, yet still they tell people things which are false. There is a name for this sort of behaviour. It is called lying.

He is wrong about other things. I never started litigation against Wittey. He started litigation against me! It is completely untrue that I abandoned the case because I did not feel I could win. I have a cast iron case. Read the surveyor's report once more, Mr Witwicki. What do you think would be the result if I went into court with that behind me?

So why did I abandon legal action? Several reasons. First, it was made plain to me and my solicitors that Wittey Marine as a company had no assets, so that any attempt to recover damages from the company would be pointless – they would just declare bankruptcy. Second, although Mr Wittey had made various verbal offers to help in the cost of repairing the boat, I never got them in writing, and it became clear he was dragging matters out as far as he could. 13 months and £11,000 of legal fees was enough. Tempting though it was to force the company into bankruptcy, I wasn't prepared to pay the price.

I also gather from people who have contacted me that Wittey Marine is no stranger to legal action. It is a pity that the money he spends on lawyers isn't spent on better customer care.

So what does John Wittey have to say for himself in the Yachting Monthly article?

John Wittey, of Wittey Marine, was UK distributor for EM Yachts until 2007. He told Yachting Monthly that when Mr Hill ran the boat aground in 2007, a powerful tug towed her through deep sand with a line from the masthead. He claimed this put stress on her chainplates and the deck delaminated at the shroud fixings. Mr Wittey also claims that the core samples removed by Otmar Gregor ‘left the inner sandwich exposed for 18 months to UV light and the hull filled with rainwater between the laminations, which then froze, bursting it open. It just popped apart. I’m not an expert on adhesives, but this is a foam core and the glue will disappear,’ he said.

All of this is a complete load of nonsense, and Mr Whittey knows that. Indeed, Mr Wittey and the truth get ever further apart. A powerful tug? No, a RIB with an outboard engine. Deep sand? No. A line from the masthead? No. I've no idea where he got this from.

I see Mr Wittey is trying to blame Herr Gregor, who was looking after the boat for me in my absence, and the one man in this whole business who has not tried to rip me off. Is he saying Herr Gregor is incompetent or negligent?

As to his explanation of the causes, I love the phrase, 'the glue will disappear'. Evaporate into thin air? Really? Well, Mr Wittey has certainly shown he is no expert on adhesives.

Mr Wittey's comments are directly opposite to those made by the surveyor which he appointed. Mr Wittey has not only not examined the boat himself, he has never ever seen it - but he knows better than the expert who has.

And I am not trying to discredit anyone – I am just trying to get some honest replies from people who sold me a defective boat. The way EM Yachts and Wittey Marine have behaved is disgraceful and dishonourable.

The Grounding

Deceitful Behaviour by EM Yachts and Wittey Marine

I am going to describe the behaviour of EM Yachts and Wittey Marine as 'deceitful'. This is somewhat dangerous from the legal point of view, but on the other hand, I think I can more than justify the allegation.

The version of events that they have been telling people is, quite simply, false. I have told them that what they are saying is false. They keep on saying it. This, to my mind, is deceitful behaviour.

Well, perhaps they have other sources of information apart from me. The snag is that they don't. The only other witnesses are the crew of the German SAR boat, and they certainly would not back EM Yachts and Wittey Marine's story.

So how do EM Yachts and Wittey Marine know about the incident? This is because the rudder stock was bent during the grounding, and the boatbuilder in Denmark wasn't sure how to remove it. I sent EM Yachts a couple of quick emails saying what had happened and asking them about removing the rudder. That's it. No follow up, no further questions. They have no other knowledge of the incident.

So, what is it that they are saying that is untrue?

• EM Yachts say I was pulled off by a powerful SAR boat.
  Not true!
• Wittey Marine say I was pulled off by a 'powerful tug'!
  Not true!
• EM Yachts and Wittey Marine say I was pulled off by a line to the top of the mast.
  Not true!
• EM Yachts and Wittey Marine say I was pulled through deep sand.
  Not true!

So what did happen?

I was motoring up the channel from Stralsund to the Baltic (the GellenStrom) early one morning, when fog came down. I lost my place in the channel, drifted out, and ended up aground on sand. I wasn't hard aground, but bumping slowly along.

The fog lifted and I saw a small motor boat out fishing. I hailed him; he called the German SAR on his mobile phone. The 'Theo Fischer' arrived, launched a RIB which passed me a line. I attached to the base of the mast (they insisted on my signing an indemnity form before proceeding!). They pulled me off the sandbank - not without difficulty - and then I followed them back to Barhoft.

The boat seemed fine, and it was only when I sailed over to Denmark I realised something was wrong. I had the boat hoisted out in Stubbekobing, and the rudder shaft was found to be bent. It was removed and straightened on the insurance. The boatbuilder and I also inspected the keelbolts for any sign of damage. Not the slightest crack!

Was this the cause of the delamination? Look at the pictures and decide for yourself.

The boat ashore in Denmark just after the grounding - the grounding,when, according to Mr Witwicki, 'She was pulled through the sand and subjected to such stress that the hull fractured'. Looks good to me - and if you click on the image, you can see a large version.

A close up of the keel. The anti-fouling is abraded at the front and back - not surprising if the boat was in sand. But it's obvious that it went in to the sand to a maximum of about 10cm, and was certainly not buried in the sand. If the boat was subjected to the stresses that EM Yachts maintain, it would look a lot worse than this. [Click for enlargement].