Complaint Review: Hamble Yacht Services Universal Boatyard

Hamble Yacht Services,  Universal Boatyard Sarisbury Hampshire pays up for negligence.

In settlement of a claim in the London Mercantile Court Hamble Yacht Services  paid 5000 towards the cost of the engine destroyed by careless pressure washing by their operatives.   Hamble Yacht Services displayed a complete lack of concern for customers` boats.  On arrival Hamble Yacht Services workers used powerful pressure hoses to remove fouling without placing any precautionary bungs. As a result fresh water filled the exhaust pipe and entered into the third cylinder of the Volvo Penta 2030 engine which had an open exhaust valve. This led to total seizure over the winter months.

An independent surveyor paid for by the insurer Grove Jones Westrup of Liverpool declared that fresh water could only have penetrated from hoses, probably aimed by Hamble Yacht Services employees.  Bizarrely he also suggested that water had only entered the exhaust outlet and not an identical outlet to the bilge pump just 10cm away.  This enabled Groves Jones Westrup to wriggle out of paying for the damage through a small print clause. Groves Jones Westrup was forced to prosecute the case but insisted n using its favourite local Liverpool solicitor, who consumed 25,000 and two years without notable progress.

Hamble Yacht Services yard removed sails from the forestay and boom, without contact with the owner, leaving these expensive items in a crumpled heap in the cockpit.. Hamble Yacht Services moved the boat five times without any reference to the owner on one occasion leaving it under budding trees, whose sap spoiled the deck.  As a probable direct result of this careless movement some 20 hairline cracks developed in the deck, needing costly repair.

Hamble Yacht Services boatyard had at least three other ruined engines the same season., But Hamble Yacht Services manager ( since terminated)  was very quick to blame boat owners for this damage.. Hamble Yacht Services had a well-practised story retailed by an in-yard engine dealer to allege faulty exhaust design  even where the piping had served well  over 20- 30 years.

Few owners checked whether the destructive water in their exhaust tubes was fresh or salt which would have indicated whether it had been caused by careless spraying. It would be impossible to prove complicity by a third party in these accidents although the suspicion clearly arises. This engine supplier was not used for the replacement Kubota engine, as his story was much too pat.

The local Volvo Penta dealer, RK Marine was paid to protect the engine through winterisation a process which the Volvo Owners Manual indicates should involve running up the engine to clear the exhaust of any water remaining. RK Marine failed to do this claiming that it was unable to find the key , but not alerting the owner to this costly omission.  Neither Volvo UK nor the president of Volvo in Sweden, who was made personally aware of the situation,  typically would do anything to correct this lapse.