By Geoff Waddington, HonFIIMS and IIMS Immediate Past President, Mike Schwarz, IIMS Chief Executive Officer with contributions from Craig Norton, President, InspectX
IIMS and its Professional Assessment Committee remain concerned at the quality of reports that it sees, both in general terms, but in particular when assessing a candidate’s suitability for an upgrade.
The emergence of new surveyors into the industry, coupled with their desire (along with more experienced practitioners) to utilise the latest report writing software is creating a concerning trend. In writing this article we want to remind surveyors no matter what method they use to prepare their surveys of the importance of accuracy and giving sufficient meaningful and detailed, factual information to the client. That is and always will be the role of a marine surveyor. To further illustrate this point, the authors have used some verbatim comments taken from legal teams who have been asked to comment and give opinions on surveyors’ report in courts and for insurance companies when assessing claims and considering potential litigation. For obvious reasons, the sources of these comments are not revealed.
Let’s first remind ourselves of the definition of a report. “A report is a written document, produced for a clear purpose and to a particular audience. Specific information, facts and evidence are presented, analysed and applied. The information is presented in a clearly structured format making use of sections and headings so that the information is easy to locate and follow. When you are asked to write a report, you will have been given an instruction. The instruction should outline the purpose, audience and problem, or issue that your report must address.”
In achieving an acceptable and successful outcome, it does not matter if you hand write your reports or use report writing software, but the end result must match the requirements set out in the above description – sadly this is not always the case.
Craig Norton, InspectX, gives an overview of his surveying practices when using his InspectX report writing software and says, “As for my typical survey process, I begin by opening a project in the program, which is similar to starting a new Word document. This is started in my office usually the week or weekend prior to the scheduled survey. Even when surveying a vessel type I am already familiar with, I still begin with basic research to verify the construction materials and build process, so that I can have as much insight as possible while onboard at the time of survey.”
A sample page using the InspectX software. The layout and formatting for the final draft can be adjusted within the settings pages to customize the report to the surveyor’s preference.
He added, “I am quite selective about what build information is included as I do not agree with copying/pasting a general layout description from the manufacturer as those are typically filled with objective statements (such as ‘ample storage’ or ‘luxurious sofa’) that I have no need of in my reports. I am also very selective about from where the information I choose to include in the report is sourced. Information direct from the builder is preferred, and any information from the sales listing is considered the least dependable and only included if no other references can be found.”
“Speaking of the listing, I will also pour over the listing line-by-line and preload relevant information into my tablet in the appropriate locations in readiness. This serves two purposes, firstly so that I can verify these listed items are in fact onboard as stated, but also so that it may help to speed up my entry on that heading after verification onboard.”
Mike Schwarz continues the story, “Let me be quite clear. The Institute has no issue with the concept of report writing software. It is a modern solution and over time will become the norm and one we support wholeheartedly.”
As Mike says, “Some of the reports we have seen generated using report writing software have been top class, but others have left a lot to be desired – that means, poor quality reporting with minimal information given and the use of words that are inherently vague. If scrutinised in a court of law, they simply would not stand up, leaving the surveyor vulnerable. Therefore, I am left with the assumption that it is not the software that is at fault, rather the person inputting the data from the survey they have conducted. Indeed, it may well be a lack of understanding of the capabilities of the report writing software itself. Simply moving to and utilising a software package does not guarantee the generation of an excellent report.”
“Back in the day when creating databases, we always used to say rubbish in, rubbish out. In other words, the output is only as good as the input. The software is just the tool and mechanism to help you reach the required outcome.”
Continuing, Mike said, “The quarterly online report writing seminar for small craft surveyors that IIMS runs, for example, is quick to highlight certain words that are best avoided in a report because they are vague and cannot be substantiated which is inviting the client to interpret and deduce what they mean, especially if no further clarification is given by the surveyor. Words such as apparently, appeared to, ample and approximately – and that’s just the As for starters – have no place in a report. Factual word clarity is essential.”
For many surveyors, the thought of going onboard a vessel to survey with tablet in hand sounds very appealing and is the modern way, but the fundamental rules for the survey remain just as they have done for decades. In this respect, Craig Norton has some pertinent advice when he says, “With that basic report prep, I step onboard every vessel very well prepared. I carry a tablet with me at all times and data entry into the tablet is pretty similar to handwritten notes, just typed directly on the tablet rather than taken with a notepad. Some common equipment and often used conditional phrases are easy to select in the program, while others require some modification for clarity just like they would if I were taking handwritten notes. Importantly, the software does not guide my survey process, but rather follows me on the survey and allows me to make direct entries as I go. Of course, I am always in need of certain reminders and the coloured buttons inside the InspectX software program serve as a great reminder of what equipment, or checks I still need to complete before I finish for the day.”
Geoff Waddington picks up the baton and says, “Having assessed many computer software generated reports over the past years it has become apparent that the popularity of these programs is on the increase. I do not intend to stand in the way of progress, and I am sure that these programs have their place within the marine surveying profession; however, as an Institute we would be failing our members if we did not consider the implications and potential pitfalls of using report writing software and alert people to our concerns so that they can be addressed.”
Craig Norton adds, “It is worth noting that while I complete most of my report entirely in the field, this is really only achieved after an extreme familiarity with the program and customization of the options I have at my fingertips. I encourage ALL my program users to complete a number of reports in the office before even attempting to carry a tablet into the field. There is enough to focus on the survey and the vessel alone, that a tablet/computer should only be introduced when navigating and typing on it can be done as second nature. Again, no shortcuts.”
Geoff Waddington comments further, “There may be an argument for simplified reports with regards to insurance, valuation and even damage surveys, but the use of report writing software for pre-purchase surveys needs more serious and deeper consideration.”
“There are a growing number of claims I see being made against surveyors with regards negligence and even claims for incompetence due to alleged oversights, or just plain lack of technical detail during the raising of survey reports. It is a fact that exclusions and limitations of survey can protect you from some, but not all, claims included in this sort of legal action.”
The following is an extract from a letter of claim which reaffirms the aim of the surveyor’s report and what it must achieve: “A reasonably competent surveyor will identify any potential defects, within the limitations of the survey, and impart sufficient knowledge to the prospective purchaser in regard to the potential costs and the logistical problems which would be required if the vessel was purchased”.
Geoff Waddington continues, “That sums it up perfectly. When making a claim your wise and boat knowledgeable client, who may have been friendly and understanding at the time of survey, will suddenly become completely and extremely un-knowledgeable, un-friendly and devoid of any understanding as far as the implications of undertaking the purchase of the vessel concerned and will claim that he/she was totally reliant on your advice.”
A claim may be generated by advice from an experienced and knowledgeable friend, often with 2020 hindsight, most likely from a qualified engineer or repairer who is making sure that he achieves the most lucrative repair contract, or it could be the surveyor who inspects the vessel on behalf of the next purchaser. When ensuring that they are placing themselves in the best position any of these could then place blame upon the owner’s surveyor having failed to discover or advise on issues which then result in a claim perhaps even several years after the surveyor’s original inspection and survey. The following is another extract to this effect: “This is something that a diligent surveyor should have advised about, so that the prospective purchaser could take a view as to whether this potential repair was something they would be willing to accept”.
Just to emphasise the point further, here are some verbatim comments and opinions from lawyers and legal teams:
- This is another problem, upon which a reasonably competent surveyor should have reported.
- A reasonably competent surveyor would have advised that a considerable amount of rectification work would be required to remedy this problem
- By not identifying and explaining this problem, the surveyor denied our client the opportunity to consider the work required, together with the costs which should have been identified.
- There was no reason why a reasonably competent surveyor should have missed this
- A diligent surveyor should have considered this.
- A competent surveyor should have advised that it was not possible to determine the full extent of the problem.
- Another point which should have been considered is the likely poor condition of structure even where it could not be seen.
- A diligent and competent surveyor should have questioned how this could be repaired.
- No consideration or advice was given as to the practical aspects of any repair process.
- It was a significant omission for the surveyor not to comment on this.
- A competent surveyor would have considered the available information and properly assessed the visible condition of a vessel of this age.
A difficult situation is the content of any pre-survey communications between surveyor and client, which should be limited to contractual issues and avoid pre-empting the survey or giving the surveyor’s opinion on the likely condition of the vessel. However, if you are engaged to conduct the survey to reflect the client’s wishes to, for example, sail round the world single handed in the vessel concerned, the surveyor could be accused of a lack of duty of care if he/she fails to advise the client on the suitability of the vessel for such purpose, which could generate the following challenge: “Putting to sea without this knowledge would be an unacceptable risk of which our client should have been advised”.
Even when the vessel is finally inspected and the surveyor has doubts with regards its suitability for a given purpose, he/she needs to be careful to give the most informed advice. If not, this could generate the following legal argument: “Negligently and in breach of contract, the surveyor made a number of omissions and gave negligent advice”.
It is not good practice to discuss the findings of a survey at the time of inspection and should be avoided always; equally another outcome the surveyor does not want to have to defend is: “The short comments provided by the surveyor in his email were insufficient and did not reflect the true extent of the problem. There was insufficient discussion, within the email or the survey report, in regard to this issue”.
The following extract is an excellent example of the legal opinion with respect to a pre-purchase survey: “One of the primary purposes of any pre-purchase condition survey is for the surveyor to provide the prospective purchaser with sufficient information to enable a reasonably accurate assessment of the likely financial implications of taking ownership of that vessel. This will include establishing and advising upon the condition of the vessel and the likely extent and cost of any repairs that are needed to put the vessel into a condition which was assumed when the offer to purchase was made”.
We would argue that placing a figure regarding the costs for the rectification of defects found during survey is above and beyond what is required by a surveyor. It could potentially place the surveyor in a difficult position and in danger of a claim should his/her estimate fall well short of the eventual actual costs of any such repairs, meaning they could become liable for the difference. However, the next statement may be more correct: “A survey report which identifies defects but does not discuss the scope of rectification work of such defects falls short of what would be expected of a reasonably competent surveyor”.
Even when costs are not assessed by the surveyor, he/she could still fall foul: “A competent surveyor would/should have ensured that our client was fully aware of any work/defects that would have significant financial implications”.
With all this in mind, the surveyor finally sets forth and conducts the survey and produces his/her report. No matter what format the report has been prepared using, the surveyor must ensure that the report is proof read by another person, or by using proofreading software aids such as Grammarly, or even read back to you using a program such as Natural Readers
https://www.naturalreaders.com/ for accuracy, literacy and to ensure it makes sense. Spell checkers are also a valuable tool but by no means fool proof; and finally, you could produce a water marked DRAFT report unsigned and un-dated. This could be submitted to get the client’s reaction and give them the opportunity to raise any questions and corrections prior to the submission of the final completed report.
This action should minimise the generation of this type of comment: “The report was to a poor standard and failed to comment on significant aspects of the vessel’s structure and contained numerous generic comments some of which appeared to have been carried over from a previous survey report regarding a different vessel. The report also made various statements that were factually incorrect and more importantly confused rather than assisted the purchaser”.
Below is an example of a simplified report writing software template which gives the surveyor the option to insert his/her own information. From what IIMS has seen in some instances, a single word is used to describe an aspect of the vessel and that’s it. There is a complete lack of content and information and no further comment offered.
So, coming back to the potential pitfalls, if the surveyor uses a software template such as this and ticks the box that says adequate for the outer bottom with no further description given, this is insufficient reporting. Being a vague word, if ‘adequate’ is chosen it is recommended to back it up with some further descriptive text to inform the client of what state the outer bottom was actually in.
Report writing software can be an invaluable aid in assisting the surveyor to deliver a quality product, but it is not, and should never be seen as a quick fix that replaces the detailed work required by the surveyor to deliver a meaningful report to his/her client. Remember, the output is only as good as the information and detail that is put in at the front end by the user.
To conclude with a final example, IIMS has recently seen a software generated report that simply says “paint work – poor” with no further information or detail provided. What exactly is the potential purchaser of the vessel supposed to make of that statement? Further descriptive text is necessary, for example, “The paintwork was poor with multiple surface cracks, scratches and abrasions visible and had a diminished gloss finish”.
About InspectX
InspectX is a software platform designed for marine surveyors the world over that helps them to save time, improve their reports and increase their business productivity. By incorporating an intuitive method of touch navigation to enter information, experienced users can complete a professional report while in the field during a survey.
Website: https://inspectxpro.com/
Contact Craig Norton:
Email: info@inspectxpro.com