Commonwealth Boat Brokers

Review: Commonwealth Boat Brokers has not given me a title for the boat trailer which I purchased on May 6, 2014.Desired Settlement: I need the title for the boat trailer or refund of moneys for the boat and boat trailer as well as expenses put into

fixing the boat.

Business

Response:

To whom it concerns,

We sincerely apologize for the delay that [redacted] incurred in receiving his watercraft trailer title. We assure that these delays were not a result of our lack of service, rather circumstances that were out of our control. The vendor providing the title to our organization did not produce the title in a timely fashion. We made daily calls to the vendor to ensure that the importance of the issue was known and documented. Once we received the title, there was supporting paperwork needed, which resulted in additional unforeseen delays in processing with the Commonwealth of Virginia [redacted]. During this delay, we provided [redacted] a current and legal

temporary tag for the trailer so that his use of the vessel would not be impacted. [redacted] has now received his watercraft trailer title and we sincerely hope that he enjoys his purchase.

We sell and process titles on over 400 trailer titles per year and this experience is certainly atypical. We take customer service very seriously as evidenced by our 26 years in business and very good consumer feedback. Should you have any additional questions, please let us know.

[redacted]- President

Review: I purchased a used vessel from Commonwealth. After the Purchase of the vessel, 15 minutes into its first voyage, there was a catastrophic failure of the motor.

The boat was towed to a mechanic where the engine was removed from the hull and taken apart for diagnostics. The mechanic, who is marine certified, along with the insurance surveyor from Boat US, inspected the motor. They concluded and agreed that the motor was a total loss due to sever corrosion. They also found the corrosion to be caused from the boat sitting uncovered for an undisclosed but extended period of time in commonwealths sales yard, exposed to the elements; water, snow, ice, etc. Both the mechanic and surveyor also suggested it is more likely than not that the seller would have been aware of this issue, as they preformed maintenance tasks like winterization.

I contacted commonwealth to discuss the issue immediately after it happened and the manager, [redacted], did not return the call. It was not until a few weeks later when I continuously attempted to contact Mr [redacted] that he finally responded. After explaining the issue with [redacted] and attempting to make a good faith agreement to handle the situation in a fair manor for all parties involved; Mr [redacted] refused to respond to any further communications.

Mr [redacted] cited their “Sold as is” policy in our initial discussions, however, with the probability of commonwealth being aware of these issues, this is not a condition of the boat issue, but a fraud and failure to disclose issue.Desired Settlement: I am see[redacted] an arrangement that is fair for both parties in settling the total cost of repairs on the vessel. While I do not hold commonwealth accountable for the entirety of the bill, they must be held to a fair portion of the damages caused while in their possession. Mr [redacted] may contact me at anytime to discuss this, if he chooses.

Business

Response:

We were troubled to hear about

issues that Mr. [redacted] is having with hisvessel. We go through great

lengths, in both practice and process, to safeguardbuyers to the greatest extent

possible from issues arising with their purchase. Uponarrival at our facility, we perform

an evaluation of the vessel as a good faith effort todiscover issues, at which time we

either repair or disclose our findings. Afterward,we fairly and accurately represent

the vessels to the best of our abilities. In an effortto further mitigate risks, we

advertise, invite, and encourage buyers to havedisinterested, 3rct party inspection

performed by a qualified technicians.With regards to this specific

purchase, all of the aforementioned steps in thebuying process were taken. The

vessel started and performed well at our facility. Itwas started several times as well

as winterized. At no time did anyone at ourorganization note any issues with

the engine or machinery. Mr. [redacted] tooengaged of the services of a

disinterested and qualified 3rct party inspector. To ourknowledge, this expert too saw no

evidence to suggest anything was wrong with theengine or machinery either. If he

did, it was not brought to our attention at thattime and one would reasonable

expect that it would have affected Mr. Scarpone'sbuying decision, but the purchase

was completed on March 11th,

2015On or about April, 2Qth 2015, as noted in the

complaint, Mr. [redacted] left us amessage stating a "possible

winterization issue" and that he would be in contact toprovide additional updates. We have

no other records of inquiries or emails untilMay 2Qth,2Q15 on which date he advised us of the

reported failure of the engine. Inan email dated May 21>\ 2015, we did explain the

facts of the purchase; that he wasprovided the opportunity to inspect

the vessel, that such an inspection was indeedconducted, that no issues were

noted at the time of sale, and that the was sold in asiscondition. We further stated that

we would be happy to review the findings of themechanical report; however, that

report was not provided to us. Mr. Scarpone's responding email raised threats

of a lawsuit, and unfortunately, once the specter oflitigation is presented, further

communications were not advised.Again, we are very sorry to hear

about this issue. We have been in businessfor over 28 years and enjoy a good

reputation in the community. If there was indeeda catastrophic failure of the

engine, there is a multitude of potential causes. But tosuggest that we were, or even could

have been, aware of the internal condition ofthe engine or that in some way we

caused this to happen is simply unfair andinaccurate. Again, we invite Mr.

[redacted] to share with us the engine report. We willbe happy to review it and provide

our opinion.Should you have any questions, please let me know.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below

I have reviewed Commonwealths response to our original complaint,

ID number [redacted]. The company’s response is not only

inaccurate but also unacceptable.

First, commonwealth is

more than aware that the engine did suffer a catastrophic failure as we

provided pictures of the damage in our email correspondence.

Commonwealth did offer

a third party survey, as they stated. We had a survey performed, in their lot,

as stated. However, the survey was performed in the lot, which would not allow

for the engine to be tested beyond idle speeds, as instructed by their

representative. Commonwealth refused a sea trial, preventing the discovery of

the mechanical issues.

The damages were found

to be caused by neglect from the boat sitting uncovered in Commonwealths lot

for an extended period of time, as stated by the insurance surveyor. There was

no way for us to have known commonwealth was not properly maintaining the boat

for the year it was in their possession, a fact they failed to disclose to us.

Furthermore, our

mechanic has assured us that if proper winterization was done to the engine, it

would be impossible for commonwealth to be unaware of the mechanical issues

with the engine.

We understand the boat

was purchased in an as is state, however; the deliberate withholding of

information is not protected under an “as is” purchase.

We have attached the

insurance companies survey report, which is a “non interested” party, showing

commonwealths neglect was in fact the cause of the damages.

We again, are still

loo[redacted] for an agreement that is fair to all parties involved for the damages

totaling $20,000.

Regards,

Business

Response:

We are sorry to hear about this issue. It is a both a very rare and unfortunate situation when something like this happens for the reasons previously noted. We evaluate the vessels and disclose or repair issues when found. We invite and encourage 3rd party mechanical and structural inspections and place no limitations on the scope of such on premise inspections. Although we are confident that we could produce reports that could contradict the findings of survey provided, we choose not use this forum to argue the opinions of the surveyor. No one will ever know conclusively why the engine failed and if there was responsibility by either party. The vessel was purchased on March 11th, 2015, the claim of loss on April 6th, and the report compiled by the insurance company investigating a claim of insurable loss was conducted on May 12th which falls in line with when the buyers contacted us to disclose the information on May 19th. Again, we are very sorry to hear about this rare and isolated event. We care about our customers. For the sake of customer service, we wish that you could do more in this instance for this purchaser, but since the customer put us on written notice that litigation is a possibility, our options are limited at this point.