COSTLY REPAIR WORK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19274, 12 March 1926, Page 12

COSTLY REPAIR WORK.

GISBORNE TUG AND DREDGE. SURVEYOR'S REQUIREMENTS. HEAVY BILL IN AUCKLAND. LEGAL POSITION TO BE SOUGHT. [BY ' TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT. 3 GISBORNE, Thursday. The Gisborne Harbour Board to-day spent two hours investigating what it held to be the excessive cost of repairs to tho dredge Korua and the tug Pelican which recently underwent overhaul at Auckland. I The chairman, Sir. W. G. Sherratt, stated that the amount spent on the two vessels, without the alterations to the timbers on the dredge, was £13,435 19s lOd. It was not possible at present to show the costs separately, but the figure included wages and the expenses of going to and from Auckland. The amount actually spent on the vessels would be about £IO,OOO, this including tho wages of the crew. Tho Pelican seemed to have required the most repair work. The board had to slio.w tho public that it took all reasonable care in purchasing the Pelican; after that the board's responsibility ceased. Reports from Mr. Walker, the marine surveyor appointed by tho board, and correspondence relating to the repairs were read. The chairman said that following Mr. Walker's report the board made an offer of £4OOO for the A'essel. In reply, a month's option at £SOOO was given, the owner refusing to accept £4OOO. A few days later the board's engineer reported having discussed the matter with Mr. Walker, who considered the vessel worth £4500 to £SOOO, and stated that a survey would probably cost about £SOO. He had then discussed the matter with the owner, Mr. Zohrab, and finally agreed to recommend the purchase at £SOOO, provided Mr. Zohrab put the vessel in repair according to Government survey. " A Very Drastic Action." On September 11, 1924, the board agreed to purchase the Pelican. Subsequently Mr. Walker advised that the repairs were being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Government- surveyor at Wellington. He re- ; ported that all the work recommended by him had been completed and the necessary fittings made. He estimated that the survey and repairs had. cost over £2OOO, which was considerably in excess of the estimate. He thought his continued presence on tho vessel had made the examination a more careful one and he had no hesitation in advising the board that the work in question was well carried out. The vessel was in commission at Gisborne for, a few months and then went to Auckland for annual survey when the repairs, the cost of which is now complained of, were effected. Reporting on these repairs, Mr. Walker stated that the surveyor had ordered repairs' in the interests of all parties. Tho removal of defective portions'had revealed other t faults, but ha did not regard all the work done at Auckland as necessary or justified. After viewing the material removed from the vessel he had formed the opinion that the surveyor had taken a very drastic action and that if the same attitude were adopted in all cases very few ships over' 20 years old would be passed. He had understood from the amount of work done that the repairers had been given a free hand. Extraordinary Outlay. Much of the work was unnecessary upon a ship of that age and that the expenditure should have been undertaken was extraordinary in view of the fact that the Government surveyor had not Aeraanded such repairs at the previous survey at Wellington. Mr. Walker stated that he was sorry he had not been able to be on the spot early enough to prevent the outlay upon so old a ship, or at least to have had the proposed repairs "done by tendered contract. I Dealing with tho Korua,' Mr. Walker stated that the conditions were similar, the outlay having been extraordinary. He suggested that tho Government: surveyors lat Gisborne and Auckland had set a ! standard a long way higher than- that established by the principal surveyor of the Marine Department, to whom recourse should have been had for advice in such a case before repairs of so extensive a nature were undertaken. He regretted vt>ry keenly that the circumstances had arisen after the principal surveyors of the Marine Department had been satisfied with the condition of the Pelican. The chairman stated that this report had been sent to the chief surveyor, but he had not replied to the letter, or even acknowledged it, although he was asked for his comments on the report. The engineer said the instructions when the vessels went to Auckland were that repairs would have, to bo carried out to satisfy the Government surveyor. Ho gave the opinion that much of the work insisted on was quite unnecessary. In this opinion he was supported by the chief "surveyor in Wellington, and also by the experience of the vessel, which had stood.the heavy demands made on her without the slightest strain. Position of the Vendor. ' The chairman said Mr. Zohrab had refused £4500 cash in preference to £SIOO with necessary repairs, and the repairs in the end cost him over £2OOO. It could not bo said thorefore that he was "on a good wicket." : The engineer said he was in Auckland when th« repairs were started and he had never contemplated such extensive work. -The Pelican was, surveyed in one inspection, but repeated examinations were made as- the. work progressed, and additional work was found necessary on each occasion. The first information the board had of the extent of the work was when they were advised of the delay and by then tho board was already heavily committed. The board was in the hands of the Government surveyors, whose opinions might, and did, vary considerably.. Mr. Williams said he thought the board had a claim against tho Marine Department. It was resolved that a small committee be sot- up to interview tho solicitors in regard to both vessels and report back to the board.