mrartisan

no disrespect Ally but you're saying the same thing as before. I'm not disputing that I need to comply with the RCD, I'm merely trying to show how ridiculous the system is if you can self certify. And I'm sorry if you can't take a step back from it all and see how simple it is! I work hard for my living and I'm not about to give money away for a non-service when all the information/formulas are there, they just needed locating. Thanks for your advice though and I have noted it several times. However, I shall post the progress of my self certification and the methods used in satisfying the relevant standards in the hope that the process may benefit future self-builders. I'm not making a career out of this by the way this was my first and last canal boat, just wasn't sure what you meant by 'customers'

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair, I was just noting that it was a vague statement to make. I like the facts, to be able to verify things that have supposedly happened and thus glean more understanding of a subject.

well exactly, 'farcical' is putting it lightly. My boat already has a full and complete BSSC and has had for the last two and a half years, it had the official inspection at one year old necessary in order for sailaways to get a repeat licence, and it passed with flying colours. So, an official body tested my boat to make sure it complied with the British Safety Standards and it did, obviously I wasn't allowed to do this myself. It cost £85 for the inspection and a £40 administration fee to BW £125 in all, which is a fair price for the necessary 'M.O.T.' as it has been described. A BSS I have no problem with and welcome with open arms just as I do the M.O.T. on my car. It's the RCD and the quango know as BSI that's annoying me. To many people are letting the RCD be overplayed to them 'we're told we need it so therefore we must do' and 'It's there to protect us' The reason they can't enforce anything is because there is nothing to enforce. You don't get a certificate saying "This Is Your RCD" that can be inspected. In reality, you only have to make sure that everything about your boat complies with the regulations, which when you break it down is quite simple LINK. You have to document all of this information (see earlier link), fill in your declaration of conformityLINK, compile a user manual (see earlier link), and purchase a builders CE plate from the chandlers engrave it and attach. Um "In the recent past this process has been carried out (forget where) and I believe prosecutions + big fines were the result." that statement's more vague than the RCD!

if the RCD was to protect the buyer then it would be applicable after the first five years of a boats life also. Or is it there to protect the more affluent purchasers of canal boats? and it disregards the people that can only afford a boat over five years? It's a little bit mixed up is it not?

It's called a Quango. (Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisation) they seem to spring from nowhere. They force affiliation usually by law, charge for so-called services to pay their salaries. It's like magic, black magic! I saw it first hand when I worked in a pub once. This new company called 'Cask Marque' i think it was. Started advertising everywhere saying that they were an independent body monitoring cask ale. You, as a publican could have your beers patronised by the said Cask Marque for a fat yearly subscription fee. They then gave you the signs for the pumps and the window etc. saying you were Cask Marque vetted. They would call about every six months to drop off the latest signs and posters, paying little attention to anything else. Amazing is it not? An industry, started from nothing, where nothing was before, where nothing was needed, and, most of all doing nothing at all!

I agree that cat D boats should be inspected by an appointed person for the task, just as sea going vessels are. But, seeing that they are not then the RCD for cat D is just "a compilation of information'. Yes the certain aspects of the relavent ISOs have to be satisfied but lets face it, it is just common sense. ISOs are long winded documents that cover every eventuality, hardly any of which applies. If a boat has been fitted competently by the owner (as has my own) then that is plain to see, and that is where a marine surveyor should come into play, anybody that is thinking of buying a boat would be mad not to have it surveyed first, regardless of weather its RCDs and BSSs. The RCD is not there to protect the purchaser, it is there to constrain the self-builder. I can't sell my boat (legally) without an RCD as its only three and a half years old and I fitted it out myself. But in eighteen months time I can sell it without one! It's all about money! and It's all a load of bollocks if you ask me!!

thanks again Richard, interesting that the industry called for such an unregulated mess! Like you say though probably the producers of sea-going boats. I still think it will have a detrimental affect to the narrow-boat builders. Anyway, think I may have found an answer http://www.small-craft-consultancy.com/CE-craftsample.pdf is just what I needed. It even quotes the applicable ISO to view for each category! Cheers.

Thanks for the in-depth, and knowledgeable reply Richard, That is the annoying part, I have kept all records, wire diagrams, water layouts, gas, central heating, etc. etc. and of course all user information for all fixtures, etc. Compiling the user manual would be the easy part for me. With user manual and Annex III under my wing what else would I be paying a marine surveyor £500-£600 for??? But, If this is what I have to do though then so be it. I certainly won't be buying a new shell again, I'll refit an older one! This legislation is going to have a negative affect on hull builders, certainly one less order for next year anyway. Hey presto the government puts another nail in the coffin of British industry!

thanks for that one Carl! I needed a laugh :lol: I hope you're not right though!

thanks for your reply, but that is just my point! The boating world or any other for that matter should not be fed on by parasites that feed from the confusion that legislation promotes. Thanks also for the DIY library angle but I don't want to, nor have the time to, interpret the legislation direct. Besides, the majority of the legislation, as I already said, has been satisfied by the hull builder or, is not even applicable to narrow-boats! As a narrowboat community we should be able to compile a 'standard format' approach i.e. applicable to narrow-boats, to satisfy the legislation. And not have to pay yet more 'Quango' bodies to certify our existence!

I currently have for sale my recently completed narrowboat:- http://web.me.com/jpye/narrowboat However, due to the 'Recreational Craft Directive' imposed on boats under five years old, it seems I have to get my documentation more in order. After internet searches, it seems that the RCD is just that, more a compilation of information and not a test-to-pass as I originally thought. There seems to be much scare-mongering and idle gossip all over the internet concerning the RCD, (as I'm sure there is about all topics). However, something remains unclear about the RCD process:- If the RCD is, as I think I have gleaned, 'a compilation of information' ie: Materials, Processes, Standards, Conformity , etc. then why does the process of achieving RCD compliance seem to be kept out of reach of the sail-away self-builder. After-all, the complicated side of the RCD compliance would have been satisfied by the hull builder (or at least should of been). So, would it not be better to create a standard format for completing the RCD compliance for the sail-away self-builder, and not make him reliant on a Marine Surveyor to compile the information for him? I think autobiographies are always more exacting than Biographies! Anyway, as I have only just started researching this subject, and need RCD compliance rather sharpish, I though I would post this message to the wealth of knowledge that abounds in the Canalworld forums, any information on this subject would be greatly appreciated, preferably from those of you who have navigated the murky bog of the RCD. Thanks for reading, John.