Tacet

That is my feeling - but it is a genuine question and I would be pleased to hear the thoughts of others. Particularly if they are well-reasoned.

In order to be a distributor, it needs to be in the supply chain. If a broker is in the chain - is Apollo Duck too? And eBay?

Distributors have obligations under the RCR - but they are not quite as sweeping as you claim. The definition of a distributor is: "distributor” means a person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a product available on the market; But is a broker in the supply chain? Although it is practically involved in the sale admin at no point does it own the boat. Why do you say a broker is in the supply chain - it more feels as though it is alongside the chain.

That is to be the basis of my next query - what offence is committed, if any, by a broker arranging a sale of my hypothetical non-compliant boat. I think it is best saved for a new thread - to slightly reduce the opportunities for those fond of muddying the waters.

You're now seeking to define "commercial transaction" rather than the RCR use of "commercial activity". And omitting the "in the course of". So it's unlikely to take us forward. If every financial transaction is in the course of a "commercial activity", why can't I recover the VAT when buying a drink?

The RCR states: "making available on the market” means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain] in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; 1. If the draughtsman wished to include private sales, it could be achieved by omitting the words "in the course of a commercial activity" thus "means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain]..... whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; But it doesn't omit this phrase. Thus your suggested interpretation offends the rule against superfluiity, which is a firm guide for interpreting legislation and contracts 2. If the definition captures private sales (because they are financial transactions), where does this leave free of charge transfers, which are clearly included, but not, even in your way of thinking, commercial transactions? It becomes incomprehensible. Your confusing a financial transaction with being in the course of a business activity. It would mean that every purchase or sale of anything would be a commercial activity

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drafting-bills-for-parliament/2024-03-19-drafting-guidance#part-1-clarity

No chance. In the course of commercial activity means as a part of a wider business. The alternative interpretation would include any supply - and the other words would be entirely superfluous No. It is the bit about supply chain that you omitted The RCR refers to "in the course of a commercial activity". If it meant nothing about business, it could say for consideration or otherwise.

The RCR provides that "making available on the market” means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain] in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; Therefore, in the statutory sense, only in the course of a commercial activity can a watercraft be made available on the market. So it doesn't mean a private seller.

Food indeed. But the RCR defines thus: " making available on the market” means any supply for distribution, consumption or use on the [Market of Great Britain] in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge and related expressions must be construed accordingly; So not, I think, a private seller. Incidentally, your definition of a distributor is not quite the same as the RCR which is: "distributor” means a person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a product available on the market;

It's a fair point - although in this case you could probably find someone (brokers included) on the internet to say almost anything hence my preference for a direct reference to legislation. Alan de has correctly said that manufacturer can be brought to task for non compliance with the RCR. He has also (equally helpfully and correctly) cut and pasted a long section from an unattributed source that says one can be prosecuted for breaking the law - which may not come as a surprise to many. Tony B says no-one can know the law at present and the law may change anyway and you should inform yourself. But as yet no one can point me to the offence committed in the circumstances posed in the first post. We need to give it a bit more time before drawing any conclusions

I quite agree the lack of prosecutions does not mean the law can be ignored, of course. But neither does it mean the law is something it isn't. The question remains - what is the law? And you can know what the law is prior to prosecution - you acquaint yourself with the law. Your sensible suggestion that it is best to inform yourself does not sit well with the claim that you can't know the law until someone is prosecuted!

This is a link to the RCR 2017 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/contents The original question (simplified) was what offence is committed in privately selling a boat that doesn't comply with the Regulations. There is some bluff & bluster about possibilities of the law changing in the future and "problems" from brokers and buyers - which are accepted in themselves - but do not address the question. But no-one has yet found the section in the RCR that would be contravened - nor has anyone (to our collective knowledge) been prosecuted.

It's not my opinion that someone can fit out a hull with total impunity - and I have never said anything remotely near that, so I'm unsure why you're taking it that way. Familiarising myself (and maybe others) with legislation is the point of this thread. You suggest that an offence is committed in the specific circumstances posed - but have not been more specific beyond saying that others (but by no means everyone) think it is. I can't yet identify the offence - so am asking if anyone else can. So far, no-one has.

Fair point - but I think we're drifting off. Consumer protection does not usually apply to private sales. In any event, what is the legislation one is legally required to meet in this context other than the RCR? So again what is the chapter and verse?

I've read through the RCR 2017 and cannot identify an offence on the premise of the original query. I could have missed it, of course, but if you think otherwise, can you point us to the relevant section please? It doesn't really cut it to say that you believe something solely because someone else believes it.

In the forlorn hope we might stay focussed, I'll ask a specific question: Assuming my boat should have complied with the RCR when built, but fell short (and continues to fall short) in some respects, what offence, if any, is committed when sold privately? Let's keep in simple and assume a private, leisure use, no broker, not in the course of a business, not imported, no major craft conversion and not self- built. Let's avoid the no-one cares/nobody will know discussion too. At the moment I can't see any RCR breach - but it's a genuine question.

It may well be correct - but was there a legal decision on this issue, please?

Best ask Diane Abbott to check your maths.

Sounds expensive. Admittedly I have a Smart Meter but with EON: Day Rate is 24.203p/kWh Night Rate is 6.381p/kWh Standing Charge is 56.084p/day Plus VAT throughout

A well made point about Hertford Lock. Some (but not all) guides have the locks marked as "Old Ford" Locks but I'm not convinced about the name as there are (and were already when the Duckett's opened) another two Old Ford Locks in the locality, which is surely enough.

Your position is that the RCR requires the "equivalent" of the ISO - which would surely amount to the same thing, on this occasion Is this the RCR or the ISO handbook; it's easy to get confused....

Alan is confusing the RCR with ISOs again. The RCR Essential Requirement, in this context, is: "All watercraft, taking into account their design category and their characteristics, shall be fitted with one or more strong points or other means capable of safely accepting anchoring, mooring and towing loads." It is the ISO 15084 that gives the complicated formula. The RCR say (put simply) that meeting the ISO satisfies the Essential Requirement. But the RCR does not insist you meet the ISO. If your narrowboat strong point is capable of safely accepting etc etc , that's enough. There is always the question of how do you know if your strong point is sufficiently strong; this applies whether ISO or not, albeit with ISO you could do the test. Being realistic, if a strong point is much the same as many other similar craft, it is likely to comply with the law.

Alan is dancing to and fro between RCR Essential Requirements and ISOs. One is mandatory, one is not