Tacet

The thing to bear in mind throughout, is that the current owner is seeking to sell its boat to you.

Indeed. The print comes off for the unwary.

Yes. Man wearing a milkman's cap and situated in a small, wooden shed - as best I can recall from the early 1970s.

Yes. It is common ground that the RCR Essential Requirements must be met and, of course, you may need to demonstrate it. And it is accepted that meeting certain ISOs is deemed to meet certain aspects of the RCR. No doubt you may need to demonstrate that too What is questioned is whether the RCR requires one to meet standards equivalent to the ISOs (if they are not met directly) insofar as they exceed the RCR Essential Requirements. For example, I understand that the ISOs require a fuel tank acces hatch and prohibit earth returns to the horn. Neither of these are direct RCR requirements - but you claim they are indirectly imported. Can you back that up?

Where do we find the last bit, please? That is, to meet the RCR you must build to an equivalent standard to the ISO. It seems a lot more logical that the XYZ requirements are the err.. requirements. I.e.the Essential Requirements found in the RCR. To use one of your favourite examples, the ISO may require an inspection hatch in the fuel tank. Are you still saying that whilst the Essential Requirements of the RCR do not include a hatch, it is nevertheless an RCR requirement imported via the ISO? If so, can we please have chapter and verse as to the link. If you can't find it, then perhaps it would be better to drop this and similar claims until you can.

Nothing about not opening cupboards in those limitations. It's reasonably standard practice to be aware of what is/what isn't included in a service before commissioning it. And, equally important, if the report springs unagreed limitations you could cry foul, which is why firms usually provide the expected limitations in advance; mine does. In your example, the report relates to basic structural condition. If the instructing party requested the same, it is therefore only to be expected to comprise the same. If, however, a full survey was commissioned, then the instructing party has good reason to expect something more and should demand it It is difficult if the party has no clue as to what it wants or as to what it has received. They could discuss it with the surveyor, of course - but there comes a point in which everyone has to make their own decision. In my experience, to the main problem with survey reports is some people view them as a full money-back guarantee the boat (or property) is 100% perfect for ever. And, as that is what they want to hear, the report and its limitations are not properly read.

You could (should?) ask for a note of the standard limitations before agreeing the fee. If any unreasonable and unforeseen ones (the type you say are typical) appear in the report you could ask for them to be removed or refuse to pay/ recover the costs. Unreasonable caveats will be standard escape-all clauses. More reasonable limitations would be such matters as relate to the inspection. For example, if the engine won't start the surveyor won't be able to say if it smokes a lot when running

Solicitors send clients a plan - usually a Land Registry plan and ask their client to confirm the boundaries shown on the plan are those expected to be acquired; if not, a surveyor is sent for. It sounds as though the lawyer has done its job properly; one doesn't expect the lawyer to inspect the property usually. This bit is telling. Despite having the boat for a couple of years, the fault only became apparent when the wall and shower was removed. Not something the surveyor could reasonably be expected to do. I have my doubts that the small print you suggest is typical. If the surveyor includes too many limitations on the scope of the report that were not agreed at the time of instruction, you would have a good case for declining to pay the fee or requiring that they are removed. If you accepted the limitations at the outset - then you can hardly be surprised the report is subject to the same.

Hedgerows directly when ashore - but for indirect disposal, the canal would be the first choice. The narratives if the Idle Women make that reasonably clear - and why wouldn't you? It was more discreet but not uncommon when I started boating.

I'm not convinced by this conspiracy theory. When would BWB(?) have undertaken the dodgy replacement scheme? Presumably in relatively recent years when the heritage factor carried some sway - and yet no one recalls it. The sacrificial items were only of real purpose in horse drawn days and as that largely ceased 100 years back, it feels a bit odd that after a 50 year interval they were replaced or reinstated in false tribute. The mournful aspect is that they would have been brightly polished through use - and we are unlikely to see that again.

Beta Marine has a map of its dealers https://betamarine.co.uk/uk-inland-waterways/ Whilst replacing a core plug is not a specialised operation, if you can't find someone in whom you have confidence, you coul approach one of these.

I tend to lose confidence in the interpretation of the BMF and RYA when they unhelpfully provide interpretations of "self-built" and "home build" neither of which are terms found within the RCR. Either they are talking about something else altogether or they are starting from the wrong point.

It doesn't say you have to build it, though. You commission someone to build it for you - and don't buy it off the peg. I accept it is not that clear - but the DIY interpretation leads to questions of whether a mate can help you or a use a specialist for the sprayfoam.

Are you saying that since 2017 any vessel now needs to comply fully with the design and construction requirements before it placed on the market? Even if it was built years and years ago? The five year rule looks to be alive and well to me. And it doesn't just relate to self fit-outs; the regs say "built for own use" and not self-built or DIY fit out.

Two aspects are being confused here. The five year rule (no sale of a non-RCD boat within five years) and the requirement for ongoing PCAs in respect of previously RCDd vessels.

What was the nature of the maintenance that allowed the bollards to endure this type of abuse?

Me too...

The quote says 8% of CC licence holders are over 65 years. Therefore, presumably 92% are 65 or younger - which is traditionally taken as working age. Probably skewed towards the to younger end by our London friends.

It's a fallacy that marina moorers pay 9% to CRT. Firstly, as a matter of cash flow it is the holder of the network access agreement. More fundamentally, mooring rates are set by supply and demand; they would be the same regardless of the operators' costs. The expense is, ultimately a burden on the original land value. It's basic land economics.

13 pairs of unnecessary inverted commas in one post. Surely a personal best.

Public liability insurance does not relate to claims from customers or clients. I think more work is required on your definition of professional and how one might be confident that cover would continue to be available for delayed claims. But the basic flaw is that you are suggesting that if an insurance company will be able to put a claim on an insurance company, all will be fine. Of course, the two companies will be different on most occasions, but the inherent problem of liability is only shifted rather than eliminated.

That won't work well. Professional Indemnity Insurance is usually on a claims made basis. That means one can only claim against a current policy and not the one when the faulty work was undertaken. You can check that insurance is in place when commissioning the work - but not that there will be cover in a year or two time when a claim might be brought.