Alan de Enfield

But is slightly broader than that in that it it includes anything that can affect safety (eg new gas fitted) or stability. For new boats, I agree, but we are generally talking about boats from the 90's into the 2010's. which were built to the RCD We voted out of the EU in 2016, but also adopted the 'new regulations' in 2017 which is where much of these new requirements came from and went thru Parliament as "The Recreational Craft Regulations 2017" then amended by the "Product Safety and Metrology. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019". Then a UK Government Guidance document was issued in January 2021 "Recreational Craft Regulations 2017 As they apply to craft being supplied in or into Great Britain from 1 January 2021" It is not only the boat that must be compliant, the problem comes when the 'list' of what a distributor (broker) MUST see / have is not available : . Before making a product available on the market, the distributor must verify that: • The product bears the CE marking as required in Article 17 • It is accompanied by the following documents: EU Declaration of Conformity, instructions and safety information, the owner’s manual in the appropriate language for the craft and the engines if installed • It meets the product identification and traceability requirements, the manufacturer’s identification or the importer’s identification if applicable So, if there is, for example', no certificate of compliance the broker cannot sell the boat.

If he is going to use a broker who requires RCD compliance then he may not have much choice. (The alternative is, of course, find a private buyer who isn't looking for, or knows nothing about, RCD compliance Any boat built to comply with the RCD.

I understand you confusion but getting C&RT to approve the use of an 'unknown' 5 core gas pipe will carry absolutely no weight with the RCD approved Surveyor - if it is not RCD compliant, it isn't approved for use whatever C&RT say. You (as the builder) or your Gas installer will have to submit the pipe and its techniacl specifications, along with test results that it meets the RCD requirements. It is an ongoing forum 'argument' but if you use the specifications / products referred to in the RCD ISO standards you get an automatic assumption of compliance - use anything else and the onus is on you you prove it meets the technical requirements. From the RCD guidance notes : Other ways to comply with the essential requirements. The application of harmonised standards is not the only means to demonstrate the conformity of a product. However, only harmonised standards, after publication of references in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU), may provide an automatic presumption of conformity against essential requirements covered by such standards. With the exception of the Directive’s mandatory reference to some harmonised standards (see Point 3), the manufacturer can choose whether or not to apply and refer to harmonised standards. However, if the manufacturer chooses not to follow the harmonised standards, he has the obligation to demonstrate that his products are in conformity with essential requirements by the use of other means that provide for at least an equivalent level of safety or protection. These can be technical specifications such as national standards, European or international standards which are not harmonised, i.e. not published in the OJEU, rules of notified bodies or the manufacturer’s own specifications. In these cases the manufacturer does not benefit from the presumption of conformity, but has to demonstrate the conformity himself. This implies that he demonstrates, in the technical documentation of a relevant product, in a more detailed manner how the technical specifications he uses provide conformity with the essential requirements. Manufacturers are advised to stay informed about the developments in international standardisation. Even if the manufacturer has not used harmonised standards, a change in the relevant harmonised standard could mean a change in the state of the art that implies that his product may not be compliant.

I'm guessing that the concerns maybe that (say) the gas and electrics could have been installed by 'qualified' domestic installers, but not 'boat' qualified installers (very different installation requirements and practices). Are the stability calculations and test results available ? Was the sailaway 'new' and unsold, or an 'abandoned' project ? Did you buy it from the manufacturer, or the '1st owner' ? What paperwork did you get with the sailaway ? What age was the hull when you bought it ? There may be timing loopholes to be exploited.

There is a single word that has the definition "depending on another or others for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return" And there is another single word that has the definition "denoting a mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups" I'm sure that they would be found to be pejorative by some.

I'm sure you are correct, and that the risk is virtually zero (unless you get a buyer who wants it to be legal) The requirement to ensure everything is compliant before selling relates to "any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer" A natural person is the legal term for a 'living human being'. So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my post ?

Some examples (Page 207) BWB have disposed of more than 160 km of waterway. Transfers to other authorities covering some 45 km include: (1) Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal; the Monmouthshire length and Crumlin Arm (17.5 km) to various District Councils for redevelopment. The Board retain rights to transport of water and sales but the Councils are responsible for water-channelling or piping as necessary. (2) Grand Western Canal: transferred intact (17.5 km) to Devon County Council for amenity, including light boating. (3) Cromford Canal; the upper section (8 km from Ambergate to Cromford) to Derbyshire County Council for amenity, including light boating. 15.5.8 Substantial sales totalling some 110 km have been made piecemeal on the following Remainder waterways:- Ashton Canel, Birmingham Canal Navigations, Chesterfield, Cromford, Lancaster, Manchester Bolton & Bury, Nottingham and St Helens Canals, Shropshire Union Canal (Newpart, Trench and Shrewsbury Branches}, Swansea Canal. No navigable lengths have been sold. There is quite a bit more.

Indeed but on another 'fire risk' problem they decided that it was cheaper to pay compensation for the deaths of the relatively small number of drivers likely to be affected than it was to fund a total recall - It's all about money !

We used to manufacture conductive nylon clips for Ford. The problem was that when used with conventional plastic clips the brake or fuel pipes were isolated from the body / floor pan of the vehicle. The flow of fuel generated static electricity which could not earth until it reached a high enough charge to 'jump' to the floor pan. This arcing caused pin holes in the fuel pipes leading to complete failure and potential fire as the fuel leaked away. The use of electrically conductive Nylon meant that the static electricity could 'earth' thru the clips before it became a 'high enough' charge to cause arcing.

The RCD / RCR is still part of our laws, to enable UK manufactueres to sell in Europe - it is a multi $ billion business and 'steel skips' used on the canals get caught up in the legislation. The overriding 'authority' in the UK - British Marine - who represent Boat Builders, Boat brokers, parts manufacturers, marina operators etc etc have (apparently) instructed their members that they should not accept for sale any boat that hasn't got the correct RCD paperwork (if it should have an RCD ) Despite many forumites poo-pooing it and saying its rubbish, just find another broker, it seems to be affecting more and more people trying to sell their boats via brokers. The law would appear to be clear : 3.4 Distributor’s obligations The distributor is any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes the product available on the market. Distributors have a key role to play in the context of market surveillance. A distributor must act with due care and their obligations are detailed in Article 10 of the Directive. Before making a product available on the market, the distributor must verify that: • The product bears the CE marking as required in Article 17 • It is accompanied by the following documents: Declaration of Conformity, instructions and safety information, the owner’s manual in the appropriate language for the craft and the engines if installed • It meets the product identification and traceability requirements, the manufacturer’s identification or the importer’s identification if applicable Where the distributor has reason to believe that a product is not in conformity, he must not make the product available on the market until it has been brought into conformity. Where the product presents a risk, the distributor must inform the manufacturer or the importer as well as the relevant market surveillance authorities. While the “old” Directive considered the action of “placing on the market and/or putting into service”, the new Directive broadens the scope to the action of “making available”. All three concepts are now defined by the Directive. A product is made available on the market when supplied for distribution, consumption or use on the market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge.

My 'take' on this is that as a sailaway it is now classified as a 'completed boat' (to the stage it is sold at, and has to be fully compliant to whatever the build level is). Now that the RCD / RCR is 'for the life of the vessel' when the DIY owner fits out the boat (electrics, gas, etc etc) this is a major modification and the vessel (being built to the RCD / RCR and given a certificate) means that it now requires the fit out to be in accor dance with the RCD / RCR and hence needs a PCA. (Or maybe just an overwatch on the build by an approved surveyor, who can sign it off as compliant at the end of the build) In previous times when the boat was sold with an Annexe IIIA, it was 'not an RCD/RCR completed boat'. The rules came in in mid 1998, so if it was built in the 1st half of 1998 (which of course it would be) it does not need RCD / RCR certification.

The answer is still NO. You can request, you can beg, cajole or even threaten, say its all bullshine, make inuendo - I don't care. I know my idea(s) would bring a considerable income in & I don't need your approval or agreement.

Indeed, it was simply to show the level of investigation they went into when deciding which remainder canals to retain, to dispose of or upgrade to Cruising canal. Two committees (North & South) were set up to review, and they considered everything from the legal costs if a canal was closed but a bridge or lock was left in existence and someone fell, to what responsibility they would retain for (say) a bridge that was an access bridge and couldn't be removed, responsibility for flooding if the canal was unable to take surface water, etc etc.

"(d) a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with all waterways not in the category either of Commercial or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”) in the most economical manner e.g. either retention, elimination or disposal, as most appropriate. (e) local and certain other statutory and charitable authorities were given powers to enter into agreements with the Board for maintaining or taking over any Remainder waterways or parts thereof and to assume full responsibility or (in the case of local authorities) for making financial contributions towards the cost of maintenance in inland waterways". "3.6.3. On the other hand the Board has certainly acquired or assumed obligations in the course of years from which it would now be extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to get free. Before deciding — in the case of a Remainder waterway, for example — that it could be closed or eliminated, consideration needs to be given in each case to the nature and extent of the obligations involved. These questions are reviewed in Chapter 15." Section 15 of the Fraenkel Report (20 pages) Reviews the staus of the remainder waterways, costs of maintaing them vs costs of closing them etc etc etc and is a 'good read'. The first of the 1974 reports was limited to 234 navigable kilometres and strongly recommenced that they be upgraded to the Cruising category, For the first group maintenance agreements bad already bean concluced:- Ashton and lower Peak Forest Canal (22.5 km, agreement pending), eyewash Canal (17 km), Grand Union Canal, Slough Arm (9 km), Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal (52 Km), Caldon Canal (28 km). The second group lacked agreamendt: - Birmingham Canal Navigations (82 km), being priorities 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2 of the 1970 Working Party report, see paragraph 15.5.3), Grand Union Canal, Welford Arm (3km), Kennet & Avon Canal (9 km), Hamstead Locj to Hungerferd), The Board was unable to support the Council's recommendations for the second group “owing to thelr limited liabitity”. The summary shows a table of the costs. No miracles involved , just an outsider looking in with an open mind and identifying alternative sources of income from existing resources.

Have you realised that the 'management' under discussion is the Government ? (Following MtBs post 14 hours ago, and subsequent posts)

But, would it matter who the 'management' is, they only have so much income and too much needed to do with it. Result = rationing ! Maybe they should increase their income to match the required expenditure ? (I wonder how that'd go down with the public)

If they are paying their £25 per night, giving the owner a 100% occupancy rate, I bet he's not worried if they never move out.

I agree, I also am seeing information about the grant system, but I am not seeing any facts. How long was the term for the Rochdale ? What was the agreed payback for early termination ? Who was the grant paid to ? Did C&RT amend the staus of the canal ? etc etc

That is interesting background to the grant system but doesn't really move us forward as you have not actually indicated the conditions of grant for the 4 canals you name. If you were responsible for ensuring that the grant terms were met, you would presumably be aware of the grant terms. Did this include the purchase of land, or simply restoration of the old canal route ? What was the 'term' of each grant, how many years remaining ? Who was the grant with ? (the restoration group or C&RT) Did C&RT accept the grant terms when it was handed over to them ? Did C&RT officially change the status from Remainder to Cruising. Appreciate your input. I'm not seeing any 'facts' I'm seeing a general outline of how grants work.

Yes (ish) C&RT are obliged to keep Cruising waterways open and navigable. But all those remainder waterways that have been re-opened because of volunteers 'taking on the canal' etc can still be closed UNLESS they have officially been given cruising status. and are logged by C&RT as such. Or, if it has a condition in the grant, from (say) the Lottery, and then who has agreed to the condition C&RT or the Restorers ? Obviously all of the current 'rest' of the remainder canals can just be left to be abandoned, if C&RT so wish. Any canal which is not on the list of 'Commercial canals' or 'Cruising canals' is classified as a remainder canal - there is no specific list of remainder canals.

Yes. C&RT are obliged to keep open for navigation all canals listed as Cruising Canals. I have never seen any document stating how they can be 'delisted', and nothing that actually states an AoP is needed. The 1968 Act graded the Board's waterways into three categories:— ‘Commercial waterways’ to be maintained in navigable condition for use by commercial freight carrying vessels, ‘Cruising waterways’ to be maintained in navigable condition for use by powered pleasure craft, and ‘Remainder waterways’ to be dealt with in the most economical manner possible whether by retaining, developing, eliminating or disposing of them.

It is written in an act of parliament that if C&RT cannot justify keeping a canal open (there are some restrictions and qualifications) then they can close it, sell it or give it a way. The folks saying they cannot do it are guessing that when a canal has been funded by (say) the lottery that there will be conditions as to what can be done with it. No one has yet produced evidence to substantiate that perception. C&RT are under no obligation to 'take on' any canal that has been 'bought back to life' by volunteers etc, but they have done in the past.

You are so predictable. But, in the greater scheme of things it matters not what you think.

No - the real culprit is not the lack of Government funding (why should the Government pay to keep our playground open) it is simply a lack of funding. C&RT need to both manage their resources better and find alternative sources of income. If a company wants my advice, they can pay for it, they always have and I'm not changing that now. I retired in 2005 and happy to just be an onlooker. My Son is in the same business - he advises big international companies on M&A and market opportunities - he invoices his time out at US$1000 per hour. If they want to grow income, they are going to have to invest in some proper business advice.