MtB

Indeed. I remember my English teecher at skool raging on for hours about debasement of the English language, and this must have been back in about 1970. Well it might actually have been a reasonable and measured lesson about the effect. I wasn't really listening. Being 14 at the time, I knew it all already.

All good advice, but reading between the lines I think the OP actually wants to know what the RCD 'documentation' you mention actually comprises. I'd be interested too. Part of it will be the big fat "User Manual" but what else should one be looking for? Is there a paper "RCD Certificate" or anything?

The button was missing before they closed for holiday. But I never got around to calling them about it before they closed!

Listing says SOLD now, 55 minutes later! Hardly a historic though is it, being built in 1971?

The "marine exhaust" under discussion is MUCH harder to buy though. Difficult as there is no "Add to cart" button. This one: https://www.melloronline.co.uk/Heater_Installation_Accessories_/10122/Marine_Exhaust_Silencer_with_lagging_24mm_2m_lg.html There is however this one on Amazon, for an extra £100! https://www.amazon.co.uk/Webasto-Eberspacher-Silencer-9014067A-1322001A/dp/B016PZRY3E/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=marine+exhaust+24mm&qid=1672069227&sr=8-4

Neither of which addresses the question asked in the OP, which was: "Is there one source of truth to the above please. I do not want to buy a boat without the correct paperwork. 1. Boat less than 5 years old 2. Boat older than 5 years 3. Converted Sailaway" And I maintain the answer to this question is "no" to all of 1, 2 and 3, there is no one source of truth to "the above". ("The above" possibly referring to the different question asked in the thread title).

They don't leak or fall to bits! Supposedly. I don't know for sure as I'm still trying to buy one. The silencers that come with the cheap heaters are two thin pressed steel shapes spot-welded together at about about 1" pitch, so exhaust gas leaks out foem between them. And there is a condensate drain hole from which exhaust gas issues. Also, the pipe connection spigots fall out easily on mine. Just a total disaster in every way. The plain-ended stainless steel pipe sections don't clamp up tight on the spigots either, no matter how much you tighten the clamps, so they fall off easily and-or leak.

Both.

They leak like a sieve.

This one? Screen grabbed from youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxuYGlzfRss&ab_channel=yamsibruce

Great, thanks! So given the cases were won with damages paid, we can surmise these were civil cases with the boat owners suing the builders for damages. And from the general tone of the discussion, I think these were probably new boats. So, still not one single case found yet, of TS enforcing the RCD or RCR. The only cases so far appearing to be where the builder was sued for damages from the boat not actually meeting the spec they claimed in their carelessly (or fraudulently) prepared RCD or RCR documentation. A totally different kettle of fish from a broker marketing an in-scope boat and declaring in the sales details a missing RCD/RCR. Waters muddied especially when said boat is more than five years old. Link here to the thread: https://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/111905-competent-surveyor-needed-covering-cheshire/page/2/

Ok found it. In Post 21 Alan writes "A forum member is a surveyor / RCD examiner and has (at the last count) been involved in 4 court actions against Narrowboat builders for non-compliance." Alan doesn't appear to say if these are criminal prosecutions mounted by Trading Standards or private buyers suing the builder of a boat they purchased. Might we have some more details of these four court action please, Alan? Are they criminal or civil "court actions"? Are they new boats or boats bought on the second hand market? Are they canal boats or something else? Thanks.

This is a good point. I'd expect that 'in the public interest' test to be applied to everything TS do, and probably what the TS bod meant when he told me they have "bigger fish to fry". (He didn't tell me that in a hostile manner, just by way of explanation the they were aware of the RCD but knew little about it, and didn't plan on learning!) I'll go back and see if I can find Alan's post where he writes about the four prosecutions he knows about.l

And if the missing RCD was declared in the sales details and made clear?

I do find it mildly amusing when an estate agent bangs on about a property being 'unique' and 'individual', then includes a link on the page to find similar properties.

The bit about all this that puzzles me is Trading Standards AIUI are responsible for mounting prosecutions for breaches of RCD/RCR but in general, seem not to. Yet Tony if I understand him correctly, writes about the risk of being sued by a buyer. Sued for what, exactly I wonder. The cost of replacing the wrong glass in the windows perhaps, or some such similar perceived loss? Were I to be sued for such a loss I'd be pointing out that I made it clear to the buyer of my boat that the RCD was missing and nothing has been concealed. Or Alan writes about four court cases a surveyor he knows has been involved in. Again I wonder if this was as an expert witness for TS mounting a criminal prosecution, or if it was for a client suing for perceived loss following concealment of a missing RCD. Or something else? What might actually happen when someone sells a boat with missing RCD? Especially if the buyer is not complaining? (Other than nothing, I suspect.)

The bastards would have to get into power before they could double your pension.

On the other hand there is perhaps about one boat sale per day (my estimate) contravening the RCD (arguably). And since 1997 TS have managed four prosecutions, AFAIK. Hardly being treated seriously by the authorities, is it!

Hold up a sec. It doesn't just 'feed the canal', it feeds the pumping station. Each stroke of them beam engines sucks a tonne of water from Wilton water via the bottom pound and gets lifted to the top pound, dunnit? Same with the pumps when them beam enjuns are sleeping....

Best you delete this bit then!

This is why I'm so scathing about RCD. Even when TS were presented with a simple slam-dunk win under the regs, they refused to take action saying it was all too trivial.

Long in the past I bought a boat that should have had a RCD but didn't. Firstly, I've still not been arrested and put in prison but I worry every time I hear a door knock. But the point is that I decided to RCD it myself and on contacting the shell builder (a medium sized volume builder) for an Annex III declaration, he point blank refused and actually told me to "Fuck off, I'm not signing nothing" on the phone when I proposed printing one out myself for him to authorise. So rather annoyed, I made a formal complaint to Trading Standards, who told me the same but more politely. Nice chap at TS told me they had "far bigger fish to fry" than some no-mark boat builder flouting the law over RCD, and they definitely would not be taking any action over it.

And particularly, propellers IIRC.

I'd guess it is certainly unique in having had £1m spent on restoring it after it was decommissioned!