Jump to content

Boat Safety and s.8


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

The NBTA have issued an alert to an imminent s.8 seizure on safety grounds, of a boat with Licence, BSSC and insurance (no mention of any other non-compliance with T&C's).

 

It seems apparent that some ignorance surrounds the issue of boat safety vis-à-vis s.8 powers. A vessel may be pronounced unsafe and subject to s.8 even with a BSSC in place, under the unrepealed powers of s.7 of the 1983 Act. More people should be aware of this – and also aware of the defences provided under the same section.

 

Anybody faced with a similar scenario would need to take such steps as provided for in subsection 7 of s.7, instead of resting in a false sense of security in the possession of an up-to-date BSSC.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

a false sense of security in the possession of an up-to-date BSSC.

Neither an MOT  on a car nor a BSSC on a boat  is  certificate of overall safety as each test only examines certain things.

 

As an example my car passed a MOT last week with a nail in the tyre tread and air escaping (slightly) . It was clearly unsafe  but it did not fail the MOT. (A new tyre was fitted the next day).

I am sure there are similar analogies relating to the BSS examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this power to board a boat  and inspect it for 'safety' always worried me as an area open to massive abuse by CRT should they so choose, so I always kept quiet about it on here in case it gave CRT ideas. But now the cat is out the bag.

 

A hairline crack in the fire cement around the stove flue connection? SEIZE THE BOAT, SAVE THE BOATER'S LIFE. Who could argue with that?

 

A gas system pressure drop of 0.3Mb over the five minute long test? 90% of boats would fail this formal and stringent test defined in the RCD. SIEZE THE BOAT, SAVE LIVES. Who could argue with that?

 

Some slight dampness from diesel on the leak-off manifold? FIRE RISK, SEIZE THE BOAT, SAVE LIVES. Who could argue with that?

 

And so on. I reckon absolutely any boat could be condemned as dangerous if inspected closely enough if the boater pishes off CRT sufficiently, with no right to refuse entry for their 'inspectors'. 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Fiddle with it.... ;)
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

instead of resting in a false sense of security in the possession of an up-to-date BSSC

The BSS make it clear that the certificate is only valid at the moment of issue as they have no control over anyone doing 'work' to (say) the gas system 5 minutes after the examiner has left.

 

From the BSS Terms

The owner’s on-going responsibility: it is crucial to maintain the vessel in good condition in accordance with the safety requirements; and, any other licensing, registration or mooring conditions of the relevant navigation or harbour authority. The validity of a BSS pass result may be affected and can be cancelled if the vessel is not properly maintained; and/or non-compliant alterations are made....

 

Advice :

........................purchasers not to place undue reliance on any accompanying BSSC as proof that a boat is compliant with the requirements of the Boat Safety Scheme (BSS) at the time of purchase. Prospective buyers are encouraged to check that the boat's paperwork actually reflects the configuration of the boat for sale. If, for example, the boat has had an engine change, major electrical re-work, a galley re-fit or any of its LPG appliances changed/upgraded since its last examination, the certificate may not be valid if the work was carried out in a non-BSS compliant manner (which could also have insurance implications).

 

Surely everyone, and an organisation such at the NBTA is aware of this.

 

Presumably the boat owner has been notified of the 'failings' and has been given 3 months to rectify them - Section 7 (3)(c)

Has the boat owner met this time scale ?

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bod said:

Be interesting to know whether or not an appeal to a magistrates court has been made, by the boat owner.

 

Bod 

Be even more interesting to know why CRT think it's unsafe. The NBTA aren't the most unbiased source of information on the planet. Do you have any more shareable details, Nigel? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Be even more interesting to know why CRT think it's unsafe. The NBTA aren't the most unbiased source of information on the planet. Do you have any more shareable details, Nigel? 

Afraid not, Arthur. I received a round-robin email plea for assistance only just after 4pm today. The only information was in the link -

 

https://nbtalondon.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/boat-dweller-threaten-with-eviction-urgent-help-needed/

 

I have responded asking whether s.7 has been used, and if so whether an appeal to the Magistrates Court has been made, but have yet to receive a reply (not unexpected given the late Sunday hour).

 

My feeling is that they are focussed on the boat being 'legal' in all respects of s.17 Licence conditions, and have overlooked or are unaware of s.7 complete with its specific defences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nbtalondon.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/boat-dweller-threaten-with-eviction-urgent-help-needed/

Looks like a couple of containers nailed onto something or other. Can't see any means of propulsion, which doesn't mean there isn't any, and it does look like there's a tiller, so there must be something. There's a genny, so petrol storage may be a factor?

nbta1.jpg

 

nbta2.jpg

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

According to the article it is a standard mobile home welded onto a landing craft hull, with an outboard to move it.

Quite a creative approach, really.  Presumably the only criteria for safety would be the safety of other users, not the owner.  And maybe it depends when the BSSC was issued - if before gas, the outboard and whatever was installed, it would obviously pass.  Subsequent changes could affect it, but how would CRT know?  They certainly don't know about anything I've done to my old tub since the last inspection.

In the long run, the housing situation in this benighted country is going to have to be addressed, but the folk who are supposd to be thinking about this stuff appear to have other things on their mind at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Quite a creative approach, really.  Presumably the only criteria for safety would be the safety of other users, not the owner.  And maybe it depends when the BSSC was issued - if before gas, the outboard and whatever was installed, it would obviously pass.  Subsequent changes could affect it, but how would CRT know?  They certainly don't know about anything I've done to my old tub since the last inspection.

 

Missing the point. 

 

CRT have the power to inspect a craft for safety risks regardless of whether it has a current BSSC. BSSC does not claim to cover ALL risks, just a defined list of points is checked. Other risks may be present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Missing the point. 

 

CRT have the power to inspect a craft for safety risks regardless of whether it has a current BSSC. BSSC does not claim to cover ALL risks, just a defined list of points is checked. Other risks may be present.

I realise that - that's what I was sort of saying.  But in general, they don't go round insisting on it, so presumably there has either been a complaint, something is obviously amiss and spotted by the CRT towpath walkers or they're just looking for a way of getting rid of an eyesore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

CRT have the power to inspect a craft for safety risks regardless of whether it has a current BSSC. BSSC does not claim to cover ALL risks, just a defined list of points is checked. Other risks may be present.

That raises an interesting point. Could CRT for example say “We consider this boat to be unstable”? So even though it’s not something covered by the BSS you can still have CRT adding new criteria by which to ‘test’ a boat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

o presumably there has either been a complaint, something is obviously amiss and spotted by the CRT towpath walkers or they're just looking for a way of getting rid of an eyesore.

 

OR....

 

The boater is making a monumental pain in the arse of himself and this is a new tack invented by CRT lawyers.

 

 

 

 

Just now, WotEver said:

That raises an interesting point. Could CRT for example say “We consider this boat to be unstable”? So even though it’s not something covered by the BSS you can still have CRT adding new criteria by which to ‘test’ a boat?

 

Absolutely YES. The scope for CRT to make up imagined safety risks is without limit in my opinion, which is why I thought keeping quiet about these powers was always a Good Idea. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

According to the article it is a standard mobile home welded onto a landing craft hull, with an outboard to move it.

I can't see it being a standard mobile home - they tend to have more windows.  Looks more like a container, or possible two joined together - there seems to be a colour change halfway down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Absolutely YES. The scope for CRT to make up imagined safety risks is without limit in my opinion, which is why I thought keeping quiet about these powers was always a Good Idea. 

Oooh... that’s scary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Oooh... that’s scary. 

 

Yes. Keep your head down and don't be a PITA and you'll be fine. Boat with no name on your boat or CRT reg number (e.g. the boat in Post 9) and expect a "safety inspection".

 

Brand new strategy for dealing with stealth boats, possibly. Perhaps very effective!

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 The scope for CRT to make up imagined safety risks is without limit in my opinion, which is why I thought keeping quiet about these powers was always a Good Idea. 

 

 

There is hardly 'unlimited scope to make up imagined safety risks', given that a Magistrates Court can be asked to consider the reasonableness of any alleged identified risks, and if unconvinced of them can order CaRT to issue a certificate stating that it is no longer unsafe. Agreed that that would not prevent CaRT from trying it on, secure in the knowledge that few boaters will know of their options in such circumstances. That is why it is important to be aware of the relevant legislation. The time limits and options accorded to boaters under subsection 7 are generous; the relatively limited time under s.8 can be put on hold for long enough to address any genuine issues.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Missing the point. 

 

CRT have the power to inspect a craft for safety risks regardless of whether it has a current BSSC. BSSC does not claim to cover ALL risks, just a defined list of points is checked. Other risks may be present.

You are right Mike, I had CRT on my boat to confirm it was converted to electric, I had made all the changes inline with BSS regs, the chap came had a quick look I turned on the motor to show it worked, we had a cup of tea, and he went on his way, I now have my license and everyone is happy.

But as you have been on my boat you know it looks like one and handles like one, the boat in the picture doesnt, I am sure it is a caravan/mobile home mounted on a something that may or may not be suitable, surely the BSS bod wouldnt have issued a certificate if it wasnt? wouldnt he ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

There is hardly 'unlimited scope to make up imagined safety risks', given that a Magistrates Court can be asked to consider the reasonableness of any alleged identified risks, and if unconvinced of them can order CaRT to issue a certificate stating that it is no longer unsafe.

 

I write as a gas bod who regularly sees boilers condemned and disconnected for the flimsiest of reasons by <you know who>, yet these boilers have usually been operating for decades without injuring or killing anyone. Yet who can reasonably convince a court that that crack in the flue cement might not, under the right circumstances, leak fatal CO into the room? 

 

Where safety is concerned, probability is not the test.  Is it possible? If yes, then it must be condemned. Same with boats, as any court kno. 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

the boat in the picture doesnt, I am sure it is a caravan/mobile home mounted on a something that may or may not be suitable, surely the BSS bod wouldnt have issued a certificate if it wasnt? wouldnt he ?

 

As we both kno, the BSS does not concern itself with stability or a load of other safety issues. 

 

Which I know is your point. But who else realises this?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But no explanation as to what grounds C&RT are claiming it is unsafe.

Mobile homes like that have the gas ventilation through the floor into fresh air below......which obviously wouldn't quite work in a boating scenario....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article says he is about to loose his home imminently and the S8 process for those who live on their boats usually takes many months. CRT must have told him why they consider his boat unsafe when they refused to relicense surely and given him time to rectify during the S8 process. 

 

I

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

The article says he is about to loose his home imminently and the S8 process for those who live on their boats usually takes many months. CRT must have told him why they consider his boat unsafe when they refused to relicense surely and given him time to rectify during the S8 process. 

 

I

 

 

If C&RT have used section 7. then he will have had 4 months notice.

28 days notice they consider it unsafe and that they are coming to do an inspection and subsequently 3 months to correct any safety failings.

 

 

I'm sure we all remember the boat owned by a Gas-Safe engineer whose family died aboard due to CO poisoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.