Boat Safety and s.8

[David Schweizer]

10 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

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'. 

 

 

 

Why would it concern you Mike, unless your concern is for others less dilligent about maintaining their boat than yourself? Like thousands of others, we had a boat which was fully insured and licenced, BSS inspected every four years and regularly maintained between examinations. In twenty years, BW/C&RT never came near us with any concerns. There has got to be more about this case than is being revealed for C&RT to have issued a section 8 siezure notice for a boat that is allegedly "legal"  No doubt all will be revealed in due course.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by David Schweizer

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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....

 

 

Which is why I suggest it is a requirement for all boats to have the necessary CO alarms fitted now, not when their next BSS is due

10 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

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.

 

 

 

I thought I raised this question last week, I know the Broads Authority also have it

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

 

I thought I raised this question last week, I know the Broads Authority also have it

We have all read and agreed to this in our licence application (for those that have bothered to get a licence)

 

7.7 You agree that:
(i) we can board the Boat, and/or enter any land you own or occupy which is adjacent to the Boat, in order to affix or place on the Boat, correspondence, contractual or statutory notices or court papers; and
(ii) we can come on board the Boat to inspect it where we need to check you meet these Conditions and we can cross the Boat for the purpose of accessing any adjacent boat that cannot reasonably be accessed from the bank. We will give you reasonable notice if we consider it is practical to do so.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[StarUKKiwi]

I read (On the FB post on London Boaters) that the craft has difficulty going under bridges - therefore there maybe another reason why they have refused to licence him (if indeed they have)

[NigelMoore]

It does seem more complex than thought, and perhaps CaRT have not even invoked s.7. According to TD -

 

“Specifically, what's happening here is that C&RT are resurrecting a 2017 Court Order for the boat to be removed from all C&RT controlled waters, despite having since issued new PBL's for the boat. The latest Licence has been 'revoked' on grounds that are at present somewhat vague and unclear, although stated by C&RT to have been specifically under their legally unenforceable Licence T & C's and not under any one, or more, of the three lawful proviso's for Licence termination under Section 17 of the 1995 Act. 

C&RT are threatening action against this man and his home under a 2017 Court Order, which having been complied with in every respect, is in effect a spent Order, and NOT the re-activateable ''Court Order in Perpetuity" that C&RT are now pretending it is.” 

 

Section 7 does not provide grounds for licence revoking, ‘only’ for a legitimate s.8 removal, so matters are still unclear. It was still worth raising the warning flag over s.7 though.

[MtB]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We have all read and agreed to this in our licence application (for those that have bothered to get a licence)

 

7.7 You agree that:
(i) we can board the Boat, and/or enter any land you own or occupy which is adjacent to the Boat, in order to affix or place on the Boat, correspondence, contractual or statutory notices or court papers; and
(ii) we can come on board the Boat to inspect it where we need to check you meet these Conditions and we can cross the Boat for the purpose of accessing any adjacent boat that cannot reasonably be accessed from the bank. We will give you reasonable notice if we consider it is practical to do so.

 

This is exactly it.  

 

We all agree to this when we apply for a licence and it strikes me that CRT could use it to fish around for a reason to cancel a boater's licence, should they so wish.

 

 

[David Schweizer]

51 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is exactly it.  

 

We all agree to this when we apply for a licence and it strikes me that CRT could use it to fish around for a reason to cancel a boater's licence, should they so wish.

 

 

And why would they wish to do so in this particular case? As I have already suggested, there is more to this than we are being told.

[WotEver]

10 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

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.

My dear departed mum had that problem with her gas fire. She had a working CO detector fitted by me (which had never gone off) yet the inspector took one look at the Canon Gas Miser and said “Sorry, that doesn’t meet current regs”, stuck a label on it, disconnected the supply and capped it. 

[MtB]

Just now, David Schweizer said:

And why would they wish to do so in this particular case? As I have already suggested, there is more to this than we are being told.

 

I think we are both driving at the same thing. This boater has made a PITA of himself to CRT in some way or another so now CRT are going out of their way to make life difficult for him, and this new(ish) T&C in the licence is part of their arsenal of ways to do that.

 

If a boater behaves 'normally', sensibly and reasonably, I would suggest he or she has nothing to fear.

 

 

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

My dear departed mum had that problem with her gas fire. She had a working CO detector fitted by me (which had never gone off) yet the inspector took one look at the Canon Gas Miser and said “Sorry, that doesn’t meet current regs”, stuck a label on it, disconnected the supply and capped it. 

 

Monstrous abuse of perceived power.

 

1) It doesn't need to meet current regs. Only the regs in force on the day of installation. 

 

2) No 'inspector' has the power to decide to cap off. He may only do it with the express permission of the owner of the installation. Gas bods have been prosecuted for criminal damage for doing this without permission.

 

 

[Paul C]

11 hours 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. 

 

If they did simply invent safety risks then surely they'd end up with egg on their face? The boater concerned could simply and easily have it inspected and get the required certificate/proof which says the stated safety issue is a load of rubbish. This hasn't occurred here - I suspect that a correct safety notice were served and its run its time without either being inspected (maybe because it would have not passed.....) or challenged in the appropriate place.

 

I think we need to take TD's sideways info with a pinch of salt - interesting twist as it seems.

 

In fact, in common with many other cases like this, there is simply not enough info to make an informed decision. For example, what are the actual details of the safety issue? One could hazard a guess (that's all it would be) that the BSS was done with no outboard/gas/stove/electricity installed, and one or all of these have subsequently been added in an unsafe manner.

 

Regarding the "BSS means its safe" - its fairly obvious and commonsense, that a BSS which has a validity of 4 years can't look so far into the future to say a boat which is safe when inspected, would remain so, 4 years later if unmodified. And of course, boats are modified rendering the BSS (or areas it covered) somewhat meaningless.

[WotEver]

15 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Monstrous abuse of perceived power.

 

1) It doesn't need to meet current regs. Only the regs in force on the day of installation. 

 

2) No 'inspector' has the power to decide to cap off. He may only do it with the express permission of the owner of the installation. Gas bods have been prosecuted for criminal damage for doing this without permission.

It was a council house so I guess that means implied permission from ‘the owner’. Mum was terribly upset as my dad had bought that fire and it meant a lot to her. 

[Mike Todd]

21 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think we are both driving at the same thing. This boater has made a PITA of himself to CRT in some way or another so now CRT are going out of their way to make life difficult for him, and this new(ish) T&C in the licence is part of their arsenal of ways to do that.

 

If a boater behaves 'normally', sensibly and reasonably, I would suggest he or she has nothing to fear.

 

 

 

Monstrous abuse of perceived power.

 

1) It doesn't need to meet current regs. Only the regs in force on the day of installation. 

 

2) No 'inspector' has the power to decide to cap off. He may only do it with the express permission of the owner of the installation. Gas bods have been prosecuted for criminal damage for doing this without permission.

 

 

But the 'inspector' only has to say 'that fire is unsafe - would you like me to make it safe for you? No charge' for him to be OK, if not exactly on the right side of moral

[NigelMoore]

21 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

2) No 'inspector' has the power to decide to cap off. He may only do it with the express permission of the owner of the installation. Gas bods have been prosecuted for criminal damage for doing this without permission.

 

 

Wish I'd known that years ago. Same thing happened when I had a gas engineer come to check and fix a waterleak from an old boiler in a house. Didn't address the problem, just capped off the gas supply and left us his bill.

[Mike Todd]

16 minutes ago, Paul C said:

If they did simply invent safety risks then surely they'd end up with egg on their face? The boater concerned could simply and easily have it inspected and get the required certificate/proof which says the stated safety issue is a load of rubbish. This hasn't occurred here - I suspect that a correct safety notice were served and its run its time without either being inspected (maybe because it would have not passed.....) or challenged in the appropriate place.

 

I think we need to take TD's sideways info with a pinch of salt - interesting twist as it seems.

 

In fact, in common with many other cases like this, there is simply not enough info to make an informed decision. For example, what are the actual details of the safety issue? One could hazard a guess (that's all it would be) that the BSS was done with no outboard/gas/stove/electricity installed, and one or all of these have subsequently been added in an unsafe manner.

 

Regarding the "BSS means its safe" - its fairly obvious and commonsense, that a BSS which has a validity of 4 years can't look so far into the future to say a boat which is safe when inspected, would remain so, 4 years later if unmodified. And of course, boats are modified rendering the BSS (or areas it covered) somewhat meaningless.

I might have thought that a 'boat' that cannot go safely under nearby  bridges yet has to comply with CC rules (does it?) could be described as unsafe in terms of its claimed usage. (Nothing is intrinsically safe, it always depends on context - think of water: safe to drink but not good for survival in excess ie a flood)

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I might have thought that a 'boat' that cannot go safely under nearby  bridges yet has to comply with CC rules (does it?) could be described as unsafe in terms of its claimed usage. (Nothing is intrinsically safe, it always depends on context - think of water: safe to drink but not good for survival in excess ie a flood)

 

There is another T&C, byelaw or something that states a vessel must be 'appropriate for the waterway is using', or words to that effect. 

 

I can't recall the details but it has been discussed a few times on here over the years.

 

 

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Paul C said:

If they did simply invent safety risks then surely they'd end up with egg on their face?

 

No, because 'safety' is not binary. There are endless degrees of risk, and whether there is a safety risk in say a crack in the fire cement around a flue a matter of opinion.

 

No gas bod could ever stand up in court and credibly claim a crack in a fire cement seal is 'safe', yet every flue I've ever seen with fire cement sealing it has cracks in the fire cement. This sort of thing could be used by CRT to abuse that T&C. I gave other examples in my previous post too. 

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I might have thought that a 'boat' that cannot go safely under nearby  bridges yet has to comply with CC rules (does it?) could be described as unsafe in terms of its claimed usage. (Nothing is intrinsically safe, it always depends on context - think of water: safe to drink but not good for survival in excess ie a flood)

No I don't think that in itself makes it unsafe.

 

It is a bit of a weird concept though, "I've modified my boat so it can get under most bridges". Canals (and rivers too, most of the time) are necessarily linear, to get from A to B you need to get under ALL the bridges between those two points. 

 

I suspect CRT aren't totally stupid and aren't attaching (literally) the "UNSAFE" label to an otherwise safe boat which simply looks terrible, or is by its dimensions unsuitable for CCing or whatever - because if they did then, as in my original post, anyone could simply challenge it. In this case, no such challenge seems to have occurred on the safety/unsafe situation.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

because if they did then, as in my original post, anyone could simply challenge it.

 

And as I pointed out, trivial safety risks are easy to support in court, and are extremely difficult to argue against and disprove. 

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

No, because 'safety' is not binary. There are endless degrees of risk, and whether there is a safety risk in say a crack in the fire cement around a flue a matter of opinion.

 

No gas bod could ever stand up in court and credibly claim a crack in a fire cement seal is 'safe', yet every flue I've ever seen with fire cement sealing it has cracks in the fire cement. This sort of thing could be used by CRT to abuse that T&C. I gave other examples in my previous post too. 

I think you're overanalyzing it. We're not really discussing, except hypothetically, some small degree of risk which many would perceive as safe (the cracked fire cement scenario) but a qualified/certified/trained "expert" as a witness in a court might choose to cover their arse and deem it unsafe to a judge in a court. I think that we all accept there's degrees of risk etc but that some things are clearly unsafe except to a very few; and some things are safe except to a very few.

 

We don't know the actual safety issue(s) here.

 

We do know that the case has progressed to a point where CRT are now looking at removing the boat, so that time window for challenging the safety issue (and remember, the more clear that it was an invented/minor issue, the easier this would have been) is effectively over.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

There is another T&C, byelaw or something that states a vessel must be 'appropriate for the waterway is using', or words to that effect. 

 

I can't recall the details but it has been discussed a few times on here over the years.

 

 

Byelaw (No3)

 

3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

[Boater Sam]

Maybe its me being honest, but.........................

 

Its a shed and CRT don't want it on a canal giving other loonies ideas as to what they can glue together to squat in on a canal.

And I agree with that. It wants hauling out and burning.

 

So they will find a good reason for its removal,  End of.

[Arthur Marshall]

There is another comment somewhere that a boater has been past it over a period of months and it has remained moored in the same place, which, if it won't go under bridges, is not a great surprise.  Possible a bit of pushing one's luck too far...

It looks like there have been some posh flats put up over the canal who may well have grumbled, as they do.

[ditchcrawler]

18 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

Maybe its me being honest, but.........................

 

Its a shed and CRT don't want it on a canal giving other loonies ideas as to what they can glue together to squat in on a canal.

And I agree with that. It wants hauling out and burning.

 

So they will find a good reason for its removal,  End of.

You mean like the one in London made from For sale boards   

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/pair-forced-out-of-floating-wendy-house-with-a-roof-made-out-of-foxtons-for-sale-signs-a3757936.html

[Mike Todd]

43 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

No, because 'safety' is not binary. There are endless degrees of risk, and whether there is a safety risk in say a crack in the fire cement around a flue a matter of opinion.

 

No gas bod could ever stand up in court and credibly claim a crack in a fire cement seal is 'safe', yet every flue I've ever seen with fire cement sealing it has cracks in the fire cement. This sort of thing could be used by CRT to abuse that T&C. I gave other examples in my previous post too. 

Not just a matter of opinion but also judgement. 'Risk' is inherently a stochastic (sort of statistical) concept which requires the user to state what level of risk is acceptable. The notion that something can be safe under any circumstances is the business of politicians not engineers. One person may look for a 100 year flood protection whilst another may accept 50 year levels.  Of course, both may have an excessive flood this year - and the next year.

 

I recall being told that one of the reasons that planning enquiries into nuclear power stations back in the 1980's? was that their design methods were inherently stochastic and lawyers for the opponents found it very useful to ask the question "Can you guarantee that your design is safe?" to which the answer of course is No. Most people don't realise that supposedly deterministic design methods just hide the indeterminacy, not eliminate it.

[MtB]

18 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not just a matter of opinion but also judgement. 'Risk' is inherently a stochastic (sort of statistical) concept which requires the user to state what level of risk is acceptable. The notion that something can be safe under any circumstances is the business of politicians not engineers. One person may look for a 100 year flood protection whilst another may accept 50 year levels.  Of course, both may have an excessive flood this year - and the next year.

 

I recall being told that one of the reasons that planning enquiries into nuclear power stations back in the 1980's? was that their design methods were inherently stochastic and lawyers for the opponents found it very useful to ask the question "Can you guarantee that your design is safe?" to which the answer of course is No. Most people don't realise that supposedly deterministic design methods just hide the indeterminacy, not eliminate it.

 

Perfectly explained. 

 

Joe Public just demands that things are 'safe'. By which he means 100% safe, guaranteed. When pressed he doesn't even want a small degree of risk. All danger must be eliminated.

 

So the crack in the fire cement in the flue which I used as an example cannot be guaranteed 100% safe so therefore the boat must be dangerous, and CRT could if they so chose, use this as a reason to remove a troublesome boat from the waterways.

 

Thin end of a very big wedge.