Jump to content

Electrician on the Lancaster


Tom766

Featured Posts

27 minutes ago, Tom766 said:

Not a fail is OK with me if its OK with an inspector,

 

Would you rather have a 'safe boat' or one that has a 'piece of paper'.

 

The BSS examiners are notorious for passing boats that do not even meet the BSS requirements, and even if the BSS requirements are met, you do not have a boat that is safe (for you or those aboard)

 

Since 1989 all recreational boats should be built with 'flexible' (stranded) cabling, and re-work done on any boat should be done with the correct cable even if it was wrongly done in the first place - even 'mains cables'require flexible cables.

 

Worse case If you did have a problem traced back to your electrical system, it is quite possible that your insurers may try and 'wriggle' stating that your boat was not wired to 'best practice' or the relevant ISO specifications, hence your insurance is invalidated.

 

 

Screenshot (632).png

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

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Worse case If you did have a problem traced back to your electrical system, it is quite possible that your insurers may try and 'wriggle' stating that your boat was not wired to 'best practice' or the relevant ISO specifications, hence your insurance is invalidated.

 

 

 

I feel this is scaremongering.  The use of solid core cable on this boat contravenes no regulations; any insurance policy that required best practice in order for it to remain valid would be a rather poor one.  Almost every incident that gives arise to a claim can, with hindsight, be attributed to some fault or error.

 

Was the insurance on your boat invalidated when it had the engine flooding incident?  Would not best practice require the pipes that parted to have better resisted?  Or the fuel tank to have been properly sealed?  Or the bilges to have been fitted with flooding alarms or automatic pumps? Is it insured now?  Does it have the very-latest everything that mighty be deemed best practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

The use of solid core cable on this boat contravenes no regulations;

 

Yes it does - the RCD / RCR which is a legal requirement for any commercially built boat post 1989, and for any boat DIY built and sold within 5 years of 1st use / completion.

 

With regard to 'my boat' maybe you could point me out the requirement where it is specified that pipes do not 'split apart', or that you must be fitted with bilge alarms, remember that what ever you think my recreational boat should have also apply to your recreational narrowboat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that some folk go over the top with what if's. 

I've never been over cautious in anything I do. I think there's such a thing as being over insured too... eg "would you like the extra cover sir"... "no thanks because in 30 years I've never had a problem with my whatchamacallit" 

See what I'm getting at here.... proof in the pudding was when there was a fault the safety devices tripped 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that there is a difference between regulations which demand certain standards are met when a boat builder builds a boat and sells it to an innocent member of the public (as in the RCR), and regulations that directly mandate compliance regardless, e.g. that gas appliances in a dwelling must be safe to use.

 

Even if Tom766's boat fell within the requirements of the old RCD for the builder to use multi-strand cable, once sold, no such legal obligation rests on Tom766 not to swap it all for solid core should he so wish, as far as I can see. No authority is going to mount a prosecution of him even if such recklessness is pointed out to them because there is no law being broken. To fall back on claiming (as Alan de E did) that Tom766's must not have any solid core cable in his boat because insurance will be invalidated just illustrates what a weak argument Alan is putting forward.

 

If a householder on the other hand installs a gas appliance in his own house in a dangerous manner and the HSE get to hear about it, they are in a position to mount a prosecution of the householder under the GSIUR should they so decide. (In practice they don't unless someone gets injured or killed, but that is just pragmatism on their part.) If a boater installs a solid copper cable in his boat, I hold that no law has been broken and he is not liable to prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MtB said:

It strikes me that there is a difference between regulations which demand certain standards are met when a boat builder builds a boat and sells it to an innocent member of the public (as in the RCR), and regulations that directly mandate compliance regardless, e.g. that gas appliances in a dwelling must be safe to use.

 

Even if Tom766's boat fell within the requirements of the old RCD for the builder to use multi-strand cable, once sold, no such legal obligation rests on Tom766 not to swap it all for solid core should he so wish, as far as I can see. No authority is going to mount a prosecution of him even if such recklessness is pointed out to them because there is no law being broken. To fall back on claiming (as Alan de E did) that Tom766's must not have any solid core cable in his boat because insurance will be invalidated just illustrates what a weak argument Alan is putting forward.

 

If a householder on the other hand installs a gas appliance in his own house in a dangerous manner and the HSE get to hear about it, they are in a position to mount a prosecution of the householder under the GSIUR should they so decide. (In practice they don't unless someone gets injured or killed, but that is just pragmatism on their part.) If a boater installs a solid copper cable in his boat, I hold that no law has been broken and he is not liable to prosecution.

 

 

Just a couple of points :

 

With regard to the insurance, I did say that in the 'worse case' the insurers could 'wriggle' and refuse to pay out, (we all know they will take any opportunity not to pay out), and secondly, you are incorrect that there is no obligation not to replace 'like-for-like'. Since 2017 it has been mandatory for any boat built to the RCD that it must remain fully compliant for the life of the boat, and anything that is changed which affects the potential safety of the boat, or compliance with the RCD / RCR needs a PCA certificate (major items like rewiring, new gas system, new engine more than 10% difference in size / different propulsion, & anything affecting stability)

 

You are correct in stating 'who would know', but are incorrect in saying that 'no law has been broken'.

 

In the last month we have had two different instances (threads on this forum) where folks have been unable to sell their boats because they do not have RCD / PCA documentation. Whatever you may think, things are tightening up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Just a couple of points :

 

With regard to the insurance, I did say that in the 'worse case' the insurers could 'wriggle' and refuse to pay out, (we all know they will take any opportunity not to pay out), and secondly, you are incorrect that there is no obligation not to replace 'like-for-like'. Since 2017 it has been mandatory for any boat built to the RCD that it must remain fully compliant for the life of the boat, and anything that is changed which affects the potential safety of the boat, or compliance with the RCD / RCR needs a PCA certificate (major items like rewiring, new gas system, new engine more than 10% difference in size / different propulsion, & anything affecting stability)

 

You are correct in stating 'who would know', but are incorrect in saying that 'no law has been broken'.

 

In the last month we have had two different instances (threads on this forum) where folks have been unable to sell their boats because they do not have RCD / PCA documentation. Whatever you may think, things are tightening up.

 

I still hold that Tom766's boat is outside of the scope of the RCD so he can fit whatever type of wiring he likes, with no fear of prosecution. 

 

Yes since 2017 it is mandatory to make alterations in compliance with RCD but only in order to maintain that compliance. I still hold that once in private ownership, there is no compulsion, obligation or law (not even theoretical) requiring a boater to keep his boat on a day-to-day basis in compliance with the original RCD certificate. All he has to do is have a BSS.

 

Yes when he comes to sell up the boat needs to be brought up to spec but it is not a criminal offence to fit a solid copper wire somewhere in it, in the interim. The offence only occurs when the boat is "brought to market", as evidenced by the fact that the prosecuting authority is "Trading Standards" dept at the local council, not the HSE.

 

And arguing it must be illegal because brokers refuse to list non-compliant boats is an even weaker argument than "invalidates insurance"!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MtB said:

And arguing it must be illegal because brokers refuse to list non-compliant boats is an even weaker argument than "invalidates insurance"!

 

That was not my argument - it was in response to your repeated  statements that brokers are not refusing to sell boats without the RCD / RCR. Some,  plainly are.

 

You are entiltled to your opinion(s) but I suggest that newbies should be made aware of the actual requirements, and not just your interpretation of them, they can then make an informed choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are entiltled to your opinion(s) but I suggest that newbies should be made aware of the actual requirements, and not just your interpretation of them, they can then make an informed choice.

 

 

I agree, far better that newbies understand the true situation than believing scaremongering and made up stories about how they are breaking the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I agree, far better that newbies understand the true situation than believing scaremongering and made up stories about how they are breaking the law.

 

The difference being I can provide documentary evidence, Acts of Parliament, etc all saying that the law applies as stated. Can you provide any evidence (apart from your opinions) that the laws do not apply ?

 

The laws may not be rigidly enforced, I guess the authorities have more important things to do at present, but that does not mean that they are not applicable, or enforcable, or 'made up'.

 

As I have said many times, I am not saying that the boater must comply with any specific requirements, I am simply pointing out what the requirements are so they can decide if they wish to comply or not.

The recent case of the seller who was selling a DIY boat at 2 years old and was told by the BMF that she could not sell it being a case in point. No body knows anything until they are told / taught it, read about it or have experienced it. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

Many people exceed 30mph in a 30mph zone (myself included)  and get away with it, but sometimes you get caught (myself included). Knowing what the speed limit is means to have made a concious decision to break it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The recent case of the seller who was selling a DIY boat at 2 years old and was told by the BMF that she could not sell it being a case in point.

The BMF has no statutory enforcement role. All we know about that particular case is that it is said that the BMF advised the vendor the boat could not be sold as it was, and the vendor then chose to follow that advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The BMF has no statutory enforcement role. All we know about that particular case is that it is said that the BMF advised the vendor the boat could not be sold as it was, and the vendor then chose to follow that advice.

 

That is true but it also suggests that this is  a very grey area, so the choice is to assume the rules do apply and act that way or assume they do not and go your own way  with the possibility, be it a small one, you might find they did apply at a later date and land you with more expense. Which set of advice do you and the others who seem to be prepared to ignore the RCD/RCR should give boaters who ask?

 

In any case as solid strand cable is known to fail because of vibration, as it seems it may have done in the OP's case, would it not have been better to observe best practice and use a length of multi-strand cable?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The difference being I can provide documentary evidence, Acts of Parliament, etc all saying that the law applies as stated.

 

But the laws you cite only govern the selling of boats. The term used is 'bringing a boat to market" IIRC.

 

No law is being broken by an owner choosing to ignore those laws during his or her period of ownership and not placing the boat on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The BMF has no statutory enforcement role. All we know about that particular case is that it is said that the BMF advised the vendor the boat could not be sold as it was, and the vendor then chose to follow that advice.

 

Exactly.

 

The BMF are not the enforcement agency but they do have responsibilty to ensure that boat builders follow the legal requirements, and, they gave the correct advice (that a PCA was required to be able to legally sell the boat), They did not 'force' the seller to comply (that is not their role) the seller made an informed choice and decided to do everything in accordance with the legal requirements.

 

It could be said that I am simply offering similar advice (and also have no powers of enforcement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the latest RCD/RCR rules require compliance for a major craft conversion. So arguably a complete rewire might need to comply with the regs, but a bit of minor modification adding some wiring here and there would not.

Which isn't so say that it wouldn't be a good idea, for multiple reasons, to use multi-stranded cable in any wiring alterations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But the laws you cite only govern the selling of boats. The term used is 'bringing a boat to market" IIRC.

 

No law is being broken by an owner choosing to ignore those laws during his or her period of ownership and not placing the boat on the market.

 

Yes they are, since 2017 the boat must be kept in a compliant condition.

 

Example : If a boat is re-engined with a 'non-approved' engine (or even a bigger / smaller engine than originally fitted) the day after launch, It is no longer compliant, and, legally requires a PCA. Yes - 'who will know' until the boat comes to be sold, but, legally the boat is legally non-compliant

 

Similar to the BSS requiring re-certification  during the life of the certificate if non-compliant charges are made.

 

Read the T&Cs on your BSS :

 

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say 1000s of boats are sold without owners having to re-wire their old boats, I've bought three in say the last 10 years. 

I've never heard of someone being prosecuted for having solid cable in a boat, the same as I've never heard of anyone in the UK being prosecuted for treason (in recent history). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tom766 said:

I'd say 1000s of boats are sold without owners having to re-wire their old boats, I've bought three in say the last 10 years. 

I've never heard of someone being prosecuted for having solid cable in a boat, the same as I've never heard of anyone in the UK being prosecuted for treason (in recent history). 

 

 

 

That is not the point, though, is it? We all agree that prosecution is so unlikely it can be ignored, and I also think that your boat is not within scope of the RCD/RCR on grounds of age. All that has happened is that you have had it pointed out to you that what you have done is not best or even good practice, and that it could have implications later - note "could", that is not "will". Remember it seems a lot of inexperienced boaters use the forum and answers should really acknowledge that what you have done may work, may be relatively safe, but it is in now way best practice.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Read the T&Cs on your BSS :

 

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....

 

"Safety requirements" in this context can only be the BSS requirements, and "non-compliant alterations" can only refer to non-compliance with the BSS standards. So in the absence of licencing or navigation authority requiring continued compliance with RCD/RCR standards, all that is needed for continued validity of a BSC is that any work complies with the BSS requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

"Safety requirements" in this context can only be the BSS requirements, and "non-compliant alterations" can only refer to non-compliance with the BSS standards. So in the absence of licencing or navigation authority requiring continued compliance with RCD/RCR standards, all that is needed for continued validity of a BSC is that any work complies with the BSS requirements.

 

Obviously I was not making myself clear.

 

That is exactly what I meant when I said "It is similar to the BSS requiring recertification .............".

I was not suggesting that the navigation authority (via the BSS) required continuing RCD / RCR compliance.

 

It is the 'law of the land' that requires continuing RCD / RCR compliance.

You only need to to retain BSS compliance as a condition of retaining your licence.

The BSS is not 'the law of the land' it is simply a pre-requisite to being granted a boat licence on certain waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tom766 said:

I just think that some folk go over the top with what if's. 

 

See what I'm getting at here.... proof in the pudding was when there was a fault the safety devices tripped 😁

What if. It has already, it has already failed once.

 

Will the trip work next time, the next fracture may nor be a short, just arcing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2021 at 15:01, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Worse case If you did have a problem traced back to your electrical system, it is quite possible that your insurers may try and 'wriggle' stating that your boat was not wired to 'best practice' or the relevant ISO specifications, hence your insurance is invalidated.

 

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Tacet said:

 The use of solid core cable on this boat contravenes no regulations

 

17 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes it does - the RCD / RCR which is a legal requirement for any commercially built boat post 1989, and for any boat DIY built and sold within 5 years of 1st use / completion.

 

With regard to 'my boat' maybe you could point me out the requirement where it is specified that pipes do not 'split apart', or that you must be fitted with bilge alarms, remember that what ever you think my recreational boat should have also apply to your recreational narrowboat.

It's you that is wriggling, Alan.  Your claim (which I say is scaremongering) is at failure to observe best practice or ISO could lead to insurance being invalidated.  I say that it will not - at least in itself.

 

I don't doubt that your boat is better maintained than mine.  But is yours maintained to best practice (not just good practice) in all respects?  If not, your insurance may be invalidated........  Incidentally, if the twin & earth is replaced by a suitable piece of flex, does the insurance become active again or does it remain invalid?

 

You have previously said that Negligence would be considered a reason to not provide cover.  If failure to maintain a boat to best practice also invalidates the insurance - just what are the circumstances in which a claim might be successfully brought?  There can't be many left.

  • Greenie 1
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.