Definitive paperwork required to purchase a Widebeam for safety compliance

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

We are discussing second hand boats Shirley.

 

Yes we are.

 

Can you provide any supporting documentation for you assertion that a broker is not a distributor (not the definition as you think you know it, but the description as used in the RCD / RCR).

 

As we know, a single word can have different meanings in different legislation, but even within the same piece of legislation eg 'place' within the 1995 Act.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Are we largely agreed that a private sale (i.e. not in the course of business activity and without a broker) largely falls outside the regulations?  If so, it would be a bit odd (but possible) if you could sell a boat today without a broker but not with its services.

Strictly speaking, brokers are not usually agents either.  Same as estate agents aren't.  An agent has the owner's authority to act on its behalf in, for example, concluding a sale.  Whereas a typical broker only introduces and facilitates.

 

I'm not sure that a private sale of a secondhand boat falls outside the regulations, but I could be convinced either way.

 

With regard to a broker they are now bringing a commercial aspect into the 'placing onto the market' (they are paid for promoting, advertising, showing potential buyers around, raising bills of sale, banking the sale money etc etc), and I feel they do fall under the RCD /RCR definition of a distributor.

[PaulD]

Commercial agents regulations 1993

[Momac]

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

You have decided they are not - on what evidence are you basing your decision ?

 

There is no option in the RCD for an 'Agent'

.

There are only 3 'Economic Operators' within the supply chain :

Manufacturer

Authorised Representative

Importer

Distributor

 

 

 

In the case of a new boat the broker could be but is not necessarily the distributor , possibly the broker could be the importer 

The new boat may be ''placed on the market'' before the boat has been constructed  but  RCR requirements must  in place  before the boat is placed on the market.

Then the boat is built and delivered (lets say this is in the UK) and sold and must include the CE plate and relevant documents.

RCR requirements are then 100% satisfied.

The boat may be sold as used any number of times  while remaining in the UK with no activity with respect to RCR.

If the boat is not exported or significantly altered there is no further RCR activity  indefinitely. 

 

I dare say the original RCD/RCR documents would help in a PCA situation for export. But in practice he costs are prohibitive because there are no grandfather rights at the present time. So a used boat would have to comply with emission standards for example . So export or import of a used boat is effectively prohibited by cost.

Alan, you said yourself that you did not need the RCD evidence when you imported your yacht (presumably from the EU prior to Brexit) and it came under government scrutiny for VAT.

 

The term 'placing on the market' refers to new goods

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/placing-manufactured-goods-on-the-market-in-great-britain#:~:text=A product is placed on the market when an offer,physical transfer of the product.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

In the case of a new boat the broker could be but is not necessarily the distributor , possibly the broker could be the importer 

The new boat may be ''placed on the market'' before the boat has been constructed  but  RCR requirements must  in place  before the boat is placed on the market.

Then the boat is built and delivered (lets say this is in the UK) and sold and must include the CE plate and relevant documents.

RCR requirements are then 100% satisfied.

The boat may be sold as used any number of times  while remaining in the UK with no activity with respect to RCR.

If the boat is not exported or significantly altered there is no further RCR activity  indefinitely. 

 

I dare say the original RCD/RCR documents would help in a PCA situation for export. But in practice he costs are prohibitive because there are no grandfather rights at the present time. So a used boat would have to comply with emission standards for example . So export or import of a used boat is effectively prohibited by cost.

Alan, you said yourself that you did not need the RCD evidence when you imported your yacht (presumably from the EU prior to Brexit) and it came under government scrutiny for VAT.

 

The term 'placing on the market' refers to new goods

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/placing-manufactured-goods-on-the-market-in-great-britain#:~:text=A product is placed on the market when an offer,physical transfer of the product.

 

 

 

Again you are quoting all the details about a new boat and exporting / importing - totally irrellevant.

 

We are discussing sales of secondhand boats which do not come under the "placing on the market" (1st time sale) we are looking at "making available on the market" (secondhand sales) totally different.

 

Definitions :

11) ‘making available on the market’ means any supply of a product for distribution, consumption or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;

12) ‘placing on the market’ means the first making available of a product on the Union market;

13) ‘putting into service’ means the first use of a product covered by this order in the Union by its end-user

 

 

12 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The boat may be sold as used any number of times  while remaining in the UK with no activity with respect to RCR.

 

This is where we disagree.

 

Please provide any evidence of the fact that once the boat has been sold for the 1st time (placing on the market)  there is no subsequent need for the RCR.

 

If you were correct there would be no need for the provision of requirements for 'making available on the market', which there clearly are.

[Momac]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Again you are quoting all the details about a new boat and exporting / importing - totally irrellevant.

 

We are discussing sales of secondhand boats which do not come under the "placing on the market" (1st time sale) we are looking at "making available on the market" (secondhand sales) totally different.

 

Definitions :

11) ‘making available on the market’ means any supply of a product for distribution, consumption or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge;

12) ‘placing on the market’ means the first making available of a product on the Union market;

13) ‘putting into service’ means the first use of a product covered by this order in the Union by its end-user

 

 

No its not irrelevant. It is highly relevant.

RCR is very important when exporting/importing.

You imported your own boat from Croatia? to UK with no RCR scrutiny  - you said that yourself. If you did the same today (post brexit) you would have needed a new PCA together with possible work like engines upgraded to the emissions standards of today.

You did not need a PCA at the time because you were moving the boat within the EU. 

RCR is important when a UK boat is new but while that boat remains in the UK there is no further RCR activity.

 

 

 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

17 hours ago, Tacet said:

Are we largely agreed that a private sale (i.e. not in the course of business activity and without a broker) largely falls outside the regulations?  If so, it would be a bit odd (but possible) if you could sell a boat today without a broker but not with its services.

Strictly speaking, brokers are not usually agents either.  Same as estate agents aren't.  An agent has the owner's authority to act on its behalf in, for example, concluding a sale.  Whereas a typical broker only introduces and facilitates.

An advertising agent, how about boats sold on the Duck

[IanD]

6 hours ago, MartynG said:

No its not irrelevant. It is highly relevant.

RCR is very important when exporting/importing.

You imported your own boat from Croatia? to UK with no RCR scrutiny  - you said that yourself. If you did the same today (post brexit) you would have needed a new PCA together with possible work like engines upgraded to the emissions standards of today.

You did not need a PCA at the time because you were moving the boat within the EU. 

RCR is important when a UK boat is new but while that boat remains in the UK there is no further RCR activity.

 

Can I just point out the original post, 11 pages ago?

 

1. Boat less than 5 years old

2. Boat older than 5 years

3. Converted Sailaway

 

Meaning, buying a secondhand boat -- privately, or through a broker, or on the Duck -- which is already on the UK canals. Not a new boat. Not importing one. Which is the case for the vast majority of boat purchases on the UK canals, for obvious reasons.

 

So all the talk about new boat builders/suppliers and importing/exporting boats may well be very interesting, but it is not relevent to the subject under discussion. It's also just clouding what could be an important issue for many buyers, by throwing up lots of information -- or opinions with no legal backing -- that doesn't matter to them... 😞

 

What matters is this:

 

1. If I'm buying a boat like this, what is the real risk of a problem now or in the future if it doesn't have the RCR documentation?

2. If I'm selling a boat like this without the documents, is it worth going through the cost and hassle of recertification if it may not be needed?

3. How many brokers (on the canals) are actually refusing to buy/sell boats without this documentation? (not jsut advising that "it's a good idea to have it")

 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Maybe we are getting a little closer :

 

The BMF code of practice for their members states :

 

Boat Retailers and Brokers Code of Practice

Boat retailers and brokers must adhere to the following terms

 

15. All Boat Retailer and Brokers shall have and/or will offer to clients:-

 

a. Appropriate Professional indemnity insurance to cover errors and omissions occurring in the course of their broking activities

 

b. Use their best endeavours to verify the complete history of ownership of Any 2 hand craft offered for sale

 

c. Use their best endeavours to verify (if possible) the VAT status of 2 Hand Craft, advising prospective clients of any VAT liabilities that may exist in the absence of proof positive of VAT paid status.

 

d. All craft offered for sale to conform with relevant legislation (RCD etc)

 

 

 

 

To premempt any further suggestion that 'shall' is not mandatory : 

 

Must and shall are words in English language that have similar meanings. Both of them indicate the fact that something is mandatory and should be carried out as a duty. However, shall is used more in legal circles while must is used more often by common people. Many believe shall to be more formal of the two and fit for use in legal documents and contracts to stress a role or responsibility. 

 

 

Shall is a verb that indicates a strong desire, intention, or assertion. It also refers to something that will take place in the future. It is also used to give an order or make a promise. It also indicates inevitability of something or an event. Take a look at the following examples to understand the meaning and usage of shall in English language. It is similar to will when used in first person.

• You shall complete the job by tomorrow (order)

• The train shall arrive tomorrow noon (future event)

• The justice shall be served (inevitability)

• The tenant shall make payment on every 5th day of a month (obligation)

Edited December 31, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Maybe we are getting a little closer :

 

The BMF code of practice for their members states :

 

 

15. All Boat Retailer and Brokers shall have and/or will offer to clients:-

 

a. Appropriate Professional indemnity insurance to cover errors and omissions occurring in the course of their broking activities

 

b. Use their best endeavours to verify the complete history of ownership of Any 2 hand craft offered for sale

 

c. Use their best endeavours to verify (if possible) the VAT status of 2 Hand Craft, advising prospective clients of any VAT liabilities that may exist in the absence of proof positive of VAT paid status.

 

d. All craft offered for sale to conform with relevant legislation (RCD etc)

 

 

 

 

To premempt any further suggestion that 'shall' is not mandatory : 

 

Must and shall are words in English language that have similar meanings. Both of them indicate the fact that something is mandatory and should be carried out as a duty. However, shall is used more in legal circles while must is used more often by common people. Many believe shall to be more formal of the two and fit for use in legal documents and contracts to stress a role or responsibility. 

 

 

Shall is a verb that indicates a strong desire, intention, or assertion. It also refers to something that will take place in the future. It is also used to give an order or make a promise. It also indicates inevitability of something or an event. Take a look at the following examples to understand the meaning and usage of shall in English language. It is similar to will when used in first person.

• You shall complete the job by tomorrow (order)

• The train shall arrive tomorrow noon (future event)

• The justice shall be served (inevitability)

• The tenant shall make payment on every 5th day of a month (obligation)

So are Rugby Boats a member of the BMF?

 

If so, how come they said they didn't require the documentation as a condition of sale?

 

If not, how many other brokers take the same attitude, and how many refuse to sell without it?

 

If your post is correct, BMF members cannot sell boats without the RCD documentation. Is this correct? If it is, what happens to the member if they break this rule -- how does the BMF find out, and what is the penalty -- expulsion?

Edited December 31, 2022 by IanD

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

So are Rugby Boats a member of the BMF?

 

If so, how come they said they didn't require the documentation as a condition of sale?

 

If not, how many other brokers take the same attitude, and how many refuse to sell without it?

 

They were members when we bought and sold our boat through them in 2010 and 2015.

[PaulD]

See :   Distributor or agent: why does it matter? (wrighthassall.co.uk)  for definition of an agent and a distributor.

 

Brokers  are normally only acting as the seller's agent for sale of second hand boats and make this clear in their T&Cs. Responsibility for any non-compliance with the RCR remains with the seller. It is different of course if the broker has bought the boat and is reselling it.

 

Brokers want full disclosure of the RCR documentation because they can face civil claims if they mislead the buyer. (Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, PaulD said:

See :   Distributor or agent: why does it matter? (wrighthassall.co.uk)  for definition of an agent and a distributor.

 

Brokers  are normally only acting as the seller's agent for sale of second hand boats and make this clear in their T&Cs. Responsibility for any non-compliance with the RCR remains with the seller. It is different of course if the broker has bought the boat and is reselling it.

 

Brokers want full disclosure of the RCR documentation because they can face civil claims if they mislead the buyer. (Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whilst interesting your link is looking at the generic relationships between agents and distributors - I can see no mention of boating, the RCD or Brokers.

 

There is no mention of the use of agents in the RCD - if someone is putting themselves into the supply chain and taking a commercial activity then you need to allocate them into one of the 4 categories already listed in the RCD

 

12 minutes ago, PaulD said:

Brokers want full disclosure of the RCR documentation because they can face civil claims if they mislead the buyer. (Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014).

 

If that is the only reason, then all a broker needs to do is to say "we have no knowledge of the RCD staus of this boat"

 

 

 

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

They were members when we bought and sold our boat through them in 2010 and 2015.

In which case either the BMF rule that Alan quoted is advisory not compulsory (my suspicion), or they're not following the BMF code of practice -- and if they're not, who else is or isn't?

 

It doesn't matter what brokers say they would like (e.g. "it's advisable to have RCR documentation"), what matters is when push comes to shove -- or potentially losing a sale -- what do they insist on, if anything.

 

We need to know what the real position is for internal UK boat sales of secondhand boats, and no amount of quoting documents and arguing about how many brokers can dance on the head of a pin will help answer this... 😞

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

We need to know what the real position is for internal UK boat sales of secondhand boats, and no amount of quoting documents and arguing about how many brokers can dance on the head of a pin will help answer this... 😞

 

And what method, giving a result that would satisfy you, do you suggest could be used ?

 

It is very easy to cricisize and say "no - don't believe it, go away and come back with more evidence"  - so, you now go and prove that the RCD paperwork / compliance certificates are not legally required.

[Tony Brooks]

The thing is that some posts ago I think Ian admitted that buying a boat without an RCD/RCR caries a risk, which is what both you and I have been saying. He seems to assess this as a very small risk, whereas I put it higher than that, especially with a private sale and a knowledgable buyer.

 

Even if brokers are happy to sell non-RCD/RCR compliant boats, the future risk remains, it is just an individuals' assessment of that risk that is important. No one can quantify that risk until some case law emerges, and that does not look likely to happen.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Tony Brooks

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And what method, giving a result that would satisfy you, do you suggest could be used ?

 

It is very easy to cricisize and say "no - don't believe it, go away and come back with more evidence"  - so, you now go and prove that the RCD paperwork / compliance certificates are not legally required.

 

Alan, I'm not asking you to prove it, I'm asking if anyone has any actual information about which/how many brokers are actually refusing to sell secondhand canal boats without the RCR documentation.

 

Whether they are in theory legally required in this case -- as opposed to a new or imported boat -- may be interesting to you, but makes little difference if the reality is that brokers don't follow this rule -- if indeed it is a rule for secondhand boats, and if so whose rule is it who enforces it?

 

Otherwise it ends up like speed limits; yes these are legal and enforceable and if you're caught exceeding them you can be fined or get points, but maybe 99% of drivers regularly break the speed limits and suffer no penalties.

 

So please imagine you're explaining this to an idiot: 😉

 

1. What does the "RCR documentation" rule actually say for secondhand canal boats sold through brokers? (not new boats, not import/export)

2. Whose rule is it -- the BMF? CART?

3. Is it actually a "must" or just "advice"?

4. How many brokers are members of the BMF -- some, most, all?

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

The thing is that some posts ago I think Ian admitted that buying a boat without an RCD/RCR caries a risk, which is what both you and I have been saying. He seems to assess this as a very small risk, whereas I put it higher than that, especially with a private sale and a knowledgable buyer.

 

Even if brokers are happy to sell non-RCD/RCR compliant boats, the future risk remains, it is just an individuals' assessment of that risk that is important. No one can quantify that risk until some case law emerges, and that does not look likely to happen.

 

So if this risk was higher, given the numbers of boats sold every year you'd expect there to be loads of cases of buyers/sellers running into trouble. Yet there seem to be very few verified cases of this happening. And if the cases there are are all with brokers who deal with both canal boats and lumpy water boats and none are with canal-only brokers, the risk of a problem with a canal-only broker must be very small, or maybe zero in practice since you can choose a broker that doesn't enforce the "rule" (if this is what it is).

 

It's always possible to come up with unlikely things that people *could* worry about, the Daily Wail does it all the time. The question is whether people *should* worry about it.

 

If people want to play it ultra-safe then of course they can spend several grand getting a boat recertified, and see whether this makes any difference to the selling price. My guess is it will make little or none, certainly it won't recoup the cost. Of course I could be wroing, but so far there's no evidence of this, is there? 😉

 

What we still haven't got is *any solid evidence* that brokers (which ones?) are enforcing this condition on sales; there are anecdotes about un-named brokers doing this, but it's crucial to know whether they're canal-only brokers or not, and nobody is saying.

 

If it turns out that it's one broker and even BMF members like Rugby Boats are not doing it, then it seems over the top to issue apocalyptic warnings to prospective buyers/sellers about this.

 

Where are the facts? Come on, surely *somebody* has some?

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

So if this risk was higher, given the numbers of boats sold every year you'd expect there to be loads of cases of buyers/sellers running into trouble. Yet there seem to be very few verified cases of this happening. And if the cases there are are all with brokers who deal with both canal boats and lumpy water boats and none are with canal-only brokers, the risk of a problem with a canal-only broker must be very small, or maybe zero in practice since you can choose a broker that doesn't enforce the "rule" (if this is what it is).

 

 

So do you know how many private sales with no documentation resulted in the seller accepting a lower price than they would if they had the documents. Until you can answer that, I don't see how you can assess the risk.

 

If a broker is not demanding the documentation, then how many are selling at less than they would with documentation?

[MtB]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

If not, how many other brokers take the same attitude, and how many refuse to sell without it?

 

 

Well so far the answer to this question is one. 

 

Tony Brooks knows of one but has been requested not to identify them, by the brokers themselves. Astounding that such a broker wants to keep their identity a secret! 

 

Nobody else in this thread or in the many others preceding it has ever named a broker who won't sell a non-RCD/R second hand boat. I'm not convinced there are any but happy to learn otherwise. 

 

P.S. I'm writing about inland canal boats, not sea boats. 

 

P.P.S. It strikes me one of the reasons for having RCR at all, is because sea boats don't have BSS tickets, so the only regulation forcing any safety standards at all on sea boats is the RCD/R. For inland waterways boats the requirement for BSS ever four years means the RCD/R is less important. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by MtB

[Barneyp]

 

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

.......

Where are the facts? Come on, surely *somebody* has some?

I'm guessing brokers will decline to sell for a number of reasons that may not be clear or consistent.

 

eg if they are offered a boat that is well maintained and in good condition but hasn't got RCD paperwork they may well decide to go ahead with listing the boat, while a boat that is in poor condition or whose owner seems to want an unrealistic price, the lack of RCD may be the straw that breaks the camels back, or could even just be a handy excuse to justify the no.

So establishing the facts will not be that straightforward. And thats just now, who knows what the future situation will be.

 

It is an individuals judgement call, and no one (apart from the OP, and they seem content with the info provided) on this thread is needing to make that call now. As I said before it is one more thing to be added to the list of things to consider when purchasing a secondhand narrowboat, is it more important than the type of toilet (insert any other variable here) - maybe,it depends on the purchaser.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Barneyp

[Paul C]

AFAIK there is something in the RCD regulations which means its illegal to sell a boat under 5 years old (from completion) without the RCD being complete including all the documents. Eg a sailaway which was bought with Annex 3 and part-completed at that point, then DIY converted. 

 

Ergo, it IS legal to sell this kind of boat (without RCD) after 5 years. At that age, it will have had its first BSS anyway.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

AFAIK there is something in the RCD regulations which means its illegal to sell a boat under 5 years old (from completion) without the RCD being complete including all the documents. Eg a sailaway which was bought with Annex 3 and part-completed at that point, then DIY converted. 

 

Ergo, it IS legal to sell this kind of boat (without RCD) after 5 years. At that age, it will have had its first BSS anyway.

 

Yep. 

 

The RCD however became obsolete in 2017, replaced by the RCR with no such exemption AIUI. 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

50 minutes ago, MtB said:

Tony Brooks knows of one but has been requested not to identify them, by the brokers themselves. Astounding that such a broker wants to keep their identity a secret! 

 

No, it was a PM from a member who declined to name the broker, for all I know he worked for them. There was also the topic where we discussed a broker requiring a lady to get a PCA, which she was doing. Neither are proof, they both might be lying, but I doubt it so caution is sensible.

[Paul C]

51 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yep. 

 

The RCD however became obsolete in 2017, replaced by the RCR with no such exemption AIUI. 

 

 

 

But it would apply for 1998-2017 boats.

[Alan de Enfield]

53 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yep. 

 

The RCD however became obsolete in 2017, replaced by the RCR with no such exemption AIUI. 

 

 

 

Have you actually looked at the RCR ?

 

It may surprise you what you find, and, it may also have the benefit of making your posts factually correct instead of being plain 'wrong'.