Definitive paperwork required to purchase a Widebeam for safety compliance

[Barneyp]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

......

7) If you find an RCR fault in the boat (example - the wrong type of glass has been used) and the boat is certified under the RCR you can take the builder to court and/or get them to rectify the fault. (again - examples are available).....

 

Surely if the boat isn't compliant you could make a claim against the builder even without an RCD/RCR, they are legally obliged to build to the standards regardless of whether they choose to issue a certificate.

 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

On this forum there are two distinct 'camps' when it comes to the relevance of the RCR and 'boat papers' in general.

 

1) You need the paperwork and certification to be able to sell the boat legally.

 

2) No one cares, you won't get caught so just ignore it.

.........

I would put myself in a third camp - there is some value to having the correct paperwork, but it isn't the be all and end all, and it certainly shouldn't be taken as proof the boat is safe.

 

If I was buying brand new or nearly new the lack of paperwork would raise serious red flags, but the older a boat gets the less relevant it becomes, on a 20-25 year old boat i don't think the RCD certificate (which would only be for the original build,) is hugely important.

 

It's not like a car where the V5 and MOT make a huge difference to the value as they are issued independently from the seller and the builder, and there is a huge amount of enforcement and checking of MOT issuers meaning it can normally be relied upon as a reasonable assessment of the cars safety at the time it was issued.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Surely if the boat isn't compliant you could make a claim against the builder even without an RCD/RCR, they are legally obliged to build to the standards regardless of whether they choose to issue a certificate.

 

A commecial builder (as opposed to a one-off build for your own use) is legally required to build in compliance, and part of that compliance is to issue a "Written Statement of Compliance" (a certificate) stating it is compliant as well as an Owners manual conforming to the RCR requirements, a builders plate with the builders name address and contact details, and the CE plate.

 

The compliance certificate will look something like this :

 

 

 

Lagoon 380 CE declaration certificate of compliance.pdf

[Peanut]

I suspect that some brokers are concerned that, if they sell or place on the market, a boat without the RCD/RCR paperwork, they would be breaking the law, and a buyer might seek recompense from them at a later date, having relied on then for their professional service.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I suspect that some brokers are concerned that, if they sell or place on the market, a boat without the RCD/RCR paperwork, they would be breaking the law, and a buyer might seek recompense from them at a later date, having relied on then for their professional service.

 

And I suspect a whole load more are simply, not! 

 

 

[Peanut]

I agree, but they are trusting to luck.  There could be no defence, they have committed an offence, unless the boat fell I to an exempted class.  These days with the price of boats, and the potential downside, I would expect them to be more risk averse.

Even though the paperwork may not be worth the paper it is written on.  They may rely on the original builders certificate or a surveyors post construction assessment.

Edited December 23, 2022 by Peanut
paperwork

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I agree, but they are trusting to luck.  There could be no defence, they have committed an offence, unless the boat fell I to an exempted class.  These days with the price of boats, and the potential downside, I would expect them to be more risk averse.

Even though the paperwork may not be worth the paper it is written on.  They may rely on the original builders certificate or a surveyors post construction assessment.

 

In my experience there is an absolute f*ck-tonne of regulation in pretty much every area of both business and life which is never enforced on a day-to-day basis. It is used only when the shyte hits the fan to punish the regular traders who were just scratching themselves a daily living. 

 

RCR/RCD is a first class example of this effect.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I agree, but they are trusting to luck.  There could be no defence, they have committed an offence, unless the boat fell I to an exempted class.  These days with the price of boats, and the potential downside, I would expect them to be more risk averse.

 

As you say a "distributor" (see definition) is commiting an offence if they make the product available and it is not compliant with the regulations.

 

Section 10.

When making a product available on the market, distributors shall act with due care in relation to the requirements of this order.

 

Subsection 2.

Before making a product available on the market, distributors shall verify that the product bears the CE marking, as referred to in section 17, that it is accompanied by the documents required in section 7(7), section 15 and point 2.5 of Part A of Annex I, point 4 of Part B of Annex I and point 2 of Part C of Annex I and by instructions and safety information in a language or languages which can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users in the Member State in which the product is to be made available on the market, and that the manufacturer and the importer have complied with the requirements set out in section 7(5) and (6) and section 9(3).

 

Subsection 3.

Where a distributor considers or has reason to believe that a product is not in conformity with the requirements set out in section 4(1) and Annex I, he shall not make the product available on the market until it has been brought into conformity. Furthermore, where the product presents a risk, the distributor shall inform the manufacturer or the importer, as well as the market surveillance authorities, to that effect

 

Definition of "Distributor"

 

‘distributor’ means any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a product available on the market;

 

 

 

"You" can argue "well who is going to find out", or "what does it matter" and whilst 'you' may not be caught and prosecuted more brokers are taking the risk 'on board' and refusing to handle the boat, or, (as in one case reported on this forum by a seller,) insist that they have a PCA and get the correct paperwork.

[Peanut]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

In my experience there is an absolute f*ck-tonne of regulation in pretty much every area of both business and life which is never enforced on a day-to-day basis. It is used only when the shyte hits the fan to punish the regular traders who were just scratching themselves a daily living. 

 

RCR/RCD is a first class example of this effect.

 

I think the problem is, when a buyer finds a fault which is going to cost serious money, looks around to find someone to blame.  If they relied on a broker or other vendors professional service, then they stand a good chance. Though no real chance with a private seller.

Edited December 23, 2022 by Peanut
grammar

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I think the problem is, when a buyer finds a fault which is going to cost serious money, looks around to find someone to blame.  If they relied on a broker or other vendors professional service, then they stand a good chance. Though no real chance with a private seller.

 

I'm inclined to disagree although i'm no lawyer.

 

The broker is an agent for the seller and as such, is classed as a mouthpiece for the seller. And thus any action planned against the agent would automatically pass through into being an action against the seller.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm inclined to disagree although i'm no lawyer.

 

The broker is an agent for the seller and as such, is classed as a mouthpiece for the seller. And thus any action planned against the agent would automatically pass through into being an action against the seller.  

 

Good to see you inputting to the discussion. 

 

Despite initially telling the OP to 'do a search'.

[Peanut]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm inclined to disagree although i'm no lawyer.

 

The broker is an agent for the seller and as such, is classed as a mouthpiece for the seller. And thus any action planned against the agent would automatically pass through into being an action against the seller.  

The problem is the broker is offering a professional service, I as a customer should be able to rely on that service.  The broker might well try and blame the owner, or rely on weasel words, like the information is based on what they have been told,  By offering a professional service they should have ensured that it was lawful to put the boat on the market. I think they would need a very good lawyer.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Peanut said:

The problem is the broker is offering a professional service, I as a customer should be able to rely on that service.  The broker might well try and blame the owner, or rely on weasel words, like the information is based on what they have been told,  By offering a professional service they should have ensured that it was lawful to put the boat on the market. I think they would need a very good lawyer.

 

The wording in the sales contract is very specific.

 

It makes it very clear that they are acting on behalf of the seller and that any misrepresentation is the responsibility  of the seller NOT them.

 

That is just a fact.

[TheBiscuits]

10 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

The wording in the sales contract is very specific.

 

It makes it very clear that they are acting on behalf of the seller and that any misrepresentation is the responsibility  of the seller NOT them.

 

That is just a fact.

 

But the wording in the law - Alan posted some of it above  - makes the broker the "distributor" at the latest revision.  That wasn't the case in the previous version.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

But the wording in the law - Alan posted some of it above  - makes the broker the "distributor" at the latest revision.  That wasn't the case in the previous version.

 

Then that would need testing in a court of law I would suggest.

[David Mack]

18 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

But the wording in the law - Alan posted some of it above  - makes the broker the "distributor" at the latest revision.  That wasn't the case in the previous version.

Does it? It depends on what is meant by "supply chain". If that refers only to those involved in bring a new (or newly imported) boat to the market , then a broker acting on behalf of an owner to sell a second hand boat would not be a "distributor".

[Peanut]

16 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

The wording in the sales contract is very specific.

 

It makes it very clear that they are acting on behalf of the seller and that any misrepresentation is the responsibility  of the seller NOT them.

 

That is just a fact.

I am aware of that, but a broker assists the owner in placing the boat on the market.  As a matter of due dillegance they would have to ensure that it is lawfully do this. A buyer relies on their professional service.

This is not a matter of misrepresentation.

 

The small or large print in the contract, would count for little, and would likely be set aside, or the contract voided. The boat had been put on the market unlawfully.

I guess we will never agree, but I think they would find themselves on a sticky wicket.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Peanut said:

I am aware of that, but a broker assists the owner in placing the boat on the market.  As a matter of due dillegance they would have to ensure that it is lawfully do this. A buyer relies on their professional service.

This is not a matter of misrepresentation.

 

The small or large print in the contract, would count for little, and would likely be set aside, or the contract voided. The boat had been put on the market unlawfully.

I guess we will never agree, but I think they would find themselves on a sticky wicket.

 

I think you are wrong, but I also think the definitive answer lies with a court not in an internet boating forum as I suggested earlier.

[Ianws]

I don't know about the specific wording in this case but just because a clause is included in a contract it doesn't mean its enforceable in law. The law decides that, if tested. 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 hours ago, MtB said:

The broker is an agent for the seller and as such, is classed as a mouthpiece for the seller.

 

But - it is the broker who is actually 'making it available on the market' via his customer base, website, mailshots etc etc.

 

distributor’ means any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes a product available on the market;

 

For further disucssion :

 

It has always been stated that 'Caveat Emptor' applies when buying a boat - but when it comes to RCR compliance it would appear that even a private seller (a natural or legal person) can be held responsible for the RCR compliance and would be commiting an offence if they sell a non compliant boat.

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But - it is the broker who is actually 'making it available on the market' via his customer base, website, mailshots etc etc

 

i'd say it's a moot point. The broker is acting on instructions from his client. The client is the one "making it available on the market" by seeking out and engaging  marketing services such as a customer base, website, mailshots etc etc then issuing instructions. Instructions possibly even against the professional advice of the broker. 

 

It will be interesting to see the defences put up when the brown stuff eventually hits the fan. I bet the broker will blame the client "We were acting on instructions", while the client will say "I didn't know, the broker should have told me and protected me". 

 

I think the latter argument is the weaker. "Ignorance is no defence...", etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[David Mack]

It's rather bizarre that a second hand boat should be required to meet the same standards as when it was new. This requirement does not apply to other second hand goods, houses, cars, or anything else.

[Tony Brooks]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

It's rather bizarre that a second hand boat should be required to meet the same standards as when it was new. This requirement does not apply to other second hand goods, houses, cars, or anything else.

 

I don't think that is the case, as I see it all that is required is that the paperwork is correct. The RCD/RCR is best practice so any subsequent work should also have been to best practice so it would still be complaint. If that work as not to bets practice and something bad happened then I think whoever did the work could face a negligence claim.

 

I think cars are expected to met the same standards as when new as in MOT exhaust tests etc.

[Stilllearning]

I would strongly suggest finding a boat you like, then looking at the paperwork offered with it. As an example, our last boat had a huge file with all the RCD gubbins, DVDs of construction etc. Then we got a surveyor we knew well to give it a serious looking over, then we bought it. Equally, the boat before that, I bought because I liked it, it had nearly all the features I wanted, and the same surveyor liked it too. There was very little paperwork with it, but that bothered me not one jot.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

I don't think that is the case, as I see it all that is required is that the paperwork is correct.

 

That is true, but it is more a question of even tho' the manufacturer has (fraudulently) 'signed it off' as compliant, who is responsible when it is, in fact, found to be non-compliant ?

 

2 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

The RCD/RCR is best practice so any subsequent work should also have been to best practice so it would still be complaint. If that work as not to bets practice and something bad happened then I think whoever did the work could face a negligence claim.

 

Any subsequent work that makes the boat non-compliant is subject to having a PCA conducted otherwise the boat paperwork does not actually match the boat.

If a car engine is changed then the details should be notified to the DVLA

 

4 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I think cars are expected to met the same standards as when new as in MOT exhaust tests etc.

 

Agreed - but when the requirements change then cars are expected to be bought up to the new standards. When minimum tyre tread depths changed, they were automatically applied at the MOT.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

If that work as not to bets practice and something bad happened then I think whoever did the work could face a negligence claim.

 

A negligence claim is civil law, and very different from being prosecuted under criminal law for and RCD infringement e.g. marketing a boat without all the correct bits of paper. 

 

Lets review the OP's question:

 

"I do not want to buy a boat without the correct paperwork."

 

A good starting point would be to ask `"What IS the correct paperwork?".

 

Much of the discussion here is revolving around the the consequences of not having the right paperwork, or whether said paperwork was legitimately issued. He seems less concerned with real life safety than with having all the right boxes ticked for when he sells the boat on. These being two very different things.

 

I'd suggest we focus on just what documentation is necessary.