Definitive paperwork required to purchase a Widebeam for safety compliance

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just for the ensuring 'correctness' here is the 2022 GB version (Post Brexit) of the RCR :

 

A distributor is any person, other than the manufacturer or importer, who makes a product available on the GB market.

 

The obligations of distributors include:

 

1. Before making available products on the GB market a distributor must take due care to ensure that they are in conformity with Part 2 of the Regulations, meaning that they comply with the essential requirements and that each economic operator has complied with their obligations in relation to them. If a distributor believes that a product is not in conformity with the essential requirements, the distributor must not make that product available on the GB market.

 

2. The distributor must also verify that the products bear the UKCA marking (or until 31 December 2022 it is affixed to a label or the accompanying documentation); are accompanied by the required documents, the instructions and safety information; and that the manufacturer and importer have complied with their labelling and identification requirements.

 

3. The distributor must ensure that while products are under their responsibility, their storage and transport conditions do not jeopardise their conformity with the essential health and safety requirements.

 

4. The distributor must take action where they have reason to believe that the products that they have made available on the GB market are not in conformity with the Regulations or which present a risk to consumers. They must inform the market surveillance authority and they must not make them available on the GB market until they meet the requirements of the Regulations.

 

5. The distributor must also cooperate with and provide information to enforcing authorities following any requests.

[David Mack]

44 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

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

Cars go through a huge type approval process before any model is put on sale. There is no requirement for second hand cars to meet the same requirements. Saying that second hand cars must meet MOT standards is like saying second hand boats must meet BSS standards. It is perfectly possible to sell a car without a current MOT. Yet second hand boats cannot (according to some) even be advertised for sale if they don't have documented compliance with original build standards.

[David Mack]

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Just for the ensuring 'correctness' here is the 2022 GB version (Post Brexit) of the RCR :

 

A distributor is any person, other than the manufacturer or importer, who makes a product available on the GB market.

 

The obligations of distributors include:

 

1. Before making available products on the GB market a distributor must take due care to ensure that they are in conformity with Part 2 of the Regulations, meaning that they comply with the essential requirements and that each economic operator has complied with their obligations in relation to them. If a distributor believes that a product is not in conformity with the essential requirements, the distributor must not make that product available on the GB market.

 

2. The distributor must also verify that the products bear the UKCA marking (or until 31 December 2022 it is affixed to a label or the accompanying documentation); are accompanied by the required documents, the instructions and safety information; and that the manufacturer and importer have complied with their labelling and identification requirements.

 

3. The distributor must ensure that while products are under their responsibility, their storage and transport conditions do not jeopardise their conformity with the essential health and safety requirements.

 

4. The distributor must take action where they have reason to believe that the products that they have made available on the GB market are not in conformity with the Regulations or which present a risk to consumers. They must inform the market surveillance authority and they must not make them available on the GB market until they meet the requirements of the Regulations.

 

5. The distributor must also cooperate with and provide information to enforcing authorities following any requests.

Paragraph 2 of that quote requires a UKCA marking before a boat is made available on the GB market. Since most second hand boats, unless very recently built, will not have a UKCA marking as they predate the UKCA existence, that means either no pre-brexit second hand boats can ever be put up for sale, or that "putting on the GB market" is a one-off event that occurs when a newly manufactured or imported boat is first made available on the GB market, and therefore the "distributor" obligations don't apply to used boat sales.

[Alan de Enfield]

51 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Paragraph 2 of that quote requires a UKCA marking before a boat is made available on the GB market. Since most second hand boats, unless very recently built, will not have a UKCA marking as they predate the UKCA existence, that means either no pre-brexit second hand boats can ever be put up for sale, or that "putting on the GB market" is a one-off event that occurs when a newly manufactured or imported boat is first made available on the GB market, and therefore the "distributor" obligations don't apply to used boat sales.

 

Amongst the many pages there is allowances for that - a UK marking can be appended, (sticky label ?) and the old EC markings used up until (from memory) the end of December 2022 for those already in production.

 

Edit to add - Here is part of it :

 

Where the product has been assessed by an EU Notified Body, manufacturers must continue to use the CE marking for products and can continue to place those products on the GB market until 31 December 2021. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods complying with the legislation as it applies in Northern Ireland, including affixing the CE marking, may be placed on the GB market after 31 December 2021. See further detail in Section 11 on Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods. Rules around physically affixing the new UKCA marking mirror those which currently apply for the application of the CE marking although, until 31 December 2022, the UKCA marking may be affixed to a label affixed to the product or a document accompanying the product, rather than being affixed to the product itself (even where it is otherwise possible to affix it to the product itself).

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

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 ?

 

 

 

I think you need to be very careful using the term fraud. Taking the above apart, what does it actually mean

 

"found to be non-compliant"

 

By whom? Are they qualified? (Remind me of the required qualifications of a canal boat surveyor....) Are they better than the manufacturer?

 

The fact is, for canal boats (I think the technical term is boats designed and certified for class D waters, or something like that) there is a process of self-compliance. So if a manufacturer says its compliant, then it is!

[MtB]

Staggering isn't it? All these reams of regulation designed to regulate sea boats but being applied to inland canal boats which are little more than skips with a roof on.

 

I can't think of a better illustration of the way the UK likes to gold plate and over-apply rules. About just about anything, really. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I think you need to be very careful using the term fraud. Taking the above apart, what does it actually mean

 

"found to be non-compliant"

 

By whom? Are they qualified? (Remind me of the required qualifications of a canal boat surveyor....) Are they better than the manufacturer?

 

The fact is, for canal boats (I think the technical term is boats designed and certified for class D waters, or something like that) there is a process of self-compliance. So if a manufacturer says its compliant, then it is!

 

 

OK, lets take an example I quoted earlier in the thread :

 

The RCR requires that fuek tanks have a 150mm 'access hatch' built ino the fuel tank.

 

The manufacturer certifies the boat is RCR complaint.

 

I take delivery of the boat and see there is no 'fuel tank inspection hatch fitted'

 

Do I need to be qualified to see if there is a fuel inspection hatch ?

Did the manufacturer make a fraudulent declaration ?

 

 

One example of a customer finding their Steel Narrowboat (Not a GRP sea-going boat) was not fitted with what the manual said it was fitted with - it turned out that the manufacturers did not even have all the specifications to know what was required, and had borrowed an owners manual and copied it to suit his own boats.

 

 

 

Hughes admitted to failing to use safety glass in the windows of two doors; that the solid fuel stove had not been bolted to the floor and that he had altered the provision for reboarding without updating his technical documentation.

The court found him guilty on several other counts: ........................

 

Hughes eventually settled out of court with his customer.

The whole business ultimately put Deeside Narrowboats some £30,000 out of pocket and his customer £10,000.

29 minutes ago, Paul C said:

So if a manufacturer says its compliant, then it is!

 

What a load of crap you spout.

So, If VW say there cars are 'emission legislation' compliant we should just believe them ?

Edited December 24, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

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 committing an offence if they sell a non compliant boat.

How many times has anyone in authority come to your boat in the UK and  asked for the relevant paperwork?

I am guessing only once - when you imported a yacht ?

It seems to me the relevant paperwork is only a real issue if you wish to travel between different countries in the boat of in an import/export scenario.

For boats that never leave the country not an issue in practice.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, MartynG said:

How many times has anyone in authority come to your boat in the UK and  asked for the relevant paperwork?

I am guessing only once - when you imported a yacht ?

It seems to me the relevant paperwork is only a real issue if you wish to travel between different countries in the boat of in an import/export scenario.

For boats that never leave the country not an issue in practice.

 

 

It is nothing to do with import / export of boats.

That is the VAT certificate - NOT the RCD / RCR

 

The RCR is a standard to which boats should be built to to be safe for their user.

 

How many times does anyone come to your house and ask to see the LA 'building services' department certificate showing , foundations, drains, electrics, window sizes etc are both compliant and actually match the drawings on which Planning Permission was granted ?

Edited December 24, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Momac]

 

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is nothing to do with import / export of boats

 

 

Were you not required to provide the paperwork when you imported your yacht?

 

 

[Paul C]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

OK, lets take an example I quoted earlier in the thread :

 

The RCR requires that fuek tanks have a 150mm 'access hatch' built ino the fuel tank.

 

The manufacturer certifies the boat is RCR complaint.

 

I take delivery of the boat and see there is no 'fuel tank inspection hatch fitted'

 

Do I need to be qualified to see if there is a fuel inspection hatch ?

Did the manufacturer make a fraudulent declaration ?

 

Not necessarily, because a manufacturer may take it on their own shoulders and decide that such a feature is 1) of little real-world benefit and 2) difficult/impossible to implement on a canal boat. So they decide that its omission is inconsequential and "sign it off" as compliant anyway. IF there were a third party inspecting or certifying it AND they found issue with it then there would be a problem (ie no sign off or failed check) BUT because its a simple self-declaration, there does not exist a problem until someone challenges it and the compliance is nullified or reversed. A simple "I can see there isn't a hatch" is too simplistic, you must look at the broader picture and see if the number of non-compliances deem it worthwhile to go through the whole process of anulling the certification.

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

One example of a customer finding their Steel Narrowboat (Not a GRP sea-going boat) was not fitted with what the manual said it was fitted with - it turned out that the manufacturers did not even have all the specifications to know what was required, and had borrowed an owners manual and copied it to suit his own boats.

 

 

 

Hughes admitted to failing to use safety glass in the windows of two doors; that the solid fuel stove had not been bolted to the floor and that he had altered the provision for reboarding without updating his technical documentation.

The court found him guilty on several other counts: ........................

 

Hughes eventually settled out of court with his customer.

The whole business ultimately put Deeside Narrowboats some £30,000 out of pocket and his customer £10,000.

 

An out of court settlement doesn't really prove anything, but well done for finding the example.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So, If VW say there cars are 'emission legislation' compliant we should just believe them ?

 

The legislation surrounding cars is MUCH more detailed and rigorous. The dieselgate case is different because VW admitted there was an infringement in the rules (some time after the EPA served a notice of violation - which means the EPA believes an infringement has occurred but is not a final determination of liability in itself).

 

If a narrowboat manufacturer got into a situation where someone challenged them and they admitted it wasn't compliant (as in your above example, with the out of court settlement being a strong factor), then its not. But - precisely because its a self-cert process - until they do that, or some kind of legal nullification of that certificate occurs, then it IS compliant.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

 

Were you not required to provide the paperwork when you imported your yacht?

 

 

 

No. Just proof of VAT payment.

[Paul C]

 

 

ETA let me use a motoring analogy just as you have done. I hesitate to do this, because they are often not directly comparable and its easy to draw misleading conclusions, but anyway...

 

Let's say a car buyer buys an old secondhand car with a fresh MoT from a car dealer. Then they notice some corrosion on the sills. Them noticing the corrosion, doesn't nullify the MoT, no matter how bad it is. It would be necessary to go through the process of ensuring no repairs are done, contacting the DVSA (within the time period), then maybe having it re-inspected and the resulting pass/fail will then nullify or reinforce the previous MoT result.

 

All the while, the car may well have been unroadworthy (a legalese way of saying this might be that a successful prosecution under the Road Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations took place in Court; or a suitably trained and qualified DSVA Traffic Examiner issued a prohibition notice or VDRN).

Edited December 24, 2022 by Paul C

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Not necessarily, because a manufacturer may take it on their own shoulders and decide that such a feature is 1) of little real-world benefit and 2) difficult/impossible to implement on a canal boat. So they decide that its omission is inconsequential and "sign it off" as compliant anyway. IF there were a third party inspecting or certifying it AND they found issue with it then there would be a problem (ie no sign off or failed check) BUT because its a simple self-declaration, there does not exist a problem until someone challenges it and the compliance is nullified or reversed. A simple "I can see there isn't a hatch" is too simplistic, you must look at the broader picture and see if the number of non-compliances deem it worthwhile to go through the whole process of anulling the certification.

 

You appear to have a very strange understanding of legislation - you cannot just decide that something is not relevant so do not include it in the build, but then sign a legal document saying it is fully compliant with everything built in that should be built in.

 

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

An out of court settlement doesn't really prove anything, but well done for finding the example.

 

 

The builder was found guilty in court and fined, 

 

The magistrates accepted that the breaches were at the lower end of the scale, but that the regulations are in place to ensure the safety of boat users - the bench had a serious concern at the lack of a quality check system. Billy Hughes was fined & is now a criminal

 

This was insufficient for the boat owner who appealled, and the appeal was settled out of court with it then costing the builder £30,000

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The builder was found guilty in court and fined, 

 

 

Which court? County Court level?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

 

ETA let me use a motoring analogy just as you have done. I hesitate to do this, because they are often not directly comparable and its easy to draw misleading conclusions, but anyway...

 

Let's say a car buyer buys an old secondhand car with a fresh MoT from a car dealer. Then they notice some corrosion on the sills. Them noticing the corrosion, doesn't nullify the MoT, no matter how bad it is. It would be necessary to go through the process of ensuring no repairs are done, contacting the DVSA (within the time period), then maybe having it re-inspected and the resulting pass/fail will then nullify or reinforce the previous MoT result.

 

 

But the MOT (and its failure) is a direct comparison the the BSS.

 

The RCD is analogous to the construction regulations that the motor manufacturer builds to, and, if the car has a replacement engine fitted then the documents are amended with the new engine serial number.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Which court? County Court level?

 

I have no idea - the report is in 'Boating Business' magazine if you wish to do further research into the source.

[Paul C]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I have no idea - the report is in 'Boating Business' magazine if you wish to do further research into the source.

 

No, I'll assume its County Court level and remind you that judgements there don't set a precedent. So where I previously said "An out of court settlement doesn't really prove anything", I'll expand it to "An out of court settlement doesn't really prove anything, but a single court case at County Court level only proves that particular case and no others".

[Barneyp]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

No, I'll assume its County Court level and remind you that judgements there don't set a precedent. So where I previously said "An out of court settlement doesn't really prove anything", I'll expand it to "An out of court settlement doesn't really prove anything, but a single court case at County Court level only proves that particular case and no others".

Surely one single case, even at county court, proves that at a legal hearing it was deemed to be a legal requirement to comply with the RCD legislation.

 

And given the builder then paid £30,000 to settle the appeal out of court, there is a good chance he was advised that he was likely to lose in court. 

 

 

[Momac]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No. Just proof of VAT payment.

I guess that would be because the UK was  still in the EU at the time and you imported it from a EU country?

But if you imported it now it could be required to have evidence of  RCR compliance at the date of import . This can be a challenge regarding engine emissions for example.

 

But buying/selling a used boat already in the UK and to remain in the UK is a non event really .

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

OK, lets take an example I quoted earlier in the thread :

 

The RCR requires that fuek tanks have a 150mm 'access hatch' built ino the fuel tank.

 

The manufacturer certifies the boat is RCR complaint.

 

I take delivery of the boat and see there is no 'fuel tank inspection hatch fitted'

 

Do I need to be qualified to see if there is a fuel inspection hatch ?

Did the manufacturer make a fraudulent declaration ?

 

 

And does anyone give a monkey's chuff except for you? 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

And does anyone give a monkey's chuff except for you? 

 

 

 

 

It matters 'not a jot' to me - as you well know from previous discussions I have bought boats without the necessary documentation, but I bought them knowing what the situation is.

 

You cannot make an informed decision without knowing the facts (The actual facts - not what you wish them to be). The OP ( @NF71 )

asked what paperwork she should be looking for and that question has been answered.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Momac]

Buyers of lumpy water boats are interested in seeing the original paperwork but I agree it's not really a thing in the case of narrowboats unless one of the few that wish to go to mainland Europe. I believe in mainland Europe the authorities are more active than in the UK.

No one in authority checks on the RCR documentation if the boat is built and remains in the UK.

No one in authority (eg. HMRC) used to check the RCR documentation  if a boat moved countries within the EU as evidenced by Alan.

So really for the vast majority of narrowboats RCR is only relevant when the boat is new but might be of interest to Alan and  some other like minded buyers of used boats.

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by MartynG

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Edit to add - Here is part of it :

 

Where the product has been assessed by an EU Notified Body, manufacturers must continue to use the CE marking for products and can continue to place those products on the GB market until 31 December 2021.

So anyone selling a boat built under the old EU RCR rules could place that on the GB market until 31 December 2021 (i.e. a year ago).  So what happens when the owner of such a boat wants to sell it on as a used boat. Are you saying it can no longer legally be sold in GB? Because that is the implication if "placed on the GB market" includes used boat sales.

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

So anyone selling a boat built under the old EU RCR rules could place that on the GB market until 31 December 2021 (i.e. a year ago).  So what happens when the owner of such a boat wants to sell it on as a used boat. Are you saying it can no longer legally be sold in GB? Because that is the implication if "placed on the GB market" includes used boat sales.

That's clearly not an issue with boats already in the UK and to remain in the UK as many used boats have been sold in 2022 and  we  would have heard if there was an issue.

But if you import a used boat it must comply with the RCR at the date it is imported.