I am desperate to get a marine engineer to service my engine

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Tacet said:

But it doesn't say the BSC becomes automatically invalid, in such circumstances.

 

If it did, would it immediately be revalidated when it becomes compliant again?  Or is another examination required?

 

And at what level of non- compliance does the BSC become invalid? If an essential gas pipe clip breaks and is fixed a week later, is it without a valid BSC for that week, for all time or is that defect below some undisclosed threshold?

 

In my estimation, unless the BSC is more formally withdrawn, it remains as such it is just that the vessel is non-compliant and quite possibly seriously or dangerously so.

 

 

You are at liberty to intepret the BSS 'note' in which ever way you wish, but unless it coincides with the BSS interpretation you may find that you could have invalidated your BSS, which could have a knock-on effect on having your insurance cover removed, and hence your licence.

[Tony Brooks]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

You are at liberty to intepret the BSS 'note' in which ever way you wish, but unless it coincides with the BSS interpretation you may find that you could have invalidated your BSS, which could have a knock-on effect on having your insurance cover removed, and hence your licence.

 

Which is why it is vital that the OP ensures he understands the BSS and licensing rules, and satisfies himself that his boat complies - that is unless, as someone suggested, he is not on CaRT or an EA as navigation authority water.

[David Mack]

As with the MoT test the BSC result is only valid on the day of the inspection. Subsequent changes may mean the boat is no longer compliant, but most people only need the certificate, which is valid for 4 years, to license the boat. If an incident occurs, questions might be asked after the event about the ongoing compliance, but otherwise who bothers? Are there any documented examples of Boat Safety Certificates being withdrawn before the 4 years are up?

[ditchcrawler]

50 minutes ago, Tacet said:

 In my estimation, unless the BSC is more formally withdrawn, it remains as such it is just that the vessel is non-compliant and quite possibly seriously or dangerously so.

But who would know, its down to the owner.

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But who would know, its down to the owner.

 

Quite so. 

 

There is a world of difference between a boat being unlicenced, and it having a licence which has been invisibly (to CRT) invalidated due to subsequent changes to the boat. 

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

But who would know, its down to the owner.

 

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Quite so. 

 

There is a world of difference between a boat being unlicenced, and it having a licence which has been invisibly (to CRT) invalidated due to subsequent changes to the boat. 

 

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

As with the MoT test the BSC result is only valid on the day of the inspection. Subsequent changes may mean the boat is no longer compliant, but most people only need the certificate, which is valid for 4 years, to license the boat. If an incident occurs, questions might be asked after the event about the ongoing compliance, but otherwise who bothers? Are there any documented examples of Boat Safety Certificates being withdrawn before the 4 years are up?

Alan's opinion is that the BSC is already invalid - albeit unbeknown to even the BSS people etc.  Rather oddly, he can't find chapter-and-verse nor give an indication of the threshold that triggers secret invalidation.

 

The vessel would not, from what we have seen, currently properly obtain a BSC.  It may well infringe other regulations or contractual terms or just be plain dangerous.  But my view is that (assuming it has an unexpired one already) it has not had its BSC withdrawn until, at least, someone in authority takes steps. 

[LadyG]

On 13/08/2023 at 16:39, howardang said:

Exactly my point, and while I am sympathetic to the  dilemma of the OP I suggest that this is not the sort of problem boat that can be put right by picking brains on a forum such as this, despite the undoubted accumulated knowledge that can be found here.  Tony Brooks makes a point about the boat in question  - "  I suspect the boat may be well known in the local area and that is why the OP can't get anyone to show interest." I think he may well be correct. 

 

We might be more helpful if we could suggest someone who could go to the boat and see the issues involved, rather than plucking up helpful technical solutions out of thin air. 

 

Howard

I suggested earlier that he phone some local boatyards, he says he has tried a few people, possibly not the right people. 

[Alan de Enfield]

38 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Alan's opinion is that the BSC is already invalid - albeit unbeknown to even the BSS people etc.  Rather oddly, he can't find chapter-and-verse nor give an indication of the threshold that triggers secret invalidation.

 

 

Why would I know what the 'chapter & verse' is, the only knowledge that I have is what the BSS state on their certificates (which is there for everyone to see)

If you are that worried then you could always ask the BSS what their 'trigger point is' and how it is monitored or enforced.

 

My boats have always been maintained in excess of the BSS requireents to I have never been involved in the 'enforcement' process.

For the last year (since my BSS expired) I have not had a BSS certificate.

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

My boats have always been maintained in excess of the BSS requireents to I have never been involved in the 'enforcement' process.

And I'm sure many (but not all) boatowners do the same, particularly when making changes to the boat. But over the 4-year life of a BSC deterioration can occur and may go unnoticed meaning that something formerly compliant is no longer so. It is to pick up such things that the BSC has to be renewed periodically. And so it necessarily follows that some boats won't be 100% compliant for the full 4 years. Otherwise there would be no need for periodic rechecking!

As far as I can see there is no 'enforcement' process.

[Tony Brooks]

20 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I suggested earlier that he phone some local boatyards, he says he has tried a few people, possibly not the right people. 

 

There are not that many local boatyards to him. Possibly two in Newbury and one maybe 8 miles down the canal at Froudes Bridge. Then Alvechurch at Aldermaston, then the Thames yards and marinas with Thames prices. He may well have to take the boat to them for the tank work because it might need parts glassing in.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Tacet said:

But it doesn't say the BSC becomes automatically invalid, in such circumstances.

 

If it did, would it immediately be revalidated when it becomes compliant again?  Or is another examination required?

 

And at what level of non- compliance does the BSC become invalid? If an essential gas pipe clip breaks and is fixed a week later, is it without a valid BSC for that week, for all time or is that defect below some undisclosed threshold?

 

In my estimation, unless the BSC is more formally withdrawn, it remains as such it is just that the vessel is non-compliant and quite possibly seriously or dangerously so.

That interpretation, that a BSC becomes invalid, is self evidently nonsense, as, if it were so, every change in the regs (which, to put it mildly, are both constant and unpublicised) would mean that every single boat would have to be assumed uncompliant and immediately retested.

For example, when they brought in the requirement for a CO monitor, evey boat without one, probably the majority, would at once be a BSC fail, uninsured and with an invalid licence. Even for something as pointless as the BSC, that's simply ridiculous, and even Alan, with his love of clickbait stirring, should be able to see that.

In practice, it's the same as an MOT, which is obviously the concept it was based on. Any other view is illogical and any official statements to the contrary (as with illegal t&cs) would be thrown out of court.

[LadyG]

18 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

There are not that many local boatyards to him. Possibly two in Newbury and one maybe 8 miles down the canal at Froudes Bridge. Then Alvechurch at Aldermaston, then the Thames yards and marinas with Thames prices. He may well have to take the boat to them for the tank work because it might need parts glassing in.

Exactly.

Edited August 15, 2023 by LadyG

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

For example, when they brought in the requirement for a CO monitor, evey boat without one, probably the majority, would at once be a BSC fail, uninsured and with an invalid licence.

 

Steady Tiger your anti-establishment leanings are showing.

 

If you try and remember, there was an introductory date (some years ahead) given for when the CO alarms were to be installed and that they would start being checked at the boats next BSS examination.

 

It did not say "from tommorow CO alarms must be fitted and if not your BSS in invalid". 

 

I am no fan of the BSS, but at least acknowledge what they actually say rather than what you think they may have said.

[Paul C]

On 14/08/2023 at 14:18, Alan de Enfield said:

 

............. 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; ..............

 

I think what they're saying, in a very sloppy and poorly written way is: If you have a BSS exam, then alter the boat (or don't maintain it) in a clearly non-compliant way, then if it had another BSS exam it could fail. The whole point of the exam is that a boat is checked (by an apparently competent examiner) then its issued a certificate which is valid for 4 years, ie it doesn't need checking again for 4 years. You can't just willy-nilly say "oh, that certificate is invalid because the boat wasn't properly maintained". The BSS pass is still a BSS pass (and still administratively counts, for application of a licence, if an insurance clause requires it, etc) but it might not be "valid", whatever an invalid BSS pass means.

 

A good corollary is an MoT test, then a boy-racer (for example) does a decat, or puts wider wheels which poke out of the bodywork, on the car. Indeed they might keep a set of wheels and tyres to one side "just for the MoT". The daft mods are unroadworthy, but the car still has MoT. Two different things. Just like, a boater might clear out the gas locker for the test, then put back the mains hookup lead on top of the bottles.

[Peanut]

The boy racer may have an MOT  valid the day it was issued, but may find his insurers disclaim him when he has a crash, unless he has informed them of the changes, and they have agreed to them.

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Why would I know what the 'chapter & verse' is, the only knowledge that I have is what the BSS state on their certificates (which is there for everyone to see)

If you are that worried then you could always ask the BSS what their 'trigger point is' and how it is monitored or enforced.

 

My boats have always been maintained in excess of the BSS requireents to I have never been involved in the 'enforcement' process.

For the last year (since my BSS expired) I have not had a BSS certificate.

Surely there is no "Threshold" ether it complies or it doesn't.

Up to 4 years ago if the gauze was missing from the diesel tank vent it would fail, the examiner wouldn't give you a certificate and you couldn't licence your boat, likewise with a label on your fuel filler.

You are expected to keep your boat complainant for the 4 years. What I don't know is whether the navigation authorities have the powers to enter your boat and examine it for compliance if they suspect it no longer complies.

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

What I don't know is whether the navigation authorities have the powers to enter your boat and examine it for compliance if they suspect it no longer complies.

 

Yes they (C&RT) do, but the question is still "how would they know?"

 

(9)Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent.

 

(10)Section 3 (Construction and equipment of vessels) of the Act of 1983 shall cease to have effect.

 

(11)(a)The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

(b)Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the Board shall not withhold their consent under this subsection to the movement or use of a vessel for the purpose of taking it to a place where it may be repaired or modified so as to comply with the standards applicable to it, or for the purpose of taking the vessel to be destroyed, unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property.

(c)Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section 7 (Control of unsafe vessels) of the Act of 1983.

 

 

And again from the 1983 Act

 

 

7.—(1) (a) For the purposes of this section—

 

PART!! (i) a vessel is unsafe if its condition is such as to constitute a danger to persons on board the vessel, to other persons, control of or to any property; unsafe vessels.

 

(ii) references to the condition of a vessel include references to the condition of the engines, appliances, fittings and equipment thereof;

 

(iii) "defect" means any defect by reason of which a vessel is unsafe; and

 

(iv) "officer" means a duly authorised officer of the Board. (b) An officer acting in exercise of the powers of this section shall produce written evidence of his authority if required to do so.

 

(2) (a) An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any vessel on any inland waterway or on any reservoir owned or managed by the Board for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.

 

(b) An officer shall not enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection unless—

(i) not less than 24 hours' notice of such entry has been given to the master of the vessel; or

(ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.

 

(3) Where in the opinion of an officer who inspects a vessel under the powers of this section the vessel is unsafe, he shall give to the master of the vessel and to the owner (if different) a notice—

(a) containing details of the defects and of the measures required to remedy them;

(b) stating that, except in any case where the defects are, immediately following the inspection, remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the officer who has inspected the vessel, the further movement or use of the vessel otherwise than in accordance with any requirement of the notice or with the consent, or under the direction, of an officer shall be prohibited until a certificate has been issued by the Board stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe;

(c) requiring the owner of the vessel to remedy the defects by a date (which shall be not less than three months from the date of the notice) and to notify the Board in writing within that period of the steps taken to remedy the defects;

Edited August 15, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

50 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes they (C&RT) do, but the question is still "how would they know?"

 

(9)Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent.

 

(10)Section 3 (Construction and equipment of vessels) of the Act of 1983 shall cease to have effect.

 

(11)(a)The refusal or withdrawal by the Board of a relevant consent in respect of any vessel on the grounds that the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to that vessel shall not preclude the movement or use of the vessel with the consent of the Board (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) and subject to such reasonable conditions (if any) as they may determine.

(b)Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the Board shall not withhold their consent under this subsection to the movement or use of a vessel for the purpose of taking it to a place where it may be repaired or modified so as to comply with the standards applicable to it, or for the purpose of taking the vessel to be destroyed, unless such movement or use would give rise to the risk of obstruction or danger to navigation or to persons or property.

(c)Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section 7 (Control of unsafe vessels) of the Act of 1983.

 

 

And again from the 1983 Act

 

 

7.—(1) (a) For the purposes of this section—

 

PART!! (i) a vessel is unsafe if its condition is such as to constitute a danger to persons on board the vessel, to other persons, control of or to any property; unsafe vessels.

 

(ii) references to the condition of a vessel include references to the condition of the engines, appliances, fittings and equipment thereof;

 

(iii) "defect" means any defect by reason of which a vessel is unsafe; and

 

(iv) "officer" means a duly authorised officer of the Board. (b) An officer acting in exercise of the powers of this section shall produce written evidence of his authority if required to do so.

 

(2) (a) An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any vessel on any inland waterway or on any reservoir owned or managed by the Board for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.

 

(b) An officer shall not enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection unless—

(i) not less than 24 hours' notice of such entry has been given to the master of the vessel; or

(ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.

 

(3) Where in the opinion of an officer who inspects a vessel under the powers of this section the vessel is unsafe, he shall give to the master of the vessel and to the owner (if different) a notice—

(a) containing details of the defects and of the measures required to remedy them;

(b) stating that, except in any case where the defects are, immediately following the inspection, remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the officer who has inspected the vessel, the further movement or use of the vessel otherwise than in accordance with any requirement of the notice or with the consent, or under the direction, of an officer shall be prohibited until a certificate has been issued by the Board stating that the vessel is no longer unsafe;

(c) requiring the owner of the vessel to remedy the defects by a date (which shall be not less than three months from the date of the notice) and to notify the Board in writing within that period of the steps taken to remedy the defects;

Some boats just look as if there is no chance of a BSS even gas bottles standing on the cruiser deck show it doesn't comply. Bit like a MOT, if you give your mate his wheels and tyres back and lend the wiper blades to a friend, who knows unless you get pulled up.

[haggis]

I don't really know but I suspect that if an insurance claim is made the company might like to see that the relevant ( to the claim) bits of the BSS are being complied with. 

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Steady Tiger your anti-establishment leanings are showing.

 

If you try and remember, there was an introductory date (some years ahead) given for when the CO alarms were to be installed and that they would start being checked at the boats next BSS examination.

 

It did not say "from tommorow CO alarms must be fitted and if not your BSS in invalid". 

 

I am no fan of the BSS, but at least acknowledge what they actually say rather than what you think they may have said.

Not anti-establishment particularly, depends on each one! You're missing the point, though.

It doesn't matter how much notice they give, a boat has its certificate until, at a test, it fails and doesn't. After that point, of course, both the licence and insurance are still valid, because you have time to correct the fails - so even then a non-compliant boat is still legally on the water. If the date for introducing the monitor is the 1st if May and your test isn't until two years later, your insurance and licence are perfectly valid without a monitor until the test date.

Any other argument is , as I said illogical, or every boat would have to be tested on that hypothetical 1st of May.

2 minutes ago, haggis said:

I don't really know but I suspect that if an insurance claim is made the company might like to see that the relevant ( to the claim) bits of the BSS are being complied with. 

But tricky if your boat's caught fire or sunk!

[haggis]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

But tricky if your boat's caught fire or sunk!

True, but often the cause of fire or sinking is investigated .

[Tacet]

Farmer Jones might return too.