I know there must be a thread in here, somewhere. But I can not find it. SO ! My question - ignoring the hassle/time finding

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The state won’t bring a prosecution because somebody didn’t comply but there was no resulting consequence; but if somebody were to die or be injured then that’s the evidence required that could lead to successful prosecution.

 

That’s how H&S laws are enforced.

 

Like Manslaughter Family of Windermere boat death victims blast sentence after gas fitter Matthew Eteson walks free | The Westmorland Gazette

[Tony Brooks]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Are you saying you think liability (if the is any) passes from owner to owner? I think Alan is saying it remains with the builder for ever.

 

If a boat is in some way unsafe, then as I see it there are two potential, note "potential" targets, for legal action. The builder for RCR/RCD infringements and the vendor for selling the boat with such deficiencies. How willing an individual is to accept such risks, however unlikely, is up to them.

[Pauls816]

Morning, Everyone 

Thank you to everyone that has replied, I really appreciate all the feedback thoughts and answers.

Many many thanks indeed ! And I have my answer.

 

Best and have great days.

 

Pauls816

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

If a boat is in some way unsafe, then as I see it there are two potential, note "potential" targets, for legal action. The builder for RCR/RCD infringements and the vendor for selling the boat with such deficiencies. How willing an individual is to accept such risks, however unlikely, is up to them.

The vendor of second hand goods generally has no liability for their condition unless there has been misrepresentation. Its a case of caveat emptor. So I cannot see how any purchaser could bring a case.

[plato]

It’s a minefield for sure. I recently sold my boat and although the broker asked for RCD paperwork, I didn’t have any .

To give this some context I was the third owner of the boat but the fit out had never been completed and what was there was like an unfinished shed. I completely gutted it re- fitted it and owned it for 10 years before I sold it. 
when I spoke to the original boat builder about RCD compliance he said as I was the last person to put a screw in it I was responsible.

But there is no trail of proof the 1st owner now lives in Ecuador. If challenged about it I could just say the first guy fitted it out and there’s very little they could do to prove otherwise.

my comment about the RCD scheme being toothless relates to a couple who had paid 80k for a widebeam ( this was a while ago) it was fitted out by a chancer who wasn’t qualified in any way to fit out a boat.

He sold the boat to them with no RCD telling them it needed a couple of grand spent on it to finish it off. 
When they took it to the boatyard to get it “completed” the extremely shoddy fit out came to light….. 50k later they had the boat they thought they’d paid for.

The boatyard advised them to report the person they’d bought the boat from to the RCD people ,they made a note of it and didn’t take any further action ! Hence my toothless comment.

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The vendor of second hand goods generally has no liability for their condition unless there has been misrepresentation. Its a case of caveat emptor. So I cannot see how any purchaser could bring a case.

 

 

There are examples of such cases for narrowboats & that have gone to court.

 

A buyer of a new build accepted the boat (built and signed off as being  in compliance to the RCD - it was the RCD at the time) and found a list of non compliances, complained, builder said 'tough' went to court - they won.

 

Wrong glass in the windows (not safety glass)

There was no means of boarding - 'man overboard' (which was stated in the manual as existing)

The stove was not fixed down

Muliple errors in the owners manual (it turned out they had simply copied a manual from another builder)

+ others that I cannot remember.

 

There are the full details on the 'Boating Business' website but you have to be a paid up member to access "Premium Content"

 

It bankrupted the builder who had to close the business.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A buyer of a new build accepted the boat (built and signed off as being  in compliance to the RCD - it was the RCD at the time) and found a list of non compliances, complained, builder said 'tough' went to court - they won.

 

 

In this example, you're saying that the builder won the case? Which, if the boat complied with the RCD at the time, seems reasonable.

 

 

[plato]

That’s good to hear.

I’m taking delivery of my new sailaway boat next week and will definitely be getting all the  right compliance in place. 

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There are examples of such cases for narrowboats & that have gone to court.

 

A buyer of a new build accepted the boat (built and signed off as being  in compliance to the RCD - it was the RCD at the time) and found a list of non compliances, complained, builder said 'tough' went to court - they won.

 

Wrong glass in the windows (not safety glass)

There was no means of boarding - 'man overboard' (which was stated in the manual as existing)

The stove was not fixed down

Muliple errors in the owners manual (it turned out they had simply copied a manual from another builder)

+ others that I cannot remember.

 

There are the full details on the 'Boating Business' website but you have to be a paid up member to access "Premium Content"

 

It bankrupted the builder who had to close the business.

 

So that was a court action for misrepresentation then, it appears, i.e. the builder claiming the boat was something it wasn't.

 

Or was it Trading Standards Dept enforcing compliance with RCD?

 

"Gone to Court" is a woolly and meaningless term in this context. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

In this example, you're saying that the builder won the case? Which, if the boat complied with the RCD at the time, seems reasonable.

 

 

 

 

The boat did not comply, the buyer / owner , won the case, the builder closed the business.

 

 

57 minutes ago, MtB said:

Or was it Trading Standards Dept enforcing compliance with RCD?

 

The buyers raised it with trading standards, Trading Standards took the builder to court for RCD non-compliance, the builder was fined and closed the business.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[manxmike]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

In this example, you're saying that the builder won the case? Which, if the boat complied with the RCD at the time, seems reasonable.

 

 

I read that as the buyer won - the builder was bankrupted!

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, manxmike said:

I read that as the buyer won - the builder was bankrupted!

 

Ahhh........ someone who actually reads what is written, not what they would like it to say.

[Higgs]

43 minutes ago, manxmike said:

I read that as the buyer won - the builder was bankrupted!

 

Ok. I got the wrong end of the stick. 

 

[Tony Brooks]

2 hours ago, manxmike said:

I read that as the buyer won - the builder was bankrupted!

 

The one I heard about, the builder liquidated before the final judgement, so the customer got nothing but the satisfaction of knowing they "won".

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

The one I heard about, the builder liquidated before the final judgement, so the customer got nothing but the satisfaction of knowing they "won".

 

The one I mentioned was a North Wales 'ish' NB builder, he did pay up, and it wasn't a huge fine, he just couldn't continue as paying the fine bankrupted him.

[Tacet]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A buyer of a new build accepted the boat (built and signed off as being  in compliance to the RCD - it was the RCD at the time) and found a list of non compliances, complained, builder said 'tough' went to court - they won.

 

Wrong glass in the windows (not safety glass)

There was no means of boarding - 'man overboard' (which was stated in the manual as existing)

The stove was not fixed down

Muliple errors in the owners manual (it turned out they had simply copied a manual from another builder)

+ others that I cannot remember.

 

 

Means of reboarding is within the scope of RCR but nothing about safety glass in windows https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/schedule/1/made

 

Are you quite sure the builder was prosecuted for falling foul of the RCR in this respect?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Means of reboarding is within the scope of RCR but nothing about safety glass in windows https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/737/schedule/1/made

 

Are you quite sure the builder was prosecuted for falling foul of the RCR in this respect?

 

 

Well it was actually the RCD (pre the 2016 vote) and yes - pretty sure - that was one of the features he was picked up on.

 

Your link is to the UK RCR regulations post 2017.

 

Without access to the original case I can speculate that IT MAY HAVE BEEN that the 'standard window glass' was considered not to meet ...........................

 

 

Section 4. The products referred to in section 2(1) may be made available or put into service only if they do not endanger the health and safety of persons, property or the environment

 

** Section 2(1) is "Recreational craft and partly completed recreational craft"

Edited November 2, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There are examples of such cases for narrowboats & that have gone to court.

 

A buyer of a new build accepted the boat (built and signed off as being  in compliance to the RCD - it was the RCD at the time) and found a list of non compliances, complained, builder said 'tough' went to court - they won.

 

Wrong glass in the windows (not safety glass)

There was no means of boarding - 'man overboard' (which was stated in the manual as existing)

The stove was not fixed down

Muliple errors in the owners manual (it turned out they had simply copied a manual from another builder)

+ others that I cannot remember.

 

There are the full details on the 'Boating Business' website but you have to be a paid up member to access "Premium Content"

 

It bankrupted the builder who had to close the business.

That was a case involving the sale of a new boat by a boatbuilder. I was specifically referring to the sale of a second hand boat without RCD paperwork, and where the vendor has not claimed the boat is compliant. I still don't see how in such a case the purchaser would have any claim against the vendor, which is what was asserted earlier in the thread.

[Alan de Enfield]

58 minutes ago, David Mack said:

That was a case involving the sale of a new boat by a boatbuilder. I was specifically referring to the sale of a second hand boat without RCD paperwork, and where the vendor has not claimed the boat is compliant. I still don't see how in such a case the purchaser would have any claim against the vendor, which is what was asserted earlier in the thread.

 

I agree, any claim is against the builder - the problems start when 'work' has been done subsequently to the 'builder' finishing the boat.

 

This thread, and the OPs question was regarding fitting out a 'sailaway' and that is what I have tried to reply to.

 

Under the latest regs there are now 'kinda' two builders of 'sailaways'.

As the hull (at whatever sailaway level) is a commercial sale to buyer the Hull (at whatever level) is now classed as a finished boat and requires full RCD documentation to that level - previously it only had an Annex III paperwork stating it was being sold to another for completion. The new owner / fitter then becomes the 'second' builder and should complete and certify the final (completed) build.

 

Previously an Annex lll(a) Declaration of Conformity required:

1: Name and address of boat builder

2: A description of the partly completed craft

3) A statement that the craft is to be completed by others and that it complies with the essential requirements that apply at this stage of construction

 

Due to the lack of definition of ‘partly completed’ it meant the Annex lll(a) could be issued repeatedly if the narrow boat changed hands several times but never completed. This had a potential loophole whereby the narrowboat was never fully compliant with the Directive.

 

The new Directive in 2017 has effectively put an end to Sailaway boats (completed to all variety of levels) being supplied with an Annex lll(a) Declaration as was previously possible under Directive 94/25/EU. Under the new Directive (2013/53/EU) Sailaways (including hull only) would need to be supplied as completed craft.

Therefore for anyone purchasing a narrow boat sailaway from 18th January 2017 must ensure they have the necessary paperwork from your boat builder that is required of a ‘completed’ craft up to the current point of completion, this includes:

1: A builders plate – makers details and technical information

2: A CE mark

3: A Craft or Hull Identification Number (CIN or HIN) – it is carried in two places on the boat; one should be hidden for security.

4) An owners manual with information needed to use and maintain the boat safety

5: A declaration of conformity (DoC)

 

A CE marked craft shows the craft is compliant when it was placed on the market for the first time. It remains valid unless a major alteration to the craft takes place which would require a re-assessment of the craft.

 

Recommendations :

 

‘Major Craft Conversion’ would be applicable to the fit out of the majority of sailaway boats, and needs to be factored in when planning your fit out. Once you have completed the fit out of your sailway boat, the boat would require a Post Construction Assessment and the documentation, builders plate and CE markings all need to be updated. Although a self assessment is possible, it is not recommended as the fitter would resume all responsibility as the manufacturer and it is also a lengthy and involved process. In the worse case scenario, it could mean you are held criminally responsible if the boat sank and there was loss of life. It is recommended that you appoint a professional to complete the post construction assessment, this would be at of cost of around £2000.