Boat Safety Certificate

[Bargebuilder]

Just now, Momac said:

I expect it could be a reason for insurers to decline a claim or to pay out and  seek a recovery from you 

But Basic Boat are happy to insure lumpy water boats that don't have a BSS and for no additional premium.

[Momac]

5 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

But Basic Boat are happy to insure lumpy water boats that don't have a BSS and for no additional premium.

That's up to them .  I haven't read their policy conditions . Have you?

If they say you have to comply with local regulations then that could mean many things. A salty water boat could have different regulations to meet compared to an inland waterways boat . eg have a working vhf radio or have  at least two persons on board. But no BSS  and no license is required .

 

If you wan't to let your BSS lapse that's up to you. Nothing bad may happen.

 

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Bargebuilder said:

I don't know if CRT benefit financially from the BSS system, but it has always seemed like a bit of a gravy train to me for little benefit to the boat owner. After all, lumpy water boaters, of which there are many, seem to cope very well in potentially a much more dangerous environment without one.

Yes they do benefit from it

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Yes they do benefit from it

 

Seeing as they are part owners of the BSS.

 

The governance of the BSS has recently changed.

 

 

 

The Canal & River Trust, Environment Agency, Broads Authority, and the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities have announced governance changes to the BSS whereby a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, called Boat Safety Scheme Limited is incorporated to take on the work of the existing Scheme from 1 April 2024.
The Scheme’s structure remains unchanged, with all income returned into the running costs and continuing the safety improvements brought about by the Scheme since its inception in 1995 by British Waterways (now the Canal & River Trust) and the National Rivers Authority (now the Environment Agency, a non-departmental public body).

Edited August 1 by Alan de Enfield

[Bargebuilder]

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

Yes they do benefit from it

The training scheme to become an examiner, I understand, is hugely expensive, so the trainers certainly benefit.

[Rob-M]

13 hours ago, PeterF said:

CRT seem to check BSS and insurance expiry dates now when you try to book any passages on line such as Frankton locks etc and will not allow you to make the booking if out of date. I recall someone else being refused a booking by telephone as their insurance date on the CRT records had not been updated.

We had this problem trying to book Harecastle tunnel in advance but the date was for the day after our insurance would have expired so I just changed the year online and was able to book but if it had been the BSS I wouldn't have been able to do that.

Edited August 2 by Rob-M
Remove duplicate post

[Momac]

53 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

The training scheme to become an examiner, I understand, is hugely expensive, so the trainers certainly benefit.

I doubt the trainers pay details are publically available. 

The training fees are indeed very high (About £6000+VAT= £7200 in 2023). Plus a serious time commitment for the training. But it seems there are enough examiners since there are no new examiners being trained in 2024.

 

Plus every certificate issued requires a fee of £60+VAT=£72  to be paid to the BSS. Plus the examiner pays an annual fee of £250+VAT=£300.

 

Edited August 2 by Momac

[Bargebuilder]

2 minutes ago, Momac said:

I doubt the trainers pay details are publically available. 

The training fees are indeed very high (About £6000+VAT= £7200 in 2023). Plus a serious time commitment for the training. Nut it seems there are enough examiners since there are no new examiners being trained in 2024.

 

Plus every certificate issued requires a fee of £60+VAT=£72  to be paid to the BSS. Plus the examiner pays an annual fee of £250+VAT=£300.

 

There is certainly a gravy train there I think.

 

So the examiners, the trainers and the administrators all benefit from the scheme, but are inland waterway boats any less likely to suffer a catastrophe, or their crew less likely to be harmed than lumpy water boats?

[David Mack]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

"with all income returned into the running costs and continuing the safety improvements brought about by the Scheme since its inception in 1995..."

That suggests the BSS is financially self supporting, but doesn't contribute any money to CRT's other activities.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

That suggests the BSS is financially self supporting, but doesn't contribute any money to CRT's other activities.

 

Agreed - as of April this year, previously they were receiving an income.

[LadyG]

I have little or no faith in the Scheme, my last examiner said he'd been told not to look at the electrics by the BSC! 

The previous examiners had issued  Certificates which I felt were likely dubious. The solid fuel stove had no kerb on the hearth, so embers would fall direct on to the floor. I remedied this after using the stove, but it is not an identifiable fail as far as I am aware. The flue had been sealed with fireclay at the deckhead, so the first day I used it,  I had to chisel this out at 2.00hours, alerted by the smell of burning paint on the deckhead.  I now have fibreglass rope and tape there instead.

I had to buy an additional fire extinguisher, (and a gas Isolator label) when I presented the boat for Certification this time around. 

As my recent examiner  was a surveyor, he presumably knew something about boats, but really, what is it this Certificate to do with the safety of those around one, which I believe was the raison d'etre of the Scheme.

I think that a fire on board would most likely be caused by a chip pan fire or failed electrics, very unlikely that such a fire would be a danger to towpath users, and most likely caused by user misuse.

There are people with generators, which seem to me to require isolation when stored, presumably not stored in a gas locker shared with gas bottles, so where should they be stored? There is little doubt that folks who have them probably hide them on the day.

Edited August 2 by LadyG

[IanD]

12 hours ago, peterboat said:

Yes they do benefit from it

Since the BSS scheme is "not-for-profit", exactly how do CART "benefit from it"?

[LadyG]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

Since the BSS scheme is "not-for-profit", exactly how do CART "benefit from it"?

The innocence of youth?

Obviously it's very easy to run huge organisations and not make a profit, ... paying the staff and management absorbs lots of income.

The CRT gain income from the scheme, plus credibility, and maybe fewer costs of rescuing fire damaged boats which have been abandoned. 

Edited August 2 by LadyG

[Bargebuilder]

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I have little or no faith in the Scheme, my last examiner said he'd been told not to look at the electrics by the BSC! 

The previous examiners had issued  Certificates which I felt were likely dubious. I had to buy an additional fire extinguisher, (and a gas Isolator label) when I presented the boat for Certification this time around.

As my recent examiner  was a surveyor, he presumably knew something about boats, but really, what is it this Certificate to do with the safety of those around one, which I believe was the raison d'etre of the Scheme.

I think that a fire on board would most likely be caused by a chip pan fire or failed electrics, very unlikely that such a fire would be a danger to towpath users, and most likely caused by user misuse.

There are people with generators, which seem to me to require isolation when stored, presumably not stored in a gas locker shared with gas bottles, so where should they be stored? There is little doubt that folks who have them probably hide them on the day.

I agree: my last two examinations lasted about 20 minutes, including lots of chatting. On several occasions, the examiners relied on my answers to their questions, rather than looking for themselves. 

 

We have a centre cockpit boat, the heater and cooker are in the forward cabin, but we were failed because we had no CO detector in the aft cabin which is separated by two metres of open air!

 

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, LadyG said:

The innocence of youth?

Obviously it's very easy to run huge organisations and not make a profit, ... paying the staff and management absorbs lots of income.

 

Which staff and management? If there are dedicated BSS people, then of course they need paying. If CART people are doing the work, then they need paying too. Where is the benefit to CART -- meaning, the organisation -- since the BSS is non-profit-making?

 

If you're complaining that the BSS scheme is useless and a waste of money, you might well be right. If you're complaining that some people are paid too much, you're probably right too.

 

None of which means that CART get any "benefit" from the BSS...

Edited August 2 by IanD

[LadyG]

10 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

I agree: my last two examinations lasted about 20 minutes, including lots of chatting. On several occasions, the examiners relied on my answers to their questions, rather than looking for themselves. 

 

We have a centre cockpit boat, the heater and cooker are in the forward cabin, but we were failed because we had no CO detector in the aft cabin which is separated by two metres of open air!

 

 

I have two CO detectors, one of which is out of date, mentioned on the BSC, but as it still functions, I keep it in the bed area in winter, it's safer than not having it!

I also have four supernumerary fire extinguishers, two of them are very old, but I am unable to dispose of them, and two of them are not ABC.

I do invert the powder type extinguishers every so often, but I think that new extinguishers are the way to go....

I have now  purchased five, that's one for every year on board. 

Edited August 2 by LadyG

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Since the BSS scheme is "not-for-profit", exactly how do CART "benefit from it"?

 

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

The innocence of youth?

Obviously it's very easy to run huge organisations and not make a profit, ... paying the staff and management absorbs lots of income.

The CRT gain income from the scheme, plus credibility, and maybe fewer costs of rescuing fire damaged boats which have been abandoned. 

 

1 hour ago, Bargebuilder said:

I agree: my last two examinations lasted about 20 minutes, including lots of chatting. On several occasions, the examiners relied on my answers to their questions, rather than looking for themselves. 

 

We have a centre cockpit boat, the heater and cooker are in the forward cabin, but we were failed because we had no CO detector in the aft cabin which is separated by two metres of open air!

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Which staff and management? If there are dedicated BSS people, then of course they need paying. If CART people are doing the work, then they need paying too. Where is the benefit to CART -- meaning, the organisation -- since the BSS is non-profit-making?

 

If you're complaining that the BSS scheme is useless and a waste of money, you might well be right. If you're complaining that some people are paid too much, you're probably right too.

 

None of which means that CART get any "benefit" from the BSS...

They get money from the BSS scheme so they benefit, actually according to my tester they get a lot of money which is why the costs have gone up dramatically 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

 

They get money from the BSS scheme so they benefit, actually according to my tester they get a lot of money which is why the costs have gone up dramatically 

 

Doesn't seem consistent with:

 

"with all income returned into the running costs and continuing the safety improvements brought about by the Scheme since its inception in 1995..."

 

Do you actually have any evidence that BSS is shovelling lots of money into CART's coffers, which is what you're implying?

 

Meaning accounts/documentation not just hearsay from a tester, who may actually know no more than you do... 😉 

 

(because you *love* hearsay, and I've been told what turned out to be complete BS from employees many times in the past...)

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, LadyG said:

I have little or no faith in the Scheme, my last examiner said he'd been told not to look at the electrics by the BSC! 

The previous examiners had issued  Certificates which I felt were likely dubious. The solid fuel stove had no kerb on the hearth, so embers would fall direct on to the floor. I remedied this after using the stove, but it is not an identifiable fail as far as I am aware. The flue had been sealed with fireclay at the deckhead, so the first day I used it,  I had to chisel this out at 2.00hours, alerted by the smell of burning paint on the deckhead.  I now have fibreglass rope and tape there instead.

I had to buy an additional fire extinguisher, (and a gas Isolator label) when I presented the boat for Certification this time around. 

As my recent examiner  was a surveyor, he presumably knew something about boats, but really, what is it this Certificate to do with the safety of those around one, which I believe was the raison d'etre of the Scheme.

I think that a fire on board would most likely be caused by a chip pan fire or failed electrics, very unlikely that such a fire would be a danger to towpath users, and most likely caused by user misuse.

There are people with generators, which seem to me to require isolation when stored, presumably not stored in a gas locker shared with gas bottles, so where should they be stored? There is little doubt that folks who have them probably hide them on the day.

Just as in the early days of MOT you are not the first to misunderstand the significance of a BSS Certificate - it simply says that the boat is assessed as compliant with the requirements of the BSS at the date of the inspection - it cannot be used as an indicator of the boat's qualities beyond that. 

 

Whilst a potential buyer will be interested to know that the boat is unlikely to be a hazard to others, they probably want to know rather ore than that.

 

If the requirements do not includes a specific feature (as, until recently it did not wrt CO monitors) then the examiner has no right to take that feature into consideration when issuing (or not) a certificate. Indeed, this forum has reported several times in the past where such did happen and that there were consequences (!)

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Doesn't seem consistent with:

 

"with all income returned into the running costs and continuing the safety improvements brought about by the Scheme since its inception in 1995..."

 

Do you actually have any evidence that BSS is shovelling lots of money into CART's coffers, which is what you're implying?

 

Meaning accounts/documentation not just hearsay from a tester, who may actually know no more than you do... 😉 

 

(because you *love* hearsay, and I've been told what turned out to be complete BS from employees many times in the past...)

I will ring Rhys and ask him, but 70 squids a certificate comes to mind, will let you know the actual cost

[cuthound]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Which staff and management?

 

One is, or used to be an active member on this forum,  Rob@BSSOffice.

 

[IanD]

51 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I will ring Rhys and ask him, but 70 squids a certificate comes to mind, will let you know the actual cost

 

There are several things going on here; the first is whether any money goes from BSS to CART, and if so how much, and what is it used for.

 

Most organisations -- including insurance companies, solicitors and many others -- charge for administrative tasks (including paperwork) because people have to spend time doing them, and they usually need digital systems in place (which have to be built and maintained) for dealing with it and recording it. The cost is not just the wage of whoever is doing the work, it's usually at least double this or more by the time business overheads and support are taken into account.

 

So if it effectively costs CART £70 per certificate to do all this and that's what BSS are paying them, they don't really have any "benefit", do they?

 

OTOH if it costs them a tenner and they're charging BSS £70, they *do* benefit.

 

Unless you (or Rhys) are privy to this kind of information -- not just your usual CART-slagging-off -- there's no way to know which one is true... 😉 

Edited August 2 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

So if it effectively costs CART £70 per certificate to do all this and that's what BSS are paying them, they don't really have any "benefit", do they?

 

Why do C&RT have any costs ?

The BSS is supposedly an independent, stand alone company whose owners just happen to be C&RT, the EA. the .......................

[Bargebuilder]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

"with all income returned into the running costs and continuing the safety improvements brought about by the Scheme since its inception in 1995.

Is there any evidence that inland waterways boats are safer today than they were in 1995, and if so, can any such improvements be contributed to the BSS?

 

We do have a 'control experiment' in that lumpy water boats have never been subject to this examination.

 

Lots of people make money out of the scheme, examiners, their trainers, everyone employed in administration and possibly the CRT. We know that they all benefit, but do we?

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Why do C&RT have any costs ?

The BSS is supposedly an independent, stand alone company whose owners just happen to be C&RT, the EA. the .......................

It was my understanding that the £70 paid for the BSS computers, office space, people working in the office and people coming up with reasons why we need CO detectors in our boat and why we must not use Lithium batteries