RCD

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I am sure that we have had a post from a lady who had had a broker demand the boat be certified, although she did not name them, and after an earlier exchange on this topic I had a PM or email from someone confirming that is the case. I don't think that we get much further, saying that unless the brokers are named this is all a mirage.

 

 

That was not my intention at all.

 

A list of brokers who do not demand all RCR paperwork in place would be equally as useful to people seeking a broker. Whether they are buying or selling. 

 

"RCR only" or "universal" brokers would appeal to different sectors of the market. 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I am sure that we have had a post from a lady who had had a broker demand the boat be certified, although she did not name them, and after an earlier exchange on this topic I had a PM or email from someone confirming that is the case. 

 

There have been a number of threads over the last 3 or 4 years stating that the broker will not handle the sale without a valid RCD, or PCA.

 

If I remember correctly @matty40s has some knowledge of the situation and has posted about it.

 

8 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I don't think that we get much further, saying that unless the brokers are named this is all a mirage.

 

 

A bit like climate change deniers - it doesn't exist until it affects them directly.

[MtB]

38 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A bit like climate change deniers - it doesn't exist until it affects them directly.

 

Hardly. The climate change deniers continue to deny in the face of an avalanche of evidence. 

 

All I'm asking for is a scintilla of actual evidence it is happening, rather than an avalanche of hearsay that it might be.

 

And not because I seek to deny. I seek to know which brokers not to bother approaching should I decide to sell my own non RCR boat. I'm sure they won't mind being mentioned. 

 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

45 minutes ago, MtB said:

A list of brokers who do not demand all RCR paperwork in place would be equally as useful to people seeking a broker. Whether they are buying or selling. 

 

That would be nice for those wishing to sell, but might equally put a regulatory spotlight on the named brokers. If what Alan has posted is correct, then I think we could conclude brokers who are not members of the BMF or associated organisations would be the ones to look for. This in no way is intended to suggest what Alan has posted about it is incorrect, I simply don't know, but to my mind it seems likely.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Is it? 

 

Despite repeated requests from various posters for names of brokers refusing to sell boats with missing RCR, I'm not sure I've ever seen such a broker actually named. 

 

Why is everyone so coy about saying which brokers are complying with what they perceive as the law? It makes no sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

Especially the two posters that jump on every RCD/RCR/Compliant Paperwork Post on here and start quoting the Law and Brokers refusing to sell boats and I’ll name them @Tony Brooks @Alan de Enfield 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱

[MtB]

45 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

That would be nice for those wishing to sell, but might equally put a regulatory spotlight on the named brokers.

 

And what might be wrong with that, if they are breaking the law? 

 

As seems to be being asserted. 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

36 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Especially the two posters that jump on every RCD/RCR/Compliant Paperwork Post on here and start quoting the Law and Brokers refusing to sell boats and I’ll name them @Tony Brooks @Alan de Enfield 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱

 

I suggest that you CAREFULLY read my posts on this subject. I only ADVISE (you do know what that means, I assume) that buying an in scope boat without the full RCD/RCR paperwork may cause problems later on. Whereas your "advice" along with others seems to be that it there are no risks associated with buying an in scope boat without the relevant paperwork. You will also note that earlier in this topic I pointed out that a private sale would be one way around the broker problem. If you can read AND understand you will also grasp that I do not state things as definite, but do state as a possibility.

[PaulD]

Question. There are multiple references here to the responsibility of a distributor to ensure products have a declaration of conformity. But is a broker a distributor or an agent? A distributor is someone who buys and then resells a product. An agent is someone who assists the owner to sell.  In other industries an agent is not responsible for compliance. 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, PaulD said:

Question. There are multiple references here to the responsibility of a distributor to ensure products have a declaration of conformity. But is a broker a distributor or an agent? A distributor is someone who buys and then resells a product. An agent is someone who assists the owner to sell.  In other industries an agent is not responsible for compliance. 

 

 

I have posted this many times in the last few weeks but  if it helps, this is the definition of a distributor (as far as the RCD / RCR is concened)

 

3.4 Distributor’s obligations The distributor is any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes the product available on the market.

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I have posted this many times in the last few weeks but  if it helps, this is the definition of a distributor (as far as the RCD / RCR is concened)

 

3.4 Distributor’s obligations The distributor is any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes the product available on the market.

But in the case of a broker who never owns the boat, but merely advertises it on behalf of the owner, which party is actually making it available on the market?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

But in the case of a broker who never owns the boat, but merely advertises it on behalf of the owner, which party is actually making it available on the market?

 

By promoting the boat (brochures, websites, advertising it) they are telling the market that they are making it available to purchase (from them).

The buyer pays the broker. The broker deducts their 6% (?) and pays the balance to the previous owner.

 

The broker is the intermediary between the seller and the buyer - they are in the supply-chain.

 

It would seem that the BMF have decided that their brokers are distributors and they are 'making the boat available on the market' so, have to comply with the RCD / RCR rules.

 

 

My Son is working overseas and has a car sat in our yard just 'rusting away', we have cancelled the insurance, we have 'sorned' it and just occasionally start it up. After several years of not using it he asks me to 'stick it on ebay' and see what we can get for it.

I write the advert and say it can be collected from my address & I list it.

 

Am I selling the car ?

 

Edit at 15:40

I should have said "am I making the the car available on the market?"

Edited April 21 by Alan de Enfield

[Tony Brooks]

32 minutes ago, PaulD said:

Question. There are multiple references here to the responsibility of a distributor to ensure products have a declaration of conformity. But is a broker a distributor or an agent? A distributor is someone who buys and then resells a product. An agent is someone who assists the owner to sell.  In other industries an agent is not responsible for compliance. 

 

I agree, it looks like a grey area. As I said, insufficient case law to clarify the situation, but the BMF, who presumably consulted experts in the field, seem to suggest they are distributors. However, does that mean Apollo Duck etc. are also distributors as defined. They publish adverts and I think allow videos of boats.

 

In the context of this discussion, I don't think it matters what the regulations may or may not say, what matters is the interpretation the BMF has advised their members, and it would seem that they think the brokers are distributors as defined by regulations - correct or incorrect.

[MtB]

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

My Son is working overseas and has a car sat in our yard just 'rusting away', we have cancelled the insurance, we have 'sorned' it and just occasionally start it up. After several years of not using it he asks me to 'stick it on ebay' and see what we can get for it.

I write the advert and say it can be collected from my address & I list it.

 

Am I selling the car ?

 

Are you the owner? 

 

I'm pretty sure you can't sell something you don't own. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21 by MtB
Shorten the quote

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

54 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suggest that you CAREFULLY read my posts on this subject. I only ADVISE (you do know what that means, I assume) that buying an in scope boat without the full RCD/RCR paperwork may cause problems later on. Whereas your "advice" along with others seems to be that it there are no risks associated with buying an in scope boat without the relevant paperwork. You will also note that earlier in this topic I pointed out that a private sale would be one way around the broker problem. If you can read AND understand you will also grasp that I do not state things as definite, but do state as a possibility.

Please define what you call an “In Scope Boat” or is it basically a boat built post RCD introduction 1998. Do you know of any specific BMF Brokers that are turning boats built post 1998 away because of non conformity RCD/RCR, if so as you’ve been asked please name the Broker😱

[MtB]

1 minute ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Please define what you call an “In Scope Boat” or is it basically a boat built post RCD introduction 1998. Do you know of any specific BMF Brokers that are turning boats built post 1998 away because of non conformity RCD/RCR, if so as you’ve been asked please name the Broker😱

 

Seconded.

 

Nobody seems to really know what an "In Scope" boat actually is.

 

Is a self-build done in 1998 an "In Scope" boat? If it is, does it now need a £4k RCR inspection and declaration of conformity (or whatever it is called?)

 

How about a 1998 boat with full RCD ticket and a vintage engine (say)? Does that need the same? Would it even pass RCR with the vintage engine?

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Please define what you call an “In Scope Boat” or is it basically a boat built post RCD introduction 1998. Do you know of any specific BMF Brokers that are turning boats built post 1998 away because of non conformity RCD/RCR, if so as you’ve been asked please name the Broker😱

 

An "in scope boat" is any boat that is supposed to comply with the RCD/RCR as they stand at this time.  That is it, nothing else. What this is all about now is what makes it an "in scope boat" and that is where there is argument and disagreements. I am secure in my mind that there have been cases, some posted on here, where a post construction assessment certificate has been demanded. I am sure that if you were more interested in finding the truth, rather than justifying what you think, you could do a search and find them. You and the others who seem to be promoting the idea that RCD/RCR documentation is not important look to me like all you are doing is sticking your head under the sand. You and others asking for specific names could always try contacting a few brokers asking about selling a modern boat without the documentation. Then you and they can list those that refuse and those that accept such boats.

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Seconded.

 

Nobody seems to really know what an "In Scope" boat actually is.

 

Is a self-build done in 1998 an "In Scope" boat? If it is, does it now need a £4k RCR inspection and declaration of conformity (or whatever it is called?)

 

How about a 1998 boat with full RCD ticket and a vintage engine (say)? Does that need the same? Would it even pass RCR with the vintage engine?

 

 

 

The problem in both cases seem to have come about with the latest revision that seems to have brought (note seems) more boats into scope, e.g. self fit out boats that were exempt, or boats post 1998 that have been fitted with any non CE marked engines - be they vintage, non CE marked second-hand. or weird one off imports.

 

I agree that nobody seems to have defined exactly what an in scope boat now is, but I don't see how we can be sure until there is some case law, and at the present rate of prosecutions that seems to be an exceptionally long wait.

 

It is all very unsatisfactory, but as things stand I do not think it responsible (not aimed at your posts) to suggest that not having the correct documentation will never cause any problems when selling.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

It is all very unsatisfactory, but as things stand I do not think it responsible (not aimed at your posts) to suggest that not having the correct documentation will never cause any problems when selling.

 

Yes totally agree. More pertinently when selling what might turn out to be an 'in scope' boat, I'd suggest there needs to be some documentation signed by the buyer that they know they are buying a boat 'as seen' with no RCD documentation. 

 

Even then the seller is perhaps at risk of being prosecuted by Trading Standards. Maybe I should try reporting my current boat and see if Trading Standards will mount a prosecution of the (private) seller I bought it from. I can imagine them just ignoring me or telling me they have better things to do with their time. 

 

 

Swerving off at a tangent, what is someone supposed to do if they own a boat now defined as 'in scope' when it didn't use to be?

 

A widow for example inheriting a boat owned by her deceased husband and she needs to get rid? Is she supposed to keep it until it rusts away? Scrap it? Give it away? How can she dispose of it lawfully? 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

20 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Swerving off at a tangent, what is someone supposed to do if they own a boat now defined as 'in scope' when it didn't use to be?

 

A widow for example inheriting a boat owned by her deceased husband and she needs to get rid? Is she supposed to keep it until it rusts away? Scrap it? Give it away? How can she dispose of it lawfully? 

 

 

 

 

This seems to be another problem area. If the boat had full pre-revison RCD documentation ad had had no major alterations, then I don't think there would be a problem. I also don't think that just fitting solar panels or changing one CE marked cooker for another would count as a major alteration. I can see a problem (which I think the lady who posted a while ago had) with a pre-revision self fit out boat that never needed to comply with the RCD, so had no documents. As I see it all she has left if she can't find a broker to handle it, is a private sale to someone who does nor care about the RCR/RCD, even if it is at a discounted price.

 

I think it is a mess produced by legislators who have absolutely no comprehension of UK inland boating and have had no reason to review their work.

 

 

Edited April 21 by Tony Brooks

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

39 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

An "in scope boat" is any boat that is supposed to comply with the RCD/RCR as they stand at this time.  That is it, nothing else. What this is all about now is what makes it an "in scope boat" and that is where there is argument and disagreements. I am secure in my mind that there have been cases, some posted on here, where a post construction assessment certificate has been demanded. I am sure that if you were more interested in finding the truth, rather than justifying what you think, you could do a search and find them. You and the others who seem to be promoting the idea that RCD/RCR documentation is not important look to me like all you are doing is sticking your head under the sand. You and others asking for specific names could always try contacting a few brokers asking about selling a modern boat without the documentation. Then you and they can list those that refuse and those that accept such boats.

I would say there are thousands more second-hand “In Scope boats” that have been bought and sold through Brokerage without a complying RCD/RCR over the last 5 years never mind since 1998 that have been sold with one and it’s still going on this weekend.

 You and @Alan de Enfield keep going on about brokers refusing to sell boats without naming any, so I would say it’s you that needs to prove and back up your words and not me to waste my time.

Edited April 21 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[David Mack]

52 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

The problem in both cases seem to have come about with the latest revision that seems to have brought (note seems) more boats into scope, e.g. self fit out boats that were exempt, or boats post 1998 that have been fitted with any non CE marked engines - be they vintage, non CE marked second-hand. or weird one off imports.

I suspect the main issue is that the number of such craft coming onto the market is small, and by the nature of being exempt from some RCD requirements at the time, these craft do not have full documentation. So the BMF and the brokers are erring on the side of caution by declining to deal with such boats. Selling them (as a broker) would not be illegal, but why take the risk? 

[MtB]

46 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I suspect the main issue is that the number of such craft coming onto the market is small, and by the nature of being exempt from some RCD requirements at the time, these craft do not have full documentation. So the BMF and the brokers are erring on the side of caution by declining to deal with such boats. Selling them (as a broker) would not be illegal, but why take the risk? 

 

If "selling" is what a broker does. 

 

An estate agent doesn't "sell" a house, they find a buyer and introduce them to the seller. Maybe a boat broker does the same.

 

Or maybe they don't.

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Are you the owner? 

 

I'm pretty sure you can't sell something you don't own. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure you can, which is why the regulations say "distributor", "in the supply chain" rather than simply "the seller". In fact, both the true owner and the broker would be "selling" in the broadest sense, because the true owner has offered it and the broker is doing the promotion/negotiation element of the sale.

 

Tens of thousands of car dealers have stocking loan facilities and they are definitely the ones selling them (not the stocking loan financier, even though they are the true owner while it sits on a dealer forecourt).

 

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

If "selling" is what a broker does. 

 

An estate agent doesn't "sell" a house, they find a buyer and introduce them to the seller. Maybe a boat broker does the same.

 

Or maybe they don't.

 

See above - they don't use the term "selling", they use phraseology which is more wide-reaching.

 

Brokers are definitely liable for this.

[Tony Brooks]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

I suspect the main issue is that the number of such craft coming onto the market is small, and by the nature of being exempt from some RCD requirements at the time, these craft do not have full documentation. So the BMF and the brokers are erring on the side of caution by declining to deal with such boats. Selling them (as a broker) would not be illegal, but why take the risk? 

 

That is my view as well, but if the brokers' trade body advises not to sell such boats, it would be a brave or foolish company who did so.

58 minutes ago, Paul C said:

See above - they don't use the term "selling", they use phraseology which is more wide-reaching.

 

And I think that is what some here are choosing to conflate with "the seller". Doing so just confuses the issues, and maybe that is what they intend to do.

2 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

You and @Alan de Enfield keep going on about brokers refusing to sell boats without naming any, so I would say it’s you that needs to prove and back up your words and not me to waste my time.

 

You are calling Alan and myself liars, so it is you that need to prove your assertion. If you do not, I trust that you are aware that you have broken the forum rules.

 

You just want to fling mad at your selection of members while declining to prove your assertions.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

14 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

 

You are calling Alan and myself liars, so it is you that need to prove your assertion. If you do not, I trust that you are aware that you have broken the forum rules.

 

You just want to fling mad at your selection of members while declining to prove your assertions.

But it doesn’t take the brains of a Bishop to know that over the last few years after lockdown hundreds if not thousands of boats have been sold and bought. Yourself and Alan keep going on about “Brokers” and cases that you can’t remember but have been mentioned on here about RCD/RCR problems/nightmares, Brokers refusing to sell non RCD/RCR boats but you fail to give any substantial evidence if any to your claims. So all the “Scope Boats” sold since say lockdown by BMF Brokers or any reputable broker have all had complying paperwork RCD and documentation? Come on be real and take the Rose coloured glasses  off.

Edited April 22 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Yes totally agree. More pertinently when selling what might turn out to be an 'in scope' boat, I'd suggest there needs to be some documentation signed by the buyer that they know they are buying a boat 'as seen' with no RCD documentation. 

 

Even then the seller is perhaps at risk of being prosecuted by Trading Standards. Maybe I should try reporting my current boat and see if Trading Standards will mount a prosecution of the (private) seller I bought it from. I can imagine them just ignoring me or telling me they have better things to do with their time. 

 

 

Swerving off at a tangent, what is someone supposed to do if they own a boat now defined as 'in scope' when it didn't use to be?

 

A widow for example inheriting a boat owned by her deceased husband and she needs to get rid? Is she supposed to keep it until it rusts away? Scrap it? Give it away? How can she dispose of it lawfully? 

 

 

Perhaps the executors should sell it esp if more than one beneficiary?