RCD and RCA

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think it depends on which underwriters they are using at the time ....................

 

 

Is "Sea Wolf" a narrow boat then? 

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The original purpose of the PCA seems to be to ensure compliance of craft which, for one reason or another, have not been certified as complying with the RCD/RCR. It does not lend itself to certifying a boat which has already been certified as compliant. 

 

That was the reason for the introduction of the PCA (remember that DIY building of sailaways probably doesn't even feature in other countries.)

THe PCA is to recertify a boat that was originally in compliance but following 'work' no w no longer complies so needs to be re-certified to take into account the changes.

 

The PCA is unlikely to be £1000's if it is a simple engine change where he can look and see that it is no more than 15% bigger horse power than the previous one, is correctly installed etc. 1 hour job -sign it off issue the new paperwork.

 

It only gets expensive and complicated when the surveyor has to 'rip apart' a boat of which nothing was built to spec, and then list all the non compliances.

 

 

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Is "Sea Wolf" a narrow boat then? 

 

Is every boat discussed on the frum a NB ? Are all forum members owners of a NB 

 

I can thing of several forum members that have GRP boats.

 

And yes - that is the insuarnce policy covering us for Inland waterways.

Edited July 18, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[Iain_S]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That was the reason for the introduction of the PCA (remember that DIY building of sailaways probably doesn't even feature in other countries.)

THe PCA is to recertify a boat that was originally in compliance but following 'work' no w no longer complies so needs to be re-certified to take into account the changes.

 

The PCA is unlikely to be £1000's if it is a simple engine change where he can look and see that it is no more than 15% bigger horse power than the previous one, is correctly installed etc. 1 hour job -sign it off issue the new paperwork.

 

It only gets expensive and complicated when the surveyor has to 'rip apart' a boat of which nothing was built to spec, and then list all the non compliances.

But the surveyor is certifying the original build, as well as the new engine. In the narrowboat world, that would be a big risk!

[Ronaldo47]

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

From Recreational Craft Regulations 2017:

 

Thanks: so failure to comply with the regulations specified in S.73 is indeed a criminal offence .

Edited July 18, 2024 by Ronaldo47
typos

[Gybe Ho]

19 hours ago, Peanut said:

 

Only in March this year, Cornish Crabbers appointed liquidators, though have now been rescued by a Pool based company, this June.

 

“We cannot let this classic brand just disappear“ says Ben Walker of Blue Lagoon Marine.

 

It is a precarious industry, some have been bankrupt more than once.

 

Even Cornish Crabbers, I did not expect that. Ten years ago they had established an enviable position where the purchase of a Cornish Shrimper was a membership token into an exclusive club of affable gentlemen of retirement age. Whatever the logical material value of a Crabber they could charge a premium for the conferred club membership.

 

Multiple bankruptcies? Sounds like Westerly Yachts.   

[Peanut]

M

3 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

Multiple bankruptcies? Sounds like Westerly Yachts.   

Westerly Yachs, certainly did, I was thinkimg of Old Southerly, who did a Phoenix twice, it leaves the creditors with nothing, and the emerged company carries on. Discovery went into administration or bankruptcy not long ago.

[jddevel]

Well following the second visit by the "surveyor" to see whether all his previous requirements have been met, I`ve a second list to which I must admit having tried to reduce costs have tried to deal with myself but obviously failed!!! Certainly justifying his £4000 plus mileage bill. With the market having seemed to have "quietened" it`s a bitter pill to swallow.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, jddevel said:

Well following the second visit by the "surveyor" to see whether all his previous requirements have been met, I`ve a second list to which I must admit having tried to reduce costs have tried to deal with myself but obviously failed!!! Certainly justifying his £4000 plus mileage bill. With the market having seemed to have "quietened" it`s a bitter pill to swallow.

 

And when you eventually find a buyer, its 50/50 whether they will be delighted it has a £4k PCA, or they are all like "What's a PCA? we'd have bought the boat anyway"...

 

 

[jddevel]

I`m basically between a rock and a hard place. Firstly living around 4 1/2 hours from our boat viewings are difficult to "self manage" and trying to distinguish between serious and not so serious viewings. Next some marinas have restrictions on who can deal with craft for sale. Finally moving a craft to a marina with a broker to handle a sale I`ve met with the question"has it a current BSS and a RCD" so it remains at it`s current mooring although even there the difficulty has been the whole thing is an area of uncertainty but they are erring on the "it`s required". In a way with a craft which whilst biased is in great condition well equipped and hardly used (very low engine hours) the cost of both the works required and the RCD could possibly be suggested as a small percentage of the selling price- certainly in my case less than the brokerage plus VAT fee- balanced against the free mooring. However obviously with less expensive craft and unlike the brokerage fees the survey required being a set fee in real cash terms it is higher. Our craft is a 2017 57 feet semi-trad and how the survey fee would balance against say a 2005 similar craft percentage wise is not for me to comment on but I`d suggest a higher percentage plus things that may have changed in the meantime say in requirements- carbon monoxide alarm or man overboard return as I`m assuming that any RCD would have to conform to current regulations. They certainly did in our case.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, jddevel said:

I`m basically between a rock and a hard place. Firstly living around 4 1/2 hours from our boat viewings are difficult to "self manage" and trying to distinguish between serious and not so serious viewings. Next some marinas have restrictions on who can deal with craft for sale. Finally moving a craft to a marina with a broker to handle a sale I`ve met with the question"has it a current BSS and a RCD" so it remains at it`s current mooring although even there the difficulty has been the whole thing is an area of uncertainty but they are erring on the "it`s required". In a way with a craft which whilst biased is in great condition well equipped and hardly used (very low engine hours) the cost of both the works required and the RCD could possibly be suggested as a small percentage of the selling price- certainly in my case less than the brokerage plus VAT fee- balanced against the free mooring. However obviously with less expensive craft and unlike the brokerage fees the survey required being a set fee in real cash terms it is higher. Our craft is a 2017 57 feet semi-trad and how the survey fee would balance against say a 2005 similar craft percentage wise is not for me to comment on but I`d suggest a higher percentage plus things that may have changed in the meantime say in requirements- carbon monoxide alarm or man overboard return as I`m assuming that any RCD would have to conform to current regulations. They certainly did in our case.

Can I ask if you turned back the clock to 2017 would you of still went down the sailaway/self-fit route, with the long time scale and RC/PCA issues or would you just buy a second hand boat and get on the canals without the hassle?

 7 years seems a long time to basically of missed the enjoyment the canals could if given during the build, maybe you did have trips while in build?

 Basically would you recommend doing a self-build from your experience or just buy a Narrowboat ready to go??

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Basically would you recommend doing a self-build from your experience or just buy a Narrowboat ready to go??

 

I think the question over a PCA would still arise if it was anybodies self build boat, or, a commercially built boat that did not have the correct paperwork.

 

It is the correct paperwork the brokers (and authorities) need to see, and, the inland waterways boat owners seem to have a poor record of paperwork retention.

It seems to me that the key thing is to ensure is that any potential boat you are buying has the correct paerwork (or get the seller to arrange/pay for a PCA), or, you will have problems in the future.

[Tacet]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think the question over a PCA would still arise if it was anybodies self build boat, or, a commercially built boat that did not have the correct paperwork.

 

It is the correct paperwork the brokers (and authorities) need to see, and, the inland waterways boat owners seem to have a poor record of paperwork retention.

It seems to me that the key thing is to ensure is that any potential boat you are buying has the correct paerwork (or get the seller to arrange/pay for a PCA), or, you will have problems in the future.

It's clear that the 

 

watercraft  built for own use, provided that such watercraft are not subsequently placed on the market for a period of five years beginning with the date on which the watercraft was put into service;

 

continue to enjoy the exclusion from the design and construction requirements even when sold on (after more than 5 years).

 

What is less clear is whether you will be able to persuade the broker and buyer that it is so.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think the question over a PCA would still arise if it was anybodies self build boat, or, a commercially built boat that did not have the correct paperwork.

 

It is the correct paperwork the brokers (and authorities) need to see, and, the inland waterways boat owners seem to have a poor record of paperwork retention.

It seems to me that the key thing is to ensure is that any potential boat you are buying has the correct paerwork (or get the seller to arrange/pay for a PCA), or, you will have problems in the future.

Yes, but I’m talking about the timescale it has taken to build and to get legal, 7 years. A long time, when it may of been better to buy a secondhand boat, get on the canals and enjoy it. The OP is sort of indicating he is selling so all I’m asking is if he would do it again, which may be of help to people thinking it’s easy to do their own build, as from what I’ve seen it takes a lot longer and is more hassle to the average man without experience.

[Tony Brooks]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think the question over a PCA would still arise if it was anybodies self build boat, or, a commercially built boat that did not have the correct paperwork.

 

It is the correct paperwork the brokers (and authorities) need to see, and, the inland waterways boat owners seem to have a poor record of paperwork retention.

It seems to me that the key thing is to ensure is that any potential boat you are buying has the correct paerwork (or get the seller to arrange/pay for a PCA), or, you will have problems in the future.

 

How can you still say that? We have been assured by a number of members that the paperwork will not affect the selling or purchase of an inland boat, it is all a load of nonsense, and there can be no legal consequences of dealing with such a boat. Naturally, their beliefs must override the law and advice from well-informed professional associations.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

It's clear that the 

 

watercraft  built for own use, provided that such watercraft are not subsequently placed on the market for a period of five years beginning with the date on which the watercraft was put into service;

 

continue to enjoy the exclusion from the design and construction requirements even when sold on (after more than 5 years).

 

What is less clear is whether you will be able to persuade the broker and buyer that it is so.

It was a good point that people may of not realised that Alan brought up and you’ve mentioned, that it’s 5 years after the boat is completed/put into service. 
So in theory the OP wouldn’t be able to sell his boat(if just completed)without a RCR/PCA till 2029? A long time from when he started it back in 2017. That why I ask was it worth it?

Edited August 2, 2024 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Alan de Enfield]

4 hours ago, Tacet said:

It's clear that the 

 

watercraft  built for own use, provided that such watercraft are not subsequently placed on the market for a period of five years beginning with the date on which the watercraft was put into service;

 

continue to enjoy the exclusion from the design and construction requirements even when sold on (after more than 5 years).

 

What is less clear is whether you will be able to persuade the broker and buyer that it is so.

 

What you , and many others seem to be ignoring is a recent discussion in which ABNB had asked for clarifications and the answer was :

 

 

 

 

Statement re Self builds and sailaways. RCD compliance

 

ABNB Brokers statement :

 

The exception to the above, is for a vessel that has been self-built in its entirety (including the shell) by a DIY boatbuilder for their own personal use. However, if the vessel is placed on the market within 5 years, it must be CE marked to satisfy the requirements of the RCR (RCD). The vessel does not have to be complete for the 5 year period to start, but does have to have been used as a boat (e.g. cruised on a waterway).

The '5-year rule' does not apply to a private boatbuilder who is building a boat for their own use from a shell or sailaway that has been purchased from a professional builder. These vessels have to be assessed under Post Construction Assessment by an Approved Body when put into service.

In the Inland Waterways, the industry as a whole believed that a self-fitted out boat fell under the 5-year rule, ie. as long as the boat owner kept the boat for 5 years, it did not need to comply with the RCD and could be sold legally. However, a recent Independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards in early 2024 has highlighted that this is not the case.

 

Make of that what you will - but - my understanding of the statement is that ANY sailway / self built boat requires to be RCD compliant (evidenced by a PCA) when sold AT ANY AGE

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

What you , and many others seem to be ignoring is a recent discussion in which ABNB had asked for clarifications and the answer was :

 

 

 

 

Statement re Self builds and sailaways. RCD compliance

 

ABNB Brokers statement :

 

The exception to the above, is for a vessel that has been self-built in its entirety (including the shell) by a DIY boatbuilder for their own personal use. However, if the vessel is placed on the market within 5 years, it must be CE marked to satisfy the requirements of the RCR (RCD). The vessel does not have to be complete for the 5 year period to start, but does have to have been used as a boat (e.g. cruised on a waterway).

The '5-year rule' does not apply to a private boatbuilder who is building a boat for their own use from a shell or sailaway that has been purchased from a professional builder. These vessels have to be assessed under Post Construction Assessment by an Approved Body when put into service.

In the Inland Waterways, the industry as a whole believed that a self-fitted out boat fell under the 5-year rule, ie. as long as the boat owner kept the boat for 5 years, it did not need to comply with the RCD and could be sold legally. However, a recent Independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards in early 2024 has highlighted that this is not the case.

 

Make of that what you will - but - my understanding of the statement is that ANY sailway / self built boat requires to be RCD compliant (evidenced by a PCA) when sold AT ANY AGE

 

However, from the same website:

Can I buy a craft that does not appear to meet the RCR?

If brand new, then No. When brand new, the craft should include: a Declaration of Conformity; Owner’s Manual; Builder’s Plate (including a CE mark); and a Watercraft Identification Number (WIN). The WIN has to be permanently marked to the craft in certain laid out locations. Make sure that you see these before buying the boat.

If not brand new, then, unless built before June 1998, you may question why there are no obvious signs of original compliance with the RCR (or RCD), however, it is important to note that it is NOT against the law to sell a second hand vessel without RCR (or RCD) paperwork, and the vessel can be legally sold. You should, however, be mindful that there is a very small chance that there could be implications for future saleability or value of the vessel.

If being sold second hand, the vessel does not have to comply with the RCR unless the boat has been imported, is an ex-commercial craft, or the vessel has undergone a Major Craft Conversion.

 

 

Which says it's not a *legal* requirement to have this to buy or sell most (not all!) boats.

 

Of course that doesn't stop some brokers from requiring it to allow the boat to be bought or sold through them -- and ABNB may well be one of these -- but equally other brokers may choose not to.

 

And from comments from other posters, many do... 😉 

Edited August 2, 2024 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Indeed and those contradictions were widely duscussed in the last RCR thread.

 

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Of course that doesn't stop some brokers from requiring it to allow the boat to be bought or sold through them -- and ABNB may well be one of these -- but equally other brokers may choose not to.

 

Hovever an independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards (who are responsible for the prosecution) say "it needs a PCA"

 

I would not be surprised if a 'Saturday Girl' was told to add the new 'situation' into their Q&A section, with no one giving any thought to any conflict in other answers. In business I have seen so many example of that sort of thing.

 

Even the Blble does it, and that has had 1000s of year to be corrected :

 

Seemingly contardictory staements

 

"An eye for an Eye" 

 

"Turn the other cheek"

 

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed and those contradictions were widely duscussed in the last RCR thread.

 

 

Hovever an independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards (who are responsible for the prosecution) say "it needs a PCA"

 

I would not be surprised if a 'Saturday Girl' was told to add the new 'situation' into their Q&A section, with no one giving any thought to any conflict in other answers. In business I have seen so many example of that sort of thing.

 

Even the Blble does it, and that has had 1000s of year to be corrected :

 

Seemingly contardictory staements

 

"An eye for an Eye" 

 

"Turn the other cheek"

 

 

The problem is that there seems to be confusion between whether an RCD is "needed" and whether the boat can be legally sold without one. To take the bit you quoted:

 

In the Inland Waterways, the industry as a whole believed that a self-fitted out boat fell under the 5-year rule, ie. as long as the boat owner kept the boat for 5 years, it did not need to comply with the RCD and could be sold legally. However, a recent Independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards in early 2024 has highlighted that this is not the case.

 

What that actually says is that previously it was thought that it didn't need to comply and could be sold legally -- the exact words.

 

Now (since 2024) it's "not the case" -- but what exactly does that mean? That it now needs to comply but can still be legally sold even if it doesn't? (which is what the other ABNB quotation said). Or that it now needs to comply and can't be legally sold if it doesn't? (what you're suggesting)

 

This isn't being pernickity, it's literally not clear from what was written what the "2024 change" actually is.

Edited August 2, 2024 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

40 minutes ago, IanD said:

This isn't being pernickity, it's literally not clear from what was written what the "2024 change" actually is.

 

MY understanding of it would be that it has always been required but that the inland waterways industry did not interpret it that way.

The issue of clarification from the EU in 2017 regarding the fact that the RCD/RCR was for 'life' (of the boat) opened up new questions, which have now been confirmed by .............................

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

.. a recent Independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards

 

Simply a clarification of a previous misunderstood rule,

[jddevel]

6 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Can I ask if you turned back the clock to 2017 would you of still went down the sailaway/self-fit route, with the long time scale and RC/PCA issues or would you just buy a second hand boat and get on the canals without the hassle?

 7 years seems a long time to basically of missed the enjoyment the canals could if given during the build, maybe you did have trips while in build?

 Basically would you recommend doing a self-build from your experience or just buy a Narrowboat ready to go??

So my answer is as my understanding was at the time I would do the same again. The facts were as follows. I was a retired property developer with timber workshops and experience in cabinet making. My wife and I had hired boats both in the UK and Ireland for nearly 50 years from the Broads initially way back in the mid 60s. On making the decision to own our own we approached a number of builders and were given a timeline of around 18 months. So impatient we looked at used craft. Only one suited our purpose and on the second viewing with a £1000 cash deposit in our hand we had a more detailed look. The engine room was partially filled with water. We walked away frustrated. Within a few days we saw a sailaway advertised at Sawley Marina. Researched sailaways and decided that it was a possibility. On purchase we used recommended" qualified" tradespeople for gas, and electric installations and limited our input to fit out -central heating and domestic wet goods. 40 plus years in those fields in bespoke property fit out we felt gave us sufficient experience. An enquiry was made regarding the RCD of a company in Southampton who stated that for a fee of £1000  they would complete the necessary on completion ( the hull had been transported to a work station near our home and was completed within 6 months, returned to the water professionally painted and used .The hull treated at Debdale. DURING ALL THIS TIME WE WERE CONTINUALLY INFORMED THAT PROVIDED WE KEPT THE VESSEL FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS NO RCD WAS NEEDED. A point that many on here have referred to. Unfortunately life got in the way with aged parents needing attention, Covid and my wifes` health meant that the boat had limited use. This would have applied what ever I owned. So when the decision was made that perhaps keeping the boat was an unnecessary expense due to our age/health issues ( particularly my back problems and my wifes injuries due to a riding accident) we approached first the New and Used Boat Company who stated we needed a RCD. and then on moving to Braunston Marina for a more established and central location was again told that a RCD/RCA was required. Returning to the Southampton Company they had changed hands and now come under the umbrella of HPI the Government approved body for RCA/RCD certification. Their fee £4500. However Google gave me a different contact at £4000.  This has been a long answer but I hope explains that it`s mis-information and questionable work by "experts" that have led to our situation. All has been or soon will be sorted but I had no crystal ball and even if I`d bought a second hand craft or boat builders a broker may well have still insisted that a RCD/RCA was required. The surveyor I`ve used has reported that he has viewed boats that the RCD was either out of date or not fit for purpose. As has been pointed out the requirement has always been there but was a grey area with much mis-information and change in Government policy and regulations. As the old expression goes "you pay your money and you take your choice" My mistake was not belt and braces and arranging the RCD in the first place with the Southampton company.

7 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

It was a good point that people may of not realised that Alan brought up and you’ve mentioned, that it’s 5 years after the boat is completed/put into service. 
So in theory the OP wouldn’t be able to sell his boat(if just completed)without a RCR/PCA till 2029? A long time from when he started it back in 2017. That why I ask was it worth it?

You will see from my more recent rather lengthy response that the boat was in the water in 2017 and being used all be it not as much as we`d like.

[IanD]

53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

MY understanding of it would be that it has always been required but that the inland waterways industry did not interpret it that way.

The issue of clarification from the EU in 2017 regarding the fact that the RCD/RCR was for 'life' (of the boat) opened up new questions, which have now been confirmed by .............................

 

 

Simply a clarification of a previous misunderstood rule,

 

Still missing the point I think -- yes the change may well be that it didn't used to be "required" for a DIY boat after 5 years, and now it is -- or maybe always was... 😉 

 

However if it's still not illegal to sell (or buy) a boat without it -- which is what ABNB clearly say! -- then what does "required" mean?

 

If it means "required by ABNB T&C if you want us to sell your boat or buy one through us" then it's true if you want to do that. But if this isn't a legal requirement other brokers may be perfectly happy to buy or sell without it, as seems to be the case.

 

If the law has changed -- or the legal interpretation of it -- so that you can't legally sell a boat without the documentation then that's a different matter entirely. But it seems from broker adverts that if this was the case lots of them would currently be breaking the law, which seems unlikely to me.

 

The most likely interpretation is therefore that ABNB (and some other brokers?) now require an RCD/RCR certificate for all boats because it's now been clarified that the "5-year rule" doesn't apply and they want to avoid any potential future comeback from buyers. But this is not the law, so other brokers may decide not to enforce this -- and it seems, many don't.

Edited August 2, 2024 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

I have no more information than I have provided - maybe you can find some ?

 

I still think that the legal advice is that for ANY DIY fitted out boat (bought as a sailaway) to be sold requires either original RCR compliance certification, OR a PCA confirming compliance.

 

In the Inland Waterways, the industry as a whole believed that a self-fitted out boat fell under the 5-year rule, ie. as long as the boat owner kept the boat for 5 years, it did not need to comply with the RCD and could be sold legally. However, a recent Independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards in early 2024 has highlighted that this is not the case.

Edited August 2, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

37 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have no more information than I have provided - maybe you can find some ?

 

I still think that the legal advice is that for ANY DIY fitted out boat (bought as a sailaway) to be sold requires either original RCR compliance certification, OR a PCA confirming compliance.

 

In the Inland Waterways, the industry as a whole believed that a self-fitted out boat fell under the 5-year rule, ie. as long as the boat owner kept the boat for 5 years, it did not need to comply with the RCD and could be sold legally. However, a recent Independent legal review and clarification from Trading Standards in early 2024 has highlighted that this is not the case.

 

And I think you're misinterpreting it -- what it says has an AND in there: "it did not need to comply with the RCD and could be sold legally" followed by "this is not the case".

 

If this is now "not the case", which part of it has changed -- "it does not need comply with the RCD" or "it could be sold legally"?  It's really important which one is the case, when you have an AND in there the result changes if either of the two cases changes (Boolean logic).

 

That document you referred to does seem to say that the 5-year rule no longer applies, but it does *not* say that it's now illegal to sell a boat without the RCD -- which would mean the advice I quoted from ABTB is still true.

Edited August 2, 2024 by IanD

[Ronaldo47]

Legal opinions and opinions of Trading Standards officials are merely opinions. The only way to know what the law actually is, is for a judge to give a ruling in court proceedings. Even then, judgements can be overturned on appeal, meaning that legal certainty can only come from a decision of the Supreme Court (it used to be the House of Lords). 

 

Few people can afford the cost of going to court, so in the present case, the average boater is unlikely to be able to afford the cost of challenging the Independent Legal Opinion and the Trading Standards Officers' opinions.

Edited August 2, 2024 by Ronaldo47
typos