RCD and RCA

[David Mack]

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

To enable GB boatbuilders to be able to sell into the EU it is imperative that the RCR remains identical to the RCD.

Rubbish! It is perfectly possible for GB boatbuilders who wish to export their products to EU countries to build in compliance with EU requirements, even if those requirements differ from those for craft sold in GB. Of course the easiest way to do so is to build craft that comply with both EU and GB requirements. And EU manufacturers wishing to export to GB could do the same.

Edited July 17 by David Mack

[Gybe Ho]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Rubbish! It is perfectly possible for GB boatbuilders who wish to export their products to EU countries to build in compliance with EU requirements

 

 

But can British boatbuilders accomplish that economically? As discussed earlier, boat building is a cottage industry. Do they now have to pay for concurrent experts to advise on both UK and EU conformance?

 

Over the past 25 years UK's yacht building equivalent of British Leyland crashed into bankruptcy and the equivalents of Jaguar gave up. There are only a few niche players left, let's not kill them off as well with an indigenous bureaucratic tyranny worse that what the EU could implement in 40 years.

[Peanut]

2 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

But can British boatbuilders accomplish that economically? As discussed earlier, boat building is a cottage industry. Do they now have to pay for concurrent experts to advise on both UK and EU conformance?

 

Over the past 25 years UK's yacht building equivalent of British Leyland crashed into bankruptcy and the equivalents of Jaguar gave up. There are only a few niche players left, let's not kill them off as well with an indigenous bureaucratic tyranny worse that what the EU could implement in 40 years.

 

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.

[David Mack]

7 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

But can British boatbuilders accomplish that economically? As discussed earlier, boat building is a cottage industry. Do they now have to pay for concurrent experts to advise on both UK and EU conformance?

 

Over the past 25 years UK's yacht building equivalent of British Leyland crashed into bankruptcy and the equivalents of Jaguar gave up. There are only a few niche players left, let's not kill them off as well with an indigenous bureaucratic tyranny worse that what the EU could implement in 40 years.

I don't think the possibility of British industry crashing and burning was uppermost in the minds of the Brexit zealots!

[IanD]

15 hours ago, Peanut said:

The link below provides guidance on the issues being discussed, including the advice from the BMF to their members. Interesting reading.

 

RCD/RCR Guide to Vessel Certification and Due Diligence

 

https://www.marine-finance.org/advice/rcd-rcr-guidance-vessel-certification/

 

 

 

Post merge strikes again, pestilence.

 

In case you are thinking that the guidance posted above is not law, while correct, there will have been a lot of expert and legal input to it.

 

There is a website you may know of which will give you their take on the law, which is at variance to that of CRT. In fact, they will encourage you to ignore CRT and follow the advice they give, even as your boat is removed under section 8. An illegal act, stolen, they say. Sometimes what you read is plain wrong, contrary to law, while good advice ignored.

 

The relevant bits are here, for those who don't want to wade through the guide:

Suggested guidance to the seller:

Our understanding is that the vessel should have been built and correctly CE marked to satisfy the requirements of the Recreational Craft Directive, but there is no such proof provided by the seller, as such the vessel can be legally sold but you should satisfy yourself of any such implications that may arise from selling the vessel.

The only way to mitigate all risk to you as the seller is for you to instruct a PCA to be undertaken, however it is not a requirement for you to do this.

Suggested guidance to the purchaser:

Our understanding is that the vessel you are purchasing should have been built and correctly CE marked to satisfy the requirements of the Recreational Craft Regulations and there is no such proof provided by the vessel owner. You should satisfy yourself of any implications that may arise from purchasing the vessel. 

You are advised to seek further advice should you see fit.

However, whilst the purchase is not illegal, you should be mindful that there could be implications for future saleability or value of the vessel.

 

In other words it's up to the seller and the buyer to decide what do do, there is no legal obstacle to selling or buying a boat without the correct paperwork, but there is a small chance that this may come back to bite you in future.

[Tony Brooks]

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

In other words it's up to the seller and the buyer to decide what do do, there is no legal obstacle to selling or buying a boat without the correct paperwork, but there is a small chance that this may come back to bite you in future.

 

Which is basically what I have been trying to warn about.

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The relevant bits are here, for those who don't want to wade through the guide:

Suggested guidance to the seller:

Our understanding is that the vessel should have been built and correctly CE marked to satisfy the requirements of the Recreational Craft Directive, but there is no such proof provided by the seller, as such the vessel can be legally sold but you should satisfy yourself of any such implications that may arise from selling the vessel.

The only way to mitigate all risk to you as the seller is for you to instruct a PCA to be undertaken, however it is not a requirement for you to do this.

Suggested guidance to the purchaser:

Our understanding is that the vessel you are purchasing should have been built and correctly CE marked to satisfy the requirements of the Recreational Craft Regulations and there is no such proof provided by the vessel owner. You should satisfy yourself of any implications that may arise from purchasing the vessel. 

You are advised to seek further advice should you see fit.

However, whilst the purchase is not illegal, you should be mindful that there could be implications for future saleability or value of the vessel.

 

In other words it's up to the seller and the buyer to decide what do do, there is no legal obstacle to selling or buying a boat without the correct paperwork, but there is a small chance that this may come back to bite you in future.

 

 

There are also other paragraphs of interest (apart from your cherry picked ones)

 

 

If the vessel has had a MCC but has not undergone a PCA, establish if the seller was the owner of the vessel when the MCC occurred. If they were the owner it is a criminal offence under the RCR (RCD) for the vessel to be sold without a PCA being completed first.

 

 

 

The presence of the ‘sailaway’ manufacturer’s WIN on the vessel does not remove the responsibility of the person (private or commercial) completing the vessel to have completed the build to meet the Requirements of the RCR (RCD) including correctly UK (or CE) marking the vessel. This process might be achieved by the professional builder, some of whom can self-certify taking on the responsibilities of a manufacturer, or by the vessel having a PCA, both of which would require a new WIN. 

When such a vessel is placed on the market for the first time, brokers should be diligent with ascertaining the correct CE/UKCA marking of these vessels. If the vessel’s documentation identifies it as being initially sold as a ‘sailaway’ for completion by others and the ‘sailaway’ builders WIN is still marked on the vessel, then it is almost definite that the vessel is not properly UK (or CE) Marked and will need to undergo a PCA if still owned by the person who completed it.

This is a different interpretation for Sailaways which have historically been considered a “self-built” boat and therefore once passing 5 years of age becomes outside of the RCD. This is now considered to be incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18 by Alan de Enfield

[Iain_S]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There are also other paragraphs of interest (apart from your cherry picked ones)

 

 

If the vessel has had a MCC but has not undergone a PCA, establish if the seller was the owner of the vessel when the MCC occurred. If they were the owner it is a criminal offence under the RCR (RCD) for the vessel to be sold without a PCA being completed first.

 

 

 

The presence of the ‘sailaway’ manufacturer’s WIN on the vessel does not remove the responsibility of the person (private or commercial) completing the vessel to have completed the build to meet the Requirements of the RCR (RCD) including correctly UK (or CE) marking the vessel. This process might be achieved by the professional builder, some of whom can self-certify taking on the responsibilities of a manufacturer, or by the vessel having a PCA, both of which would require a new WIN. 

When such a vessel is placed on the market for the first time, brokers should be diligent with ascertaining the correct CE/UKCA marking of these vessels. If the vessel’s documentation identifies it as being initially sold as a ‘sailaway’ for completion by others and the ‘sailaway’ builders WIN is still marked on the vessel, then it is almost definite that the vessel is not properly UK (or CE) Marked and will need to undergo a PCA if still owned by the person who completed it.

This is a different interpretation for Sailaways which have historically been considered a “self-built” boat and therefore once passing 5 years of age becomes outside of the RCD. This is now considered to be incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My reading of Schedule 5 of the 2017 suggests that the number issued by the body carrying out a PCA is an additional number. After all, the WIN attached by the manufacturer, or hull builder, is supposed to be permanent.

 

Quote

(From Schedule5)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

4.3.

In the case the assessed product is a watercraft, the person who is placing the watercraft on the market or putting it into service shall affix to the watercraft the builder’s plate described in point 2.2 of Part A of [F19Annex I] [F19Schedule 1], which shall include the words ‘post-construction assessment’, and the watercraft identification number described in point 2.1 of Part A of [F19Annex I] [F19Schedule 1], in accordance with the provisions set out in Section 3.

The "watercraft identification number described in point 2,2 of Part A of Annex1 etc" is the builder's plate.

 

It does appear that the requirement for a Post Construction Assessment following major modification is an attempt to hammer a square peg into a round hole, and that the PCA procedure is designed to cover the cases where the manufacturer has not done his own assessment, which, of course, will be the case for anything apart from a Cat. D vessel.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

My reading of Schedule 5 of the 2017 suggests that the number issued by the body carrying out a PCA is an additional number. After all, the WIN attached by the manufacturer, or hull builder, is supposed to be permanent.

 

 

The New Plate (after the PCA) replaces the original builders plate and deatils.

 

After a PCA a new 'person' is taking responsibility - who now becomes the builder - for certifying the compliance, hence the boat has to have the 'next number' in the PCA surveyoys 'list/book.' it has to have the new persons (builder) name, a new build/certification dare and numbers etc etc.

So, a completely new ID plate has to be issued.

 

It exactly the same when a sailaway is supplied with the builders number/plate, this must be replaced with the new responsible 'builder' details when the fit out is completed.

 

 

 

Edited July 18 by Alan de Enfield

[Midnight]

22 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Um.... with no HIN number (or WIN number in the current vernacular) and no paperwork, surely this proves yerbote was built ever so slightly before 1998 and escapes all this stupid RCD muppetry. 

 

Just a possibility that might be worth considering. 

I've considered it and yer right, I just rembered it was built the week before the RCD came along.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I've considered it and yer right, I just rembered it was built the week before the RCD came along.

 

Untill you remember that the 2005 boat (19 years old - without documentation) now becomes 25 years old and requires regular surveys to be able to obtain insurance.

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I've considered it and yer right, I just rembered it was built the week before the RCD came along.

 

Thats one helluva coincidence, so was mine!!

 

 

[Gybe Ho]

7 hours ago, David Mack said:

I don't think the possibility of British industry crashing and burning was uppermost in the minds of the Brexit zealots!

 

It is perverse that in just 7 years the British Government has conspired to create a greater bureaucratic burden on boat owners than could a supranational institution renowned for its oppressive legislation.

 

Building and messing about in boats is a British birthright and our King has spoken. His Government is going to renormalize with EU common sense.

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

Building and messing about in boats is a British birthright and our King has spoken. His Government is going to renormalize with EU common sense.

 

Indeed it is, and the use of red diesel in our boats is widely rumoured to have been granted to us as a result of the Dunkirk rescue. But no-one can find it written down anywhere hence the government setting up the 'propulsion duty' scheme, then unofficially not enforcing it. 

[Alan de Enfield]

58 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

Building and messing about in boats is a British birthright and our King has spoken. His Government is going to renormalize with EU common sense.

 

The EU are far 'hotter' on the RCD that the GB ever has been or ever will be - if we come back under EU juristriction of the RCR/RCD you will rue the day that Brexit was reversed.

 

I 'bought' a boat (the 'Cat') in the EU and I was not allowed to actually buy it, or leave the EU as the deceased owner had not left his family with :

1) The certificate of Compliance

2) The VAT paid certificate.

3) The original BoS

 

I have relayed the story several times, but for the newer members : I offered them £80,000 under the asking price, said I would pay anyway and I'd take responsibility for getting the paperwork sorted out.

The offer was accepted.

 

I spoke with the manufacturer who is required to keep the copies of all the paperwok, and so was able to purchase copies of items 1 & 3.

 

A trip to the regional Tax office resulted in a generous donation to the coffee fund and miraculously a VAT payment certificate (EC form T2L) appeared stamped and signed "issued retrospectively"

 

 

 

 

Then the job of de-registering the boat from the Government registry of shipping.

 

This involved a solicitor drawing up the contract, the signing had to be witnessed by the solcitor, it had to be agreed by the 'Ministry of Maritime Affairs 'bound with a piece of string and sealed with a seal and received back by the Minister before I could leave the marina'.

 

And there are some who think the UK system is unreasonable !!!

 

Edited July 18 by Alan de Enfield

[LadyG]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Thats one helluva coincidence, so was mine!!

 

 

Me2

[Gybe Ho]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The EU are far 'hotter' on the RCD that the GB ever has been or ever will be - if we come back under EU jurisdiction of the RCR/RCD you will rue the day that Brexit was reversed.

 

Prior to joining this forum that was my assumption, now I am concerned that if I build a narrowboat from a shell one or more the following will occur:

 

(1) My completed craft will not be eligible for registration, HIN number, CRT license or insurance until surveyed for RCR conformance at a cost of between £4 to £6k.

(2) Selling my new boat within 5 years will be impossible.

(3) Selling after 5 years will be costly and difficult.

 

I also understand that if the regulatory clock is reversed to the pre Brexit EU ruling about diy completed boats then only item (2) applies. Right now these are my only metrics in the ongoing Brexit debate.

[TheBiscuits]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If they were the owner it is a criminal offence under the RCR (RCD) for the vessel to be sold without a PCA being completed first.

 

Is it?  I thought it was a civil breach rather than a criminal offence.

 

There is quite a significant difference!

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Untill you remember that the 2005 boat (19 years old - without documentation) now becomes 25 years old and requires regular surveys to be able to obtain insurance.

 

I was wondering about that when @MtB decided his (other) boat was more than 25 years old...

[Alan de Enfield]

34 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

...............also understand that if the regulatory clock is reversed to the pre Brexit EU ruling about diy completed boats

 

 

We have simply applied the EU RCD amendments, so you would have exactly the same situation if the EU RCD was applied

 

 

29 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Is it?  I thought it was a civil breach rather than a criminal offence.

 

Not my wording, is an exact C&P from the ABNB / BMF giudance.

 

The BMF are the nominated responsible body for the administration of the RCR in GB, so one would hope that theye "know whats what".

 

I'd suggest that it is, and always has been a criminal offence as  the penalties/punishment are time in prison &/or fines.

 

I have example of the cases and fines that have been levied.

 

A good way to remember the key differences when considering criminal vs. civil law is this summation from William Geldart in an Introduction to English Law:

 

“The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue - redress or punishment.”

In other words, criminal law seeks to punish for an offence. Civil law seeks to achieve a remedy (for example, compensation) for the injured party.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

My completed craft will not be eligible for registration, HIN number, CRT license or insurance until surveyed for RCR conformance at a cost of between £4 to £6k.

 

No, if you boat is built in accordance with the requirements (ie get it signed off at each stage as being compliant, then at the end it will be a compliant boat. You can an employ a surveyor to oversee and sign off each stage - probably cheaper than a PCA, as he can see 'things' as they are assembled.

 

You can then sell your boat at any time without issues.

 

Edited July 18 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Is it?  I thought it was a civil breach rather than a criminal offence.

 

There is quite a significant difference!

 

I was wondering about that when @MtB decided his (other) boat was more than 25 years old...

 

With Craftinsure, its 30 years for comprehensive, and with Basic Boat its never for TPI. 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

Where something is a criminal offence (apart from common law offences), basis is normally found in an Act of Parliament or possibly its Rules (Statutory Instrument  or Order in Council).

 

For example, in the Copyright Designs & Patents  Act 1988, we find

 

S. 107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles &c 

 

and after defining various acts that are considered to be criminal, we have

 

(4) A person guilty of an offence under  subsection  ........  is liable - 

  (a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximim, or both;

   (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both. 

 

Other types of criminal act have different penalties, while other acts of copyright infringement are not  criminal acts at all, and would have to be dealt with under civil law. 

 

So for something to be a criminal offence in respect of regulations relating to boats, I would expect to find specific reference in legislation  to precisely which acts constititute which criminal acts, and the specific penalties prescribed by law that are able to be imposed on a person found guilty of such acts. 

Edited July 18 by Ronaldo47
typos

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

With Craftinsure, its 30 years for comprehensive

 

Yeah, and they've even improved it to a survey every 7 years (up from the previous 5 years) fairly recently. Provided the boat has been insured with Craftinsure for those 7 years - always worth checking the small print!

 

I needed a 5 year survey during one of the lockdowns, and couldn't get one, so I paid an additional waiver on my insurance for year 6.

 

At renewal in year 7 they offered me the same waiver again, but they'd just introduced the 7 years thing (new underwriter) so I queried it ... and didn't pay it!

[Iain_S]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The New Plate (after the PCA) replaces the original builders plate and deatils.

 

After a PCA a new 'person' is taking responsibility - who now becomes the builder - for certifying the compliance, hence the boat has to have the 'next number' in the PCA surveyoys 'list/book.' it has to have the new persons (builder) name, a new build/certification dare and numbers etc etc.

So, a completely new ID plate has to be issued.

 

You could well be right, but this generates another problem; I re-engine my boat, which was built in 1999. I get a PCA. My boat is now, according to the builder's plate and other documentation, a 2024 boat. 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. 

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

With Craftinsure, its 30 years for comprehensive, and with Basic Boat its never for TPI. 

 

 

 

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

 

[Iain_S]

10 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

(snip)

So for something to be a criminal offence in respect of regulations relating to boats, I would expect to find specific reference in legislation  to precisely which acts constititute which criminal acts, and the specific penalties prescribed by law that are able to be imposed on a person found guilty of such acts. 

From Recreational Craft Regulations 2017:

Quote

73.—(1) It is an offence for a person to contravene or fail to comply with any requirement of—

(a)regulation 6;

(b)regulations 8 to 16;

(c)regulation 17(3);

[F1(d)regulations 18 to 25;]

(e)regulation 26(3);

(f)regulations 27 to 31;

(g)regulation 32(3);

(h)regulation 34;

(i)regulation 36 to 38; or

(j)regulation 40.

(2) It is an offence for any person to contravene or fail to comply with any requirement of a withdrawal or recall notice served on that person by an enforcing authority under these Regulations.

 

74.  [F1Subject to regulation 74A,] any person who is guilty of an offence under regulation 73 (offences) is liable on summary conviction—

(a)in England and Wales—

(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months;

(ii)to a fine; or

(iii)to both.

(b)in Scotland and Northern Ireland—

(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or

(ii)to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or

(iii)to both.