Boat Safety Scheme Certificate BSSC/BSC requirements changes

[IanD]

30 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Not on NHS QUALY years though. Assuming we are all old duffers average age 60 one life saved is around £500,000 (25,000 X 20 years)  Is the BSS really saving 3 or 4 deaths a year? 

 

FAR more deaths occur from falling in and or propeller nasties than any BSS will ever begin to save. 
 

The trouble with generators is that they tend to disappear during BSS inspection like several other implements. 
 

Is there a stat. for deaths for boat related defects, and cause? It would help if there was one! Appreciate there are sad stories of CO deaths which probably make up the majority 
 

 

That's not a safe assumption though is it, when many of the boaters on cheap scruffy and presumably more dangerous boats are younger people desperate for somewhere to live?

 

I think you're contradicting yourself -- deaths from CO poisoning and fires/explosions are (I believe) a lot more frequent than people getting chopped up by propellers, and it's these that BSS is supposed to prevent.

 

I don't think anyone would have a big complaint about the BSS if it focused on the big things that really do kill people -- like gas/electricity installation, petrol, CO poisoning -- and not the thousand and one little piddly things that at worst are going to cost the boater some money, or where the chance of them causing a problem is so small that it should be ignored. It's not unreasonable to have rules that stop people living on board a deathtrap that might kill them and other boaters, and that's what the BSS should be doing.

[ditchcrawler]

13 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

If the scheme was intended as a lucrative scheme for examiners, it seems by all reports to be a miserable failure. 

Think more the people who run the system . Bit like pubs, the struggle but pubco's bosses make money 

[cuthound]

21 hours ago, Momac said:

Smoke alarm being mandatory is not an issue as far a I am concerned. 

 

 

 

Likewise, I fitted one to my boat years ago.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Think more the people who run the system . Bit like pubs, the struggle but pubco's bosses make money 

Given that -- unlike the pubcos, or water companies -- the BSS is a not-for-profit company with three directors, two of who are CART employees so unlikely to be coining it, I can't help feeling that your comment is a teeny bit hyperbolic... 😉 

 

https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/media/299495/explanatory-note-on-the-governance-arrangements-from-april-2024.pdf

 

"Who runs BSS Limited?

The Canal & River Trust has incorporated the new entity and is one of four members of the
company, alongside three appointed director members: Tom Deards, Jon Horsfall (both
employees of the Trust) and Phil Aspey (an independent director with long experience in
the Boat Safety Scheme up to March 2024).

How will BSS Limited be funded?

BSS Limited will be funded by existing sources, such as BSS Certification charges and
Examiner training and accreditation fees. The company is a not-for-profit public safety
initiative, so all income will be used to fund the costs of running and continuously improving
the Scheme to reduce risks to the safety of boaters and other people on and near the
waterways"

 

Edited March 4 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Given that -- unlike the pubcos, or water companies -- the BSS is a not-for-profit company with three directors, two of who are CART employees so unlikely to be coining it, I can't help feeling that your comment is a teeny bit hyperbolic... 😉 

 

https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/media/299495/explanatory-note-on-the-governance-arrangements-from-april-2024.pdf

 

"Who runs BSS Limited?

The Canal & River Trust has incorporated the new entity and is one of four members of the
company, alongside three appointed director members: Tom Deards, Jon Horsfall (both
employees of the Trust) and Phil Aspey (an independent director with long experience in
the Boat Safety Scheme up to March 2024).

How will BSS Limited be funded?

BSS Limited will be funded by existing sources, such as BSS Certification charges and
Examiner training and accreditation fees. The company is a not-for-profit public safety
initiative, so all income will be used to fund the costs of running and continuously improving
the Scheme to reduce risks to the safety of boaters and other people on and near the
waterways"

 

You could well be right about my comment, but there is a lot of money going somewhere 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

You could well be right about my comment, but there is a lot of money going somewhere 

Where?

 

"The company is a not-for-profit public safety
initiative, so all income will be used to fund the costs of running and continuously improving
the Scheme to reduce risks to the safety of boaters and other people on and near the
waterways"

 

People always accusing organisations of fat-cat behaviour and profiteering with no evidence to back it up -- or even when this shows the opposite -- gets right up my nose, partly because it often diverts attention towards an easy (and imaginary?) target and away from where the real blame lies -- CART is one example and BSS is another where fat-cats are definitely not the real problem.

 

Of course the water companies really *are* an utterly disgusting example of such behaviour, and deserve every last bit of the sh*t that gets thrown at them... 😞 

Edited March 4 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Where?

 

"The company is a not-for-profit public safety
initiative, so all income will be used to fund the costs of running and continuously improving
the Scheme to reduce risks to the safety of boaters and other people on and near the
waterways"

Thats a bit like saying Oxfam, for examole, is a charity so all the income goes to its charitable purposes. Which it does, of course, some of them being the enormous salaries,perks and bonuses to the people who un the thing because, obviously, psying anyone any less than the directors of other such institutions would mean they were incompetent.

Whuch, in my personal view, they usually are, and certainly are in the case of the BSS.

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

The Canal & River Trust has incorporated the new entity and is one of four members of the
company, alongside three appointed director members: Tom Deards, Jon Horsfall (both
employees of the Trust) and Phil Aspey (an independent director with long experience in
the Boat Safety Scheme up to March 2024).

 

 

That information is a little out of date as a 4th Director (Anne Aston) was appointed in March 2025

 

In the year to 31/3/2025 they have zero (0) employees and four (4) Directors.

An income of £939,969

Cost of Sales £271,028

Administrative expenses (salaries etc) £637,303

And a profit after tax of  £23602

 

The company has no (nil) fixed assets.

Edited March 4 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thats a bit like saying Oxfam, for examole, is a charity so all the income goes to its charitable purposes. Which it does, of course, some of them being the enormous salaries,perks and bonuses to the people who un the thing because, obviously, psying anyone any less than the directors of other such institutions would mean they were incompetent.

Whuch, in my personal view, they usually are, and certainly are in the case of the BSS.

That might be your personal view -- that charity directors should be paid peanuts -- but it obviously isn't the view of the charities.

 

How much are the BSS directors paid then, and how much do you think they should be paid? Bear in mind that two of them are CART employees so presumably paid on the CART scale -- though I guess you think all CART senior management are overpaid too, and possibly all senior management everywhere?

 

Whether the BSS is incompetent or just plain misguided and over-reaching is a debate to be had -- I'd certainly agree on the last two, whether that's caused by the first one is again a matter for debate... 😉 

 

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That information is a little out of date as a 4th Director (Anne Aston) was appointed in March 2025

 

In the year to 31/3/2025 they have zero (0) employees and four (4) Directors.

An income of £939,969

Cost of Sales £271,028

Administrative expenses (salaries etc) £637,303

And a profitit after tax of  £23602

 

The company has no (nil) fixed assets.

And the breakdown of "administrative expenses"? Come on, let's see just how much the fat cats are paid then... 🙂 

 

Oh yes, not forgetting -- and how this compares to what you were paid as a company director, just for the sake of transparency... 😉 

 

This is all sounding like a witch-hunt based on little or no actual facts, except hatred of "fat-cats" -- regardless of whether those accused are or not...

 

P.S Don't get me wrong, there are undoubtedly lots of overpaid fat-cats out there, especially some big company directors, and more particularly in privatised companies like water -- but it really doesn't seem likely that this is the case for the BSS or CART, other than the "all senior managers are overpaid by definition, especially those in charities" class-war trope.

Edited March 4 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

 

("Staff related costs" typically include NI and pension contributions)

 

 

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

Come on, let's see just how much the fat cats are paid then...

 

It look like around £80k each

 

Which considering 3 of them are also Senior C&RT employees ......................................

 

 

In 2024-25:  just under 22,000 Examinations were carried out 14,989 Certifications were issued, of these: 92.8% were privately-owned boats 4.7% hire boats 2.5% non-private boats (for example, work boats, ferries, small passenger boats etc)

 

The advice check for under ventilation (linked to the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning) was not complied with on 2,302 boats at the point of BSS Certification Examiners made 41,715 comments against non-compliant checks 2 Thames Region 2.5k Anglian Waterways 1.4k

 

Over 248 boats were missing the vital protection of all electrical circuits passing through an AC consumer unit

 

382 boats did not meet the check for ‘means of escape’ meaning that boat crews could struggle or be trapped in an emergency

 

41.7k comments to boat owners were recorded in 6.9k non-compliant result Examinations 

 

The most common mandatory non- compliance was: Are batteries secure against excessive movement in any direction? 2,331 boats had loose batteries and risked catching fire.

 

The second most common non-compliance was: Are battery terminals correctly insulated or protected? 1,516 had an issue with sub- standard wiring

 

The third most common check not complied with was: Are the correct number of suitable portable fire extinguishers provided, and do they have the correct combined fire ratings? 1,387 boats were found to be lacking in this area

Edited March 4 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

("Staff related costs" typically include NI and pension contributions)

 

It look like around £80k each

 

Which considering 3 of them are also Senior C&RT employees ......................................

[snip]

Where do you get the £80k each from? (£360k/4=90k) Are these directors the only BSS staff or are there others?

 

I read it as that this is their job seconded from CART, and this is what they get paid not on top of an existing CART salary -- because anything else would be crazy, neither would be a full-time job. Or do you know different?

 

(facts please, not speculation...)

 

Just trying to find out the truth here, as opposed to slagging off the BSS and speculation... 😉 

Edited March 4 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Are these directors the only BSS staff or are there others?

 

Did you read what I wrote ?

According to their accounts held with companies House, in 2024-25 they had 4 directors and zero / Nil other employees.

 

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Where do you get the £80k each from? (£360k/4=90k)

 

I stated "around" £80k each as I doubt there is an even split.

 

 

According to C&RTs published accounts ......................

 

Tom Deards is Legal & Governance Director
Anne Gardner-Aston is Director of Health & Safety

 

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

I read it as that this is their job seconded from CART, and this is what they get paid not on top of an existing CART salary

 

Then, if they are listed in the BSS & C&RTs salary list -  there is double counting.

Are you suggesting that the BSS is their employer and they do the C&RT role pro-bono ?

 

 

[Phoenix_V]

4 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

Not on the canals, but the Thames Conservancy had standards for pleasure craft long before the BSS.

 

 

 

which was enforced by random checks conducted by conservancy staff at no cost to the boater and the rules not changed every year to keep someone in a job

 

Edited March 4 by Phoenix_V

[IanD]

54 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Did you read what I wrote ?

According to their accounts held with companies House, in 2024-25 they had 4 directors and zero / Nil other employees.

 

I stated "around" £80k each as I doubt there is an even split.

 

According to C&RTs published accounts ......................

 

Tom Deards is Legal & Governance Director
Anne Gardner-Aston is Director of Health & Safety

 

 

Then, if they are listed in the BSS & C&RTs salary list -  there is double counting.

Are you suggesting that the BSS is their employer and they do the C&RT role pro-bono ?

 

Thank you, I can read, and nothing you posted said they were the *only* four employees -- which is why I asked.

 

Now I'll ask if *you* can read... 😉 

 

"The Canal & River Trust has incorporated the new entity and is one of four members of the
company, alongside three appointed director members: Tom Deards, Jon Horsfall (both
employees of the Trust)"

 

It's common practice for employees of one company/charity (e.g. CART) to be seconded to another associated company/charity (e.g. BSS) to work for them, in this case the one they're doing the work for normally pays them -- which in this case would (maybe...) be about £90k each from BSS, if there are no other employees. Usually they don't get two salaries for doing one job, for obvious reasons -- so if you have any evidence to suggest this is the case, might I suggest you provide it? 🙂 

 

If they are getting £90k each as part-time directors *on top of* their CART salary for doing a theoretically full-time job -- then yes I agree with you, this seems excessive... 😉 

[Mike Todd]

6 hours ago, IanD said:

From what has been said it seems that this already applies in some cases, with examiners who are jobsworths -- with an inflated sense of their own importance and expertise who refuse to admit that they are ignorant of the actual rules... 😞 

 

(plus no effective mechanism to do anything about this via the BSS...)

This phenomenon occurs in almost every regulatory environment. For the most part, such rules are in place by public demand after a clever entrepreneur finds a way to cut costs which covertly increasing risk to all and sundry. (We can see the process playing out live at the present day in the UK water industry).

 

This is the way (almost the only way) that society evolves - it may sometimes be in the pursuit if plain money, at other times the pay back may be in some other currency (eg market domination) A dynamically balance system employs a feedback loop to control itself. The 'greed' factor is balanced by the regulatory one. As most politicians who promise to abolish red tape or regulations end up discovering, unbalancing such feedback control will end in tears.

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

You could well be right about my comment, but there is a lot of money going somewhere 

I could not find a reliable figure for the actual average cost of a BSS (not the average of published charges!) bit is seems to be around £250 - £300. Lets take the latter. There are around 30,000 boats I believe and the test is needed every four years. That is average 7,500 each year. Overall the costs to boaters of the BSS scheme is £2.25 million pa. To set in context this is probably about the same as the total cost of insurance (even less data available on actual average premium but  £200 - £800?? 

 

I'm not sure that in the grand scheme of things that adds up to BSS generating 'a lot of money'. 

[jonathanA]

On 03/03/2026 at 17:12, ditchcrawler said:

But what is the next thing they decide to make mandatory. IMO smoke and CO  detectors are outside what the BSS was for . Yes you should have one but its not the job of the BSS to tell you you have to.

quite so, 

 

I'm happy to have both because it makes sense, I don't need or want some quango to tell me i MUST do it, anymore than i want them to tell me what colour socks to put on in the morning.  I would be more accepting of an advisory check, which seems perfectly reasonable, it is the mandatory bit that i find unpleasant

 

The important thing here is that as many 'ordinary boaters' as possible make comments (whether in support or against). it does seem to me the consultation is being rushed through with indecent haste.  so here is the link again 

 

Questions & Response Form | Boat Safety Scheme

Edited March 4 by jonathanA
add a bit

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Did you read what I wrote ?

According to their accounts held with companies House, in 2024-25 they had 4 directors and zero / Nil other employees.

 

 

I stated "around" £80k each as I doubt there is an even split.

 

 

According to C&RTs published accounts ......................

 

Tom Deards is Legal & Governance Director
Anne Gardner-Aston is Director of Health & Safety

 

 

Then, if they are listed in the BSS & C&RTs salary list -  there is double counting.

Are you suggesting that the BSS is their employer and they do the C&RT role pro-bono ?

 

 

I would point out that most directors get the bulk of their income in dividends, not salary, as they pay less tax on it that way. They also get "loans" at advantageous rates, though I never understood how that worked, but all the directors I ever dealt with seemed to regard it as an excellent way of diddling the taxman. Whether any of this applies to CRT I have no idea, but I doubt very much that any "director" is existing on 80 grand a year. Nor can I see running the BSS as a full time job. One day a week, maybe. What on earth would they do the rest of the time?

Anyway, my opinion of the scheme (and most of its examiners) is well known, so I'll opt out of this thread now.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Thank you, I can read, and nothing you posted said they were the *only* four employees -- which is why I asked.

 

 

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

in the year to 31/3/2025 they have zero (0) employees and four (4) Directors.

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

quite so, 

 

I'm happy to have both because it makes sense, I don't need or want some quango to tell me i MUST do it, anymore than i want them to tell me what colour socks to put on in the morning.  I would be more accepting of an advisory check, which seems perfectly reasonable, it is the mandatory bit that i find unpleasant

 

The important thing here is that as many 'ordinary boaters' as possible make comments (whether in support or against). it does seem to me the consultation is being rushed through with indecent haste.  so here is the link again 

 

Questions & Response Form | Boat Safety Scheme

Isn't the principle behind the BSS supposed to be to prevent boaters harming others (third parties)? (because if you want to commit suicide that's your own business...)

 

If a boat stove (or whatever) is chucking out CO -- which could get into another boat (third party), or the boat generating it (first party) -- then the only sane place to put a detector is inside the boat, where the people are.

 

But boater A can't install a CO detector inside boat B to protect them, only inside their own boat. So the BSS says "you must install a CO detector inside your boat"; the detector inside boat A (installed by boater A) protects them against being gassed by CO generated by boat B, and vice versa -- in other words, it prevents boaters harming others, which is the BSS remit.

The fact that it tells a boater to install a CO detector inside their own boat seems odd, but it's to protect them from somebody else's faulty stove -- the fact that it also protects them from their own is a free bonus... 😉 

[PeterF]

I have reminded people previously that one of the BSS arguments for CO detectors was the BSS inspector is a third party as would any other visitors to the boat, hence it is there to help protect them.

[Momac]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

.........the rules not changed every year to keep someone in a job

 

What were the BSS changes over the last two years?    

 

[IanD]

46 minutes ago, PeterF said:

I have reminded people previously that one of the BSS arguments for CO detectors was the BSS inspector is a third party as would any other visitors to the boat, hence it is there to help protect them.

So by both arguments -- this one and the one I gave above -- the BSS is justified in requiring CO detectors be fitted onboard.

[Stroudwater1]

6 minutes ago, Momac said:

What were the BSS changes over the last two years?    

 

 

The changes  on ventilation have been recent  and the stipulations on battery security very recent? In fairness when the boat is upside down I will be so relieved that my batteries are secure to prevent an electrical fire.

 

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

This phenomenon occurs in almost every regulatory environment. For the most part, such rules are in place by public demand after a clever entrepreneur finds a way to cut costs which covertly increasing risk to all and sundry. (We can see the process playing out live at the present day in the UK water industry).

 

This is the way (almost the only way) that society evolves - it may sometimes be in the pursuit if plain money, at other times the pay back may be in some other currency (eg market domination) A dynamically balance system employs a feedback loop to control itself. The 'greed' factor is balanced by the regulatory one. As most politicians who promise to abolish red tape or regulations end up discovering, unbalancing such feedback control will end in tears.

I could not find a reliable figure for the actual average cost of a BSS (not the average of published charges!) bit is seems to be around £250 - £300. Lets take the latter. There are around 30,000 boats I believe and the test is needed every four years. That is average 7,500 each year. Overall the costs to boaters of the BSS scheme is £2.25 million pa. To set in context this is probably about the same as the total cost of insurance (even less data available on actual average premium but  £200 - £800?? 

 

I'm not sure that in the grand scheme of things that adds up to BSS generating 'a lot of money'. 

 

Eh? It’s completely different. You pay an insurance premium such that a significant proportion gets paid out to unfortunate boaters for mishaps. Some goes in profit and pay  The BSS fee goes to the directors it seems for doing very little, and the examiner for trying to make sense of it all. I think I know which of the two affords better value for money. 

[jonathanA]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Isn't the principle behind the BSS supposed to be to prevent boaters harming others (third parties)? (because if you want to commit suicide that's your own business...)

 

If a boat stove (or whatever) is chucking out CO -- which could get into another boat (third party), or the boat generating it (first party) -- then the only sane place to put a detector is inside the boat, where the people are.

 

But boater A can't install a CO detector inside boat B to protect them, only inside their own boat. So the BSS says "you must install a CO detector inside your boat"; the detector inside boat A (installed by boater A) protects them against being gassed by CO generated by boat B, and vice versa -- in other words, it prevents boaters harming others, which is the BSS remit.

The fact that it tells a boater to install a CO detector inside their own boat seems odd, but it's to protect them from somebody else's faulty stove -- the fact that it also protects them from their own is a free bonus... 😉 

Which is all fine and dandy but this thread is about smoke detectors... 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I would point out that most directors get the bulk of their income in dividends, not salary, as they pay less tax on it that way. They also get "loans" at advantageous rates, though I never understood how that worked, but all the directors I ever dealt with seemed to regard it as an excellent way of diddling the taxman. Whether any of this applies to CRT I have no idea, but I doubt very much that any "director" is existing on 80 grand a year. Nor can I see running the BSS as a full time job. One day a week, maybe. What on earth would they do the rest of the time?

Anyway, my opinion of the scheme (and most of its examiners) is well known, so I'll opt out of this thread now.

How can directors of a charity and a not-for-profit company get paid in dividends when there aren't any? Paying in "loans" was a tax fiddle which HMRC have now cracked down on, and gone after the culprits to recover large amounts of tax which was avoided, so it seems extremely unlikely CART/BSS would be doing that.

 

Unless we know whether they're only paid for their BSS role or whether this is on top of their CART pay all this is just speculation, throwing sh*t at people with positions that posters on here don't like the sound of, with no facts to justify it -- apart from the fact that they appear to be paid around £90k for "the job", whatever that is and however much time they spend on it.

 

If that's all they get paid and it's a full-time job -- or they spend some time on this and the rest of the time on work for CART -- then it's not an unreasonable sum.

 

If they get paid that for a day or two per week (or even half their time) and paid again for working for CART, then it is indeed a fat-cat ripoff.

 

Right now nobody's provided any evidence about which is the case, no matter how much some people hate "directors"... 😉 

Edited March 4 by IanD