BSS Examiner

[Arthur Marshall]

Does anyone know if Steve Williams, who lives (or lived) on a boat (called Melody, I think) around Middlewich, is still being a BSS examiner?

He did mine four years ago but there's no reply to his phone or to an email, though his website is still up.

[alan_fincher]

Does he feature amongst those that appear if you do a lookup on the BSS site?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Does anyone know if Steve Williams, who lives (or lived) on a boat (called Melody, I think) around Middlewich, is still being a BSS examiner?

He did mine four years ago but there's no reply to his phone or to an email, though his website is still up.

 

I’m pretty sure that’s the same bloke I used in 2020, and when I enquired in 2024 he’d stopped doing the work. 
 

I used this bloke instead who was very good, he drove over to Stone. Whether he’ll come up to Congleton 🤷‍♀️
Michael Shaw
07913388524
mikeshaw@live.co.uk

 

[David Mack]

I've used Rupert Smedley before. Based near Leek so not too far from you.

https://hazelhurstcottage.co.uk/boat-safety-scheme-examiner/

[Mike Todd]

I can happily commend Tom Keeling to anyone within his area (last did ours at Cropredy)

[PeterF]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Does anyone know if Steve Williams, who lives (or lived) on a boat (called Melody, I think) around Middlewich, is still being a BSS examiner?

He did mine four years ago but there's no reply to his phone or to an email, though his website is still up.

I am worried about Steve, he did my BSS 4 weeks ago at Tattenhall having done it 4 years ago. He said he had some health issues and was planning on retiring. His published phone and email were how I contacted him to set it up. I got my BSS docs emailed the same day but the invoice did not turn up afterwards and like you I have been unable to contact him further. Really nice gent, I am hoping he is OK.

Edited March 10 by PeterF

[jonathanA]

I would Recommend Paul Morris - St Helens based. He is also Gas safe registered, and in my experience a thorough examiner who does actually know what he is doing. I think he is fairly happy covering the north west and into Cheshire. 

[Arthur Marshall]

Thanks everyone.

[JoeC]

I spoke with Steve a few weeks back and got him booked in towards end of month for my BSS. However, due to health he is not renewing his BSS ticket when it runs out at the end of the month.

[Arthur Marshall]

5 hours ago, JoeC said:

I spoke with Steve a few weeks back and got him booked in towards end of month for my BSS. However, due to health he is not renewing his BSS ticket when it runs out at the end of the month.

Thanks for letting me know. Another excellent one retiring. He did a really good job for me last time, passed the boat on the BSS tolerances but reckoned I still had a small gas leak and refused to go till he'd found and fixed it, for which I was very grateful. When you see him, please pass on my best wishes from Byron's Maggot.

[Stroudwater1]

I don’t understand how it works but why is there a specific time to redo a ticket, and why is a ticket needed anyway?
 

It focuses BSS peoples mind as to whether to carry on or not. The guy that did our boats last BSS said that he was giving up by the end of March too. Nice chap recommended someone else though. 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

and why is a ticket needed anyway?

 

Because you will not be given/granted a boat licence without it.

[Stroudwater1]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Because you will not be given/granted a boat licence without it.

A ticket for the BSS examiner not for the boat. (The need for the boat to have one has been done here many times..) 
 

It seems a requirement possibly every April for the BSS examiner to have/ do something in order to continue.

it’s unwise to have a specific date for all. Seems a few take that opportunity each April so  this ticket requirement is leading to experienced BSS examiners to stop when they may not otherwise. 
 

 

[Chris John]

Steve Williams did mine in August 2024 and also told me he was finishing due to health issues, however I also saw him at Aquaduct marina in November working away 

Edited March 11 by Chris John

[MtB]

Surely renewing a BSS examiner tikcet should only be necessary to take account of changes to the regs. 

 

This is why us gas bods are told we must renew, because so much stuff changes in a five year period! 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

Surely renewing a BSS examiner tikcet should only be necessary to take account of changes to the regs. 

 

This is why us gas bods are told we must renew, because so much stuff changes in a five year period! 

 

 

 

Maybe they should spend more time of 'continuous learning' and actually understand the requirements of the BSS, so they can apply what is actually required, rather than put their personal interpretation into what they think is required..

 

Lack of consistency is the biggest failure if the BSS.

[Mac of Cygnet]

Guy Holden of Portland Basin Marina always did mine, was very fair and did all he could to pass the boat.  I presume he would cover the Macc, as I met him at various places on the Peak Forest. (He did my BSS at Sowerby Bridge.)

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Lack of consistency is the biggest failure if the BSS.

 

So what happens when a BSS bod 'renews' his ticket? Is it just a one day exam? Or is there a week of 'correction' first, going through some sort of revision process? Or (heaven forbid!) dissecting his or her history of complaints about fail tickets issued? 

 

How often do BSS bods have to 'renew'? I was unaware they ever needed to.

 

 

Edited March 11 by MtB
spelling

[Mike Todd]

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe they should spend more time of 'continuous learning' and actually understand the requirements of the BSS, so they can apply what is actually required, rather than put their personal interpretation into what they think is required..

 

Lack of consistency is the biggest failure if the BSS.

By no means limited to BSS. Actually, I suspect that it is a necessary element to any half decent inspection regime, especially one that goes beyond very simple measurements (eg vehicle MOT).

 

I have experienced in Food Hygiene and seen it with schools. In the latter, the consequences can be very substantial. And also in engineering.

 

So is it possible, even sensible to aim for consistency? Firstly, let us assume that we can put aside the issue of corruption (but, yes, it does exist) - that is inspectors making interpretations which are intended to benefit themselves. Many inspection regimes have been outsourced to the private sector but it rarely makes sufficient business on its own. As a result it is is combined with other commercial activities that are in demand after a failed inspection. However that is not a justification for replacing it with a wholly independent regime which, if nothing else, is likely to make it much more expensive.

 

Secondly, not everything that is important in this world can be metricated - but it can still be measured non-parametrically. Assuming that we want such factors to be considered then there has to be potential for variation between inspectors (even judges in courts vary and a recent attempt to minimise this led to an outcry!) For example, a rule that requires an suitable means of getting out of the water.

 

Thirdly, in a context where the size of the field (in this case the number of boats on waterways that require a BSS) is small in relation to the complexity of the subject, there will always be a difficulty in being concise and still being fair. The briefer the rule set the more likely it is that situations will arise which are reasonably just outside the expected scope of the rules. In this case it is helpful to have some flexibility for judgement that will allow the examiner to make an interpretation in such situations. I suspect we have seen this in recent times when battery technology has seen rapid evolution - the rules have yet to keep pace as, un reality, a period of interpretation outside the rules is needed in  order to gain the knowledge necessary to formulate the rules. Without that experience, it is highly likely that a new rule will be added that quickly creates problems. This is at the heart of how engineering advances.

[ditchcrawler]

From facebook just now

 

From the 1st April 2025 most BSS examiners will be putting their prices up. It's not something that many of us are happy about, but the Boat Safety Scheme have increased our operating costs by raising the annual registration fee, certificate fee and ongoing training costs.

[Machpoint005]

To expect a BSS examiner to keep fees at a particular level would be naive. They are running businesses just like any other consultancy outfit.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

By no means limited to BSS. Actually, I suspect that it is a necessary element to any half decent inspection regime, especially one that goes beyond very simple measurements (eg vehicle MOT).

 

Everything you state has validity, but, for a 'simple' inspection like the BSS where every required detail and parameter is listed, it should be just a Yes/No tick box, if it is "there" is meets the requirement, there is no interpretation required.

 

However there seems to be an ethos amongst some of the examiners that makes them more 'important' than the standards, and enables them to say 

"I don't agree with the standards required, and, unless you reach 'my' requirements you will fail the examination"

 

Or, as my last BSS he doesn't move from the saloon and says :

"I can see you have a CO alarm, are there others in the boat ?" and "It obviously passed the last examination so we'll assume it has passed this one.

For example : How would he know that in the intervening 4 years the dates on the gas pipes had not expired ?

 

Complaining to the BSS office simply gets you (eventually) a reply, "we will discuss with the examiner and see if he needs more training" and then nothing is ever heard again. They say they cannot inform you of any action taken as that would infringe the rights of the examiner (GDPR etc)

 

 

 

Picking up on you point about "getting out of the water" that is obviously not a BSS requirement, and yes, the RCD requirement is not clear, but left the the man on the Clapham Omnibus I would expect him to say, not only should it be there, but should be usable as well.

Edited March 12 by Alan de Enfield

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Everything you state has validity, but, for a 'simple' inspection like the BSS where every required detail and parameter is listed, it should be just a Yes/No tick box, if it is "there" is meets the requirement, there is no interpretation required.

 

However there seems to be an ethos amongst some of the examiners that makes them more 'important' than the standards, and enables them to say 

"I don't agree with the standards required, and, unless you reach 'my' requirements you will fail the examination"

 

Or, as my last BSS he doesn't move from the saloon and says :

"I can see you have a CO alarm, are there others in the boat ?" and "It obviously passed the last examination so we'll assume it has passed this one.

For example : How would he know that in the intervening 4 years the dates on the gas pipes had not expired ?

 

Complaining to the BSS office simply gets you (eventually) a reply, "we will discuss with the examiner and see if he needs more training" and then nothing is ever heard again. They say they cannot inform you of any action taken as that would infringe the rights of the examiner (GDPR etc)

 

 

 

Picking up on you point about "getting out of the water" that is obviously not a BSS requirement, and yes, the RCD requirement is not clear, but left the the man on the Clapham Omnibus I would expect him to say, not only should it be there, but should be usable as well.

Usable, yes but is it sufficient? Would the Woman on the Clapham Omnibus take the same view on what is usable? Ia age relevant? What level of disability should be catered for?

 

One examiner required/suggested that we move the fuel cut off label from the top of a locker to the deck board below, perhaps on the ground that its original position was not quite correct when it said the cut off was 'below' - by a couple of inches. It was too easy to comply rather then argue and I could see his point, if a tad pedantic! I doubt whether tick boxes would be able to tell us who was right! (Of course the original placement was by the builder to comply with RCD and, four years later, the examiner was looking at BSS - always room for debate!)

 

In any event, I would generally be less happy with a scheme that had no scope for judgement as it is almost certainly going to stifle evolution. 

[Arthur Marshall]

Still trying to sort this out.. anyone had one recently and can give me a guide as to what to expect as the cost?

Edited March 14 by Arthur Marshall

[PeterF]

£240 4 weeks ago

Edited March 14 by PeterF