BSS Examiner Fees

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

Is it? 

 

They say it is (in their Mission Statement) :

 

The Boat Safety Scheme, or BSS, is a public safety initiative owned equally by the Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency. Its purpose is to help minimise the risk of boat fires, explosions, or pollution harming visitors to the inland waterways, the waterways' workforce and any other users.

[Tom and Bex]

My understanding is pollution has always been part of their remit ever since the BSS was introduced.

 

I do agree that a lot of their requirements are totally unnecessary, but having been involved in working on boats to bring them up to required standards when it was first brought in, there's no doubt in my mind that boats on the waterways are a lot safer now than before the BSS.

 

Admittedly most boats were probably OK before, but some of the boats I worked on were a disaster waiting to happen, and anything to make those safer has to be a benefit to all users. There's no doubt that there's still unsafe boats around now, but a lot fewer than there would be with no BSS.

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, Tom and Bex said:

My understanding is pollution has always been part of their remit ever since the BSS was introduced.

 

I do agree that a lot of their requirements are totally unnecessary, but having been involved in working on boats to bring them up to required standards when it was first brought in, there's no doubt in my mind that boats on the waterways are a lot safer now than before the BSS.

 

Admittedly most boats were probably OK before, but some of the boats I worked on were a disaster waiting to happen, and anything to make those safer has to be a benefit to all users. There's no doubt that there's still unsafe boats around now, but a lot fewer than there would be with no BSS.

Is that why diesel fillers have to be constructed so that any overflow goes overboard rather than in the boat where it can be contained and cleared up?

[Tom and Bex]

18 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Is that why diesel fillers have to be constructed so that any overflow goes overboard rather than in the boat where it can be contained and cleared up?

I guess that's where safety trumps pollution control!

 

As an example of just one boat I was working on when the BSS was introduced - it was powered by petrol outboard, with the remote tank sat inside under the bed and next to a small gas cylinder. This boat also had a gas fridge and hob, connected to the cylinder via a plastic Y and perished rubber hose! Boats like that are now much safer than pre BSS, and that's not an isolated example.

 

Most of the work I was doing at the time involved fitting gas or petrol lockers (or transom mounting) and work to bring the gas system up to standard. I did admit defeat and turned down a job to make a petrol inboard compliant. 

[Momac]

Just now, Tom and Bex said:

I guess that's where safety trumps pollution control!

 

Correct

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

If you go onto the BSS website home page and do a search you will see that  there was a big consultation (involving 100s' -1000's of boaters) regarding the introduction of CO monitors.

There is even the full explanation of the justfication of there introduction (as a safety feature for 3rd parties - NOT the boat owner)

And I'm absolutely certain that the decision to include them was made well before the "consultation".  You can justify anything at all if you really want to. Doesn't mean it isn't drivel.

1 hour ago, Tom and Bex said:

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Arthur Marshall
Answered above

[Mike Todd]

On 27/04/2022 at 13:38, MartynG said:

I think it's a fair analogy. How many times have you been asked for evidence of insurance when you have moored your boat?

In a marina - every time. And also for access to Basingstoke

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

In a marina - every time. And also for access to Basingstoke

Had my boat thirty years and can't remember ever being asked if I'd got insurance. There again, until it was compulsory I never had any.

[George and Dragon]

On 25/04/2022 at 17:19, LadyG said:

The employee does not charge the employer for travel from home to work, but if he is asked to travel to a different place of work he would expect to be paid. In the Civil Service it's known as notional mileage.

Except in the care sector where the workers get paid a pittance for the time they spend with clients and nothing for the travel between clients. I have no idea whether they get paid for their vehicle and travel costs. No wonder the care sector has a workforce crisis.

[ditchcrawler]

16 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

Except in the care sector where the workers get paid a pittance for the time they spend with clients and nothing for the travel between clients. I have no idea whether they get paid for their vehicle and travel costs. No wonder the care sector has a workforce crisis.

A company said on TV last night the Council pays  them £18 per hour, out of that they have overheads like the office, sick pay, holiday pay and the carer to pay. I bet the council don't get their cars serviced for £18 an hour

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

A company said on TV last night the Council pays  them £18 per hour, out of that they have overheads like the office, sick pay, holiday pay and the carer to pay. I bet the council don't get their cars serviced for £18 an hour

Odd  isn't it? If the council employed care workers at £18 an hour they'd have plenty of applicants. The council already have the office staff and associated overheads etc working on paying the companies, so, rather like the bust power lot, it just shoves another load of managers, board members and dividends to pay out before you get round to the people doing the job.

Efficiency, eh?

[ditchcrawler]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Odd  isn't it? If the council employed care workers at £18 an hour they'd have plenty of applicants. The council already have the office staff and associated overheads etc working on paying the companies, so, rather like the bust power lot, it just shoves another load of managers, board members and dividends to pay out before you get round to the people doing the job.

Efficiency, eh?

I bet it costs the Council much more than £18 for its lowest paid employee thats why they put it out.

[Laurie Booth]

14 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

Except in the care sector where the workers get paid a pittance for the time they spend with clients and nothing for the travel between clients. I have no idea whether they get paid for their vehicle and travel costs. No wonder the care sector has a workforce crisis.

Very true, I expect the company gets £18 an hour but the staff get a much smaller percentage.

[Mike Todd]

17 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Had my boat thirty years and can't remember ever being asked if I'd got insurance. There again, until it was compulsory I never had any.

Just a few days ago from an email:

 

Dear ,

I’ve emailed the mooring fees under separate email, the invoice has our bank details located at the bottom of the invoice.

Could you also email us a copy of your boat insurance please.

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Just a few days ago from an email:

 

Dear ,

I’ve emailed the mooring fees under separate email, the invoice has our bank details located at the bottom of the invoice.

Could you also email us a copy of your boat insurance please.

 

Ours is the same/similar.

 

Just a quick request – I have your old insurance certificate here which has expired.

Would it be possible for you to scan over your current one please – I need to scan it into the system.

Thanks, everything else is good – the weather is mild and it’s dry thank goodness!

Kind regards,

[nick.pritchard]

On 27/04/2022 at 16:34, haggis said:

I think you are having the same examiner as us and we paid £185 BUT he had to travel to us and he did ask if this was the first time he had examined Kelpie. Perhaps it is cheaper if he doesn't have to find his way round a new to him boat. 

He did a very thorough job, we felt.

Mind you, he started at the stern and the first thing he noticed was that we didn't have a diesel label 🙂 . Not a fail though. If anyone has asked either of us if we had a label we would have said yes!! 

 

On 27/04/2022 at 16:34, haggis said:

I think you are having the same examiner as us and we paid £185 BUT he had to travel to us and he did ask if this was the first time he had examined Kelpie. Perhaps it is cheaper if he doesn't have to find his way round a new to him boat. 

He did a very thorough job, we felt.

Mind you, he started at the stern and the first thing he noticed was that we didn't have a diesel label 🙂 . Not a fail though. If anyone has asked either of us if we had a label we would have said yes!! 

It is a ‘fail’ not to have the fuel type marked up!

’Check’ 2.1.2R    “Is the fuel in use correctly and clearly marked on, or adjacent to, the fuel filling point“

[MtB]

37 minutes ago, nick.pritchard said:

 

It is a ‘fail’ not to have the fuel type marked up!

’Check’ 2.1.2R    “Is the fuel in use correctly and clearly marked on, or adjacent to, the fuel filling point“

 

This is however, a good example of why the BSS is regarded with such scorn by so many. I'm reasonably confident that while it would be a damned nuisance, someone mistakenly filling the diesel tank with water is not a safety risk. 

 

Or is it? Were people regularly getting killed or seriously injured by missing labels on fuel fillers before that regulation became mandatory?

 

Are there any stats available? 

 

 

[Tonka]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This is however, a good example of why the BSS is regarded with such scorn by so many. I'm reasonably confident that while it would be a damned nuisance, someone mistakenly filling the diesel tank with water is not a safety risk. 

 

Or is it? Were people regularly getting killed or seriously injured by missing labels on fuel fillers before that regulation became mandatory?

 

Are there any stats available? 

 

 

But having had a holster of diesel in the water tank. It is not much fun and took days to get rid of the smell and taste.

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This is however, a good example of why the BSS is regarded with such scorn by so many. I'm reasonably confident that while it would be a damned nuisance, someone mistakenly filling the diesel tank with water is not a safety risk. 

 

Or is it? Were people regularly getting killed or seriously injured by missing labels on fuel fillers before that regulation became mandatory?

 

Are there any stats available? 

 

 

It has been known for people to put water in their fuel tank.

The fuel type is marked on a car filler so why not on a boat

Some of the BSS requirements are about pollution prevention,

I expect filling a  fuel tank with water would cause a pollution incident if the fuel tank is completely filled since diesel would spill out first . 

Similarly filling a water tank with diesel could result in some pollution.

But these are rare events I expect .

 

 

 

 

 

[Sea Dog]

1 hour ago, nick.pritchard said:

 

It is a ‘fail’ not to have the fuel type marked up!

’Check’ 2.1.2R    “Is the fuel in use correctly and clearly marked on, or adjacent to, the fuel filling point“

Is it a fail to have a pump out tank marked "Diesel"? I only ask in case my little surprise for thieving syphoneers might need removing for my next BSS... 

[LadyG]

On 28/04/2022 at 18:07, George and Dragon said:

Except in the care sector where the workers get paid a pittance for the time they spend with clients and nothing for the travel between clients. I have no idea whether they get paid for their vehicle and travel costs. No wonder the care sector has a workforce crisis.

I once applied for such a job, and I was asked to repay £100 for training If I left before three months, also expected to use my own car to travel between clients: surprise surprise my allocated clients were geographically widespread. Oh, and aparently the salary advertised was wrong, we would get minimum wages. I never got a penny from such scammers and complained to jobcentre when they asked why I was refusing employment!

 

 

[nick.pritchard]

8 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Is it a fail to have a pump out tank marked "Diesel"? I only ask in case my little surprise for thieving syphoneers might need removing for my next BSS... 

Interesting thought! I usually get told off by ‘er indoors for having such thoughts though. I suppose the zealots in the BSS may find a reason for a fail which stands the test in their own eyes but I honestly don’t know! That said I’ll try to remember to have a look at my BSS training material.

I suppose if someone generously filled your waste tank with fuel then the thought of a diesel enema…….. no, stop the visualisation!

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, nick.pritchard said:

It is a ‘fail’ not to have the fuel type marked up!

’Check’ 2.1.2R    “Is the fuel in use correctly and clearly marked on, or adjacent to, the fuel filling point“

 

It is a 'pass' if the examiner says it's a 'pass'.

 

You don't actually expect the examiners to read thru all those pages (167 pages) in the 2022 BSS Document.

 

I have never yet met an examiner that didn't give a pass for things I knew were failures, and oft have failed a boat for things that are only 'advisories'.

 

When you submit a complaint against an examiner all you get from the BSS is "we will investigate and see if the examiner needs more training"

 

BSS = "Jobs for the boys"

[MtB]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

It has been known for people to put water in their fuel tank.

The fuel type is marked on a car filler so why not on a boat

Some of the BSS requirements are about pollution prevention,

I expect filling a  fuel tank with water would cause a pollution incident if the fuel tank is completely filled since diesel would spill out first . 

Similarly filling a water tank with diesel could result in some pollution.

But these are rare events I expect .

 

 

Yes I'm sure you are right, but minimising pollution is different matter, not a safety matter as the BSS purports to be all about. A perfect example of bureaucratic mission creep. 

 

I would have no problem with all this ol' bollux if they changed the name to the "Canal Boat Pollution Control Scheme", but they don't. 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes I'm sure you are right, but minimising pollution is different matter, not a safety matter as the BSS purports to be all about. A perfect example of bureaucratic mission creep. 

 

I would have no problem with all this ol' bollux if they changed the name to the "Canal Boat Pollution Control Scheme", but they don't. 

 

But the BSS took ownership of 'pollution controllers' when they included toilets (methods of discharge) into the BSS

 

The BSS is about safety of OTHER canal users, so I suppose there is an argument that a few turds floating down the canal could be a health hazard to others.