Unfortunately, from what we have seen in far too many circumstances the standards of both the vessels and the quality of surveying these craft on inland waterways leaves a lot to be desired. I am sure that this has, and quite rightly should have, an influence on an insurer’s decision- making processes.
During continued insurance investigations into claims against surveyors of inland waterways craft it continues to become apparent that there is a wide range of standards being applied by marine surveyors during their assessments of surveyed vessels. This has resulted in claims being made against IIMS members, meaning it has become necessary to readvise surveyors, insurers and lawyers with regards to ‘what is the acceptable level of corrosion and resultant diminution of metal hull plate-work’. When asked, surveyors’ opinions varied wildly for the acceptable level of wastage due to the corrosion of steel plate as far as diminution and pitting are concerned.
For example, with regards to 6mm plate, opinions vary between accepting a limit of 20%, (approximate 4.8mm) to 50%, (3mm), to the lowest limit of 70%, (2mm). In fact, both the MCA and Classification Societies have percentage rules, which in general are 20% dependent on longitudinal position and these rules apply to all craft whether sea going or inland waterways.
Talking to surveyors of inland waterways craft, as I have done extensively, there appears to be a good deal of 'That's OK', and 'That's the way it's always been'. I have yet to see a disputed Inland Waterways vessel survey report where the vessel surveyed was presented in a clean condition. That means the hull plate work cannot be thoroughly inspected, there was no proper access to inspect the outer bottom and almost without exception there was no access to inspect the internal structure. A hull fouled by freshwater mussels, weed and slime cannot in any circumstances be properly inspected, examined or even properly assessed.
However, this seems to be routine practice for some. I was advised that the reasons are that owners and purchasers will not accept the cost of lifting and pressure washing the craft for survey - and due to the extensive use of cheap environmentally unfriendly bituminous paint, resulting in the potential additional cost of re-painting the hull prior to relaunch due to the “blacking” being washed off by the pressure washer.
Some of these issues also appear to be the result of the lack of suitable facilities for the removal of craft from the water. Some vessels involved in claims were removed on trollies, which were too low to allow access underneath.
In one instance the vessel to be inspected was too heavy for the capacity of the hoist, so it was only lifted just an inch or two above the water (presumably because of concerns over gear failure). Conducting surveys in these conditions is an impossible challenge and a surveyor should not accept these limitations. Apart from the Health and Safety aspect which should be included in the surveyor’s risk assessment, if an owner or purchaser cannot present a vessel in an acceptable condition for survey, they must accept either that the surveyor will refuse to survey the vessel or that the owner/purchaser will be receiving a partial and therefore largely meaningless survey report which may not be accepted by insurers.
There is a fundamental design difference between sea going vessels and Inland Waterways vessels. This stems largely through intended use. Sea going vessels are mostly used for recreation whereas Inland Waterways vessels are increasingly being used for permanent or occasional floating accommodation. Sea going vessels will most usually be fitted with portable/removeable sections of flooring, locker bases and ships side linings, similar to a ship, whereas the Inland Waterways vessel will be fitted with fixed flooring and linings similar to that of a house.
THE REPORT | MAR 2025 | ISSUE 111 | 109
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
