Another example could be a vessel that has undergone structural amendment, for example a 2018 narrowboat that is stretched (lengthened). Recent claims that PCA is required include one narrowboat being offered for sale at a brokerage, and the vendor being told MCC has occurred because they have stretched the vessel. They receive information that they have to follow the PCA process (presumably because the changes have altered the watercraft to ‘such an extent that it may not meet the applicable essential requirements’).
This presents a real concern for a broker, who does not want to be pursued by a future owner or Trading Standards for selling a product not in conformity; some brokers (following industry guidance issued in 2023 and 2024) seem to be worried they are “distributors” and that used boats are “products” in scope of RCR 2017.
Marine surveyors sensibly seem to have caveats that state they do not consider any conformity with RCR, so therefore PCA is not a consideration. However, some are nervous about not mentioning to a buyer that the vessel changes could, by some, be considered a barrier to purchase unless conformity is proven.
There is now an escalating fear growing; if the 2018 stretched boat above was presented at a brokerage who don’t care about potential PCA, and a surveyor also doesn’t consider it, the second owner is blissfully unaware. They then go to resell but this time a brokerage says to the second owner that a PCA is required because of previous MCC. The accusation is that this privately owned used boat has somehow been illegally placed on the market and that the second owner and / or the broker has liability for this.
British Marine guidance has recently (Marinetalk, Jan 2024) instructed brokers to look for a CE plate and WIN, because “if these items cannot be found it is highly likely the vessel is not legal”; however a boat is a product like any other, so it can be modified at will in private ownership.
A consumer with a toaster disposes of the box, conformity paperwork etc, but can still sell it second hand without restriction. There is also the risk that boats never required to be subject to the RCR 2017, such as an own-built boat, will be made to have a PCA completed by an unknowing broker, when it was excluded from the regulations in the first place. This places the broker at risk.
The paper presents arguments that show the marine surveyor and broker do not have any liability for any legal status or changes to a privately owned used watercraft.
Review
At the time of publication, it is pleasing to report that British Marine has commissioned what is understood to be an “independent legal review” into the subject, to the undertaken by a marine law firm. A brokers’ group has formed, who have separately engaged the services of a specialist product lawyer; initial briefings report that the paper has been found to be logically sound and correct. The results from the BM commission are eagerly awaited and this proactive approach is laudable.
Proposal
The paper is in its first published iteration as a working draft and makes a significant proposal made up of 9 key statements that redefine the industry’s understanding of the scope and application of RCR 2017. These focus on the clear application of the legislation to economic operators; however, following engagement with stakeholders it is likely these will be updated.
Summary
The notions of major craft conversion and post-construction assessment seem like new concepts, and as such there has been
Your observations, comments and thoughts are welcomed by email to
info@smallcraftservices.com or
peter@technicalsupport.ltd.uk
The full paper is freely available to download at
https://bit.ly/3SXVZ0R. THE REPORT | MAR 2024 | ISSUE 107 | 115
confusion as to how and when it is necessary or applies. Brokers and marine surveyors are unclear if they have a responsibility and need guidance and an agreed industry position. There has been too much noise and not enough clarity.
It is entirely within reason that the uncertainty surrounding the RCR and the RCD has historically resulted in unnecessary application of requirements and unnecessary costs to boaters. Furthermore, the sector’s understanding of what an own-built boat is has seemingly been misdirected since 1998, and sailaway vessels incorrectly categorised. As a result, over- application of the legislation and allied processes has occurred. It is feasible to conclude that the reason present understanding of this legislation is wrong is that it was predicated on misunderstanding from the start.
A boat in private ownership is not in the scope of RCR 2017, and as such is free to be modified without regulation as the owner sees fit.
This paper presents evidenced arguments that are widely supported in the sector. As yet, no UK organisation or group has presented any reliable independent guidance to the sector, leaving the uncertainty as described in this paper that benefits nobody. It is hoped that this paper will encourage others to be constructive, to read the legislation and where necessary seek expert guidance to correct misunderstanding.
The authors welcome authoritative, unbiased and informed
conversation regarding this hugely important topic and hope to see evidenced responses forthcoming.
Until such time as a credible and definitive guide is produced relevant to the RCR 2017, and in particular PCA / MCC, this evidenced and referenced paper supports the position outlined in the proposal and seeks to get agreement for adoption from marine surveyors and brokers alike.
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
