Tacet

BS EN ISO 21487:2012 has been withdrawn https://www.iso.org/standard/57087.html#:~:text=ISO 21487%3A2012 establishes requirements,installation requirements%2C ISO 10088 applies. The new ISO might contain similar standards in this regard - I don't know. But the more important point is that meeting the ISO standards is not obligatory for the RCR or BSC. They might be good practice - and meeting all the relevant standards might gain you an automatic pass for the RCR, but there is no binding requirement to have an inspection hatch in a narrow boat diesel tank. Whether an inspection hatch is a good thing is open for discussion. It is handy for extracting muck if/when it builds up. On the other hand, a hatch in the vertical face is an increased risk for leaking diesel. And a hatch in the horizontal face is a possible route for rain etc ingress. Personally, I would settle for a nice big drain at the lowest point.

Some hefty brackets atop the gunnel both front and back on both boats, bolted to RSJs spaced to form a catamaran would result in more manageable forces. Winding action between the boats would be the most troublesome.

Quite so but civil transgressions are not usually called "offences"; torts or injuries are sometimes used.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off or https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/businesses/srvcommercial/intellectual_property/passing-off/ etc

To be held criminally responsible (as per Alan's claim) would require proof to the criminal standard. A civil conviction would (unsurprisingly) require proof to the civil standard. Passing off is a civil offence whereby one party misrepresents its product or service as belonging to another particular party. Using someone else's trade mark or branding is a typical example example. A simple claim to exercise expertise not possessed is not passing off.

That's a bit simplistic. The surveyor would have to be shown, to the criminal standard, to have been negligent.

Indeed it would be never ending if everything had to be subject to a PCA pretty much every day - in case (for a silly example) stability had been compromised by a Tesco delivery. That's probably why (giving the legislative some credit) it's only triggered by a Major Craft Conversion and not changing a gas bottle.

Your quoting something other than the RCR/RCD but even so, if one makes a gas installation that undoubtedly meets the Essential Requirements - it's not a Major Craft Conversion, so no need for the PCA The various terms are being muddled by you. And none you mention refer to a Certificate of Compliance as you earlier said was required. If you mean Declaration of Conformity (as per RCR) then best to say so

That list does not include a certificate of compliance - so not sure why one is required by the broker.

I can't see that, as such; do you have chapter and verse? Replacing a gas system or even installing one where none was present is not a Major Craft Conversion so, if the new gas system meets the Essential Requirements where is the trigger for a PCA?

Isn't it rather simpler? The RCR now governs the UK market; there is no longer the RCD (for the UK) and therefore no "new Directive". Moving on (less certainly...) the requirement for a PCA is in regulation 43 which only relates to private importers or where a Major Engine modification or Major Craft Conversion. Both of these Majors are reasonably well defined - with the latter including something that does not meet the Essential Requirements. And the Essential Requirements make no specific mention of (purely for example) multiple negative connections to battery posts, inspection hatches to fuel tanks or return wires to horns. So if a broker notes that someone has breached the Essential Requirements by (for example) unbolting the anchor strong point, it requires a PCA. More practically, if the owner replaces the strong point and takes his vessel to the next broker, it is difficult to see how the second broker is going to know that it was missing for a while. I am not claiming this makes it OK, but the moral would seem to be to ensure your boat gives your chosen broker no real reason to think it does not meet (nor has not ever met) the Essential Requirements. I don't see the broker has a duty to check everything in minute detail - just not to ignore a clear breach. Short of the broker arranging a PCA itself, it's hard to see how it can work otherwise.

But if you were included on the management, there would be £10s of millions of additional revenue each year.

Not at all. Someone (allegedly) offered CRT £2m for something. CRT sold something else to somebody else for £1m. The £2m person did not bid on what was actually for sale because they didn't want it. If that doesn't demonstrate CRTs incompetence, nothing will.

Gosh. Thanks for explaining it so simply. I would never have worked it out otherwise.

It's odd though. In 2021/22 CRT were brilliant as it gained £40m. Is it the staff have changed (or become useless)? Or is it something to do with the property market generally?