soapy
New member
Does anyone know if the lack of ce marking would effect an application for a boat safety scheme certificate for river use ?.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
CE Mark
- Thread starter soapy
- Start date
kimhollamby
Active member
When was the boat built? Or more correctly, when was it sold into the market? If anytime before 16 June 1998 it won't make any difference because Recreational Craft Directive (the legislation relating to the CE mark for boats) was not a legal requirement for boats sold into the EEA (European Economic Area).
If built after 16 June 1998 and bereft of the CE mark (or imported into the EEA from outside the EEA after that date) the boat is technically illegal in the EEA and therefore that might be something that is picked up when you have a boat safety scheme examination perhaps.
<hr width=100% size=1>
If built after 16 June 1998 and bereft of the CE mark (or imported into the EEA from outside the EEA after that date) the boat is technically illegal in the EEA and therefore that might be something that is picked up when you have a boat safety scheme examination perhaps.
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrendanS
Well-known member
Do BSS inspectors actually check the validity of CE plates riveted to a position near the helm, usually underneath the steering wheel?
It would be very easy to manufacture one that looks authentic, or even borrow one, and I'm sure it's been done in the past. Though would be easy to get caught out if the number of passengers and the category and similar data didn't fit the boat
<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide
It would be very easy to manufacture one that looks authentic, or even borrow one, and I'm sure it's been done in the past. Though would be easy to get caught out if the number of passengers and the category and similar data didn't fit the boat
<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide
steel_slug
New member
The lack of a CE mark has no bearing on the BSS examination. The age of the boat is only of interest in the application of exemptions to the standards, and it is the owner who declares the age. BSS examiners declare on the certificate if the boat is CE marked and that is it. I think that Kim must be careful when declaring the boat to be illegal as it may have been constructed in one of the exempt categories.
HTH
Paul M
<hr width=100% size=1>PM
HTH
Paul M
<hr width=100% size=1>PM
kimhollamby
Active member
Yes, apologies, didn't include exemptions. Directly quoting from the directive and issued guidance notes these are:
(a) craft intended solely for racing, including rowing racing boats and
training rowing boats labelled as such by the manufacturer;
the exclusion in (a) concerns craft intended solely for racing and designated as such by their builder.
These include rowing racing boats and boats intended for rowing training, that are designed
exclusively for racing. Some racing boats are by their very design so extreme in their racing profile
that they could in no way be examined against the requirements of the Directive. It is these designs
for which this exclusion was drafted. In the remaining majority of craft, examination against the
requirements of the Directive could be feasible. That said, a manufacturer who decides, as it is his
decision, to label the boat “intended solely for racing” is demonstrating the intended prime purpose
of the boat to adequately compete with other boats within a class (perhaps employing minimalist
internal fittings). If, in the future this boat is placed on the EEA market not as a racing boat,
perhaps because the design is no longer competitive, the boat then falls under the requirements of
the Directive as this would constitute the “first placing on the market” as a recreational craft.
(b) canoes and kayaks, gondolas and pedalos;
the exclusions in (b) concern types of watercraft, which are by nature incompatible with some of the
essential requirements but whose inclusion in the Directive might be debatable. Canoes and kayaks,
gondolas and pedalos are considered to be craft designed to be propelled by human power excluding
rowing. Rowing is considered to be the use of more than one oar.
(c) sailing surfboards;
the exclusion in (c) concerns craft whose design is incompatible with the essential requirements of
the directive
(d) powered surfboards, personal watercraft and other similar powered
craft;
the exclusion in (d) is intended to exclude Personal Watercraft defined in ISO 13590 as:
“Craft less than 4 metres in length, which use an internal combustion engine powering a water jet
pump as its primary source of propulsion and which is designed to be operated by a person or
persons sitting, standing or kneeling on rather than within, the confines of its hull.”
Powered surfboards or similar powered craft are considered to be craft carrying no more than 2
persons sitting, standing or kneeling on the craft's hull, and fitted with flotation and fail-safe controls.
Similar craft meeting these considerations are also considered to lie outside the Directive
(e) Original, and individual replicas of, historical craft designed before
1950, built predominantly with the original materials and labelled as such
by the manufacturer;
the exclusion in (e) is intended to exclude from the scope of the Directive craft designed before
1950. In addition this exclusion is also intended to exclude craft and/or types or classes of craft
which were designed or developed before 1950 and which are individually constructed
predominantly but not exclusively using the original materials. Builders of historical craft are able to
build the same authentic bygone design, one boat after another. These boats are still unique and
individual, when built using methods and materials consistent with the original design, and retain
their aesthetic charm and characteristics. In this respect, predominantly means using the original
material for both the hull and the deck, but allowing contemporary use of materials e.g. plywood
instead of solid timber, laminated frames, modern adhesives, paints, sealant and fastenings. Series
production by means of moulds (e.g. GRP production) shall not be possible in these cases.
It is noted that some classes of boat that were designed before 1950 that were originally made
exclusively of wood are now produced of modern plastics. These contemporary constructions are
considered to fall within the scope of the Directive as the criteria regarding “predominantly of
original materials" is not fulfilled.
Note: All Member States have individual boat designs that are peculiar to that State or region
thereof, e.g. “pattini” in Italy or “treehandiri” in Greece. These boats are generally:
· of a design pre-dating 1950
· built in specialist yards of original materials
Of the two bullets above, the first takes predominance. The Member State must be satisfied that
such an exclusion from the Directive would not give carte blanche for series production.
10
(f) experimental craft, provided that they are not subsequently placed on
the Community market;
the exclusion in (f) concerns experimental craft. Such craft may be placed on the EEA Market only
if their design and construction is subsequently certified in conformity with the Directive. It is
recognised that some experimental craft are rejected, whilst inherently safe, because design and
performance criteria are not fulfilled. Post construction certification of a prototype or experimental
boat would ensure that the high level of protection regarding safety, health, consumer and
environmental protection envisaged by the Directive is maintained if such a boat were to be placed
on the market or into service.
(g) craft built for own use, provided that they are not subsequently placed
on the Community market during a period of five years;
the exclusion in (g) concerns craft built by their future user, provided that they are not placed on the
EEA market within five years of being put into service. This does not preclude the sub-contracting, by
the builder, of specialists in certain aspects of the fitting out of the boat e.g. electrical or electronic
engineers.
If, for whatever reason, a boat built for own use is intended to be placed on the Community market,
whether completed or partly completed, within the 5 year period, then certification by a person or
persons fulfilling the role of manufacturer would be required in a similar manner to (f) above. These
persons would take the responsibility for the appraisal of the design, construction and any necessary
modification of the boat. This appraisal, with regard to compliance with essential requirements of the
Directive, involves the procedures necessary for conformity assessment.
Note
A member of the general public building his own boat (in his garage or garden , for
example), from materials bought on the open market is deemed to be "building a boat
for his own use".. This boat lies outside of the Directive and does not require
compliance with the essential requirements and thus CE Marking. If for whatever
reason this situation changes then the provisions detailed above would be seen to
apply.
It should be made clear that a private person who enters into a contractual
arrangement with a professional company, yard or individual constructor to build a one
off boat (be-spoke) is deemed to have entered into an arrangement where there will be
a transfer of ownership. Such a boat is deemed to fall under the Directive and will
have to comply with the Essential Requirements of the Directive and applicable
conformity assessment procedures. Reference is made to text expanding Article 4.
Boats built for own use have the concept that a person is building their own boat and
not having it built by others.
(h) craft specifically intended to be crewed and to carry passengers for
commercial purposes, without prejudice to paragraph 2, in particular
those defined in Directive 82/716/EEC of 4 October 1982 laying down
technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (2), regardless of the
number of passengers;
the exclusion in (h) concerns craft specifically intended to be crewed and to carry passengers for
commercial purposes. This means that recreational craft, which are crewed and are used for sports
and/or leisure purposes, are not excluded.
NOTE
Council Directive 82/714/EEC of 4 October 1982, which lays down technical
requirements for inland waterway vessels, excludes recreational craft from its scope but
does not define them. However, it does exclude and define passenger boats as follows:
"Passenger boat" means any vessel built and fitted out to carry more than 12
passengers. As a result of this definition, the phrase "regardless of the number of
passengers" had to be added to Directive 94/25/EC.
(i) submersibles;
(j) air cushion vehicles;
(k) hydrofoils.
The above three exclusions lie outside of the Directive, as their physical characteristics
are not consistent with the Essential Requirements.
<hr width=100% size=1>
(a) craft intended solely for racing, including rowing racing boats and
training rowing boats labelled as such by the manufacturer;
the exclusion in (a) concerns craft intended solely for racing and designated as such by their builder.
These include rowing racing boats and boats intended for rowing training, that are designed
exclusively for racing. Some racing boats are by their very design so extreme in their racing profile
that they could in no way be examined against the requirements of the Directive. It is these designs
for which this exclusion was drafted. In the remaining majority of craft, examination against the
requirements of the Directive could be feasible. That said, a manufacturer who decides, as it is his
decision, to label the boat “intended solely for racing” is demonstrating the intended prime purpose
of the boat to adequately compete with other boats within a class (perhaps employing minimalist
internal fittings). If, in the future this boat is placed on the EEA market not as a racing boat,
perhaps because the design is no longer competitive, the boat then falls under the requirements of
the Directive as this would constitute the “first placing on the market” as a recreational craft.
(b) canoes and kayaks, gondolas and pedalos;
the exclusions in (b) concern types of watercraft, which are by nature incompatible with some of the
essential requirements but whose inclusion in the Directive might be debatable. Canoes and kayaks,
gondolas and pedalos are considered to be craft designed to be propelled by human power excluding
rowing. Rowing is considered to be the use of more than one oar.
(c) sailing surfboards;
the exclusion in (c) concerns craft whose design is incompatible with the essential requirements of
the directive
(d) powered surfboards, personal watercraft and other similar powered
craft;
the exclusion in (d) is intended to exclude Personal Watercraft defined in ISO 13590 as:
“Craft less than 4 metres in length, which use an internal combustion engine powering a water jet
pump as its primary source of propulsion and which is designed to be operated by a person or
persons sitting, standing or kneeling on rather than within, the confines of its hull.”
Powered surfboards or similar powered craft are considered to be craft carrying no more than 2
persons sitting, standing or kneeling on the craft's hull, and fitted with flotation and fail-safe controls.
Similar craft meeting these considerations are also considered to lie outside the Directive
(e) Original, and individual replicas of, historical craft designed before
1950, built predominantly with the original materials and labelled as such
by the manufacturer;
the exclusion in (e) is intended to exclude from the scope of the Directive craft designed before
1950. In addition this exclusion is also intended to exclude craft and/or types or classes of craft
which were designed or developed before 1950 and which are individually constructed
predominantly but not exclusively using the original materials. Builders of historical craft are able to
build the same authentic bygone design, one boat after another. These boats are still unique and
individual, when built using methods and materials consistent with the original design, and retain
their aesthetic charm and characteristics. In this respect, predominantly means using the original
material for both the hull and the deck, but allowing contemporary use of materials e.g. plywood
instead of solid timber, laminated frames, modern adhesives, paints, sealant and fastenings. Series
production by means of moulds (e.g. GRP production) shall not be possible in these cases.
It is noted that some classes of boat that were designed before 1950 that were originally made
exclusively of wood are now produced of modern plastics. These contemporary constructions are
considered to fall within the scope of the Directive as the criteria regarding “predominantly of
original materials" is not fulfilled.
Note: All Member States have individual boat designs that are peculiar to that State or region
thereof, e.g. “pattini” in Italy or “treehandiri” in Greece. These boats are generally:
· of a design pre-dating 1950
· built in specialist yards of original materials
Of the two bullets above, the first takes predominance. The Member State must be satisfied that
such an exclusion from the Directive would not give carte blanche for series production.
10
(f) experimental craft, provided that they are not subsequently placed on
the Community market;
the exclusion in (f) concerns experimental craft. Such craft may be placed on the EEA Market only
if their design and construction is subsequently certified in conformity with the Directive. It is
recognised that some experimental craft are rejected, whilst inherently safe, because design and
performance criteria are not fulfilled. Post construction certification of a prototype or experimental
boat would ensure that the high level of protection regarding safety, health, consumer and
environmental protection envisaged by the Directive is maintained if such a boat were to be placed
on the market or into service.
(g) craft built for own use, provided that they are not subsequently placed
on the Community market during a period of five years;
the exclusion in (g) concerns craft built by their future user, provided that they are not placed on the
EEA market within five years of being put into service. This does not preclude the sub-contracting, by
the builder, of specialists in certain aspects of the fitting out of the boat e.g. electrical or electronic
engineers.
If, for whatever reason, a boat built for own use is intended to be placed on the Community market,
whether completed or partly completed, within the 5 year period, then certification by a person or
persons fulfilling the role of manufacturer would be required in a similar manner to (f) above. These
persons would take the responsibility for the appraisal of the design, construction and any necessary
modification of the boat. This appraisal, with regard to compliance with essential requirements of the
Directive, involves the procedures necessary for conformity assessment.
Note
A member of the general public building his own boat (in his garage or garden , for
example), from materials bought on the open market is deemed to be "building a boat
for his own use".. This boat lies outside of the Directive and does not require
compliance with the essential requirements and thus CE Marking. If for whatever
reason this situation changes then the provisions detailed above would be seen to
apply.
It should be made clear that a private person who enters into a contractual
arrangement with a professional company, yard or individual constructor to build a one
off boat (be-spoke) is deemed to have entered into an arrangement where there will be
a transfer of ownership. Such a boat is deemed to fall under the Directive and will
have to comply with the Essential Requirements of the Directive and applicable
conformity assessment procedures. Reference is made to text expanding Article 4.
Boats built for own use have the concept that a person is building their own boat and
not having it built by others.
(h) craft specifically intended to be crewed and to carry passengers for
commercial purposes, without prejudice to paragraph 2, in particular
those defined in Directive 82/716/EEC of 4 October 1982 laying down
technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (2), regardless of the
number of passengers;
the exclusion in (h) concerns craft specifically intended to be crewed and to carry passengers for
commercial purposes. This means that recreational craft, which are crewed and are used for sports
and/or leisure purposes, are not excluded.
NOTE
Council Directive 82/714/EEC of 4 October 1982, which lays down technical
requirements for inland waterway vessels, excludes recreational craft from its scope but
does not define them. However, it does exclude and define passenger boats as follows:
"Passenger boat" means any vessel built and fitted out to carry more than 12
passengers. As a result of this definition, the phrase "regardless of the number of
passengers" had to be added to Directive 94/25/EC.
(i) submersibles;
(j) air cushion vehicles;
(k) hydrofoils.
The above three exclusions lie outside of the Directive, as their physical characteristics
are not consistent with the Essential Requirements.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Miquel_Culzean
New member
Appart from the CE plate, there is also a certificate that comes with; I bought my boat in England, and brought it to Belgium, and to legalize it I had to present the CE certificate (they didn't even want to see the plate).
In Belgium at least, if the boat was before June 98, you have to go through a conformity procedure, and at the end, you will get the certificate (kind of equivalent to the CE marking, given by the authorities).
Regards,
Miquel.
<hr width=100% size=1>
In Belgium at least, if the boat was before June 98, you have to go through a conformity procedure, and at the end, you will get the certificate (kind of equivalent to the CE marking, given by the authorities).
Regards,
Miquel.
<hr width=100% size=1>
soapy
New member
Thanks for all the info. I don't have a boat as yet but I am checking out the market for 3 or 4 year old bayliner 175 or equivalent , the amount of imported boats seem to outnumber U.K originals. I have checked a few of the new ones being sold as cancelled orders and even these have been imports.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrendanS
Well-known member
If you have a CE mark/certificate for a new boat, on the Thames you have an exemption for a few years. After that you will have to have a BSS inspection. Which will usually result in changes and costs as BSS and CE are not compatible
<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide
<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide
kimhollamby
Active member
Only for the first four years of the boat's life. After that, the BSS examiner gets to come along and check the boat.
I've always wondered whether this ultimately might lead to a legal punch-up due to the BSS process throwing up what it believes to be build defects and/or the BSS effectively making out that some aspect of the boat is unsafe when the CE mark stands, by definition, for the product being approved for sale in the EEA. Hopefully you catch my drift but have never personally heard of this happening.
One of the problems in the early days was that the BSS was drafted using any available Euro Norms (ENs) for the various aspects it addressed, whereas it is advised but not compulsory for boatbuilders to use Euro Norms to comply with the Essential Safety Requirements of the original 1998 RCD -- they could legitimately use local standards and even proven practice. So the two are not exacly in synch...or at least they haven't been. The further complication is that there were only a fraction of the required Euro norms in place at the time that the RCD became compulsory (by that I mean that there were many areas of boat construction and equipment not covered by them -- remember they weren't needed as such for most of the RCD) but there were several in draft and I think the BSS probably leaned quite heavily on the draft documents. Anyone who has been involved in this kind of thing knows all about version creep as a document moves into its final agreed stage.
Hopefully it is all gradually getting sorted...I'm less involved in that area currently so am not completely up-to-speed on where it has all at.
<hr width=100% size=1>
I've always wondered whether this ultimately might lead to a legal punch-up due to the BSS process throwing up what it believes to be build defects and/or the BSS effectively making out that some aspect of the boat is unsafe when the CE mark stands, by definition, for the product being approved for sale in the EEA. Hopefully you catch my drift but have never personally heard of this happening.
One of the problems in the early days was that the BSS was drafted using any available Euro Norms (ENs) for the various aspects it addressed, whereas it is advised but not compulsory for boatbuilders to use Euro Norms to comply with the Essential Safety Requirements of the original 1998 RCD -- they could legitimately use local standards and even proven practice. So the two are not exacly in synch...or at least they haven't been. The further complication is that there were only a fraction of the required Euro norms in place at the time that the RCD became compulsory (by that I mean that there were many areas of boat construction and equipment not covered by them -- remember they weren't needed as such for most of the RCD) but there were several in draft and I think the BSS probably leaned quite heavily on the draft documents. Anyone who has been involved in this kind of thing knows all about version creep as a document moves into its final agreed stage.
Hopefully it is all gradually getting sorted...I'm less involved in that area currently so am not completely up-to-speed on where it has all at.
<hr width=100% size=1>
kimhollamby
Active member
A three- or four-year import should be CE-marked...do check as I personally would not touch one that wasn't purely from a financial interest point of view if nothing else.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
kimhollamby
Active member
Hi Miquel,
Should be across in Nieuwpoort beginning of August with a fleet of Motor Boats Monthly boats; always a favourite stop.
I'm interested to hear about the Belgian conformity procedure. Is that more in the way of a safety certificate linked to registration? What kind of things do they check for (ie is it mostly linked to a survey of the vessel itself or more in the way of a check of safety equipment and the like)?
Rwally interested to hear more if you can spare the time.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Should be across in Nieuwpoort beginning of August with a fleet of Motor Boats Monthly boats; always a favourite stop.
I'm interested to hear about the Belgian conformity procedure. Is that more in the way of a safety certificate linked to registration? What kind of things do they check for (ie is it mostly linked to a survey of the vessel itself or more in the way of a check of safety equipment and the like)?
Rwally interested to hear more if you can spare the time.
<hr width=100% size=1>
richardandtracy
New member
CE Mark. Does it mean anything?
I have a single, rather fundamental query.
Is there anything in the RCD that actually improves safety?
Having been in the engineering business over a number of years I can't see anything in the RCD that forces manufacturers to make the vessel safer than they would have been if normal [and sensible] engineering practice had been followed. All production QA procedures required are basically unenforceable - so it's still 'Caveat Emptor'.
In my opinion, it makes it all a rather pointless and expensive paperwork exercise.
Any thoughts anyone?
Regards
Richard.
<hr width=100% size=1>
I have a single, rather fundamental query.
Is there anything in the RCD that actually improves safety?
Having been in the engineering business over a number of years I can't see anything in the RCD that forces manufacturers to make the vessel safer than they would have been if normal [and sensible] engineering practice had been followed. All production QA procedures required are basically unenforceable - so it's still 'Caveat Emptor'.
In my opinion, it makes it all a rather pointless and expensive paperwork exercise.
Any thoughts anyone?
Regards
Richard.
<hr width=100% size=1>
duncan
Active member
Re: CE Mark. Does it mean anything?
clearly the crux of your point lies in the word 'forces'.
Right now there is very little marketing pressure in the UK around the various categories although things are different worldwide.
I can see a time when manufacturers are influenced into upgrading their product to comply with, for example, cat A, and in so doing create a safer product.
Please do not take this as an reflection of whether a acraft that complies with Cat A is any safer than one in Cat B - I am looking at it from an in principle perspective rather than current practice (ie a craft that passes the BSS should be intrinsically safer than one that fails.............)
There must be parallels with the european crash tests / results for cars - took a long time for manufacturers to realise that there was a marketing impact from their products results - right up to brand value issues - and they are now responding with their new models very effectively.
<hr width=100% size=1>
clearly the crux of your point lies in the word 'forces'.
Right now there is very little marketing pressure in the UK around the various categories although things are different worldwide.
I can see a time when manufacturers are influenced into upgrading their product to comply with, for example, cat A, and in so doing create a safer product.
Please do not take this as an reflection of whether a acraft that complies with Cat A is any safer than one in Cat B - I am looking at it from an in principle perspective rather than current practice (ie a craft that passes the BSS should be intrinsically safer than one that fails.............)
There must be parallels with the european crash tests / results for cars - took a long time for manufacturers to realise that there was a marketing impact from their products results - right up to brand value issues - and they are now responding with their new models very effectively.
<hr width=100% size=1>
kimhollamby
Active member
Re: CE Mark. Does it mean anything?
First and foremost the RCD came into being to make sense of European free trade...there was an increasing threat in the mid-1990s that some countries were going to introduce local build codes and it could have made building a boat for sale across Europe very complicated indeed. Spain was one example.
Moving on from that the RCD, for consumers, is a bit like the curate's egg.
It brings with it the negatives of increasingly tangled legislation and the cost burden that inevitably brings. It's made bring a secondhand boat in from the US and other non-EU areas such as Turkey complicated if not completely uneconomical. It also wiped out a few small boatbuilders.
On the positive side it provides the buyer with some benchmarks against which the boat can be judged. There's continual ongoing dialogue about stability and category requirements but it is more far reaching than that -- for example the basic requirement for a manual to be supplied with the boat (which I know you might expect anyway but wasn't always the case previously). Overall, it hasn't reduced buyers' choice as much as was feared at introduction...just a few weeks back I was visiting Australian boatbuilders who are moving through RCD compliance for their ranges
If all of this sounds a bit like a fence-sitting session I guess it is...but for no other reasons than it is easy to find favour and fault in equal measure.
<hr width=100% size=1>
First and foremost the RCD came into being to make sense of European free trade...there was an increasing threat in the mid-1990s that some countries were going to introduce local build codes and it could have made building a boat for sale across Europe very complicated indeed. Spain was one example.
Moving on from that the RCD, for consumers, is a bit like the curate's egg.
It brings with it the negatives of increasingly tangled legislation and the cost burden that inevitably brings. It's made bring a secondhand boat in from the US and other non-EU areas such as Turkey complicated if not completely uneconomical. It also wiped out a few small boatbuilders.
On the positive side it provides the buyer with some benchmarks against which the boat can be judged. There's continual ongoing dialogue about stability and category requirements but it is more far reaching than that -- for example the basic requirement for a manual to be supplied with the boat (which I know you might expect anyway but wasn't always the case previously). Overall, it hasn't reduced buyers' choice as much as was feared at introduction...just a few weeks back I was visiting Australian boatbuilders who are moving through RCD compliance for their ranges
If all of this sounds a bit like a fence-sitting session I guess it is...but for no other reasons than it is easy to find favour and fault in equal measure.
<hr width=100% size=1>
MADFISH
New member
BSS don't check CE markings of vessels. Trading Standards do. And yes, they really do check them!
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Miquel_Culzean
New member
Hi,
As my boat is afer June 98, it had a CE mark, so the only thing I had to go through in Belgium was a burocratic procedure to get what it is called in French the "Lettre de pavillon", which is the document that certifies the nationality of the boat (as being a Belgian boat). I had to give copy of bill, CE conformity certificate, nationatlity (or residence) certificate, copy of insurance, & pay I think it was about 100 Euro in total. They have never checked the boat, and this "lettre de pavillon" has to be renewed every 5 years. This is, of course, for pleasure boats.
If you want also to navigate in inner waters (channels), you need a plate number, so more burocracy.
If the boat is older than June 98 and has no CE certificate, in the info leaflet I was given it is only mentionned that you have to contact the authorities:
Service public fédéral Mobilité et Transports
Transport Maritime
Controle de la Navigation de Plaisancee
Perronstraat 6, 8400 Oostende
telf: +32.59.33.95.02 fax: +32.59.33.07.29
which can deliver such a certificate after exam of the boat. I think that what they look at is standard, and has been mentionned in oher posts in this forum.
Hope this helps. Regards,
Miquel
Culzean
<hr width=100% size=1>
As my boat is afer June 98, it had a CE mark, so the only thing I had to go through in Belgium was a burocratic procedure to get what it is called in French the "Lettre de pavillon", which is the document that certifies the nationality of the boat (as being a Belgian boat). I had to give copy of bill, CE conformity certificate, nationatlity (or residence) certificate, copy of insurance, & pay I think it was about 100 Euro in total. They have never checked the boat, and this "lettre de pavillon" has to be renewed every 5 years. This is, of course, for pleasure boats.
If you want also to navigate in inner waters (channels), you need a plate number, so more burocracy.
If the boat is older than June 98 and has no CE certificate, in the info leaflet I was given it is only mentionned that you have to contact the authorities:
Service public fédéral Mobilité et Transports
Transport Maritime
Controle de la Navigation de Plaisancee
Perronstraat 6, 8400 Oostende
telf: +32.59.33.95.02 fax: +32.59.33.07.29
which can deliver such a certificate after exam of the boat. I think that what they look at is standard, and has been mentionned in oher posts in this forum.
Hope this helps. Regards,
Miquel
Culzean
<hr width=100% size=1>
kimhollamby
Active member
Thanks nm
+
<hr width=100% size=1>
+
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrendanS
Well-known member
Trading standards don't often jump on the boat when you're on the river, while BSS inspectors do.
<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide
<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide