Self install of LifePo4 and what requirements for insurance (UK)

[Momac]

I really don't know how any clause about negligence or misconduct or reckless behaviour or the like translates into an exclusion regarding batteries of ant sort.
I also don't know why any self installed item should be considered negligence if it is installed according to the manufactures instructions and/or relevant standards if a standard exists.
I am insured with haven KJ all weather policy and there is no mention of batteries.

 

[lustyd]

I've been meaning to ask: if you supply as well as fit lithium batteries, presumably you only supply to 'professionals' since supplying amateur owners with dangerous kit which they can only fit against the terms of their insurance, conduct which you have described as stupid, is clearly negligent? You would be supplying dangerous equipment to idiots and it is entirely foreseeable there will all sorts of loss and damage.

I don’t think that’s what he said. As far as I can tell Paul thinks the policy is stupid but rightly points out that what I said was also not a wise action. All pretty reasonable.

 

[aqua_sax]

The legal standard is the failure to take that degree of care to avoid damaging others, which a "reasonable person" would take.

I was going to mention this, or rather the Bolam test, which for most of my career was the test for medical negligence. The basic idea is that you are tested against your peers: if a reasonable body of medical opinion would have done what I did in the same circumstances, then I am not negligent, even if there is another body of opinion that would have done differently. From the 1957 Bolam vs Friern Hospital judgement:

"he (the doctor in question - note this is 1957, most doctors were male) is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art. I do not think there is much difference in sense. It is just a different way of expressing the same thought. Putting it the other way round, a man is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view".

I think the key point here is that it is not the 'reasonable person' (man on the Clapham omnibus?) that one is judged against, but rather one's peers. Doctors are judged against doctors, and, in the case of owner installers, owner installers should, by this logic, be judged against other owner installers, not 'professional' installers. If in practice we do the latter, then it could be argued that we are holding owner installers to a higher standard, and if they can show they met that standard, there can be no question of negligence.

 

[lustyd]

To be fair, my bringing up negligence was because that seems to be why most think their DIY lead installs would be covered. My original original point was that the insurance co might fail to pay with lead if the install was not professionally done. I really don’t see why everyone got their knickers in a twist, and it’s likely that all the people asking question led to the updated terms in the first place.

 

[aqua_sax]

I am insured with haven KJ all weather policy and there is no mention of batteries.

At last a name! But interesting, I am also with Haven KJ (or whatever they are currently called), but the policy document is titled FreeTime Pleasure Craft and on page 26 it has the following General Policy Condition:

"5.7 If Your Craft , tender or toys are fitted with Lithium- ion batteries they must be charged within daylight
hours , must not be left unattended whilst being charged and they must be used in accordance with the
manufacturers’ recommendations/instructions."

The bit about installation is not in the policy document, it is in an email from Haven KJ:

"Also, your insurer would require the batteries be fitted by a professional."

Whether that is sufficient to make it part of the contract of insurance is another matter.

 

[aqua_sax]

I don’t think that’s what he said.

Actually, he did. from post #195:

"Fitting LFP when your insurance forbids them is not negligent, it's stupid."

But he did also say (in post #183:

"If everyone who has these stupid clauses in their in policies move to a company that doesn't have them maybe they'll stop being stupid."

 

[st599]

Doctors are judged against doctors, and, in the case of owner installers, owner installers should, by this logic, be judged against other owner installers, not 'professional' installers. If in practice we do the latter, then it could be argued that we are holding owner installers to a higher standard, and if they can show they met that standard, there can be no question of negligence.

The standard required is presumably that given in the IET's small craft electrical safety guidance (2023) then signed off by a competent person.

The guidance seems to require the charging and battery management system to follow a range of charging profiles based on environmental conditions, have failsafe modes etc. and requires thought about the cabling, location of the batteries etc.

Quite an interesting read. For the charging requirements, they don't seem to differentiate between the different Li-ion chemistries.

 

[aqua_sax]

The standard required is presumably that given in the IET's small craft electrical safety guidance (2023)

That appears to be primarily aimed at Inland Waterways (already more regulated than coastal waters) with 'surrounding sea areas' added, perhaps an afterthought (and how far does 'surrounding' extend?). It is also 'a guide' and so arguably not necessarily a standard, or requirement, ie it is more in the way of a guide to good practice: 'should' rather than 'must'. That said, I am sure it is a very useful guide to good practice. At £30 a pop, it had better be. But why not, if we all so concerned about ensuring good practice, make it freely available?

I'm still not comfortable with this signing off business because:

(a) how do we define a competent person in this particular setting

(b) professional is not necessarily the same as competent. I have seen professional incompetence, as I am sure have many others

(c) the whole awkward business of getting one person to sign off another person's work. It could be argued that anyone who does so has inadvertently demonstrated they are incompetent, because how do they know the installation is competent in its entirety?

I incline more to the idea of documentation: reasons for design decisions, and photographic evidence that those decisions have been put into practice. It seems rather more robust to me than a bit of paper signed off by 'a professional', who may or may not be competent.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Actually, he did. from post #195:

"Fitting LFP when your insurance forbids them is not negligent, it's stupid."

But he did also say (in post #183:

"If everyone who has these stupid clauses in their in policies move to a company that doesn't have them maybe they'll stop being stupid."

I have never said LFP is dangerous, on the contrary, i have said that in many respects a properly installed LFP system can be safer in some respects than LA, due to the BMS.

I have also never said that a competent DIYer could not install such a system. In fact, i have given much advice on here as to how that could be done.

What i have said is that "Fitting LFP when your insurance forbids them is not negligent, it's stupid." and i stand by that. If you want to fit a DIY LFP system, go ahead, but get an insurance policy that does not exclude such a system.

 

[PaulRainbow]

The current standards for new build boats in the UK and EU does not mention LFP batteries at all. There are no standards for working on used boats, although it makes sense to me to follow the same standards as much as possible.

 

[billskip]

but get an insurance policy that does not exclude such a system.

I don't recall (I could be wrong) a post here saying the insurance exclude the system.
I believe this is about the terms which the insurers are prepared to accept the installation.
This I believe should be another thread about insurance not about the reliability/safety of the product.
This I believe to be the title of this thread, not a debate on the battery product.
So really a thread about compulsory insurance requirements and the legality of insurance terms and conditions.

 

[Fredd]

But which ones? We need names...

Craftinsure

I contacted them about 6 weeks ago and said i was doing a self install of LifePo4 and they said fine , they would recommend I get a professional but it is ok if I did it myself , they said the onus is on me to ensure that the boat was still in a seaworthy condition . No change in policy wording or price .

There is a lot of very good detailed information online on how to do it correctly ( a lot of rubbish as well ). It takes time to do the research and understand the dangers and pitfalls but it's not beyond the abilities of most people .
I have used "professionals" on different boats I've owned over the years and there were a few who where not competent . I now do most the maintenance and upgrades myself . I have found a very good company that I can trust for anything if feel is beyond my abilities .

 

[PaulRainbow]

Here's an example of a top quality DIY install (don't try this at home) :

Post #24 Iron X 100Ah LiFePo4 battery with BMS and Heater

 

[aqua_sax]

Some progress, largely thanks to Fredd, thank you! I have got a quote from Craftinsure, £80 more than my current insurer, but I have also confirmed (via chat, as there is nothing in the policy documents about lithium batteries) that self installation and use of a LiFePO4 battery (assuming properly installed as per the manufacturer's instructions etc) is covered, and furthermore the LiFePO4 battery can be left on solar charge unattended. The only restriction, which isn't a problem for me, is that I do not leave the vessel unattended when the battery is being used to charge any portable items. There are no other restrictions/exclusions of concern that I can see in the policy, and it even has some improvement eg Brest to Elbe gets extended into Baltic to Bordeaux between May and September (but there is however a 30 day limit on any one period of insurance, in effect per annum, but I imagine that can be extended if required at cost).

I think the extra £80 is worth it to solve the lithium battery insurance problems.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Some progress, largely thanks to Fredd, thank you! I have got a quote from Craftinsure, £80 more than my current insurer, but I have also confirmed (via chat, as there is nothing in the policy documents about lithium batteries) that self installation and use of a LiFePO4 battery (assuming properly installed as per the manufacturer's instructions etc) is covered, and furthermore the LiFePO4 battery can be left on solar charge unattended. The only restriction, which isn't a problem for me, is that I do not leave the vessel unattended when the battery is being used to charge any portable items. There are no other restrictions/exclusions of concern that I can see in the policy, and it even has some improvement eg Brest to Elbe gets extended into Baltic to Bordeaux between May and September (but there is however a 30 day limit on any one period of insurance, in effect per annum, but I imagine that can be extended if required at cost).

I think the extra £80 is worth it to solve the lithium battery insurance problems.

Good news, although "The only restriction, which isn't a problem for me, is that I do not leave the vessel unattended when the battery is being used to charge any portable items" is plain silly. Although i suspect they mean "do not leave the vessel unattended when any portable items are on charge"

You could also give Porthcawl Insurance a call, see how they compare.

 

[aqua_sax]

Here's an example of a top quality DIY install (don't try this at home) :

Here's one I tried earlier. It was a great success:

 

[aqua_sax]

Good news, although "The only restriction, which isn't a problem for me, is that I do not leave the vessel unattended when the battery is being used to charge any portable items" is plain silly. Although i suspect they mean "do not leave the vessel unattended when any portable items are on charge"

You could also give Porthcawl Insurance a call, see how they compare.

I agree, but I don't have that many portable items, and I figured being portable they will usually be with me. It just means I can't for example leave a phone on charge while I pop ashore to get some milk.

I'll look into Porthcawl, thanks for the mention.

 

[Sea Change]

Any experience of Pantaneus and LiFePO4?

 

[Graham376]

Any experience of Pantaneus and LiFePO4?

See OP's original post #1 which I understand is Pants.

 

[[164147]]

Wrong ! The BMF is a trade organisation, their "qualifications" are meaningless.

Complete nonsense. BM qualifications are industry-recognised and regulated as part of ofqual. If you'd ever been to see their apprentice workshops and training facilities in Poole you'd understand why. Raymarine work with British Marine BMEEA Council directly as do numerous other industry professionals. Don't knock it just because you haven't got any relevant qualifications yourself.

Maybe email all of these people and tell them they've wasted their time because you learnt everything from a Google search:

Meet the Team