Proving Proper Planned Maintenance

But well-maintained equipment can and does fail, and if that failure leads to commercial disputes and cargo claims, it is essential for a shipowner to have the evidence to prove it was properly looked after.

The key evidence for a shipowner defending such a claim, or a charterer pursuing a claim, comes from the vessel’s planned maintenance system (PMS).

Planned Maintenance Systems (PMS)

A good PMS is essential for the safe and efficient operation of a vessel. The ISM Code requires the ship operator makes sure that the ship runs without causing harm to people and the environment. This means ensuring all safety critical equipment, cargo equipment and machinery are inspected and maintained to regulatory requirements and the manufacturer’s recommendations.

As well as being a valuable tool for making sure maintenance is carried out in a proper manner at the right time, a properly executed planned maintenance system, with full and detailed entries on both maintenance tasks and unplanned repairs, provides vital evidence when defending or pursuing a claim.

Owner’s obligations on maintenance

Time Charters

It is common for an owner to agree in a time charterparty to maintain the vessel on an ongoing basis during currency of the fixture. By way of example, Clause 1 of the NYPE 1946, provides that Owners are under an obligation to “keep the vessel in a thoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery and equipment for and during the service”.

The Owners’ obligation to maintain the ship has two aspects:

(a) an obligation to keep up a prudent programme of inspections and surveys, replacements and renewals (preventive maintenance); and

(b) if the ship, its machinery or equipment becomes inefficient during the charter period, an obligation to take reasonable steps within a reasonable time to effect repairs (remedial maintenance).

Voyage Charters

Voyage charterparties may not have the same provision on maintenance, but there is warranty of seaworthiness. For example, Clause 2 of GENCON 94 provides that an owner will be liable for the damage or loss of the cargo if “caused by personal want of due diligence on the part of the Owners or their Manager to make the Vessel in all respects seaworthy and to secure that she is properly manned, equipped and supplied, or by the personal act or default of the Owners or their Manager.”

Contract of Carriage (Bill of Lading)

If the cargo carried under the bill of lading is lost or damaged whilst under the carrier’s (usually the shipowner) period of liability, a claimant might allege that the vessel failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage (Article III Rule 1 of the Hague-Visby Rules).

At some point during the claim process, the owner may then need to provide evidence that due diligence was exercised – namely, show equipment was properly maintained.

PMS records as evidence

We regularly see disputes in which one party alleges that poor maintenance was the cause of an incident.

A typical scenario is where a cargo crane on a vessel is being operated by local stevedores and then suffers damage during cargo operations. The owner is likely to allege rough handling by the stevedores, whereas this is countered by an allegation that the ship operator failed to maintain the equipment made available for use by the stevedores.

Similarly, where there is wet damage to a bulk cargo, it may be alleged that the damage was due to water ingress through the vessel’s hatch covers which were not properly maintained.

To help rebut such allegations, a ship operator needs to show that there was a good maintenance regime in place on board at the time of the incident. A comprehensive and complete PMS, i.e. one which includes supporting documents such as test reports, work orders, spare part orders, work schedules, manuals and drawings, checklists and inspection reports, etc., can form an invaluable piece of evidence.

Stevedore damage

In London Arbitration 12/04, a derrick collapsed during discharge operations. The charterer alleged poor condition of the derricks and their rigging. The owner counterclaimed in respect of damage repairs to the vessel caused by the collapsed derrick. They blamed the alleged negligence of the stevedores.

It was held that the collapse of the derrick was caused by stevedore negligence. The history of the vessel’s trading during the previous months covering three separate discharges of bulk rice gave no hint of defective or poorly maintained derricks. The charterers had failed to show a history of defects or problems.

What was most damaging to the charterer’s case was the vessel’s annual cargo gear survey which, by coincidence, had been held immediately after the vessel’s arrival at the discharge port to discharge the cargo of rice. It was asked how it was that if, at that time, the cargo gear was in such a condition as the stevedores later said it had been, how the Class Surveyor would have passed the equipment as being in sound and satisfactory condition.

Wet damage

In Toledo Carrier (Ceroilfood Shandong Cereals and Oils Jose A Y Gerardo E Zuluaga Limited v. Toledo Shipping Corporation), a consignment of garlic was found wet.

The cargo interests alleged water entered the cargo hold either by way of a backflow through the bilge system or via corroded vent heads on deck, highlighting the absence of a documentary record of either the non-return valves or the deck vent heads ever having been opened for inspection. They also alleged the hatch covers were poorly maintained and brought attention to a temporary cement box repair on a seawater line. The ship operator’s expert observed no evidence of incompetent or inappropriate operation or management of the vessel and rejected the cargo interests’ analysis of the maintenance records. As he saw it, it was common practice to effect temporary repairs to leaks on sea waterlines until they can be permanently repaired and saw nothing untoward in temporary repairs to the bilge and ballast systems.

The Court preferred ship operator’s evidence and the cargo interests’ claim was dismissed.

In Kefalonia Wind (Empresa Cubana Importadora de Alimentos v. Octavia Shipping Co.), the vessel carried a cargo of maize. According to the vessel’s log she ran into stormy weather and seawater leaked through the hatch covers wetting some of the cargo. A surveyor was appointed and found that all the hatch covers were in poor condition and that the rust had been present for a long time. The ship operator failed to present any evidence showing that the hatch covers had been properly maintained and the Court concluded that the hatch covers were “old and poorly maintained” and found in favour of the cargo interests.

Setting up your PMS

A ship’s PMS must be set up properly to be effective. Too often, important tasks on important pieces of equipment are omitted.

Check the equipment manufacturer’s manual for recommendations on maintenance and any statutory and Class requirements. Ensure that the correct tasks are included in the regime, at the correct interval with a detailed job description. Entering all of the ship’s equipment into the system can be a long job, but it is worth the time and effort.

A system should allow the crew to able to report “unscheduled maintenance”. This means crew can properly record all maintenance regardless if it is due or not.

Recording work

When reviewing maintenance records that aim to prove that inspections and work was carried out, a common finding is that very little detail is provided. Sometimes an entry of a date and statement of “work carried out as per job description” is all that is entered into the PMS. Sometimes just a date.

Records that show that an inspection, maintenance or a repair has been carried out should show more than this. To increase its value as evidence, a record could include details on:

• Who did the job and who was responsible?
• How long did the job take?
• What condition was the item, system or equipment found in?
• Describe the work actually done
• Is follow up work needed?
• List the spare parts used
• Running hours for machinery
• Anything else of interest for those conducting the task in the future

Not only will comprehensive records help in identifying any trends or specific concerns on condition, they will act as vital evidence that the vessel is operated and maintained to a high standard.

How could it look? 

Thinking of the above, and using the example of a hold inspection: