Alan de Enfield

If folks dont want to be talked about then they shouldn't put their lives on the internet and leave them selves open to ridicule. Even solo boaters have been known to do that (on many occasions)

An interesting article online (yes - the Guardian) this morning as to why governments seem to be unable to make any meaningfull changes to the country and its economy. It seems to apply equally to many big organisations - including C&RT, and aligns with what was posted in the OPs video Governments come into office brimming with confidence. They say their election win is a mandate for change, and that work on its manifesto pledges will start immediately. Invariably, there is talk of sleeves being rolled up. Sooner or later, there is a rude awakening. Ministers push buttons and pull levers expecting things to happen instantly, and are shocked to find that they don’t. The reason for that is simple: the British state is big – and getting bigger – but as an agent of change it is not up to the job. This is true at both central and local levels. Over the years, the capacity of government to intervene has been pared back and professional expertise has been lost as council services have been outsourced. The main job of the state is now to alleviate the consequences of failure, which are becoming ever more pressing. Food for thought ?

Another boater who thinks he has found a loop-hole to avoid complying with Rules / Regulations / Laws. As "Arthur" (I think it was) suggested in another thread "you cannot cherry-pick which laws you want to comply with and ignore those that don't suit you"

But those were "one-off" emergency, major repairs (Tunnels, Breaches etc) the core daily maintenance has not been undertaken in full since the '60s and as each years underspend is carried forward the backlog becomes larger and larger. It was only 5 years ago that C&RT put in a plea (6 page letter) for a one-off grant of £220,000,000 to improve the resilience of the canals (it was refused) I'm not quite sure why 'weather damage' to the railways and canals in Scotland is relevant as neither are under the control or responsibility of C&RT .

So because he cut the grass and did a bit of painting he had detailed access to the backlog of work across the whole network. Again do some research and find the facts. In the 1975 report (by Fraenkel) on the condition of the canals and the maintainance needed it was highlighted that there was a large backlog of maintenance amounting to some £30 million +. extract ................ 16.6 Standards of Maintenance 16.6.1. The standards which we have defined in Chapter 10 and the deficiencies revealed by our inspections are of two kinds, quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative standards were defined in relation to the specific navigational obligations laid down by Section 105 of the Transport Act 1968, and their main effect was to identify for each waterway critical dimensions such as width and depth of water, headroom, etc. which have to be observed; if not currently available then these dimensions must be achieved by dredging or other works. In most cases we found that the required dimensions can be obtained without difficulty, some overtaking of dredging arrears being all that is required. In a few cases however we found it necessary to allow for bank revetment works in order that additional dredging may be carried out. The requirements / options (close it or bring it back up the the legally required standard) for each canal were listed - eg Caldon. Grand Union

This one ?

No - it is breach of contract. In my experience the threat of losing their ability to trade means they quickly either evict the offending boat(s) or ensure they are licensed.

Presumably he was not aware of the 'well over' £100 million backlog in maintenance that C&RT inherited. It be worth your while to check the stuff you post from 'random guys on the towpath'. Have a look at the KPMG "state of BW for transfer to C&RT" report from 2011/12 Extract .................... Every year they had spent less than was required to keep a 'steady state' - even without considering the already huge backlog

About as daft as having two engines (redundancy) About as daft as having a SF stove and a Diesel heater (redundancy) About as daft as having a pump-out toilet and a 'porta-bucket' in the cupboard (redundancy)

There are very few of those (when we did a survey I think we managed to identify, country wide, about a dozen in total across all rivers and canals) C&RT inspect the boats in marinas at least once per month to check for them being licenced - if they find boats unlicenced they do not contact the boater, but threaten to withdraw the Marina's NAA. The marina then takes action / evicts the boat for non compliance with the marina T&Cs (NOT C&RTs T&Cs) When we were in Newark C&RT inspected the marina at least once per week - probably because the C&RT regional offices were onyly 200 yards from the marina and it was a nice excuse to go out for a 'fag-break'.

Costs of enforcement in 2014 ........................ In the year to August 2014 69 boats were removed from CaRT waters under s.8. Many more will have been removed since July 2012 when they came into being, but the figures have not been divulged [although the number 170 was mooted apparently derived from CaRT sources]. Of those, 57 were supposedly removed following court action because live-aboards. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_part_8_civil_procedure#comment-53842 The usual minimum cost of removals using CaRT’s contractors is approximately £5,000. According to CaRT figures, of these 170 boats, 8 were “disposed of” following the “Torts Act” procedure, presumably sold. Whether the sums recovered by these presumed sales sufficed to cover the costs is not revealed. By inference, all other un-reclaimed boats were simply destroyed eventually, at yet further cost. Of all these boats, only 9 were reclaimed by the owners, and only 3 were subsequently re-licensed. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_a_breakdown_of_boats#comment-55267 If we then take the total cost of removals in those 2 years, a rough estimation would amount to £850,000 for 170 boat removals [not including storage and any subsequent destruction and disposal costs]. The 9 recovered boats would account – on the same basis – for recovery of £45,000, leaving an outlay of unrecovered sums of approximately £805,000. To be generous, supposing that the 8 boats mentioned as being disposed of by sale were sold for sufficient to cover all costs incurred, then another £40,000 can be detracted, leaving an irrecoverable outlay of £765,000. As stated, the end result over these two years of such expenditure was only 3 renewed boat licences. Not “the cheapest way” to enforce boat licensing in my book; while I take the point that fear of seizure will reduce the numbers taking the risk of going unlicensed in the first place – that amounts to over a quarter million per successfully enforced re-licensing.

Do you mean it 'won't be metric but will be UNF or UNC' or do you mean it won't be any of those ? . Here is the manual and parts list. ENFIELD Z-DRIVE Manual.pdf