Leaderboard

And please treat the advice of those that advocate copious amounts of money being built into the budget for painting as being a necessity with caution. You don't have to keep your boat smart. It's nice if you can but it's not an essential cost.I promise you (voice of experience with a boat that was probably last painted 20 years ago) you might get some snobs looking down their noses at you but as long as you do your blacking it ain't going to sink because it's no longer pretty Or maybe they look down their noses because of the roof furniture (that can be quite amusing when I'm chatting to smart boaty wife beside a double lock when our boats rise up the chamber. Their lovely flower pots and immaculate roof appear at the same time as our bicycle, car tyre for the Shroppie, wheelbarrow, bags of wood plus copious other items that Dave thinks will come in handy one day. I have had times when the lady has walked away from me, all friendliness evaporating once she's decided I'm "one of them". Do I look like I care - the people who matter to me don't judge on appearances.

As far as I am aware the only correct way to moor is to do it without hitting another boat !!!

OK Alan. You have certainly got me on that one. Except. Were you there? I was. Did you speak to any of the people involved? I did & have. Do you know the full situation from when the boat was sunk? Yes I do. Did you see the sinking concequences on the day it happened? I did an hour and a bit after. Do you know what the next step is for the boats future? I do. I have a number of 'advertising' stuff on my wagon. Maybe on Monday put someones name on the side who does not know how companies logos are used. Please refer to my previous post above concerning this. You have conspiculously (excuse typo) ignored the fact that other vehicles nearby with logos may or may not have been involved. Suggest selective thoughts from limited information from you.

This post is in response to Staarek's original post of 12th Dec 2013 and Nimrod's of Aug 2014. It is notoriously difficult to authenticate anything you read on the internet, so a certain scepticism like that exhibited by “The doghouse”, is, no doubt, both healthy and wise. I do find it curious, however, that the same scepticism is conspicuously never applied to the positive posts. Surely it is just as possible that those praising certain boat builders could be posted by the builders themselves or friends and relatives and such false posts could be quite damaging to a genuine buyer if taken at face value. When this thread was started by “Lady Muck” on 22nd November 2009, it was clearly stated that this forum was not for naming and shaming so I have refrained from posting the honest advice that I would like to offer, but seeing the way “Staarek” has been treated, I feel obliged to join the fray in his support. Our experience of dealing with Bluewater Boats Ltd (run by David and Sharon Warner) was frustrating and deeply unpleasant and, for us, everything Staarek has to say has the ring of truth. “The Doghouse” has admonished Staarek that this is not a game and that people’s livelihoods are at stake. Sadly, the other side of that coin is that very often, or perhaps usually, people’s life-savings are at stake in the purchase of a boat. The Doghouse has assured us that he has no connection with Bluewater and we must accept that assurance at face value, even though his posts seem to read as though he does. We should also do Staarek the courtesy of accepting what he has to say at face value, especially given his assurance that he has documentary evidence to back him up. He would be foolish indeed to write what he has without evidence. In this industry, where bullsh*t seems to be the lingua franca and serial bankruptcy is considered a normal financial management tool for getting out of a problem and then starting again with a clean sheet, negative stories should at least be given fair consideration. It is very easy to stand on the sidelines with the 20/20 vision of hindsight as some members have done and suggest his research was inadequate; they ”saw him coming” and so on. (This incidentally is uncomfortably reminiscent of the “If she dresses like that she’s asking for it” defence in a rape case. It doesn’t make either of them any less a victim.) The oft suggested “talk to previous customers” is not actually as useful a research tool as some would like to suggest. You can be sure that Bluewater Boats Ltd are not going to give a prospective customer mine or Staarek’s address, so, as some members of this forum would like to see here, you only get positive feedback. We have been running our own business for 39 years and the sailaway boat in question was our third self-fitout in 6 years. We know the pitfalls and can both write and understand a contract. We supplied a very detailed written specification and a 10:1 scale drawing and this formed the basis of the contract, but it failed to protect us. Having “right on our side” was not enough. Bluewater Boats Ltd were happy to quote on the basis of the specification, but not quite so keen to deliver on the same basis. The words specify and specification have crystal clear meanings in the dictionary and in law. A specification is not a “wish list” nor is it a request for their recommendations. It would be impossible in an internet post such as this to go into lists and explanations of all the problems. It cost us several thousands of pounds and many weeks of extra work to bring the boat closer to the specification in the contract (and remember we had only ordered a sailaway). One example that we could not realistically correct was the stern. Our drawing clearly showed a semi-circular stern. When, at the pre-delivery inspection, we asked why our boat had an elliptical stern, David Warner’s casual answer was “That’s the shape we do”. So much for the “truly bespoke” boast in their advertising! Obviously this would cost a fortune to change and by then we were anxious to get the boat out of their yard, so we have to live with it, but it is not what we wanted. Disagreeing with someone who, like Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, chooses their own meanings for words instead of sticking with the accepted definition is endlessly frustrating and in the end we complained to the British Marine Federation. After many week’s delay and conversations with Sharon Warner, they told us that, as it was a contractual dispute, they could not get involved but assured us that Bluewater Boats were committed to resolving this dispute. They recommended their associated mediation service to us and to Bluewater so we got in touch with them. We explained the situation to the mediators and told them of the reams of documentation we had on the case, mostly e-mails. They said it seemed clear enough and they would be able to help if Bluewater agreed to mediation. For simplicity and clarity I will now include extracts from e-mails: Us to Bluewater: “If you are committed, as we are, to finding a way forward, we would now urge you to contact the BMF’s Dispute Resolution Service. We have already done so. It would be fast, cheap and a proper resolution for both parties.” Bluewater’s reply: “Obviously it is yourselves who want the mediation and compromise as it is you who will once again be getting a cheaper price and we will be losing out….. We do not wish to fall out over this issue as we have a very good relationship with all of our customers so I hope you can understand why I don’t want to bother with mediation as we will not change our minds.” They also told us that if we held up the build any longer with this dispute we would be invoiced for the storage of the work so far. Bullying tactics or what? Next stop, obviously, was our solicitor who, after some research into Bluewater’s financial situation, advised us not to waste any more time or money but to get our boat out of their yard as soon as possible. Sound, pragmatic advice, no doubt, but a bitter pill to swallow, nonetheless. I can envisage members responding that a financial check before placing the order might have saved us this, but the sad fact is that in the prevailing economic climate at the time this had ruled out almost all boat builders. Which of them wasn’t on a knife edge after the credit crunch? We had put all this behind us and it would have stayed there but I do feel Staarek has been treated harshly on this forum and we had to speak up. One member has said that “if this was your (Staarek’s) first foray into the boat building world then you might have some sympathy but it isn’t. In fact you have full experience of having a boat built from scratch.” I simply cannot understand why Staarek’s previous good experiences should disbar him from reporting on this bad one. If anything, his previous experience makes him more qualified to report that Bluewater’s performance is below an acceptable industry standard. 1) Neither Staarek nor I are asking for sympathy- merely offering a public-spirited warning. 2) No matter how detailed your contract is, nothing can protect you from the other party distorting the meanings of words or even changing a few. Yes, even when they are there in writing! 3) When you have built a number of boats before, and most likely spoken with dozens of builders in the process, you develop a knowledge of what it is reasonable to expect, and this is particularly relevant when it comes to discussing variations and alternatives which you know should have no cost implications, but then get turned into an excuse to charge as extras. Someone on this thread mentioned Bluewater taking legal action, but I assure you that all we have said (and Staarek gave the same assurance) is very thoroughly supported by the e-mails we exchanged at the time and which are stored safely. Remember, it is only libellous if it is untrue. After we finally got our boat out of their yard and into ours, there were a small number of rather major items to put right and a large number of very small niggles which crop up in any build. All have been put right, some with time and effort, some with money, and it is worth noting that the small niggles which we had always taken in our stride in the past, in both boat fitting and property development, and simply dealt with, were rendered significantly more irritating by Bluewater’s intransigent and belligerent attitude and approach to dispute resolution and warranty issues. I have been tempted to reel out page after page of corroborating detail on our problems with Bluewater, but for what? I daresay it would only be construed as a more elaborate version of the same mischief that Staarek stands accused of. In conclusion, we have ended up with a very beautiful boat with elegant and sound steelwork, the envy of everyone in the marina, but at an unacceptable financial and mental cost. She attracts admiring looks whenever we are out and about on the waterways and the frequently asked question “Who built your shell?” is always answered, but with a health warning! There are plenty of good boat builders who will not give you this aggravation, but in future we will take the view that only those who do not require stage payments (like Cheshire Narrowboats at Lymm and one or two others) and consequently do not have you “over a barrel” are going to get our business. Perhaps buying secondhand does have its attractions after all. That way what you see is what you get. P.S. Since drafting this post, we notice that “Nimrod” also on this forum has had similar problems with Bluewater. Whatever protestations Bluewater care to make on Facebook, and their efforts to blame their customers, their claim, as noted in the e-mail extract above, to have a good relationship with all their customers is looking less credible. A different picture is now beginning to emerge.

That sounds like a 'problem' that these 'people' can resolve themselves. If the posting of criticism of C&RT in threads or topics on the occasions when C&RT are clearly and demonstrably getting things wrong offends their sensitivities, then perhaps they should re-examine their own reasons for continuing to partake. As for your remarks implying that we should be grateful for having C&RT because we could have ended up with something even worse, that would seem to suggest that, in fact, your opinion of the Trust and it's performance really isn't that much different. In suggesting the possibility of the canals being sold off to a foreign investor you seem to have forgotten that to sell something, you do need a buyer, and the chances of selling a 200 plus year old, disintegrating canal system that has been a loss maker for most of its' time in existence must be slim, to say the least. You end by saying " it's never really going to help to constantly denigrate them.". . true, much more than that is needed, but how do you think not 'denigrating' C&RT will in itself bring about any improvements ? PS. where do you stand on what I said in #424 ?

the standy up bit at the back?

I think that where people have the problem is when everything is used to denigrate CRT, doesn't matter what the "..separate different issues..." are it always seems to come back to some criticism of CRT for some reason or another. Bearing in mind what we COULD have got from this Government (they COULD have sold off the canals in their entirety to some foreign 'investor' as they have done with most other things) we have actually done reasonably well. And don't bother trying to tell me that for some reason they 'couldn't' have sold the canals off, many years ago I wouldn't have believed they couldn't sell off our water supply system or our Postal system but they have done, so ANYTHING can be sold. Whether we like it or not we will have to work with CRT and it's never really going to help to constantly denigrate them. I don't think anyone has suggested that TD shouldn't be here, as an open discussion board the more the merrier, so your final comment is unnecessary. A few years ago I had an issue with a company relating to canal boats (no,I'm not going to name them because I've moved on now!) but didn't take every available opportunity to have a dig at them. Unless we want this to become Narrowboat World 2.0 I think it would be good if we could move on now.

One of the aspects that seems to have been missed is that the handbook is a joint publication between the EA and CRT so the production costs will have been shared I imagine. I, for one, support the effort to bring every one up to a common understanding; for some it is clearly too much and expenditure that perhaps didn't need to be budgeted for. I think it may be a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't however I support the initiative behind the publication.

NBW is a joke? Forgive me for so saying, but so are you.

I've received calls daily from that number as well. I answer the call, lay the phone down and have an animated discussion with Dave while the salesman gets more and more frantic before giving up. It's good fun That's interesting because they told me in the 3 shop just a couple of weeks ago that the One Plan was no longer available and they were gradually contacting customers and forcing them onto another plan. I'm pretty sure that once a contract is over you can't insist on it as a right - saying that I'm still keeping quiet and refusing to talk to them. As an aside when I first broached the subject of the One Plan the salesman told me apologetically that it was no more due to people abusing it. "Some people" he told me "use it as their home internet" and rolled his eyes. "Hmm" says I "I live on a boat - it is my home internet". You've never seen such swift backpedalling from a salesman

Not hard to understand at all. I have no quarrel with C&RT in the form of most, in fact nearly all the people who work for it, from the sadly depleted ranks of the real canal and rivermen to, and including, many in senior managerial positions. I've always had a good working relationship with them both back in the days of British Waterways and up to the present day .. . nothing has changed in that respect for close to 50 years now. But, regrettably C&RT, as was BW, is being progressively destroyed from within and the process has gathered momentum in the change to becoming the Trust. It is those who guide and drive on this damaging and ultimately fatal process that I despise so and would wish to see gone, Hales the wrecker, Parry the accomplished PR conman and their snivelling, fawning acolytes, given, in effect, a free hand to do their worst by a collection of ineffective Trustees charged with preserving something of which, in the main, they know nothing.

It's not as though this is the only thread where sensible, useful information for boaters is obscured by disagreable rubbish. If you can't be bothered to do anything, there will be more examples. It's not a question of deleting stuff. It's a question of banning people wo post things which are disagreeable to the point tzhey derail legitmate and useful discussions.

Tony Dunkley has been around the cut since the 60s to my knowledge. I first touched base when he was working for Birmingham & Midland, based in Gas Street. He worked the last of the commercial traffics to the paper mills and has a lifelong experience of boats and boating. I have much respect for this experience, if he chooses to take an antagonistic stance with the authorities, that's his choice, it doesn't dilute his knowledge. It's based on learning the hard way! Back in the late 60s, I met Nicholas Hill and Tony with Jaguar and Achilles, loaded with coal for Croxley. I was with another enthusiast, Richard Cooper, known as "Railroad Bill" because he worked for British Railways at the time. We worked south, from Berkhamsted if I remember rightly. I was given Jaguar's tiller, shortly afterwards I had Nick, incandescent with rage, on the butty's fore deck..... " don't you know when you've got something on your fu****ng blades" he yelled. As a youngster, I was trying to coil in the snubber, put the motor in the lock.....I can only plead inexperience! Tony...if you remember..give me a shout. It's all a long time ago! Dave

I'm surprised about all the negativity here. Once the booklet has been published, the cost of sending it to all boaters is not so significant compared to posting just to those who register to see it online or downloaded. The PDF version is there for anyone, and is probably what they supplied the printers with (although probably in a commercial print resolution). Printing cost per item drop very significantly as volumes increase, so that producing 30,000 copied will not cost hugely more than 3,000. Postage will be at a reduced contract price. If it was just sent as a link to a download, many people wouldn't bother to look at it, and even those who downloaded it probably wouldn't read it all. The booklet as supplied is a useful addition for any boater. A number of us have been boating for 20+ years and probably don't expect to learn much from the advice, or at least think they don't need the advice, but I still thought it was worth a quick read-through. People who have only been boating for a few years will almost certainly pick up something they weren't aware of.

If the angle is useful, why not have the part welded?

I'm puzzled by the complete inability of some people on here to separate different issues. When TD's case first got a mention some were adamant that he was a piss take, CaRT were right to pursue him. They were wrong but can't accept it and jump on anything and everything he says. He's critical of CaRT and doesn't mind expressing it at every opportunity but it'd be amazing if he wasn't. He is clearly very experienced and knowledgeable when it comes to boating, more so than most on here. It's a better place with him in my view.

Too bad you haven’t seen my post before you decided to have your boat built by BW. I sympathise with you, as I know exactly what sort of experience you must have had. From what you’re writing, it seems we had a very similar ride. At least with having boat finished by someone else you will avoid all the post-sale problems that we had to sort out ourselves as Blue Water didn’t give a rat ass. The letter you received from Sharon saying that "termination the reasons were because of the lateness of the hull from the steel shed and the termination states that there will be no further legal action against our company..." make me realise how my and at least another victim's legal pressure is making them be a little more wary than they were a year ago. Funny enough, I approached cowboy builders and I was in the process of progressing things with them to show the public eye what we had gone through, at what price and to warn potential further victims of their cowboy trading. However, I lost motivation and decided to leave it. Your post has sparked up my sense of fairness and I would be willing to have a look jointly (specially since I have got plenty of written evidence) or I am more than happy to offer you any help if you are looking at pursuing your rights and you feel I could assist somehow.