Tacet

This is true and it is dangerous. But with a shoreline and inverter, there is a risk that the two will somehow conspire under fault conditions. Yet we don't seem to over worry about it.

Is this the way you think it is? Or is it the way that you think it should be?

Council tax is, at its purest, a tax on the occupation of domestic land. The amount paid is a function of the value of that land. Land includes buildings in this context. A boat (or a car) is typically a chattel and therefore not liable to Council tax in itself. If the boat (or car) has a sufficient degree of permanence it becomes part of the land/mooring (hereditament in rating speak) such that they are valued as one entity for the purposes of calculating a single Council Tax band. Whether there is planning permission is another question. Many, many houses do not have an explicit planning permission - most commonly if they were built pre-1948. Even if your house/mooring is capable of being subject to enforcement action, you don't dodge Council Tax. It wouldn't work terribly well if you could avoid paying tax by saying you were doing something you shouldn't!

In those circumstances, which essentially relate to what we call houseboats, there is only a single hereditament. The boat is not assessed separately, it is simply that it's value is taken into account in setting the appropriate value and banding. Planning permission is not required to create a residential mooring. You might well be in breach of the planning regulations but it doesn't remove your tax liability if, in fact, you occupy a residential mooring.

Must be a big caravan. If I understand correctly, Calor indicate about 34Kw can be supplied by a single 47kg; https://shop.calor.co.uk/47kg-propane-gas-bottle.html. No doubt it depends a bit on ambient temperature, regulator and probably duration of a heavy load. So, four would allow 132Kw - which is a lot!

The first sentence makes little sense (neither caravans nor moorings are to be found on moorings) so it may well be that you are not understanding. If one owns a residential mooring (or caravan) that is liable to Council tax - in the absence of another party with the liability (e.g. an occupier) you have to pay the tax, whether or not it's your sole or main residence (e.g. it could be vacant or used intermittently). If you are seeking a mooring for leisure boat you may well eschew a residential mooring as its could well cost you more than its leisure cousin as the Council tax liability will typically be more than the non-domestic rates of its equivalent. Technically, one may also need planning permission to change the use, which if granted would typically be disadvantageous for the owner.

Tieing up against the towpath was pretty much unacceptable as it interfered with the horse drawn boats, which would have been quite common even in the mid 20th century on the south Oxford. So I am doubtful it is a no mooring sign.

It's essentially a clause relating to who can have a licence - not one conferring rights or imposing restrictions to mooring against the towpath. This said, it is possible to draw an inference and that inference lines up with longish standing practice and a degree of reasonableness in the leisure waterway age. But it remains, in my view, a step too far to say that a 14 day right to moor is enshrined in law.

Elsanol - and it was a creosote type fluid https://collections.rafmuseum.org.uk/collection/object/object-139312/

And which law enshrines the right to 14 days towpath mooring for boats without a home mooring? For the pedantic at least, it's not s17 of the 1995 Act. That is entirely concerned with licencing rather than dishing out rights. And the place in which one could remain for 14 days is not necessarily the towpath, it could, for instance be an offline mooring. Not terribly practical, I'll be the first to agree. But there is no specific grant of 14 days mooring for Ccers any more than there is for those with a home mooring.

CRT allow ccers 14 days - and there is a degree of implication in the 1995 Act that it is indeed approved. But you'll be hard pushed to find unequivocal legal (i.e. statutory) authority.

The quote does not even assert that the statement was made by Counsel. If was anybody, it was an employee.

Well done! Did you pass under the bridges from Bedford on the same day? We got within sight of the Mill Footbridge in 2013 but couldn't reach it http://narrowboattacet.blogspot.com/2013/06/head-and-hands.html?m=0 The water was sufficiently clear to see that the shoal was then the width of the river

We ran into a shoal before reaching the winding point, which was a bit awkward as there is an appreciable flow which makes reversing fun. I am doubtful that a typical narrow boat will find the levels such that it is possible to both pass under the bridges and reach Kempston Mill. Has anyone managed it? Your own experience will be interesting. The truly dedicated could pass under the bridges and then wait for the levels to rise before making the dash to Kempston. Presumably one would have a further wait for the level to drop before proceeding downstream. The better answer would be to use a different boat.

We couldn't quite reach Kempston Mill as the river shallows quite sharply; the water is clear so the helplessness of the situation is apparent. No chance of turning so the half mile reverse out with the flow is quite exciting as the banks are covered with large trees bearing substantial, overhanging branches at window height.

On some Hondas, at least, both lines were incorporated into one flexible pipe.

I still think you may need to have the vent closed! In some outboards, pressure is developed in the tank to push the petrol into the carburettor. And an open vent on a petrol tank that may (even if not in your case) typically sit in the bilges is hardly a good design. The best idea would be to check the outboard manual. If not, post the model on here and someone may know.

Indeed. After signalling my intentions to the oncoming boat (which were obviously sensible as I needed the portside lock mooring and they needed to be on their portside to clear the bridgehole) they opened a discussion about the comparitive number of years of boating experience, which they were never going to win.

The problem with waving signals is that they are often unclear whether the signaller is declaring its own intentions or giving instructions It helps if you point at yourself before sticking out a hand to, say, port.

It wasn't a clearly made point then! As a rough guess, if it does not include the costs of borrowings, the costs (i.e. including repairs, routine refurbishment, empty rates and management etc) might more typically be around 15% for a mixed portfolio. The ROI can tend to be a bit misleading in any event. The income return should be based on the current value - not the historic costs of acquisition or investment. If CRT manages to keep the income stable and secure a substantial increase in capital value, the % return will appear to fall. But if CRT experiences a reduction in capital value (not good news, surely) the % return increases.

In days of old, the fuel tank was pressurised to lift the petrol to the carburettor If it runs when being primed with the bulb - but not otherwise - could it be the filler opening is not sealing, for example? PS I now note the OP refers to the fuel tank vent as being open!

Assuming Allan is not spinning the figures to make CRT look bad, from what he says the net income is only two thirds of the gross income. Or £17.7m is the expenditure needed to raise £51.4m. A quick glance at the accounts - and the expenditure does not jump out so I don't know what is included. For example, interest on borrowings? The accounts seem to show a 4.3% income return on property investments too. One third is very high; no doubt some assets require the landlord to repair the property in some manner.

The last paragraph is a bit of a leap. It rather depends on the rate of return of the invested £150m rather than the overall rate. More generally, the cost of managing the investments does look to be an unusually high proportion of their income.