Mike Todd

Thanks. I was interested because as far as I know there is no enforceable sransard of dacilitues on the canals. Going to be an uphill struggle to justify something much better than found in CRT land.

Can they point to a provision on other navigations of a similar nature that could be adapted?

The lock keepers are not empowered to prevent passage on most navigations however much they might like to do so, unless, of course, it is because of a lack of a licence. Even so they are trained to allow boats to gain safe haven even if not so licensed. Had a discussion last summer at Selby Lock about all of this as we encountered flood conditions and were advised not to exit, despite others doing so and telling us to ignore the lock keeper. We did not exit! I happened to have our paperwork box out to check the policy number so I thought I would read through the small print. (Does anyone ever do so?) It states under Policy Exclusions: wilful misconduct or acts of recklessness by you or other persons in control of your vessel including, but not limited to, conduct whilst under the influence of alcohol/drugs or navigating in contravention of "red" signals (boards/lights)" It does not specifically mention against advice but I suspect that they'd probably win under the concept of 'recklessness'. I'd in general agree with them!

Yes it is BA

I had assumed that the long term agreement that means sone marinas do not pay NAA is with the business and not the owner. Hence it continues even when the business has a new owner. If BWML really is a separate business then the current agreements will define what, if any, payments are made. They did not appear in the summary listed earlier. Hence, for Crt to be able to create such a condition on sale would mean that BWML would gave to give up its right not to pay. Thus would be a wilful squander of their asset value which I would strongly suspect us not legitimate.

He really meant Crick but there's nothing in it . . .

Plenty of people make that mistake with houses: you rarely recoup the cost of making improvement. Enjoy them for what they are to you but don't expect it to be a gold mine.

May be if the other boat is directly behind you but, in the situation originally described (as I understand it) - which is the more common, the boat was heading roughly parallel to the other boats. In such a situation, the basic physics says that a straight line is very unlikely. You will naturally be drawn ever closer to a parallel boat.

Wrong: the ability of a narrowboat to reverse in a straight line is a myth

Or just the opposite: it is all very well getting an award against someone (eg by the owner of the said gin palace) but if the person against who the debt is owed is a 'man of straw' then it benefits you not a lot. You cannot get what someone does not have. With road vehicles, the state long ago took the view, on social justice grounds as well as economic, that third party was a minimum to be legally on the road. At least this means that the state does not have to pick up the tab of many of the costs that ensue.

I wasn't trying to imply otherwise! Sin of omission not commission . . . I should have included eg in my list. However, individuals might wish to check their policy to see what locations are covered. Mine (just renewed) says Inland non-tidal waters of United Kingdom but including inter-connecting tidal stretches for direct access to Inland Navigation Systems. I guess it might come down to careful interpretation of 'waters' but likely to exclude being on dry land. Also, an insurer might want to hide behind the 'navigation systems' bit as limiting 'waters'. Should there ever be a case where this matters then I would expect that this simple para would become twice (or more) as complicated - that's how contracts and policies become so opaque!

That's really what I was getting at - being in a place where you do not have permission (as CaRT formulate when applying some of the options for legal action). If you are off-water or in a marina then, in general, you are there by permission of the landowner.

Could end up quite nasty - but he could get away with it. Depending on the insurer, he may be effectively uninsured, even if the new owner has paid a premium - if the policy specifies it applies only licensed boats. Any infringement by the new owner that is of interest to CaRT will be the responsibility of the seller, I'm almost sure. If he gives the (physical) licence to the new owner in a manner that implies that the licence remains valid then he could be at the wrong end of a claim from the new owner for misrepresentation. (see #37)

No. They say that limits below the 14 days are suspended unless there is a sign to the contrary such as '2 days throughout the year'.

At least legally, you cannot sell the licence with the boat - although at one time you could. The licence is now tied to the licensee and so when you sell, the new owner has to make a fresh application. You, the seller, are now left with an unexpired portion of the licence which you do not wish to use. You have no 'right' to a refund as you got what you paid for - try looking at the licence T&C's. When this change came in, CaRT agreed to a refund policy as a concession - it could be withdrawn if they so wish and no-one would have much of a leg (or an oar) to stand on if they tried to complain. When you but a 12 month licence, that is exactly what you buy. There are suspicions around, or were at the time this was introduced, about the reasons for it, often around issues that arose when - allegedly - some boaters push the boundaries of what is reasonable. There were certainly threads here, IIRC, that hinted at selling your boat to a friend when CaRT were getting stroppy about not moving and then buying it back again when the licence had been renewed under the name of a non-offender (allegedly). Whether any of that actually happened, there was a non unreasonable desire by CaRT to have up-to-date info on the person responsible for each vessel. Just read the other thread about a boat seemingly abandoned on the S&W. It seems that CaRT took some time to track down the whereabouts of the present owner. (BTW I have no idea whether the owner just went AWOL or whether it was an unrecorded change). I'd be hard pushed to mount a meaningful argument that the present arrangement is, legally, unfair. There certainly is not one in the OP. I'm sure Nigel could have done a much better job! ETA: the previous post appeared as I was submitting this one!

They wern't laughing at first as (at least in the edit) they thought is was man 'overboard'.

That was what I typed at first but I changed it cos I thought from another thread that Nigel M said it was more correct. Must have mis-read,

And then there are the Middle Levels . . .

Once global warming has raised the level of the Thames and the Barrier fails through lack of maintenance (outsourced to a PFI company) then large parts of central London will be freed up as open water marinas to accommodate all of those people who believe what they read in media.

In the long ago days before roads had yellow lines, the main means by which police could prosecute was on the grounds of obstruction. As I recall - but it was a while ago - they could make such a case stand up almost by just saying that the vehicle was on the road! Wonder if the same would apply to boats on a canal, so long as it was on a navigable section?

Ever since volunteers were sought at the inception of CaRT I have thought that getting volunteer lengthspeople would be a better idea (although not incompatible with) lock keeping, which has ongoing issues over what they are responsible for. If people, or organisations, could have such a responsibility for a given length that was a place with which they had a connection, then we could reclaim some of what happened in the past but is no longer viable, cost-wise. I know that there is some kind of length sponsoring scheme, although it does not seem to have the same publicity, but I don't think it extends to actually looking after the length. Of course, these days, there are significant training and supervision issues. My guess would be that most people like Win learnt the job sidelong an experienced predecessor. However, that 'apprenticeship' probably took longer than most people are prepared to commit to volunteering . . .

Reminds me of the economist's story (a very long time ago I did some formal study of economics as an undergraduate - that's different from marketing I know!): There is a village with two general shops, one at either end. A customer saw that one was selling caulis at £0.89 each but (s)he walked down to the other end. The price there was £1.50 each and (s)he exclaimed to the shopkeeper that this was extortionate, "After all, they are selling them for 89p at the other shop" "Well," the shopkeeper replied, "feel free to go back and buy from them." Without understanding economics, the customer responded angrily, "I can't do that - they sold out yesterday and have none left!" The shopkeeper merely shrugged. Also, setting a Reserve Price does not negate the Market Price as, after all, a contract has to involve a willing seller as well as a willing buyer and the market price cannot be lower than any seller will consider. Of course, the situation we are discussing (price of boats) is only an approximation to larger markets (some of the market principles of economics depend on an infinite market but the approximation in finite markets is often overlooked even by those who should know better) as each boat is, generally, individual and it is only roughly possible to use the selling price for one boat to determine the market price for another. Hence how Estate Agents are able to make a living!

However: as a house listing: 1. It is right on the rural edge of greater Coventry and, whilst a prospective owner would check, it does look as if there is a determined planning boundary the other side of the canal. 2. There is a railway station very close 3. Looking at Google, it clearly has more than 70ft of canal bank, whether it extends to 75m would depend on the elasticity of the measuring tape and also whether all of the bank is suitable, especially right up to the bridge, although traditionally it would have been a place for boats to overnight. 4. But it is on a probably quite busy road - would need checking but that is counter balanced by accessibility 5. There will not be many houses of that size so competing in a scarce market 6. Room for parking a car for each of the teenage children plus the parents. 7. If you want to be more self-sufficient etc then there are allotment gardens just across the road I'm not bidding - Cornwall is still the better attraction even with the drive to the nearest connected canal!

As described, the market did have more than one person, since there were competing bids. Only one an win - your argument suggests that auctions can never guarantee to determine the market price. What is the market price if an item is listed with a reserve and only one person bids that price? Would I be correct in thinking that your argument is not unconnected with the debate about using auctions to determine the market price for moorings?

Not wanting to dismiss the devaulation of 'manager', it is however important to recognise that many organisations oscillate between flat and tall structures. It happens like this: A new overall director (or whatever) decides it is time to stamp his/her mark of the organisation and spots that it has a very tall organisation with many layers lots of so-called managers. The answer is posited that we need to get rid of all those managers and move to a flat structure. "We can save a shed load of money by getting rid of all these unnecessary managers" Of course this means that most people still stay in some post, just the name changes - or even that they can go back to doing what they really signed up for in the first place! A few years (hopefully years rather than months) later an new supremo comes in and spots that the organisation is very flat and with so many people reporting to one person there is no personal contact, little sense of initiative and decisions never get taken. "What we need is to delegate downwards so the more people can own the business and have opportunities for expressing their initiative, creativity or whatever. It won't cost us very much because we can just promote all those really good people in our organisation that do not have their potential fully recognised" A few years later . . . . Whilst this process is well known and identified, no-one seems to have come up with a good way of stopping it!