Mike Todd

Can you remind us of which thread that was as I also recall another one regarding the Thames where the opposite was understood to be the case ie the emerging boat was entirely responsible for ensuring safe exit.

Two notices, from CaRT today, announce works to the towpath in North London, in two stretches. They say, "We will be carrying out resurfacing and widening works on the towpath between . . . .. This will increase the amount of space for all users and improve the condition of the surface." Does anyone know whether this will lead to further loss of 'green edges' where it is at least possible to hammer in mooring pins? A lot of the canal into London has had this strip lost with a hard surface (either sold to underground cable works or to increasing numbers of cyclists). Whilst I generally applaud the improvements to towpaths, especially if the funding comes from elsewhere, there is, based on my photos of when last there in 2016 or earlier, places along these lengths where any widening would necessarily infringe on the soft edge. Anyone local who knows what is happening?

The info says that it sleeps up to 9 in 3 bedrooms. Does this tell us something about its usage?

I probably responded to the wrong quote but i was to the canal system which I took to mean that under CaRT control.

I suspect there ever would only be one.

As far as I know there are no recently constructed marinas which do not require a licence. There are a small number of long established ones where they were connected to the system without this requirement being agreed as p[art of the initial deal (there are probably scant conditions for CaRT to impose one retrospectively) What do you know about the motion to oppose? Is it just a consequence of petitions having been made? Are there specific parliamentarians who have put their name to the motion?

I repeat - at the risk of irritating you - that it is very likely that the insurance will terminate on the sale, even if a new one is arranged subsequently for the new owner.

Thanks. I re-posted here as the first one did not seem to come up on my forum front page and then I realsed it was originally in a different topic from General. I also doubt whether any survive - in the four years or so we had ours (during which we did quite some distance including over L&L - no other Pennine crossing was available at that time - it did take quite a lot of effort to keep it going, not always helped by the unskilled mods I made to it! The outboard was only 5HP but it managed down the Trent to enter at Keadby. As with any wooden boat (both hull and cab were ply) water and sunshine take their toll all too quickly. In some ways, when it came to sell we were relieved that it sold at all (at auction at Braunston - a regular event at that time) but we only got back a fraction of what we paid, which in today's money seems very small. I think we paid in the region of £200 but it was quite a bit back then when typical weekly wages were still in single figures. Nevertheless, it did serve us well and we went to many parts of the system with her. A comment on another thread about full time lockies on the A&C etc reminded me of the strange experience of arriving at the tail of some enormous locks, for them to open seemingly unaided and for us to pass through, in some cases without even seeing a person, let alone having a conversation! The last trip - to take it to the auction sale - was from Selby and we had a 10 month old baby on board as well! I recall one of the really annoying experiences under Spaghetti Junction. We had prepared the boat for sale by re-painting throughout and were trying very hard to keep it as good looking as possible. We stopped, briefly, for a lunch break under the overhead motorways only to come back out to find that they had been spraying paint onto the girders (IIRC a problem with them had been discovered a few years after they were built) and our roof was now a spotted grey! How so much has changed yet so much stays the same!

Just come across this - I don't think I had joined the forum at that time. Like your, our first boat which we bought around 1968 was the same class. What was yours called? We had to sell it in 1971 after moving to the north east - no canals up there! Anyone know of the history of the boat before 1968? (or even after 1971 though that's unlikely)

Just come across this - I don't think I had joined the forum at that time. Like your, our first boat which we bought around 1968 was the same class. What was yours called? We had to sell it in 1971 after moving to the north east - no canals up there!

Depends on whether you take the view the a licence lapses mid term if any of the pre-conditions cease to be true. If that is the case then when a boat is sold its insurance (at least the one declared to obtain the licence) also lapses and thus the licence. Although the old owner could not get around to declaring that the boat has been sold until the end of the licence term, they remain the official contact and will be considered by CaRT to be liable for the actions of the new owner. Overall, I would be surprised if CaRT are not on firm ground with their current interpretation - the wonder is that they previously allowed the licence to be transferred, Of course, they are quite free to decide on the financial arrangements surrounding a transfer - in effect they do that by refunding to the previous owner less a little bit. The cost to the old or the new owner as a result of having to re-licence is not huge even though around a month's licence is lost - it all becomes material if something else other than a simple sale is going on in parallel. Again, only for a shortish period since CaRT have 'to be satisfied' each time a licence is sold so that any issues regarding the new owner will arise within 11 months max.

As I understand it, this final part of the Paddington Arm never was part of the Grand Union as it was constructed as a transhipment wharf. Herein lies the reason why the moorings and the security are under the control of the developer not CaRT (although the latter have issued winter moorings here on occasion) I suspect that it is a bit of a legal mish-mash.

But you do have to remember that having insurance is a pre-condition which I think is undisputed. However, any insurance company may well have all sorts of restrictions which are not subject to similar legislative restraint. In particular, you cannot insure something unless you have an interest in it (a bit wider than ownership)

I did point this out to Tom C but he declined to make the point openly. However, there is hope in that at least one additional mooring is provided! (Or will it be trip boat?) My experience of that area is that the part right at this end of the arm is never that sunny as it is very much overlooked by the tall buildings.

Ys, but when a boat sinks then all the contents float around at random. When the water level is removed then items settle where they are and the result, as the FB entry indicates, is almost always close to mayhem, not to mention the stench and mud. Of course, the same occurs when homes are invaded by flood water - I think we are all surprised just how long it takes to clean up afterwards. It would have to be a really bad enemy to wish a flood or sinking onto them.

Not sure about the quality of their data. It states that our house is a flood risk as it is within 500m of a possible flood risk area. However it fails to report also that we are around 65m above the river level and that most of the west of England would be under water before it lapped at our doorstep. Also, since we are almost at the top of a hill, the danger of flood water coming downhill is equally unanticipated!

As I recall it, their previous boat was called Twelfth Night - largely because there were twelve share owners. When they opted to have their own boat, and later to move onto it permanently, what more obvious (for a CofE ordained priest - which he still is) than to move from Twelfth Night to Epiphany! I guess that, in thes ame vein, Fi has now moved onto her next boat which might well be called Easter . . .

The licence is perhaps a form of surety which the Good Samaritan holds to encourage good behaviour from the boater just saved from certain homelessness? The one power that the licence holder does have is that they (and probably only they and CaRT) can cancel it.

What I am suggesting is that neither assessment was improperly conducted against its own criteria but that different perspectives yield different outcomes. Happens all the time. In particular, it is not a technical matter to set a probability level - eg do you wish to protect against a 50 year flood or a 100 year flood?

Is 'goodbye' after 24 posts a record?

You may well be right but H&S inspections are always somewhat subjective - at the very least dependent on what criteria and individuals choose to use. It is quite possible for a regular maintenance engineer to accept a given state, especially in the light of their local knowledge and a new person, with a different set of criteria, to reach a different conclusion - and yet nothing to be wrong with either of them.

Just heard from John Slee's FB page that his wife, partner, best friend Fi (Fiona) has died. His brief note gives no details but I know that he will be devastated. Both John and Fi have been great canal enthusiasts and supporters, especially since they decided to move onto their boat full time, although they were already well experienced by that time. Fi built up an encyclopedic knowledge of the canals and was an avid blogger and Tweeter (I only really followed the blog and Christine her Tweets). They had to be determined and inventive to allow Fi to remain on board and yet still, for many, many years, access the skilled medical specialists that did so much to keep her going until now. The information they have published on their website about how to access regular medication and GP services whilst on the move has, I am sure, been of enormous value to others who find themselves in similar needs. John has invetsed an enormous amount of his energy and commitment to enabling Fi to keep on exploring the canals as a dedicated continuous cruiser. Not for them was there ever any suggestion that they would test out the loopholes in that status and their blog of their journeying is a testament to what can be done. I am sure that all of us will share in John's (and their son Craig's) grief and I really do hope that we shall see John out and about ere too long. After all, he, of necessity, became a most proficient single-hander, more especially in the recent years.

With luck they will find somewhere 'better' and decide to stay there after the works are complete!

If, as seems to be reported elsewhere, the EA are going to cease maintaining adjacent waterways to a navigable standard, is this bill going to be redundant as only those boats that home base there will be able to cruise the Middle Levels?

Like most things, the IT system can be extended as suggested but it will always be at a cost. It is perfectly reasonable - if this were to turn out to be the case - if CaRT decided that the number of such licences was so small that they did not justify the expense. This tends to happen with old systems that are expected to cope with issues not contemplated when the original design was undertaken. Sometimes it turns out that what appear to be small extensions are actually disproportionately expensive. There is every sign that CaRT are working with a fairly creaking system and design that dates back to when admin was basic and simple!