costalot

The counter argument is some people want to ignore that fact this entire situation was initiated by Mr Roberts [who was in the wrong] and fixate themselves on the subsequent actions by CRT who they allege are now also in the wrong.

Why would someone pay to insure a ship (or anything) they were negotiating to purchase? Surely you pay for the insurance after you've finalized the purchase.

It seems to me this is a case of a failed business plan where the income didn't exceed the expenses. The owner of the business examined his expenses and decided which of them he could most afford NOT to pay and the 'charity' CRT was on that list. Despite failing to pay CRT his business model still wasn't a success. When notified by CRT he was required to move his vessel he decided the costs and risks involved weren't worth it. My assumption is the owner doesn't have the money (or inclination) to want to take legal action against CRT for their actions in removing his vessel. However he's probably quite prepared for others to assume the burden of challenging CRT's actions, provided it's at no cost to himself. I can imagine CRT officials deciding what to do with the boat. "George ring all the local potential mooring owner and ask them if they would accept a vessel we've seized because the owner hasn't paid us his mooring fees for the last year". [Later] "What do you mean, none of them are interested!" "Looks like we will have to find another suitable mooring location that we own". "But not too close or we'll find someone has moved it back during the night". Meanwhile, there is already one former lightship for sale on the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal which would suggest the current local lightship market is saturated.

My reading of the Act suggests the Manchester Ship Company will (can) take no action until the boat has been on their water for more than a month. The owner then gets 7 days notice to remove their vessel. Given this is a civil law issue which would cost Peel thousands in legal fees, I suspect the enforcement officer's actions are mostly bluff.

Peel Holdings are a commercial entity and have a primary objective of making money from their assets. They own the Bridgewater Canal. Boaters with a Bridgewater Canal License are paying customers. Visiting boaters with a CRT License are not. Bridgewater License boaters have probably complained about the number of CRT "freeloaders" on the canal. The number of customer complaints has risen to a level where Peel has decided to take action Peel have employed an enforcement officer who has the desired personality/characteristics to resolve the customer complaints Generally Bridgewater License boaters (Peel customers) are happy with the performance of the enforcement officer. Some non paying canal users (eg CRT license holders) are not happy. Peel is keeping their paying customers happy and doesn't give a fig about the non paying customers CRT license holders just have to accept the current situation and hope the access requirements don't get more restrictive. Alternatively CRT boaters could demand Pell introduce an visiting boaters access charge (Like the Avon Trust) and then they would be paying customers. Perhaps then Peel Holdings might listen to their complaints.

The cynic in me thinks that if the police find the three people they will say "But that's our boat! We purchased it 10 days ago for £XXXX cash from a well spoken gent in the pub at XXX. He told us he needed a quick sale because he and his wife were leaving for Ecuador in a week!" The CPS will say "Well they got their boat back and we aren't 100% sure we will win any prosecution, so we won't proceed". The insurance company will say "These people don't have any money so it's not worth a civil prosecution to recover costs". The thieves will say "Third time luck!" If I were going to leave a boat in a marina I think I'd fit a hi-tensile chain around the tiller and connect it to the mooring via something substantial. Any would-be thief would need to take half the mooring with them when they left!

Just moved between Hillmorton and Rugby. No sign of the boat. The lockie at Hillmorton has a "flyer" (with photos) of the stolen boat which he is showing to all boaters going through the flight asking if they have seen it, or if they do see it to phone the police.

We travelled from Braunston to Hillmorton yesterday and don't recall seeing this boat. Today we weren't on the boat today but after reading this thread I walked Hillmorton Locks and the moorings above and below without seeing the boat. Tomorrow we will cruise from Hillmorton to Rugby and from there to Hawkesbury.