MartinC

I agree, online gives you the best protection. I have used it every year since it started, without problem. To get over the difficulty about sending BSC I have made sure that the BSC is not due at the same time. I have then sent the BSC immediately which gives you time to sort out any problem before the licence renewal. A hint for those whose have to renew by post, Special Delivery can include, for a small additional fee, compensation for consequential loss (eg the loss of prompt payment discount). I use this service for sending any documents to oganisations with poor service standards. The fun starts when Royal Mail cannot prove a signature for delivery which oftens happens with large organisations where the mail is delivered in bulk. They then have to refund all your fee even if it has been delivered as they have failed to establish delivery within the contracted time scale.

The towpath at the bottom of Wilmcote flight appears to be shared as a road. At the gated entry there is, quite sensibly, a BW sign indicating a 5mph limit. I have no idea what properties are served by the road but it is obvious that the users think that it is quite alright to drive down a shared towpath at speeds of over 30mph, in heavy rain. As there is the BW sign I assume that BW have some responsibility for the road and might consider that a couple of speed bumps could avoid a nasty accident. I have made a "near miss" report to BW but I wonder if this was an isolated incident or if anybody else has experienced this type of dangerous driving.

An alternative, with the modern cold fill only machines, is to connect the cold fill intake to the hot water system. The engine produces bags of "free" hot water and, although the manufacturers of washing machines might suggest otherwise, a hot rinse is just as good as a cold one. Works with our Candy running happily on a 1.6 inverter.

If this upsets people, wait until the real cuts in public services take effect. Greece has lived beyond its means for years and we are nearly matching them.

Reminds me of some years ago when the IWA organised a show at Worcester. Bought two advance tickets at a small saving. Arrived at the site to find they were offering two for one at the door. Needless to say they never replied to my complaint!

Thanks for spotting this. If only estate agents would understand the meaning of words, i.e. canalside means at the side of the canal not "there is a canal somewhere not too far away"!

Tony has replied to this (5.50pm yesterday). Excess is £70 plus 10% of vets bill per claim and per policy year, so this is a fair chunk of money., depending when the policy year ends, and assuming they do not exercise their right to increase to increase the excess as a condition of renewal. Noted that treating it as two claims increases the total excess. I steer clear of pet insurance. Having worked in the insurance industry all my working life (now retired and enjoying boating) I am well aware of the loopholes open to insurers and the attitude of many claims handlers. There are very few non-life policies which have any right of renewal. The insurer is otherwise free to alter any terms of the policy at renewal, increase the premium or even not invite renewal. Mind you, in view of the statement made in their publicity by More Th>n concerning the "run on" situation for a claim, I think that even the FSA would get tough if they refused a renewal, or tried to remove the "run on" provision where there was an outstanding claim. They would, however, in view of the "Special Condition" be entitled to increase the excess, in practice you are reliant on their risk to reputation. I have owned pets for 40 years plus and I know that my total vet bills have been significantly less than premium costs less amounts that would have been recovered as claims. Remember insurers are not charities, in simple terms if net claims plus (a very big plus) overheads exceed net premiums plus investment income the company will be out of business.

More Th>n is a better policy than most. Just two points to bear in mind: The ongoing cover for existing treatment is, as one would expect, subject to your renewing the policy. However there does not appear to be any guarantee that the renewal premium will not be increased. The excess can also be increased (Special Condition on the last page of the policy), currently for dog under 9 £70 plus 10% of vets bill per claim, per policy year. That said I am sure that a company with the reputation of Royal Sun Alliance would not take undue advantage. Has anybody raised this with them?

Did anybody manage to buy one?

I am not too sure that this represents the actual situation in respect of personal injury claims. As far as I can ascertain, BW, in common with many large organisations, operates a self insurance/reinsurance captive company (BW Reinsurance) activity provided, in their case, by Allied Risk Management in Dublin. This explains the £2.9m charge shown further up the page. With professional risk management including "stop loss" cover this is prudent management by BW.

I assume you are aware that postal votes are now sent out very close to the election, due to the fact that, to encourage voting, the closing date for applying for a postal vote is six days before the election. This means that, in contradiction to information shown on some council web sites, postal voting papers are only dispatched to voters four/five days before the election date. For boaters it is much safer to go for a proxy vote if there is somebody on dry land that you can trust!

It is usually a lot cheaper to rely on a personal effects all risks extension on your house policy. Only use the boat policy for any things like household utensils that you may find are excluded from the personal effects definition in your house policy. Such are the strange ways of the insurance world.

As far as I can see this planning application went through the normal democratic process, and local elected members decided that this was the best solution for local people for a derelict set of buildings. "Out of area" objections carry little weight. "Listing" would have been the only way to overcome local democracy. If we do not want this to happen again then it is up to the public to go for Listed Building applications. On this site the concern now needs to be for the future. We should not forget that inclusion of a building or facility in a planning application does not mean that it will be actually provided. In the present economic climate very few developments are being fully completed, with either the developer going out of business or lacking bank funding. If the developer does not provide boating facilities I can see little, if any, chance of the local planning authority being able to enforce it. The correct solution here would have been for BW to include a condition in the sale or to have reserved space in their ownership for the provision of the facilities. I am aware that this posting will no doubt attract some "comment".

Would welcome any personal recommendations for reliable work (PM if you prefer).

The on-line planning search facility for the local District Council is out of action as shown by an undated notice. So no idea when it went "off line" and absolutely no indication of when it will be restored. Has anybody seen the application for this site?

This idea has been floating around for a bit and I am surprised that no details have yet been fleshed out. My initial thoughts are that: The National Trust governance is undemocratic and certainly not a model to be followed without significant changes to the way in which trustees are appointed and the voice of members heard. The view of the operation of the taxation system is, to say the least, novel. Following the argument to a logical conclusion, "if it does not benefit me directly I am not going to pay for it". Might appeal to some far radicals but I doubt if a nation could exist on that basis. This is yet another attempt to achieve debt "off the balance sheet", just like PFI. The money will come from the so-called private sector who will expect a return. The reference to the National Trust is also interesting in the terms of finance. You offer a property to the NT and they normally require an endowment from you to meet the future maintenance costs.

That is only part of the story. I know that a few posters of this Forum are somewhat adverse to the mention of the "other" forum but it is worth looking at Tony Hayne's posting, particularly if, like me, you pay HCC Council Tax. As joint owners of the canal HCC have a potential heavy liability, and, if they have liability insurance, their insurers may be asking some searching questions about work standards.