MartinC
-
Posts
340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by MartinC
-
-
17 hours ago, Tacet said:
We have tied-up there in order to shop at Tesco. Getting out of the site and onto the road is possible, if a little awkward.
The Morrisons by bridge 168 is a little easier to get to.
-
There is an offside mooring just below lock 4 on the Ashton, providing you do not mind the trams on the other side of the wall. A few mooring rings hidden in the grass.
-
Back on topic.
Warwickshire Police Canalwatch have just posted brief details but interesting (or not!) "If you see the boat of have any information that could help the police with their enquiries please call 101 and refer to inc 72 of 20/3/18." Crime reference seems to differ.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:
Would the answer not be to get it confirmed in writing from your insurer if they would be happy for you to move your boat under red board conditions.
Assume you are "tongue in cheek". Ask that question of a Lloyd's underwriter and you would get a notice of cancellation.
-
No, I don't think that's true at all. Anyone can be subject to misfortune or have an accident, even the most competent skipper.
Do you consider yourself to be a competent driver? Have you ever had a car accident?
Anyway, unless I've missed it (which is always possible) I can't see anything in my insurance policy specifically excluding taking the boat out in challenging conditions. There is a Negligence clause which I can't quite make out if is referring to my own botched repairs, or whether that's general negligence referring to anything? The bold is all mine.
Territorial Scope: Ashore or afloat on inland non tidal waters and interconnecting tidal waterways of the UK, the Broads and the river Thames not seaward of the Thames Barrier.
We will pay for loss of or damage to “Black Rose” directly caused by: • External accidental means. • Fire, explosions, self ignition and lightning. • Malicious acts of third parties. • Accidents in loading, discharging and handling stores, equipment, machinery, or fuel. • Latent defects in the hull or machinery. • Theft of “Black Rose” or her boat(s), or outboard motor(s) provided it is securely locked to “Black Rose” or her boat(s) by an anti theft device in addition to its normal method of attachment, or, following upon forcible entry into “Black Rose” or place of storage, theft of machinery including outboard motor(s), or equipment. • Negligence, excluding, ° the cost of making good any defect in repair, maintenance or alteration carried out for your account resulting from either negligence or breach of contract. ° the cost and expense of remedying a fault or error in design or construction or attributable to betterment or alteration in design or construction. ° theft or pilferage. • The expense of sighting the bottom after stranding, if reasonably incurred specially for that purpose, even if no damage be found.
We will not pay loss or damage claims for: • Wear and tear, depreciation, deterioration, and mildew. • Any expense incurred in treating the consequences of osmotic action. • Loss of or damage to motor and electrical machinery and batteries and their connections (with the exception of the shaft and propeller) and metalling unless caused by “Black Rose” being stranded, sinking from a peril insured against, burnt, on fire or in contact with any external substance (ice included) other than water or by malicious damage or by theft following upon forcible entry to “Black Rose”or store, or while being removed from or placed in “Black Rose”, or by fire in store ashore, or by frost (provided all manufacturers recommendations complied with) or by the sudden accidental incursion of water into “Black Rose”, or by dropping off or falling overboard of outboard motors. • Loss or damage to consumable stores, fishing gear or moorings. • Loss of or damage to protective covers split by the wind. • The cost of repairing, replacing or renewing any defective part in consequence of a latent defect. We will not pay claims by third party for: • Accidents whilst “Black Rose” is in transit by road. • Accidents to or illness of any other person employed in any capacity by you or anybody to whom this policy extends in, on or about or in connection with “Black Rose”. • The legal costs of defending any criminal prosecution or the payment of any fines or other penalties. We will not pay personal effects claims for: • Wear, tear, gradual deterioration, damp, mould, mildew, moth, vermin, mechanical derangement and electrical breakdown. • Breakage of articles of a brittle nature unless caused by “Black Rose” stranding, sinking, fire, collision, stress of weather, burglars or thieves. • Loss of cash, travellers cheques, credit cards, jewellery, antiques, works of art, laptop computers or mobile phones. General Exceptions: We will not pay for: • Claims whilst out on hire, or charter, or used for other than private purposes. • Claims arising from capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, and the consequences thereof or of any attempt thereat; or from the consequences of hostilities or warlike operations, whether there be a declaration of war or not; but this clause does not exclude collision, contact with any fixed or floating object (other than a mine or torpedo), stranding, heavy weather or fire unless caused directly (and independently of the nature of the voyage or service in which “Black Rose” is concerned or, in the case of a collision, any other vessel involved therein, is performing) by a hostile act by or against a belligerent power; and for the purpose of this clause "power" includes any authority maintaining naval, military or air forces in association with a power. • Claims arising from the consequences of civil war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection, or civil strife arising therefrom. • Warranted free of loss damage or expense or any legal liability of whatsoever nature directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from ionising radiations from or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or from any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel or the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component thereof. • Loss, destruction or damage occasioned by pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speeds. • Claims arising from your reckless actions, or those to whom this policy extends. • The first £300 of any claim.
This looks like a Craftinsure policy. The relevant bit is the penultimate item under General Exceptions "Claims arising from your reckless actions...".
"reckless" disregarding the consequences or danger, lacking caution, rash (Oxford Dictionary). Roll in the legal fees!
-
On 20/02/2018 at 20:29, Taslim said:
Not boat but house. I had used my building society for contents & building insurance for the duration of my mortgage.
This year, mortgage payed of, I questioned the renewal price. No move.
Went to another broker who got me the same policy with the same underwriters for half the price.
How much have I been knocked for over the years?
Building societies were demanding and getting significant commission on insurance which, of course, was reflected in the premium. Just one of the many scams that building societies got up to, such as refusing surveys other than through their own "selected" surveyors. All a thing of the past now?
On 20/02/2018 at 14:39, mrsmelly said:So Its renewal time again and my bumff has come through the post as always. Having read the front page it says quote " You have been with us for a number of years. You may be able to get insurance cover you want at a better price if you shop around "
I havnt noticed this before though have never looked for it. Is it some stupid law that's appeared making insurance companies do it? I cant see why anyone should or indeed would print something like that otherwise? I wont be shopping around as its cheap anyway and better the devil you know but just thought it strange.
Energy suppliers are doing this as well.
-
16 hours ago, Prof said:
I obviously have a different opinion regarding how restored canals should be used, bearing in mind that much of the restoration is funded to a greater of lesser extent by BW/CaRT.
Without going too far off the direct topic, this does raises an interesting point. Who is funding the restoration?
I can find a previous contribution of £1m from the County Council, a Lottery grant, small financial contributions (shown on Charity Commission site) but lots of valuable voluntary work led by Shropshire Union Society and several other charities. Various other bodies have been set up but appear to be "talking shops" only, even the Prince of Wales has popped in and out.
CaRT, and BW before them, meet running costs but for their financial involvement in restoration see https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/28659-the-montgomery-canal-restoration-strategy.pdf. I am sure that somebody else has already discovered lots of benefactors and will let us know who they are!
-
11 hours ago, RichM said:
Personally I use Chrome but I'm not seeing that when I test using Firefox. I have attached a screenshot of what I see showing how it should look. It would be useful if you could take a screenshot to compare. Also, is your Firefox set to update automatically and do you know what your screen size & resolution is?
RichM
Screenshots on Firefox:
-
52 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
It might look vaguely familiar again now Rich has fiddled with your account.
But honestly, its pathetic that techy mods need to do this. I am a member of several other forums and the user interface is rock solid and never changes, regardless of the security updates that constantly occur invisibly.
Not Rich's fault. He should be applauded for doing this sort of stuff. Even though it ought to be unnecessary.
I normally use Firefox but for the last few weeks I have not been able to use "reply" and new content only shows about twenty items with no "load more activity"button, so I am using Safari for this post. The background colour for this site on Safari is the usual blue but it is black on Firefox
-
17 hours ago, thebfg said:
He is licensed. So I presume insured.
CART only ask for confirmation of insurance valid on the renewal date of the licence.
-
If you want to know why you are receiving so much rubbish see https://haveibeenpwned.com/
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, rgreg said:
We did the Rochdale this July. We had a handful of weedhatch visits, a couple of low pounds which needed filling, the occasional grounding, and no harm from the friendly locals. Was it worth the effort? Absolutely; and in a way it wouldn't have felt like the Rochdale without a few stories to tell! It's a unique and fascinating canal which has to be on everyone's "must do" list.
Must have been doing it at the same time as you. Same experience but a couple of things to add. Had some help from one CRT vounteer plus a digger driver on a local building site helped my wife holding the boat when I was down the weed hatch and, lastly a number of comments from locals about "where did all that come from?", to which I made a gentle reply.
As far as we are concerned, ticked the box and no longer on the list.
-
13 hours ago, furnessvale said:
Interesting that the new toilet/elsan/refuse block is to be situated next to the "luxury" conversion of the old warehouse.
I wonder how long that will survive before the new owners complain and have it closed (if it gets built in the first place)?
George
Very likely. That is happening at Marsworth.
-
On 07/09/2017 at 00:30, leeco said:
From what I can see here is strange but maybe the pound was high that he entered the lock and he got caught on the gate.
Certainly looks as if it caught on top of the beam. Unlikely to have caught lower down as there are "slider boards". I wonder why it was not fitted with a sacrificial link on the fender.
The previous sinking in lock 40 involved two boats using the lock and appears to relate to projecting stonework.
-
23 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:
I treat any boater I meet as if he or she was a normal, reasonably friendly individual like me. Most folk are.
It's only when they prove otherwise that I make a disparaging remark (when out of earshot).
You can usually tell well in advance whether a hire boat has a novice crew or experts on board.
Walking the dogs after mooring up above Middlewich we came across a hire boat crew approaching a lock where the lower gates had been left open. They were hanging about, then entered the lock and started to wind up the lower paddles. Treated them as normal people, explained politely how the lock worked and helped them through.
The next day we caught up with them on the paired Cheshire locks and without asking they sent one of their crew to set our locks for us. Helps to be nice! I have not mentioned the name of the hire company as I (hope) am sure that they had given details of lock working but possibly had over emphasised the need to empty locks!
-
Sovereign in Banbury but I think they only open on Fridays! After that Fenny Compton.
-
Now back in use, but no lolly pop marker on top sluice.
-
Are New Islington VMs (and elsan etc) still in use? Am I correct that the only entrance is on the Rochdale as I have seen a map somewhere that showed an entrance on the Ashton?
-
Seconded
-
4 hours ago, MartinC said:
Tree down at bridge 22 GU blocking whole canal. CART advised.
Cleared
-
Tree down at bridge 22 GU blocking whole canal. CART advised.
-
The CART improvement list listed a new Elsan facility at Alperton, opened this year.
Been through Alperton twice but no sign of it. Anyone seen it?
-
Factors to take into account for comparison:
Policy wording (by no means standard!). Exclusions vary, are there any which affect your requirements?
Claims reputation.
Service standards, including ease of using web site.
Underwriting requirements (e.g. age of boat/survey)
Then you look at premium level including provision and cost of paying monthly.
Navigators & General, who have a significant portion of the market, is a trading name of Zurich. You will come across them in several guises with different premiums because it depends, amonst other things, on who is acting as agent or broker and the profitability of the "book" of business being written through that broker or agent, the underwriting criteria and policy wording they have negotiated and the "cut" they are taking.
-
In the case of boat insurance I'd guess the insurers don't have such a volume of statistics to go on, so the calculation may be based on fewer criteria, but the same methods will apply, and if your insurer has had a worse experience of claims versus premiums than other insurers with, for example, steel narrowboats kept in marinas in the north, then their premiums will be higher. You do have to compare like with like, for example any excess, exclusions and whether a company is thought likely to quibble a claim too much, and in the end ask yourself whether the potential saving is worth the time spent on research; it may well not be.
There is one other consideration in the calculation of the actual premium charged. Vitually all the quotes are from Brokers or Agencies and are dependent on the deal that they, in turn, have struck with the insurers. This explains why you can get several different premiums but the same insurer. The deal struck by the Broker/Agent will be dependent on several factors often more relevant to Agencies than Brokers. Total volume of business, proposed policy wording, rate of commission taken, claims history of the total "book" of business as opposed to individual claims experience to name a few.
I havnt noticed this before though have never looked for it. Is it some stupid law that's appeared making insurance companies do it? I cant see why anyone should or indeed would print something like that otherwise? I wont be shopping around as its cheap anyway and better the devil you know but just thought it strange.
I Thought Estate Agents were Bad - but Boat Brokers...!
in New to Boating?
Posted
As people now seem to be naming good service can I assume that the broker at Crick is ABNB. If so, having been a vendor and buyer, their service was excellent.