MartinC

Another vote for Tuckeys. Used then twice. They know what they are doing.

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Penalty-notices/1400016310443/1400016310443 but unclear if fixed penalty ( £60) applies to cyclists speeding but could apply to dangerous use depending on the various interpretations of "vehicle". This is also quite interesting, if you have the time to wade through it http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-richmond-park-exceeding-their-authority

Although we hear very little of the final outcome of these sort of incidents I am surprised that no insurer appears to have rejected any claim of this type. There is adequate provision to do this, if it proved that the steerer or crew were drunk. Some policies have a specific exclusion of claims where crew are drunk and others have exclusions such as reckless behaviour. A rejected claim would then mean that the hire company would look to the hirers for a significant amount of money (well over the deposit). However, if the hire company were aware of the risks arising from the hire, they might well find that, legally, they would loose any right of redress, A couple of cases like this might solve the problem by natural market forces, i.e. the hire comany could decide if the hire receipt justified the potential loss of money.

Ventnor. See http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=71154&hl=

We have moored at Ventnor Farm (now just "Ventnor Marina") for almost 15 years. The current charges are very reasonable, particularly if you take a three year deal, and having visted several other marinas, we have yet to find one with such peaceful surroundings, helpful staff and, most importantly, a very well designed, uncrowded layout. Just a few points on the matters raised: Our original T&Cs restricted overnighting to five continuous nights. This type of restriction is usually due to conditions imposed by the council in granting planning permission. The original owner liked to create a "membership" atmosphere, hence the restriction on fueling, quite apart from the difficulty of getting into the fueling berth! Without prior consent of the owners, work is restricted to "minor running repairs or minor maintenance...not causing any nuisance or annoyance to other users."

Our Paul Widdowson shell came with a wider hatch and I think it is one of his "trade marks". It is certainly more sociable.

Problems will be before the houses are built as the builders will be getting deliveries from 38 tonne vehicles which, no doubt, will try to use the swing bridge. Neither of the developers (Redrow and Bellway) are listed as members of the Considerate Contractors Scheme, which says something.From the detailed plans of the replacement bridge there does not appear to be any provision for offside mooring and access to control box for singlehanders Some years ago there was a development on the outskirts of Stoke and the developers put a man on the controls of the swing bridge on the Caldon, which adjoined the site. This worked very well as it facilitated deliveries to the site, and made it easier for boaters.

If anybody is still interested this application is going to Committee 7th August. As usual there is a public participation session, subject to prior request to speak. Contact democracy@cherwell-dc.gov.uk

Although the UK site is still selling replacement cartridges for their Nature Pure Ultrafine it appears that they have replaced this model with a, more expensive, Nature Pure QC. At least one caravanning web site is suggesting that the old replacement cartridges are going out of production, but as the site is trying to sell the old cartridges at 25% more than the cost of a direct sale from the UK General Ecology site, this may be a questionable statement! However the USA parent site only shows the QC replacement cartridge. As far as I can see there is no change in the actual filter, only in the method of changing the cartridge, but, of course, the new cartridge is 50% more expensive.

Craftinsure send a pdf copy of the new policy, including an insurance certificate, with the email renewal every year. Download this and you have the ability to produce as many copies as you need without having to go on line agan. The DVLC have statutory rights to insurance information, avoiding data protection problems. CRT might like to convince our legislators that it would be in the public interest to give them this power? the alternative would be for them to get all insurers to get waivers of data protection from policyholders.

Some days ago, in Leicester, at North Lock, which has a narrow towpath, I was "tinged" by one of the cycling fraternity. Giving him thanks for letting me know of his presence I was told that I should not obstruct the towpath, whilst pulling the boat into the lock mooring.

Nothing new in this. Years ago I was in conversation with a manager of a very large supermarket chain which was selling cheap TVs, in the days before they came from China. Their pricing policy allowed for 15% of the TVs being returned as defective. These were not even returned to the manufacturer but went straight into the waste bims.

As this topic has wandered on to overseas transactions I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the benefits of pre-paid cards which avoid a lot of the problems that people seem to be having and, of course, does away with the risk of emptying your bank account.

Have you contacted Eberspacher? When I had a problem with a ten year old installation they were very helpful. Turned out that the original installation was bound to fail as the boat fitter had not followed the correct instructions for plumbing it in. Eberspacher were not surprised as most of the problems they dealt with came into this category.

No not too difficult to establish ownership of the land or tree, but I was responding to MtB's posting, establishing liability in this sort of case is not easy.

A big "IF" and another lawyers paradise. I am sure most boaters would not want CaRT spending money on this sort of legal action unless it was an open and shut case, which is very hard to establish. Even then there is the problem that, if an insurer was involved, and the tree was an obvious danger, the insurer is unlikely to indemnify, so insurance is mainly irrelevant. Another thought. Local Authorities have the power to order cutting back of growth obstructing footways and the power to do the work and charge the property owner if he fails to act. I wonder if any of the canal construction acts included the provision that neighbouring property owners should not cause obstruction?