Peter X

I'm not at all upset, but for what it's worth: The Archers is set in Ambridge, and perhaps The Dog House was thinking of Dolores Umbridge, a character in Harry Potter. I'm also quite neutral in all this, being a fan of neither fictional world and regarding the OP as only a little frictional.

I thought we agreed a while back that only a freehold is registered with the Land Registry, not any leases or sub-leases? So if a transfer of the freehold has to be registered, then when QMP bought it in 2007 and failed to register it, who would be at fault? Probably whoever Mr Steadman hired to do the conveyancing?

I don't think the IR would be interested in small scale bartering of the sort described. No doubt there's a bit of a grey area, but surely tax only comes into it when significant money is changing hands and/or it's between businesses? Each year I use my neighbour's grapes to make some wine and give her a bottle or two of it, the rest being given away to my friends and relatives, mostly drunk by my son and his friends. If I sold it I'd not only be liable for tax, I'd need an alcohol licence! The odd thing is, I gave up drinking long ago and just make the wine for fun. I don't taste it, I just rely on comments to find out if I got it right. Apparently after two years of just about drinkable plonk, my 2013 vin de Croydon was pretty damn good.

Any programme like this in what might be termed the journey genre has to be somewhat artificial to accommodate the practical difficulties of filming, so it doesn't surprise or bother me that these things happen. Just like Michael Portillo on his Great Railway Journeys series, it has to be arranged for them to meet various local experts along the way, and there has to be some sort of plan for filming. I find it quite encouraging if the CRT were helping the whole process along, it shows that they understand the need to portray the canals in a good light and encourage more people into boating. But perhaps not the man who wrecked the lock gate. What matters it that the basic story being told is genuine, that of two people who love the canals and don't want to let old age stop them. Maybe the programme glossed over the problems of the K&A because the TV people wanted a feelgood programme and the CRT were only too happy to help deliver that, but evidently lots of people do take holidays along the K&A so they're coping somehow. As I don't need to, I don't know what generally happens if a boater asks a gongoozler to lend a hand at locks with pushing a gate or holding a rope. I guess it varies but would have thought most would help if asked politely? Especially if it's fairly obvious that you need help and you're not just being lazy.

There are so many variables that this seems like an impossible question to give a simple answer to. My boating experience is limited to punting and occasional crewing on a narrowboat, but I'd expect boat living to usually compare well to renting a house, especially in the south and very especially in the madness of central London, provided that you can move about enough as a CC'er to not fall foul of the CRT. However living aboard a boat seems to be very much a way of life that people either love or hate, which should strongly influence anyone's decision. Only someone really stuck for money would want to do it if they hated the lack of space, problems with utilities etc. It probably becomes a better option financially too if you have the technical knowledge to do a lot of your own maintenance work. Houses usually go up in value, and it's therefore usually best to buy rather than rent, but it's no certainty. Bubbles happen and anyone who buys at the peak can spend years in negative equity before the property gets back to the price they bought it at. The flexibility of renting can be very attractive for people whose housing needs keep changing, if they move about quite a lot due to their work and/or the size of household changes. For a while I rented a big house because my daughter + husband + son lived with me. If for some reason I had to retire tomorrow, I couldn't afford to keep my house in Croydon. But if I bought a boat and lived a frugal life on it, I suspect it might work out financially. My son wouldn't like losing the Hotel of Dad though.

Is there any buried treasure there for CRT?

It was only speculation that barges might have previously loaded from there, perhaps based upon that silvery-looking thing at the end of the winding hole in the photo. But I think you've thoroughly cleared up this point, thank you. This tends to suggest that Mr Steadman could not rely upon previous access to the canal to claim exemption from needing a NAA, but nevertheless I think given all the points which NigelMoore raised, and the possibility that Mr Steadman might get somewhere by seeking a judicial review, I can understand why the CRT may hesitate to push him into a corner by demanding money for a new NAA as I suggested. I still think the CRT would have a good chance of victory, but a good chance is not enough because the cost of losing would be huge. Sometimes in law you just have to accept that going to court is too much of a gamble.

From a combination of personal experience and what I've heard from others, I think these are factors which increase your chances of being bitten: Being near water, especially still fresh water. Not much you can do about this on canals, but my late father who was an ex scout master and very experienced at camping said he would always pitch tents away from any stream or pond for this reason. Being in the west of Scotland. Easily avoided. August/September. There's a lot more midges about then. Evening, specifically the twilight period. Some might feel this can be avoided by going to the pub at the end of a day's boating. Exposed skin. On a hot day, try long sleeves and trousers as the sun goes down. So, if you wear shorts and T-shirt near water at twilight in September in the west of Scotland, you are in the words of Private Frasier DOOMED I say, DOOMED.

In the aerial photo posted by NigelMoore #4375, there’s an interesting feature just left of centre, surrounded on three sides by a little ditch. Looks like a grassy knoll to me. So that’s where the exploratory talks between BWML and Pillings suggested by Allan(nb Albert) took place? If this feature survived the construction of the marina, where better for Paul Lillie and Philip Ridal to have stood in 2011 to debate the finer points of canal-related law than a vantage point offering a clear view of where the winding hole or whatever had been? I am of course offering this fatuous diversion to cover up my lack of effort in getting my head around all the ancient but potentially relevant legislation NigelMoore discussed in #4369. There’s enough material in there to see this topic smash all records (or has it already?). I’m off to look for the Leicester Canal Act 1791; that looks more relevant to me than the River Soar Navigation Act 1776, because isn’t the marina entrance on the canal (just)?

HOW MUCH ?? Just look at what that sort of money buys in that area: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E1030&insId=1&minPrice=170000&maxPrice=190000&minBedrooms=3&retirement=false&displayPropertyType=houses&oldDisplayPropertyType=houses&radius=5.0&googleAnalyticsChannel=buying Is there really such a huge premium for being next to a canal?

My thanks also go to NigelMoore for his epic post #4369, which raises all sorts of relevant and interesting material. My brain hurts trying to digest it all! Perhaps Emerald Fox’s person “on the floor at Stansted”, the modern equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus, would have the time to work it out. I’ve been on a lot of buses in Clapham and all over South London in my time, and I can tell you there’s plenty of time to think, they don’t move very quickly. I got off one in South Norwood and walked on Tuesday, and overtook three other buses in the next half mile.

Ah! I hadn't thought of that. I’ve had a quick skim through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law and yes I can see that they could try it, and the judge would have to wrestle with some awkward questions. If the CRT try to exercise their powers under s43 to extract payment from the phoenix company for providing a NAA, to get around Mr Steadman's underhand tactic of liquidating QMP to extinguish their debt to CRT, is that grounds for review? I suppose Mr Steadman's best chance would be to rely on either "The powers used for the purpose different from the one envisaged by the law under which they were granted" or “taking irrelevant considerations into account”, and the CRT would argue that the Act did envisage collection of NAA fees, and that the shadow director’s history of non-payment of fees was relevant. I'd have to study a lot of case law before I could offer much of an opinion on that.

Can someone explain a couple of things please? I was wondering whether, if the boat had sunk anywhere near Peterborough, it could be wholly underwater, so I looked at the EA website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/riverlevels/120735.aspx?stationId=6121 Today's "river level" shown at Little Bridge (Whittlesey), which I think is a little downstream of Peterborough(?) is 0.75m, and upstream at Wansford only 0.33m. This surely can't be the depth?? How deep is the Nene at Peterborough (in the middle of the river of course)? It baffles me how anyone could get away with stealing and selling a narrowboat; does that really ever happen? Even a large enough and well organised crew working shifts around the clock would surely need a good 24 hours just to reach Northampton? I'm conjuring up a bizarre picture of them with someone on the roof, leaning over the side during the night to do the paint job. More likely of course that they'd stop in some quiet spot, tape over the windows and use some spraying equipment. And wouldn't a boat moving all night get noticed? It's all starting to sound like one of those early 1960s crime caper movies.

Durrr ... not "both in Northampton", so please disregard some of the above! The boat went from Peterborough and the diesel spill was in Northampton, miles upstream. So for there to be a connection the boat would have go a long way up river, and to have been taken earlier (Tuesday night?) Sorry to have created some confusion here, but I suppose the idea is still possible? Can the owner inform us more exactly when the boat was last seen at its mooring? Just seen this. Let's discard the "group of drunks" idea as thoroughly disproven. Even if the boat went missing early enough to have reached Northampton then sunk, the thieves would have to have been a fairly determined bunch, so any connection between the two incidents seems unlikely.

I had the same thought independently a few minutes ago, then returned to see you'd posted it first. The timing fits well; the OP seems to place the disappearance of the boat on Wed or Thu, and the OP of the diesel spill topic saw the diesel at 6:30am Thursday. Both in Northampton, so not far apart (?) and plenty of time for a boat taken some time on Wednesday to go upstream and leak some diesel? It has struck me as mysterious that the boat hasn't yet been found, because if it wasn't taken with the intention to sell it, surely it would have turned up within a day or so, somewhat the worse for wear and not more than a few miles away? When boats have gone missing in the past, how often have they never been found? I would have thought it was very difficult to get away with selling one, what with the slow speed, limited escape routes, and the documentation required by the CRT, EA etc.? Ditching the distinctive pink wheelbarrow and doing a rough and ready paint job would have to be just the first part of the tea-leaf's plan. How about this idea? A group of drunks in Peterborough on Wednesday night decide to nick the boat and take it upstream. They're incompetent enough to somehow sink mid-stream, hence the diesel spill and not finding the boat. Is the Nene deep enough there for that to be possible? I don't know the Nene, so can people who do provide information which will support or disprove the idea?

No, technically you're wrong, not that it matters here. Until the liquidator finishes his work, which as far as I'm aware is still continuing, QMP still exists. The debts will indeed be dead, but only when he's finished. I never said that the debts transfer to another limited company, No 750 Leicester Ltd or anyone else. What I said was that CRT could ask the new company for money as a condition for granting a NAA, and defy them to do something about it.

You're simply choosing to misread what I have said and dodge the question. I grasp what you're saying, and I agree! All these things you say about Steadman are true, except for these unimportant details: Now he has the freehold, QMP's remaining debts (which are academic because QMP has no money) are not to him but to his company QMH and its subsidiary PLM CRT cannot directly demand that QMP or Steadman pays the debt, i.e. they cannot sue for it. BUT, and this is my point, CRT could make a payment, which mysteriously happens to be same amount as the vanished debt, a pre-condition of granting an NAA. Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 gave BW power to decide who can have a NAA "as they see fit", without specifying any conditions as to how BW should exercise that power, and when CRT took over in 2012 it inherited BW's role. CRT could just say to Steadman "No money, no NAA. If you don't like it, you'll have to take us to court to make us grant a NAA. But how?" This is the situation you are not grasping. There might be some law they could use, but if so I don't know what it is; please tell me. If Steadman or his minions don't go to court, CRT don't get the money but Steadman doesn't get a NAA. Having said all that, it sounds as if CRT are not following quite such an adventurous approach, and I suppose that means their lawyers know something I don't. Not too surprising, they've done law degrees and I haven't.

Further to the above, it seems to me that in order to be "even handed", CRT must make Steadman pay up. Otherwise they've been treating all the marinas who have paid NAA fees unfairly!