tats

Arthur, good for you, that you are prepared to leave. That thing, well if they could have just said when I called them and could have said, 'Yes, we have got that, but you need to inform Mooring yourself, also. And thank you very much, we hope you have enjoyed being on the canal, and we would like to wish you all the best for the future........something like that. Of course, it would cost them to say that, because I would not then fall into a small print trap, but hey ho

It's like in Spinal Tap when David St Hubbens is putting the blame on Ian Faith, the manager, for the Stonehenge dimentions being small, when it was Nigel Tuffnel who wrote them on the napkin, and he says to Ian, 'But you're not as confused as him', and that Ian should have checked it all. And so it is with CRT. They should take you through it, make sure you are getting it right, navigating you around the system, living in a real world where not everyone has clocked all the T&Cs..but, then, I am nice, that is how I would like to run things. I'm just glad to be leaving, to have gone. Glad to have experienced it. Some fantastic times and people, mostly. I'm back on tera firma, but it is different than before. Boating could be tough, so i appreciate the convenience much more than i ever did, so life is better, I feel so much richer. Anyway, best to draw a line under it and sail on. Thanks for your replies

Well, I informed CRT that I'd sold my boat and was canceling my account. I noticed that my refund was short. The reason it seemed was that I'd only told CRT licensing, so my mooring was left running. CRT mooring told me this and said that even though I'd informed licencing I still had to inform mooring. Well, this seems unfair. They should be able to see that i had informed CRT in June, and that should be good enough for them to refund me from then. To me, CRT is CRT. They should make it very clear that they are soooo separate. It seems very harsh. There is CRT Licensing and then CRT Mooring. It is misleading when they use the same, one, telephone number. I feel conned. I am soooo glad i am off the canal. I was moored on farmland mooring opposite the tow path. Why should I pay a mooring fee to CRT when i have already paid to have my boat on the water anywhere on the CRT water. Why do I have to give CRT licensing two months notice? Why do I have to give CRT mooring one month notice? For what? Why? I wasn't on a CRT mooring. What a rip off it feels. Horrible. Soooo glad I'm off and to know I am not paying them any more money ever again. It was the feeling of being ripped off with the mooring fee that motivated me to leave. Now, I suppose i'm quids in and they are quids down. It took a jolt to leave. The canal kinda gets a hold of you. Now with the cost of living crisis, well it's got to hit the CRT. I will not be the only one. My pal went, too, same reason. Great to get to the point where i think, actually, I don't need this at all, why am I paying this money. So in this way I feel great. There is not a day I don't think how lucky I was to find the escape velocity

Why are CRT licensing and CRT mooring separate from each other? As a customer, one tends to think that they are one and the same, that, say, if you informed CRT that you had sold your boat and was leaving the canal, then that would be that. But actually you have to tell licensing and then also mooring. It seems strange that they are so separate. Why are they so separate? Is perhaps mooring not actually a Trust and is actually privately owned? I don't know, just a guess. But why are they so separate. It is as though they don't communicate between themselves, as would be the case with two separate companies.

Tree monkey. I might put photos up, n with it coming down. It's not hollow. but it is massive, really massive. Deadly. It needs a tree surgeon, which means it needs licence which means cost and trouble..........or........but it is very scary for a first timer at the beginning of a learning curve. maybe I just move along 50ft. There's a spot there. Maybe that is best. Simple as that. Someone mentioned that. Reckon that is best, to just go with the flow and roll with the punches

The Biscuits. It's not my tree, but the owner is lovely and fair lady and don't want to cause her trouble. It'll come down, I think. It's just a damn big thing. I'm engineer and and can see can be done, but need some balls pal

Tree monkey, thanks. Maybe it has ash die back an needs cutting down. Leans against the land. Keep stove going for years. That's settled it. Other things. Having some beers now. Got to watch Soylent Green. Told it really good, but not too impressed. Keep falling asleep, me twice she once. But have to do it coz she's determined. Venus looks amazing tonight but not as amazing as that one just to the left, flashing red green blue. Sirrus, I think. All the very breast for the future pal. Cheers for the straight answer.

Tree monkey, who is responsible for the branches over the water?

Tree Monkey. You must have missed it, but I said that the tree has dropped two massive branches already on two occasions, seriously big branches which both blocked the canal, other branches before them, and still more to go. I can understand you have to assume that I am 'making a mountain out of a mole hill'. But please assume that I am not. Not my style, pal. This one is right up there and doing it. Colossal. Existential. Gravely dangerous to passing boaters.

Bod, I reckon you have something there. That would make sense. I will think about how to look into that. I am finding this all very interesting. Good one. Cheers pal.

Haggis, I have more things to do than this. I am going through the replies as best i humanly can, thank you. I am very greatful for the replies and help.

There is an answer. This has to be that CRT do the work themselves with in-house specialist work teams under time and motion study so that they know their business, and only then do they use outside contractors.

TheBiscuits, Forget who's land the tree is on. What matters is who's land is it over, for it is not just the trunk of the tree, it is the branches. Now this will be age-old this question. The fact is that the land was there before the canal, for it is man-made, not natural like a river. So, when the deal was made centuries back to buy the land, was it then also decided who would be responsible for the branches overhanging the canal. My guess is that they left this blank, meaning that the land owners were not responsible for their branches over the canal, that would be assumed to be the canal owners responsibility who would have dealt with it by just accepting that a branch may kill someone (bad luck), or just to remove the fallen branch from the water. CRT would have a real problem trying to make the landowner responsible for the overhanging branches because it was they (the canal bulders) who wanted to purchase the land for the canal to be built, so the responsibility would be with them, I would think, as it would be difficult to buy the land and make the landowner responsile. So I expect this question was never resolved. Hence the situation we have today. I ask, who s responsible for the branches over the waterway? But I will not get a definitive answer because there isn't one. This is a massive question. What is a canal? It is 25% the cut itself, 25% locks, 25% tow path, and 25% the trees overhanging the water and towpath. It is expensive. And so the fudge goes on. Trouble is that these are different times. This has to be addressed. These are paying pleasure users, so there is expectations of safety in that transaction.

Tree monkey. Of course that is not what want. You know this. I realize it is a massive problem for CRT. The least they can do is get somewhere pronto when they have been alerted......BUT they are not. That is the problem. It should be a top priority. They should be geared up better. Fast action teams to quickly no fuss sort it......when it really is dangerous. Of course, all the trees. But that is the nature of their business, not just the water channel. Trees are a big part of it. To just have a policy of not taking responsibility and then waiting for em to fall down and just clear 'em. Not good enough. I don't expect perfection. I'm reasonable and pragmatic. But they should at least do what they can, the obvious ones......but they are going too far shirking even these. Could it be......could it be....wait for it......dare I say it.......that something which should cost (if set up right) £100 is costing £1,000? Could that be the problem? Maybe the quality and cost of all works should be objectively checked and audited. But this is not my place. I shouldn't have to be the one to suggest this. It's not my job. All I can say is that summat ain't right to dodge a knowingly dangerous tree which can kill.

Wellllllllll........let's just have a beer now and think about tomorrow tomorrow. It's just another one of them things. There's olas summat