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

Tree monkey. I informed them. They agreed it was dangerous. It subsequently dropped a branch weighing tons into the canal. So CRT allowed their customers to be put in grave danger. They should either have done it of closed the canal.

Tree monkey, CRT can ask for permission. It's not a problem. This whole business s cheap and shabby. Can they run a canal safely or can't they? 'It's not my job it's their job. No t's their job not my job; no it isn't it's their job; no it isn't.........'. Unprofessional. Dangerous. Over the water. We'll come and sort it. Next Wednesday ok? That is what i would be if I was CRT. Things like this need doing quickly and land owners are not geared up for that. But f their is a dispute, should then CRT say that no boats should pass the tree until it is sorted because it s dangerous? If not then they are putting their customers' lives at risk. They should either sort it one way or another or shut the canal at that point. It fell into the canal halfway across, the branch weighed tons. So they should have shut the canal until the tree was made safe. Well that is not practical. CRT are better placed to sort it swiftly, and they take mooring money for it. I can't say anymore. It is black and white, but I still do not know for certain who's responsibility is it?

Mark, why not contact CRT. CRT are geared up for it, or should be?. CRT take mooring money.....for what? It was over the canal, over their water. They have a responsibility to canal customers' safety. CRT should be professional and take care of it. I would if I was them. Safety comes first. I would want to take care of it. It would be my pride to get it sorted simple and swift. No this or that. It's just not good enough by a long chalk.

There is an ash tree, an old and massive thing right beside my private mooring and only a foot from the canal water, and opposite the towpath. I have always been concerned, especially as I could see that big branches had broken off in years before my time there. I hangs not just over my boat, but also the canal. It's a mighty big old thing with high branches weighing tons and tons. Serious stuff of the first order, obvious to anyone. In fact it is chilling. I try to move the boat in gale season. Anyway, a couple of years ago a branch came down. Massive. Missed my boat as it came from the other side of the tree's canopy, and missed my mate's boat by 6 inches and blocked the canal, and we cleared it. I decided to try and get it sorted. I saw two tree surgeons engaged on CRT work. They told me to inform CRT and to be sure to tell them that it is dangerous, then the work will be done quickly. So I rang CRT and told them. They took a note of my call to pass it on to the appropriate department. The appropriate department got back to me saying it had been looked at and needed doing and that they would contact the landowner for permission to do the work, and that everything was in process. The next I heard was from another department, the moorings department, and they said that it wasn't down to CRT and I would have to ask the landowner to do the work. I said that it was dangerous for me and also boaters travelling by as it hung well over half way over the water. To that they said that if I insisted than they would make moves to shut down the whole mooring. So I just left it and wondered how else I could do something. CRT just washed their hands of it and threatened me away. A year later a massive branch fell and hit my mooring and smashed a hole in my boat and broke windows and blocked the canal, which we cleared. So I ask you, is CRT a professional responsible organization, and remember they take a mooring fee of hundreds to moor against private land, and when they have already charged a licence fee for the boat to be on the water. As an aside, I asked CRT about why they charge a mooring fee when I've already paid to be on the water, and was told that it was like having a car where you have your MOT and insurance and road tax, but then if you want to park you have to pay a car parking fee. I replied that I would if I was on a fee-charging car park, but not if I parked on the road because I'd already paid to be on the public highway. The reply was to forget that car analogy, and would I like the number of another department who might be able to answer. If they would sort dangerous trees I wouldn't mind paying a mooring fee to them, but they don't do anything for the money. It is wrong and unprofessional. Thing is, ok, CRT is relatively new and finding their feet, that's fair enough, BUT it isn't good enough where damage and danger to life is concerned. That tree was dangerous. I told them. They couldn't sort it. Not good enough, no where near. That worries me. Do they know what they are doing? Do they know how to know if work being done is up to scratch and to cost? Do they know the business they are in? Who are they, what is their qualification and experience? I mean, if you can't get that right, it makes you think. I don't have confidence in them. You pay a bill and then they ask you again, and then you tell them you've pad and they say, 'Oh, yes, I can see that now'. And not the first time, in fact it is actually expected. Believe me, I am not a grumbler. I'm too much the opposite for my own good. It takes a lot for me to speak out. It's shocking. Really bad. Needs to change. There is something wrong in the system. Danger should be taken seriously and taken care of...and it wasn't. THAT IS NOT GOOD, NOT GOOD AT ALL.

Who's responsibility is the safe maintenance of trees with foliage overhanging the canal?

I live my life on the basis of knowing right from wrong. I just don't like being involved with what feels like a cheat; I don't do it and so I expect the same. This has a great affect on me because my principles matter. If CRT want the mooring money from me then simply put the cost onto the licence I pay to be on the water, at least be honest about it. The fact that they try to fiddle the money this way must mean that if it was all on the licence then it would be obviously overpriced and people would start thinking in different ways and people would leave the canal. So much in life is done this sneaky way and has to be forced to stand by unreasonable stern harsh measures because there isn't a reasonable arguement. For me, the future of the canal is not good. It will become too gentrified and 'sterile'. The life blood will move away to new pastures, then the others will lose interest. I believe that there is a certain limit to how much can be charged, and this is dependent on what ordinary people can afford and feel is reasonable. Also, the authority overseeing its running should be human. Personally, I love boating, but I don't need it and can have a better time elsewhere if I want. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me, pricewise and the sneakiness of it. It makes me think. I'm falling out of love. CRT is not the person I thought she was. Not my type of person. Better to just move on. Leave it as friends and move on.

Thank you for your comments. It still seems unjustified as to how they can charge. I suppose this is an old chestnut, and I have a very strong case, and it involves a lot of money owed back, and so it would be expensive to pursue. Clearly it is wrong. All I can say is that I will be moving on because I do not want to be involved with such an organisation. I was misled. Thought they were ok. Another one of those. I'm gonna move on. It's only a bit of watter...............silly money. I suppose it could be used to introduce people without imagination but with money to develop an imagination, perhaps, but I already have one, and I don't need this fleecing and frankly it is not anything I want to belong to. So lets all leave and so all they will be able to sell is a load of stiffs to a load of stiffs. They are using us and charging us to use us. Don't need this at all. What an age to be living in, eh. All the best, folks. Doug x

I understand that there is the CRT licence for a boat to have the run of their waterways, for a boat to be on the water. Fine, I get that. But then there is a mooring licence, which if the mooring was a CRT mooring then fair enough, I get that because the boat is using their mooring. But what if the mooring is not CRT owned, if it is privately owned, land at the other side from the towpath? Does the CRT still ask for a mooring fee even though the boat owner is not using a CRT mooring? If so, how can such a fee be justified when the boat owner has paid to be on the water? If there is such a mooring fee to be paid, then does this fee entitle the boat owner to particular service for the fee? I am very puzzled. It just doesn't make sense to me.

It is not a pleasant idea that this is happening.