Allan(nb Albert)

Investigation is ongoing. However, it has to be said that, in the 20 years since the Freedom of Information Act was passed, the Information Commissioner has only prosecuted under S77 on one occasion. Thanks - I've corrected it.

Further to my post #109, below is a sample (using some of my local waterways) of changes made by CRT to statutory dimension date over an eight years period. The differences resulted in a criminal investigation by the Information Commissioner under Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Exactly right but they have recently claimed twice that they have made no changes whatsoever to statutory dimensions over the last eight years. From an information request (the statutory dimensions in the 2012 Waterscape and 2012 CRT document were found to be the same but differed considerably from the 2020 CRT document provided)

It would be better to say canals must be suitable for boats of statutory dimensions ...

If you mean Valhalla the narrowboat or Valhalla the widebeam (both built by Kate Boats) that is not what I was refering to. .... although there is certainly a story there ...

I was refering to the only wide beam lift of which I am aware at Stockton Top which Tuckeys could not do.

Not sure if Calcutt slip and marina entrance are suitable for widebeams. With regard to Anglo Welsh, Kate Boats started to turn round boats for the 'big boys' after the collapse of OwnerShips (the shared ownership company). Stockton Top marina can take widebeams (and has!) but is rather shallow with a lip on the entrance. I'm not sure that Tuckey's crane or transport can cope.

Kate Boats at the other end of the locks has a slipway. However, this tends not to be used as they crane in and out using local firm Tuckeys who also do boat transport. With regard to superstructure dimensions, The ones given by Alan are the statutory dimensions converted to metric. BW and CRT have only ever published air draft.

The statutory dimensions figures (Long Buckby to Camp Hill locks) give 8' air draft over a 8' width. However, this would be the max dimensions of craft using this stretch of Canal in 1967 and the dimensions that have to be maintained by law rather than what is achievable. Regarding the imperial/metric differences, here is just one of the responses from CRT when I queried why they kept changing a document (dated July 2020) that they purported to contain statutory dimensions unchanged since 2012 when BW became CRT -

Delta Marine Services at Nelson Wharf, Warwick build widebeams and barges which are usually taken down the GU. Ask to speak to Gary Ward.

The judicial review would have been limited to the lawfulness of CRT's decision to seize the boat, I think. Any judicial review on PBC would probably have to be on the basis of CRT refusing to issue a certificate and offering a rivers only licence instead. I would add that the PBC VAT issue is just one of several including - Definition of main navigable channel Lack of bye-laws Dispute resolution Price increases

I checked on receiving the NTBA press release and it is exactly as you suggest - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/original/39214-boat-licence-fees-2019-20.pdf

I have also had the misfortune several times. Most recently, I made an online application for a licence refund and very shortly afterwards had an automated reply that it was being processed. It took 50 days, four emails and one complaint to receive the money owed. CRT's website says 15 days.

It would appear to be a combination of poor staff, poor IT systems and inappropriate outsourcing. Back in 2012, CRT took a conscious decision not to invest by replacing aging IT systems although they admitted that they were not fit for purpose.

CRT would have started chasing Mr Buga to licence his boat some six months into the first 12 month licence period because they believed it to be unlicensed. Perhaps when Mr Buga licensed his boat for 12 months for the second time, CRT took it as a six month back payment and considered his boat still unlicensed. My guess is they did not go to court because Mr Buga would license his boat again rather than remove it or allow them to seize it. Alternatively, they did not go to court because they found out the Mr Buga's boat was correctly licensed.