Allan(nb Albert)

Nigel, I know that this forum respects your knowledge of law relating to Inland Waterways. I PM'ed eracer a couple of days back suggesting that C&RT has a duty to provide information arising from the BW 1971 Act Section 18. As such the provision of such information was not discretionary as suggested in T's & C's. My questions are - Has this been repealed? If not can it be construed to mean all licence data rather than certificate registration?

Having won a court case on this motoring issue which potentially resulted in in other motorists being able to appeal, I would suggest that, in legal terms, owner and registered keeper are not the same. The difference is that the registered keeper is obliged to name the driver and will be held accountable if they fail to do so. The owner is only obliged to provide such information as they have available after making reasonable enquiries. However, the motoring analogy has little or anything to do with boating until such time similar case law is established. I would suggest that those interested in GDPR aspects read the British Waterways 1971 Act which might lead to them questioning C&RT's Terms and Conditions.

Lock 8 has never been closed as far as I am aware. Lock 20 has been closed for five months at least. I do not know if lock 8 had a blocked culvert as claimed in the stoppage notice or it is lock 20 that has a blocked culvert ... With regard to what is wrong with lock 20, only C&RT can say.

Lock 20 has been closed to navigation for at least five months with no stoppage notice. It is still shut. Lock 8 has always been open despite a recent C&RT stoppage notice suggesting otherwise. The works on the Northern Stratford took place before Christmas and works on the Southern Stratford are currently underway. The works at Dicks Lane (lock 25 and 26) should now have been completed. The reason you can no longer see the stoppage notice for Lock 8 is that it has been removed in the last couple of days without explanation! At face value, it would appear that C&RT issued the Lock 8 stoppage notice following Jessica Williams and 'Victor' writing about lock 20 in narrowboatworld - http://www.narrowboatworld.com/11239-a-prime-example A later narrowboatworld article suggested that C&RT was confusing lock 8 with lock 20 - http://www.narrowboatworld.com/11253-it-s-lock-20-not-lock-8-cart C&RT altered its lock 8 stoppage notice to remove its 'apology' which blamed the 'local team' (I assume they meant West Midlands Region). Later (probably yesterday or Thursday), it quietly removed the stoppage notice. The lock 8 stoppage notice no longer appears if you search the stoppage database but can be found here - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notice/14540/lock-8-north-stratford-canal (Notice the difference between this and the screenshot I posted earlier).

Seems to me that you have missed to point. Boater Sam is not alone in being ignored when asking perfectly reasonable questions. On a lighter note, according to C&RT, it is lock 8 that you can bypass not lock 20. The 'apology' has since been removed without explanation. 

It's a big deal because of the length of time it has been closed without official explanation or any stoppage notice.

It appears you are not the only one who has informal requests ignored - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/closure_of_stratford_upon_avon_c

I found C&RT's press release regarding the reopening somewhat muted. It perhaps has something to do with a reluctance to provide a copy of a report relating to cause of the breach.

... or did lack of freeboard cause the overtopping? ... or low washwall? ... or the sandy soil? ... or was a blocked weir to blame? ... or the opposite bank collapsing due to badger activity? I am certain that several factors would have been involved. C&RT have twice refused to provide a post breach report that might shed some light claiming they are exempt from disclosure because they are incomplete. Edited to add - The reason C&RT are blaming vandalism is because of a Key Performance Indicator which records "lost days due to unplanned navigation closure". Recording "lost days" due to the Middlewich breach would mean that C&RT would fail this years target. Blaming the breach on vandalism means that it is outside C&RT's control and therefore does not count towards the target of less than 450 "lost days" in 2018/19. Last financial year C&RT considered more than 80% of "lost days" to be outside its control (490 vs 2482).

Simon Bamford, Asset Improvement Director told C&RT's board of trustees in September that the breech was due to overtopping. Thus Jim is correct. However, Richard Parry told the board it was due to vandalism at the same meeting ...

The last principal inspection of was carried out 2010. It recommended raising the existing concrete wash wall at a cost of £13,000 and raising the crest infilling with puddle clay at a cost of £28,000. It was recommended that the work was carried out in the medium term - 1-5 years. The reason for the for these recommendations was low freeboard (8") due to historic settlement rather than any recent event.

I should perhaps have added Sarah's facebook post that many will be unable to read. It gives the Folly another thumbs up -

From facebook just a few moments ago -

Sorry!

From the air ... https://www.facebook.com/search/str/sarah+richards+folly/keywords_blended_posts?esd=eyJlc2lkIjoiUzpfSTczNzk0MDgyNjI2MTAzODoxNzM3ODI3NTc5NjA1Njg2IiwicHNpZCI6eyIxNjMxNjI5MTUyOjE3Mzc4Mjc1Nzk2MDU2ODYiOiJVenBmU1Rjek56azBNRGd5TmpJMk1UQXpPRG94TnpNM09ESTNOVGM1TmpBMU5qZzIifSwiY3JjdCI6InRleHQiLCJjc2lkIjoiYTM2ZTRiOThmMGNiYjcxMGZmYjliN2JmYzI2Mjk2MDEifQ%3D%3D Edited to add - Sarah's photo is taken as we came into land. The Folly is to the left of the bridge (see the white on the side of the building). You can also see Napton bottom lock with a lock cottage to the left and the 'facilities' to the right. We landed in the field bounded by the lock cottage and the pub.