Barneyp

I said "Asking people to take sensible precautions that still enable them to use petrol as a power source for boat engines and generators is not wrapping them in cotton wool". I didn't say I agreed with the myriad of "safety" regulations that seem to come with everyday life, as someone who works in the safety industry I fully agree there is an excess of regulations that are not based on genuine understanding of the risk. That doesn't mean we should throw away all the regulations and let people do what they want on the basis that darwinian selection will weed out the stupid ones, firstly an explosion caused by petrol vapour may harm people who were not responsible for it, secondly just because people aren't aware something is dangerous doesn't mean we should let them die.

Concern about petrol vapour in a boat is not paranoia, it's a sensible understanding of risk, yes with for people who understand the risk and take suitable precautions the risk is very low. From the petrol generators I've seen in use on narrowboats and plastic cruisers it would appear many people don't understand the risks, and don't take suitable precautions. Asking people to take sensible precautions that still enable them to use petrol as a power source for boat engines and generators is not wrapping them in cotton wool, especially as a failure to follow sensible precautions may well endanger others.

Just because you booked in doesn't mean you were actually there, I doubt the volunteer lockies would appreciate being asked to keep a formal record of all the boats they see. Last time I went through Watford and Foxton locks I was just told to wait in line at Watford, at Foxton they did scribble a list of boat names on a scrap of paper, but I think only the person who.wrote it could have read it. A legitimate CCer could cruise 50 miles in a week, turn round and cruise back to where they started and then carry on cruising the rest of the network, this would be entirely compliant with the guidance, it's only a problem if you just go back and forth.

In those cases the "employer" is a small business (possibly a farmer), with only one person receiving the benefit in kind., so HMRC are unlikely to find out and will put the limited resources they have for proactive investigations else where. If CRT did it there could be 100's of people receiving the benefit in kind meaning HMRC may be more interested, also CRT are a government funded organisation so there is more pressure to stick to the rules. And from the volunteers point of view if some are getting a free mooring why shouldn't they all? This could cause all sorts of issues.

As far as the English language is concerned you are correct in saying " A worker is simply a person who performs tasks described as 'work'" However when it comes to employment law a worker is a specific form of self employment that sits between an employee and a self employed contractor. Workers are self employed for tax purposes, but have some of the rights of an employee eg holiday pay, minimum wage. The worker status was created because people were being classified as self employed when they didn't have the independence that normally goes with being a contractor eg at least some control over how, when, where and even if the work is done. If a volunteer Is given something in return for the work they do as a volunteer, they can no longer be classified as a volunteer and so must either be an employee, worker or contractor. This is employment law, not tax law. Tax law would then apply and it is likely they would have to pay tax on the money or benefit in kind they have received. Obviously personal tax allowances and the current exemption for people who make less than £1000 from completing a self assessment may affect this, and so might other things. I agree that relying on the forum for specific tax or employment law advice would not be a good idea. I'm reading this thread as a general discussion of the possible implications of someone receiving a free mooring in return for volunteering.

Mike is correct that the recipient of the benefit-in-kind would not pay employee NI on it, but the organisation giving the benefit would have to pay employers NI, and the recipient would have to pay tax on it And he is also correct in saying providing a free mooring to a volunteer doesn't automatically make that volunteer an employee. However providing the free mooring in return for them doing "voluntary" work does make them an employee, "worker" or contractor - which one would depend on various other factors, although most likely it would be "worker". Which ever one they were classified as, the free mooring would be a benefit in kind and therefore taxable. If the volunteer was given a free mooring, but it wasn't in return for them volunteering HMRC would want proof of the reasons for the free mooring, and examples of free moorings being given to other people in similar circumstances who weren't volunteering.

There is a difference between having to be on site to carry out all or part of the job, and giving someone a free mooring in return for them carrying out "work" - the fact other people can and do volunteer without the need for a mooring demonstrates that the mooring is not needed and therefore a benefit in kind.

I think others have already explained how best to handle the boat in this situation, and practice will help. The most important thing is to ignore the negative comments of other boaters, never assume some one is a more experienced or better boater than you, just because they think they know what they're doing doesn't mean they are not an incompetent idiot (who may have years of "experience", or qualifications).

Criminal law is the same in England and Wales The Great Train Robbers set out to commit a criminal act, and the sentences they received are regarded as excessive.

She planned to take them on the River, whether she understood that it was in spate and what the implications of that are is a different matter. She didn't plan or intend to kill or injure people. She was stupid and incompetent, so in my opinion not as bad as some one who intentionally sets out to kill or injure, therefore I understand why the sentence is less than it would be for murder. Is 10 years enough? I don't know, unfortunately alot of current sentencing policy is based on politicians knee jerk reactions to one off incidents, and the sentence is likely to be a lot longer than the time served. I think having to live with the knowledge she is responsible for 4 deaths is probably worse than the time in prison.

"Kerb side" appeal means it looks nice from the road, presumably they put that because they realised the "interior appeal" was zero.

RCR were paid to refloat the boat, it's floating. So I assume your comment is intended to compliment them. What happens next is in the hands of the owner and/or insurance company.

Walking to school on country lanes would undoubtedly have been safer 60 years ago as there would have been far less traffic on the road, and it would probably have been going slower. I'm not so sure about anything else, is there a greater chance of your house being burgled, having your children kidnapped by a stranger, being mugged, having things stolen from a boat? Or have we just become more aware of the risk, and are perhaps over reacting to it.

Given their eBay feedback, 99.9% on 3000+ transactions, they presumably know what their doing. I wouldn't buy them, but that's not the point, things are worth what someone is willing to pay for them, even if the "someone" isn't getting value for money.

Several years ago local authorities were running campaigns to reduce landfill with the phrase Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. It seems very little progress has been made on the first 2, with all the emphasis on recycling which is not the answer.

From what I've seen most local councils collect the waste from dog poo bins and general litter bins at the same time, and all of it goes to landfill or incinerator. Normally they don't use the big bin lorries for this as the volume of waste doesn't justify it. Town centre litter bins with recycling compartments will be dealt with separately, but away from the town centres it doesn't make sense, environmentally or financially, to have separate collections. Lots of litter bins now have signs on them saying for dog waste as well.

When they collect a skip they won't know what's in it, so they'll take it, but there are different rules for transporting and dealing with sewage so they have to say it's not allowed. And if they keep finding it in skips from a particular site or customer they may have to stop collecting from there. Human excrement contains bacteria and viruses that live in the human body, and so can infect humans with illnesses. That's why having effective sewers dramatically reduces certain illnesses. Dog excrement contains mainly viruses and bacteria that infect dogs, so on average will be less risky.

Human poo is potentially far more hazardous to health than dog poo. Given we have a very efficient mains sewerage system (the fact the water companies no longer have the capacity to process the sewage is a separate problem) there should be no need to but human waste in the bin, even disposable nappies can have the excrement emptied into a toilet before they are put in a bin.

I'm not saying that Aldi and Lidl are high quality, but most of what they sell is of acceptable quality to those who buy it. The same as a Liverpool or Collingwood narrowboat is unlikely to be top quality, but may well be acceptable.

But there are still a lot of Liverpool boats around so they can't all have been bad, presumably the passing of time has sorted the wheat from the chaff. And the success or failure of a business is not always linked to the quality of the product, plenty of businesses that built better quality narrowboats have gone under. You mention Aldi and Lidl, while they maybe at the bottom of the market from a price perspective that doesn't mean the quality is poor.

I did say " the OP seems to be saying" it was 4 months ago, there is nothing actually saying when it occurred, but the OP has got passed the stage of getting a Surveyor so it seems reasonable to assume it was at least weeks and probably months ago. And as there is no other explanation for the 4 month delay in being able to use the boat I have put 2 and 2 together and could be wrong 🙃

Is it evident that the engine was "fine"? It was functioning, but may have had damaged or worn parts that were only just surviving. The boatyard may have performed the tasks they had agreed to do without seeing or noticing the possibly damaged or worn parts which then failed causing the oil leak. If the boat was returned with the oil cap missing or damaged, or the sump plug missing or damaged it would be clear the boatyard has either caused the problem or could reasonably be expected to have seen the problem when they drained the oil. As the leak is being blamed on a leaking pressure switch which has now gone missing, and the OP seems to be saying the oil leak put the engine out of action 4 months ago it would be hard to prove the boatyard are responsible. Also given that 4 months have past and the OP has got a Surveyor involved I'm guessing a friendly approach to the boatyard has either been tried and failed, or it's to late because to much time has passed. I think the OP, who says they want to get on with living aboard and presumably CCing, should get on with finding a reputable yard to replace or refurb the engine.

The cottage is described as a "former cottage" in the particulars of sale, with aerial photos showing it has no roof. Can't see any access other than over the railway, and you'd need permission from network rail and whoever owns the field on the other side, or by water.

Just because the OP isn't posting doesn't mean they or others are not reading, I have learnt a lot from this forum - mostly on threads I didn't start and often didn't post on. Automatically closing a thread at a certain point could mean it getting shut part way through a relevant exchange. The moderators could do more to keep threads on topic, but some thread drift can still be relevant, so it would mean putting more pressure and work on people who volunteer which doesn't seem fair or realistic.