MtB

Quite. Holes in the ground happen all over the countryside and they are a natural hazard everyone needs to be aware of, not just on towpaths. If CRT ran around spending £ms filling all the holes in people would complain they put too much earth in, or too little....

Brill, so they have lots of other options then and there's no problem. Thanks.

Good point. That's probably what's happening...

In which case CRT will definitely chuck you off after a year or two.

I appreciate that but impossible? 100% guaranteed impossible? No, hence the test. To force the user to get the dosing pump fixed if it is letting by.

"London London houseboat residents fear rise in mooring fees will price them out" With headlines like this, about the cheapest way by a long chalk to live in central London, I often wonder what they mean by "price them out". Price them out into what? Tents on the towpath? Three-bed semis in a good part of Leeds?

That's an oxymoron! But no, and besides I'd be too embarrassed to admit it anyway!

On older gas boilers a similar check is done but not for the reasons you describe. A flame test is carried out to check there is no pilot flame present when there should not be. If there is, this would indicate the gas valve is incorrectly passing gas even when turned OFF. Is it possible for the "FLAME WAS DETECTED PRIOR TO COMBUSTION 2006" error report to be happening because it is, genuinely, detecting a flame before it starts the ignition sequence? Pretty unlikely unless fed from a day tank higher than the appliance. Perhaps the OP could clarify if the fuel tank is lower or higher than the Webasto.

None of any of my many boats over the years has ever done it.

Unfortunately there is no winding 'ole at the far end though, by the lock...

I can imagine it encouraging people to throw stuff in, to see if it eats it....

It is the responsibility of the VAT registered business to determine and charge the correct rate of VAT according to the rules set out by HMRC. If the VAT registered business has been liquidated by the time HMRC decides to challenge a zero rate sale, I reckon they are stuffed. I very much doubt they can decide to go after the customer of that business instead, and I'v e seen no proper evidence so far that they can, or do.

It's a very flexible term, a bit like that other term "The rich". Often occurs in discussions about taxation. To most people, "The rich" means anyone with more money than themselves. Similarly, the term "alcoholic", to me means anyone who drinks more than I do

Thanks for the photo. Does it still do it now you've lifted the floor panel over the engine?

You can't contract out of your legal liability. And you've produced no evidence to support your assertion other than an sketchy anecdote that it happened, on some random website no-one has ever heard of.

Yes, the builder.

Not only that but casually Googling snippets of Alan's supposed quote throws up no results for me. Plenty similar but none th same although I didn't put much effort in. So too am I'm wondering were the statements were copy/pasted from.

Lots of paddles on the south Oxford are "stiff as hell". Surprisingly, slathering the spindle with oil frees most of them up a treat. The difference can be quite staggering, far more than one might expect just with some spindle lubrication. I carry my oil can up to every lock these days as CRT appears to have stopped routinely lubing the paddle gear along here.

I'm massively put off, all this chat about vollies intefering!

Have to say, it doesn't sound like an engine rattle to me. More like something around or near it clattering.

How about waiting on the lock landing for another boat (which has booked) to arrive and expecting to go through once temporarily unchained?

That's what the article says she is claiming. From the article: "Christine applied for a home mooring licence but was rejected because she overstayed at her last location." Although on reflection this does not stand up. AIUI boats only get CC licence applications refused for overstaying. Overstayers find themselves required to take a home mooring to get a licence! I wonder if the truth of the situation is that she is, either naïvely or fraudulently, trying to nominate a CRT mooring site for her home mooring without actually having taking out a moorings agreement.

No, scumble! Obviously

Further, CRT only chain locks closed to enforce a stoppage. It will be nothing to do with these trapping two boats. These two piss-takers are being a bit paranoid or just trying to drum up sympathy. It looks to me as though they've both been refused licenses, one for no BSS and the other for CMing, and are consequently under threat of getting Section 8 notices served. Let's hope CRT get on with it this time rather than letting it drag out for ten years like with that bod on the K&A a while back.

As I understand it from my own experience in business, where A owes B and B owes the same money to C, and C sues B to get paid and B sues A to get the money, a court will usually agree to combine both actions into one single hearing. There needs to be a clear contract chain linking A via B to C. This appears to be the case in the case Alan cites. Customer owed the VAT to builder, builder owed the VAT to HMRC so HMRC probably applied for the two actions to be combined and heard as one hearing by the court, and the customer rolled over and paid up. Had the customer been, say, bankrupt, I suspect HMRC would have just sued the builder for payment.