Tam & Di

You obviously feel you should get your money back, and although your initial post was in the form of a question you don't appear to like the answers. But even if everyone had said 'yes, you're right - go for it", what would you do? You won't get legal advice on here, and if you really expect to be able to sue the mooring operator for a refund you will need to go to law (unless you hope that a whole band of CWDF people will go with you to the site armed with cudgels 😟). There's certainly little point in getting stoppy about the replies. Your assumptions about the Land Registry proving that the mooring was illegal in some manner are simply not valid, but you would get more reliable advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau, and they would be the people to point you in the next direction. Tam

They'd have been full of wine if they were mine. 🍷 Tam

So many names from the past. We knew Alfie well - he worked for John Knill for a while before he went a water-waving, and we visited him a couple of times at his house in Maple Cross. Also Tom when he was on Snowdrop - we lived on Progress at Cowley Peachey in the early 60s and probably saw him on 177, but I only have a dim recollection of it now you mention it. Harrison Chaplin did quite a bit of canal work so I'll look to see if we have any photos of 177 when they had it. Tam

As LadyG says really. Going fully commercial is a possibility, but hoping to be doing just enough to cover costs never works - not the least because the costs are far more than first appears and 'commercial use' increases them (and the risks) enormously. Tam

Firstly it is not a BSS issue, as has been already said, and if a regulation were to be introduced to outlaw any connection between a toilet and a seacock I'm sure there would be far more people emptying their cassettes overboard. A boat on the move which discharges such matter little by little is the least of the problems; far worse is discharge of matter which has been sterilised by use of elsanol or similar, or discharge en masse of multi gallons - particularly by static craft.. Tam

"Buckby" cans they are not either - the handles are the most obviously incorrect item for cans from (or even in the style of) those from Buckby. Tam

You are probably correct in the case of existing marinas with boats already in situ being compelled to sign a NAA when they were introduced, as they would be compelled to kick out any boats that had no licence. It's not now quite the same with new marinas being built as they can simply refuse to accept an unlicensed boat - though it does get back to the same issue if an occupant refused to renew his cruising licence when it expires. At the end of the day though, very few marina operators are going to want to spend the time and money contesting the issue, especially as most boat owners are rightly or wrongly willing to accept the condition.

I've written this a few times before, but most of the original Canal Enabling Acts contained Clauses to the effect that owners of the land through which the canal was dug were given various compensatory Rights, including the Right to "Construct Places for Boats to Moor and Lie". BW tried to have all these Acts repealed in their 1994 Bill, and me and Di argued against this in the Lords Committee. Happily the committee agreed with our case. BW withdrew that part of their Bill and these Enabling Acts remain in force. BWB introduced the NAA to try to circumvent this decision, and people wishing to dig a new marina mostly found it simpler to agree an NAA than to get involved in the time and cost of legal arguments. However several existing marinas at the time found such a Clause in the Act for the canal where they were based, and refused to sign any NAA. So it is not the case that they have any special agreement - they simply rely upon their pre-existing Rights and do not require one. Tam

I think that a handful of people bought Dutch ex-working mainenance craft which had them fitted and thought they were useful to counter the possibility of having mooring lines cut by yobbos. Then more recent newcomers thought this was a good idea and commissioned them on new-build barges, and gradually it became a fashion, and now they are not uncommon on barges on the continent. Their use on pleasure craft is only recent, but CEVNI regulations are now catching up and in the latest revision they are effectively treated as anchors which means their use is forbidden on virtually all canals, and any stretches of rivers where anchors are barred. I'm just waiting for the report of someone who's spud became bent when it was in use, which would be an 'interesting' situation. They are probably so uncommon on UK pleasurecraft that there is no specific byelaw against them (yet 😁) Tam

Pictures of this vessel obviously clarify your initial post about wanting to buy a sea-going Dutch barge that can cruise UK canals, but unfortunately it does not really satisfy either desire. It will have crossed the Channel, but that will have been a one-off on a very calm day - it is not in any real sense of the term a sea going craft, and you'd not get insurance cover for that use. But nor is it capable of cruising UK canals. The spud pole (the black thing at the front) is higher than the wheelhouse and pretty much restricts you to the Thames, or lower reaches of other east coast rivers. Do take howardangs comments seriously - find some way to get involved in some actual boating and take it from there rather than wasting your time and the time of the owner of this vessel by travelling down to see it. Tam

As a further point, a sea-going barge will presumably have a large engine which would not be happy running on permanent tick-over on the small shallow UK canals. Tam

The replies you've had are correct insofar as they go, but the word 'barge' is often used indiscriminately. What exactly is it that you are describing as a sea-going barge? What is the draft and what is the underwater hull form? A photo would help, or at least the technical term (e.g. klipperaak) used by the Dutch for the type of vessel you have in mind. Is a converted ex-commercial craft? Was it built for sail or with engine(s)? Tam