DaveG

I have received a recorded delivery letter from Barby Moorings this morning - having sent me notice to quit the marina on 27th September, it would seem they are now going to take me to court for non-payment of mooring fees of £354 for 9 weeks following the date I removed my boat "in lieu of notice". As soon as I have the date and location of the hearing I will publish it here and anyone who wishes to come and watch me being taken away in chains and cast into a debtors prison is more than welcome.

I don't know if Barby have gone into liquidation or not. However, if this rumour is true then I would guess the first thing to be switched off would be the water and electricity to the boats still there which would make their continued occupation of the site very difficult. It also depends on whether the liquidator tries to keep the site running as a "going concern" or simply shuts it down and puts it on the market at its land value to try and recoup the debts which, I suspect, are largely owed to RBS. The liquidator only has a responsibility to the creditors, not to the moorers. I understand that all agreements between Barby and it's "customers" instantly become void - the administrators could, I believe, start re-invoicing boaters from day one of the liquidation meaning people who have already paid in advance finding they are having to pay again if they wish to stay. The "blind-eye" to residential boats may no longer be quite so "blind" either. I would suggest that anyone who still has a boat in there, especially liveaboards, at a minimum takes advice from the CAB to ascertain exactly where they stand if the company has indeed gone bust or bankruptcy is imminent. Forewarned is forearmed. They cannot take your boat unless you owe Barby money, and that would have to be done through a separate court action, but security of tenure is a different question altogether.

It doesn't need to be - under the ruling the advertiser is required by law to contact each publication and website with whom they have placed advertisingeither amending the wording to reflect the truth or to withdrawing it completely. I suspect the ASA ruling of 26th October has been ignored by Barby Moorings Ltd which means the ASA will now notify this failure to comply to Trading Standards who will consider whether to bring criminal charges. Trading Standards in Daventry have recently successfully prosecuted the proprietor of Gary Allbones Garage Doors. From Northamptonshire County Council News: Councillor Andre Gonzalez de Savage, county council cabinet member for customers and communities said: “This was a fraud that deceived consumers into parting with their money for goods that Allbones knew would not be supplied on time, and in some cases they were never supplied at all. Allbones still owes a number of the consumers several hundred pounds that he fraudulently obtained from them. I am pleased that Trading Standards have successfully prosecuted this rogue trader.” Draw your own conclusions as to the similarity here. Allbones was jailed for 10 months.

Interesting - under a ruling obtained by another forum member, they were instructed by the ASA to amend or withdraw all their advertising on 26th October. I also note that their website is still unchanged.

If possible, bid for strimmers from the North Oxford or Worcester & Birmingham as they will have had virtually no use at all.

What tends to happen in a recession is that whilst companies can seem "busy" it's actually because they have cut back on staff - wages are often one of the biggest overheads in a business. Likewise, an order book can appear full because turnover has been reduced. An example where I live is the local tree surgeon - he says he's "never been busier" but at the same time he has reduced his employees from five to just one. I shouldn't imagine the canal business is significantly different. Also, as someone intimated earlier, it is often not good PR to say you have plenty of time available .

But it does prove that overstaying and Continuous Mooring have been a problem since time immemorial! :lol:

I thought it was more along the lines of "if you just happen to be sitting on the next table in a Dubai restaurant and are prepared to contribute to a certain "charity" you get instant access to the Minister of your choice"

Yes, I wrote to my MP a while back....one of the so-called "Cameron's Cuties" in her first term. Now, I don't know if it was something I said, but she then announced she wasn't going to stand at the next election as she is finding it "too difficult being a single mum", although she has an ex-husband (who she describes as "brilliant"), a current husband and two nannies. So, given the hardship she is suffering, I think it unlikely she will be bothered about such a little thing as the waterways despite the fact a waterway runs right through the town where she lives.

It's probably pointless reporting it to BW given that, in my perception at least, they must be the worst offenders on the system. Example: Atherstone - a long section of immaculate towpath marked "no mooring, BW workboats only" yet I have never seen a single workboat there is yonks, 100 yards round the corner, though, and the last twice I've been there there's been two workboats tied up to the waterpoint by th etop lock. There are dozens of examples I could cite regarding workboats which have been left badly secured in wholly inappropriate places. AC/DC - all bar drummer Phil Rudd were born in Britain. Brian Johnson (vcl) and Cliff Williams (Bass) are still British citizens but both live in the USA. I'll get my anorak.

:lol: :lol:

I would like a Billiards Room and an Olympic-sized swimming pool, please.

Alternatively, given that revenue is a greater challenge to BW than ever, they may simply be adding up the nights each boat overstays and will add an appropriate charge to their next licence renewal fee. I suspect if Robin Evans had a bonus incentive to "resolve the Continuous Cruiser issue beyond all reasonable doubt and debate", it would be fixed before you could say "Overstayer".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the flats in the background of the OPs picture and the flats in the background of the Canal Boat review look to be one and the same??

Continuous Cruisers are Continuous Cruiser shaped....it doesn't make them Continuous Cruisers" :lol:

Given that the VAT exemption was on the basis that this was delivered as a residential boat, why was no residential mooring required for it to be delivered to? Just a question. I can't work out from the article if it was "zero-rated" or "VAT exempt", (which are technically different) as the former can attract full rate VAT if resold.

I think you'll find it's more a stunt by which BW can justify not carrying out basic maintenance and dredging.

Er...excuse me, this was not an accusation at all, simply an observation based on something said on the "Credit Where Credit's Due" thread. .... "The downside is that a lot of moorings that were 14 and 7 day have become 48h " ...merely to demonstrate that no matter how the waterways are managed someone will feel ill-served by the "regulations". There was absolutely no contention intended.

Is that "when" or "where"? You have to admit you recently bemoaned the lack of 14 day moorings on the SU which would indicate to me that you do feel you are excluded (albeit by different circumstances) from staying where you want for as long as you want if you are to remain within the guidelines. Carlt - whilst you say that only parliament can change law, I think you are missing the point that the judiciary can effectively alter law by ruling on how that law is interpreted. This was one of the claims (probably correct) in the Davies case , that it set no precedent against other boaters because a County Court judge had no empowerment to establish one. Had this subsequently gone to the Court of Appeal/House of Lords, however, and they ruled that BW did have the legal power to enforce its guidelines then this would set precedent and effectively become law. Any dispute over the CC guidelines and licence terms effectively falls under the remit of contract law which uses as a basis the concept of the "reasonable person" when determining how terms are interpreted. Given that each applicant declares on his annual licence application that they will abide by the licence terms and conditions, and that the BW state "The guidance is a schedule of the licence terms and conditions" I would be interested to see if a court of law upheld BWs position (which, on paper, does seem fairly unambiguous) and how the court would decide a "reasonable person" would interpret the guidance. Unfortunately, until such a (in my opinion) long overdue case occurs this debate will continue to polarize the boating community...if "community" is the right word.

Which is why they have three days holiday the week after next...... I don't know why this one keeps coming back - my impression is that BW has no real will to enforce the "overstayer" guidelines, presumably as there is no income accrued by moving people on only for them to tie up again a mile or so down the towpath - it's just a constant drain on the bottom line. My guess is that, other than for a handful of exemplary evictions, pretty well nothing will be done. I regularly cruise an area of about 100 miles radius and the same boats are on the same 48hr/14 day moorings month in and month out to the point there are now certain places I don't even bother to go to. I see no evidence whatsoever of BW making any attempt to move people on. I did ask one chap to move off a water point the other week only to be told "f... off, I'm already late for work, you'll have to go to the next one" (about 3 hours away). His boat is still there. I was talking to a chap in a pub in August who was happy to confess that he stopped where he wanted for as long as he wanted. His "record" was 18 months and he'd only moved on because he "got bored". With the current BW policy not to maintain or dredge long stretches of canal the problem can only get worse as more boats chase fewer moorings. My boat draws 2'6" and I am now finding it nigh on impossible to get up to the bank anywhere other than on designated mooring sites - either it's too shallow or there is a veritable jungle to fight through to get to the towpath. I also suspect that the large number of vacancies currently in marinas is as much a result of people moving back onto the towpath, due to both economic constraints and because they feel safe in the knowledge they won't be hassled, as it is to new marinas creating a saturated market. BW, as a business, has not been particularly well managed. Whilst it's fine to focus on revenue earning elements, allowing other key areas such as maintenance and mooring management to fail directly impacts the customer who, unless he owns a bike, has not really figured in BWs plans over the last five years. Sadly, I suspect that over the next few years as financial reality bites, BW will allow certain canals to become unnavigable which will put even further pressure on limited mooring space which will undoubtedly further inflame this emotive debate. At the same time I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a boat and then never move as, in a large proportion of places, you only have a view of a hedge, anyway. Would you buy a camper van just to keep it on the drive?

I don't believe "problem families" come into the equation - I don't see any evidence that funding will be given to purchase boats, and I would be surprised if this has much appeal to the Buy to Let sector as the depreciation on a boat is rather more substantial than on bricks and mortar and the investor would never own the water the boat is moored on....plus, there is always the possibility your investment may sail away and end up being melted down in some dodgy scrapyard! For the same reason, I suspect it would not have much appeal to those trying to get onto the property ladder as their investment would be continually eroded, reducing their chances of upward mobility in the housing chain. I would think it would be far harder for investors to get finance, too. Mobile/Park homes would represent a better investment and even this would be fraught with complications given that most sites do not have 12 month "first home" licences. Neither would it be wise to try and force families onto the water - the outcry which would follow the first drowned child would be deafening, I suspect. I think it's just something coming off the top of Shapp's head without an awful lot of thought probably egged on by BW who see a few more licences and marina berths in it.

From the very same issue: "Pontoons and facilities being installed at Barby Moorings next week"

The real problem won't be felt until next year - we need to have well in excess of the normal winter rainfall to restore these reservoirs to their normal levels. Without this, I suspect it is likely there will be far more canal closures far earlier in the year, assuming some of those currently affected come anywhere near to a navigable level in the first place. I did find it somewhat ironic in the summer knowing there was a severe navigation water shortage to pass several large compressors pumping copious amounts of water out of the North Oxford for irrigation. Then again, I guess food is more important.

The SUCS are brilliant, towpaths properly maintained, plentiful moorings all making the SU and Llangollen a pleasure to cruise.

You could try writing to Grant Shapps, though I doubt it would achieve much.