Andy Todd

If you have an android phone then I would have thought that the google location history would be good enough. https://maps.google.co.uk/locationhistory

http://www.screwfix.com/p/surestop-remote-stop-cock-push-fit-15mm/48604 ?

If you buy a pint of milk, keep it past its 'use by' date, is it 'not fit for purpose'?

One at the front, one at the back Means you can get off the boat at the stern or the bow with a centre line

Plant hire is the approach used by the rest of the construction industry. Why, because it is better, safer and cheaper to have a specialist maintain and transport it. The ragbag collection of plant BW own must cost a fortune to maintain and in staff training.

Given the description IMO it may be difficult to demonstrate negligence beyond balance of probabilities. Any 3rd party claim for liability due to negligence. Just because someone has caused damage does not mean they are negligent. It would not surprise me if the insurance company classed is as a normal boating incident.

Except as boaters we do not pay for the full cost of the service that is provisioned. If the service received is less than you are looking for then you need to start arguing that the level of spend on the network should be increased. Worth noting that in the current economic environment almost certainly the only place for that funding to come from is boating licence fees.

Take the bow line off as you go into the lock. You can use the line to pull the boat back and across. (What I have done on the C&H with a 60' boat)

BW are entirely entitled to offer a scheme which is more generous than that which they are legally required provide. If someone didn't meet such a scheme then the judgement in this case would make it very easy for BW to then refuse to licence a boat. The only testing that could be undertaken in court would be if any scheme BW enacted broke some other law. If that did happen BW would fall back on their statutory requirements. The real question will be will BW now withdraw the proposed L&S neighbourhood scheme? If enacting it becomes 'too difficult', then I would not be surprised if they drop it. They now have a precedent which will be much easier for them to implement.

Judgement states it is not about distance, but intent, "to be engaged in a genuine progressive journey around the network, or a substantial part of it" If the "purpose in moving the boat is to attempt to escape the requirement to have a permanent mooring ... movement of the boat is not use that is bona fide for navigation". So no minimum distance.

For android Maverick - OS 1:25 mapping and GPS recording Smart Compass - Compass app which youy line up using the camera (is there a tree in the way of the sat dish? WeatherPro - Far better rain radar, and more detailed forecast

The nearest comparison would be to ask if there is any obligation on the highways agency to provide for travellers? If no, then why would there be a similar obligation against BW who are simply the highways agency of the canals?

Will make very little difference. VAT is passed though the system. BW will be paying VAT on services supplied to it.