Jump to content

What??? How???


StephenA

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I would doubt that the non-boating public (the 350,000,000 that walk the canal towpaths every year) wouldn't 'care a fig' whether a 72 foot or a 70 foot long boat, or a 14 foot beam or a 13' 11" beam can pass thru' the locks.

 

I would even suggest that the majority of them asked what size a NB is, would have no idea.

Agree if the issue is marketed from that angle. A more general failure to maintain the waterways (Stopping those pretty 'longboat' things moving around) might result in more interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I would doubt that the non-boating public (the 350,000,000 that walk the canal towpaths every year) wouldn't 'care a fig' whether a 72 foot or a 70 foot long boat, or a 14 foot beam or a 13' 11" beam can pass thru' the locks.

 

I would even suggest that the majority of them asked what size a NB is, would have no idea.

Can't disagree with the estimate of apathy; I daresay it applies to boaters as well. I merely point out the only option available. The choice is between doing nothing in the expectation of failure, or doing what one can regardless, even if the only satisfaction lies in knowing that you at least tried.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
1
1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

It would be most appropriate for the wide beamers suddenly prevented from access to take the necessary High Court action preemptively; certainly, at the least, if any adverse action was taken against them for alleged offences as per byelaws relating to vessels suitable for the waterway, then the best and most appropriate Defence would involve a counter-claim for failure to comply with Statute.

Indeed. These were my thoughts yesterday after reading your initial response. The additional clarity brought by this post is much appreciated. I certainly feel like the way we have been treated by C&RT is neither right nor fair and as mentioned by others, looks like the 'thin end of the wedge'.

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond with thoughts and view of the legal situation regarding our predicament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wiltshirewonderer (for some reason I can’t quote your post) I agree with your comment about the way you’ve been treated by CRT. Just reading the first page of this thread shows that CRT’s spin on your stickage had several folk concluding that the problem was caused by the navigation of an unsuitable boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WotEver said:

@wiltshirewonderer (for some reason I can’t quote your post) I agree with your comment about the way you’ve been treated by CRT. Just reading the first page of this thread shows that CRT’s spin on your stickage had several folk concluding that the problem was caused by the navigation of an unsuitable boat. 

But, but, but …………………...

 

It is unsuitable (now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WotEver said:

@wiltshirewonderer (for some reason I can’t quote your post) I agree with your comment about the way you’ve been treated by CRT. Just reading the first page of this thread shows that CRT’s spin on your stickage had several folk concluding that the problem was caused by the navigation of an unsuitable boat. 

In the defence of CRT, it was only one C&RT employee on the ground that was unfriendly/unhelpful - the local staff were great. Whoever wrote the notice might have fed by the less friendly person wielding the tape measure (Who shall remain nameless for now).

 

Glad I never saw the notice at the time though, I might have struggled to stay calm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But, but, but …………………...

 

It is unsuitable (now).

How were they supposed to know that after half a dozen successful passages in the past, plus building the boat 2” within the published dimensions in the first place?  

 

It’s like the police suddenly deciding to ticket anyone doing over 30mph on a road that previously had a 40mph limit without sticking up any new signs. “Oh, didn’t we tell you we’ve imposed a new limit?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relevant legislation from the Transport Act 1968 -

 

106 Enforcement of maintenance duty.

(1) If, on an application by any person under this section to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, the court determines that there has been, in respect of any waterway, a serious and persistent failure by the Waterways Board to discharge the duty imposed on them by—

(a) subsection (1) of section 105 of this Act; or

(b) any order made under subsection (3) of that section,

the court may, subject to the provisions of this section, require the Board to remedy that failure; but, save as aforesaid, neither the said subsection (1) nor any order under the said subsection (3) shall be construed as imposing any duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject.

(2) The fact that proceedings on an application under subsection (1) of this section (hereafter in this section referred to as “enforcement proceedings”) are in progress in respect of any waterway or any part of a waterway, or that the court has in any such proceedings imposed any requirement on the Board, shall not prevent the Minister or, in relation to any waterway or any part of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers from making an order in respect of that waterway or part under section 104(3) or 105(3) of this Act; but—

(a) except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, where such an order is made while enforcement proceedings are in progress, the court shall nevertheless determine those proceedings on the basis of the duty of the Board as it stood when the proceedings were instituted; and

(b) the making of such an order shall in no case absolve the Board from complying with any requirement which is imposed by the court in any enforcement proceedings.

(3) If a relevant order is pending at the time when enforcement proceedings are instituted, or if, at any time after enforcement proceedings have been instituted and before the court has imposed any requirement on the Board in the proceedings, the Minister or, in relation to any waterway or part of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers notifies the Board that he is or, as the case may be, they are considering the making of a relevant order and gives the court such a certificate as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section—

(a) the court shall not, so long as the order is pending, impose any requirement on the Board in those proceedings; and

(b) if the order is made, the court shall, in determining in those proceedings whether there has been a failure by the Board to discharge their duty, have regard only to the duty (if any) to which the Board are subject in consequence of the making of the order.

(4) The said certificate is a certificate in writing to the effect that it appears to the Minister or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense and that, having regard to their financial position and their duty under section 18 of the Act of 1962 and section 41 of this Act, it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act.

(5) In subsection (3) of this section “relevant order” means, in relation to any enforcement proceedings, an order under section 104(3) or 105(3) of this Act in relation to the waterway or part of a waterway which is the subject of the proceedings; and for the purposes of that subsection an order is pending during the period of three months beginning with the day on which the Minister notifies or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers notify the Board that he is or, as the case may be, they areconsidering the making of the order and, if before the expiration of that period notice of the proposed order is published under Schedule 13 to this Act, during any further period until the order is made or the Minister notifies the Board that it will not be made.

(6) As soon as may be after giving the Board any such notification as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall give notice thereof in the London Gazette or, the Scottish Ministers shall give such notice in, the Edinburgh Gazette.

(7) For the purposes of this section enforcement proceedings shall be treated as instituted at the time when the writ or summons beginning the proceedings is served on the Board.

 

The obligation enforceable is in the previous section –

 

105 Maintenance of the Board’s waterways.

(1) With a view to securing the general availability of the commercial and cruising waterways for public use, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board, subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and

(b) to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft, that is to say, vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power.

(2) Neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall impose on the Board any duty to maintain a waterway, or any part of a waterway, in a suitable condition for use by any vessel of the kind mentioned in that paragraph unless the dimensions of the vessel (that it to say, its length, width, height of superstructure and draught)—

(a) correspond to, or are less than, those of a vessel of that kind which customarily used that waterway or part during the period of nine months ending with 8th December 1967; or

(b) if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, are such as to make it suitable for use on that waterway or part;

but, save as aforesaid, the duty imposed by that paragraph shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied.

 

An essential caveat you should bear in mind is that CaRT would doubtless seek to exploit any vagueness in the definitions, i.e. as to which dimensions should apply (obviously, dimensions of such vessels as used the canal in the 9 months prior to December 1967 are not recorded). However (b) follows the “or” of (a), so for reasons I gave earlier, the minimum dimensions of the restored canal section as recorded in 2009 should apply.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But, but, but …………………...

 

It is unsuitable (now).

I would respectfully disagree. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the situation is not that the vessel is now unsuitable for the waterway, but that the waterway has now unlawfully been made unsuitable for a vessel of a size that had been suitable for the waterway as maintained prior to reclassification.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I would respectfully disagree. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the situation is not that the vessel is now unsuitable for the waterway, but that the waterway has now unlawfully been made unsuitable for a vessel of a size that had been suitable for the waterway as maintained prior to reclassification.

Well put :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The relevant legislation from the Transport Act 1968 -

 

106 Enforcement of maintenance duty.

(1) If, on an application by any person under this section to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, the court determines that there has been, in respect of any waterway, a serious and persistent failure by the Waterways Board to discharge the duty imposed on them by—

(a) subsection (1) of section 105 of this Act; or

(b) any order made under subsection (3) of that section,

the court may, subject to the provisions of this section, require the Board to remedy that failure; but, save as aforesaid, neither the said subsection (1) nor any order under the said subsection (3) shall be construed as imposing any duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject.

(2) The fact that proceedings on an application under subsection (1) of this section (hereafter in this section referred to as “enforcement proceedings”) are in progress in respect of any waterway or any part of a waterway, or that the court has in any such proceedings imposed any requirement on the Board, shall not prevent the Minister or, in relation to any waterway or any part of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers from making an order in respect of that waterway or part under section 104(3) or 105(3) of this Act; but—

(a) except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, where such an order is made while enforcement proceedings are in progress, the court shall nevertheless determine those proceedings on the basis of the duty of the Board as it stood when the proceedings were instituted; and

(b) the making of such an order shall in no case absolve the Board from complying with any requirement which is imposed by the court in any enforcement proceedings.

(3) If a relevant order is pending at the time when enforcement proceedings are instituted, or if, at any time after enforcement proceedings have been instituted and before the court has imposed any requirement on the Board in the proceedings, the Minister or, in relation to any waterway or part of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers notifies the Board that he is or, as the case may be, they are considering the making of a relevant order and gives the court such a certificate as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section—

(a) the court shall not, so long as the order is pending, impose any requirement on the Board in those proceedings; and

(b) if the order is made, the court shall, in determining in those proceedings whether there has been a failure by the Board to discharge their duty, have regard only to the duty (if any) to which the Board are subject in consequence of the making of the order.

(4) The said certificate is a certificate in writing to the effect that it appears to the Minister or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense and that, having regard to their financial position and their duty under section 18 of the Act of 1962 and section 41 of this Act, it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act.

(5) In subsection (3) of this section “relevant order” means, in relation to any enforcement proceedings, an order under section 104(3) or 105(3) of this Act in relation to the waterway or part of a waterway which is the subject of the proceedings; and for the purposes of that subsection an order is pending during the period of three months beginning with the day on which the Minister notifies or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers notify the Board that he is or, as the case may be, they areconsidering the making of the order and, if before the expiration of that period notice of the proposed order is published under Schedule 13 to this Act, during any further period until the order is made or the Minister notifies the Board that it will not be made.

(6) As soon as may be after giving the Board any such notification as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall give notice thereof in the London Gazette or, the Scottish Ministers shall give such notice in, the Edinburgh Gazette.

(7) For the purposes of this section enforcement proceedings shall be treated as instituted at the time when the writ or summons beginning the proceedings is served on the Board.

 

The obligation enforceable is in the previous section –

 

105 Maintenance of the Board’s waterways.

(1) With a view to securing the general availability of the commercial and cruising waterways for public use, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board, subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and

(b) to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft, that is to say, vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power.

(2) Neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall impose on the Board any duty to maintain a waterway, or any part of a waterway, in a suitable condition for use by any vessel of the kind mentioned in that paragraph unless the dimensions of the vessel (that it to say, its length, width, height of superstructure and draught)—

(a) correspond to, or are less than, those of a vessel of that kind which customarily used that waterway or part during the period of nine months ending with 8th December 1967; or

(b) if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, are such as to make it suitable for use on that waterway or part;

but, save as aforesaid, the duty imposed by that paragraph shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied.

 

An essential caveat you should bear in mind is that CaRT would doubtless seek to exploit any vagueness in the definitions, i.e. as to which dimensions should apply (obviously, dimensions of such vessels as used the canal in the 9 months prior to December 1967 are not recorded). However (b) follows the “or” of (a), so for reasons I gave earlier, the minimum dimensions of the restored canal section as recorded in 2009 should apply.

Thanks Nigel.

 

Given that this issue has only recently surfaced, in your view can the term 'persistent' be applied in this scenario? Obviously, it will become persistent (From a time perspective) if they do not remedy the fault that halted our progression Westwards along the K&A. However, another interpretation would require a number of highlighted issues (E.g. not maintaining the full published navigable width/draught) in a number of places to prove that the behaviour of C&RT has been one of persistent failure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

Thanks Nigel.

 

Given that this issue has only recently surfaced, in your view can the term 'persistent' be applied in this scenario? Obviously, it will become persistent (From a time perspective) if they do not remedy the fault that halted our progression Westwards along the K&A. However, another interpretation would require a number of highlighted issues (E.g. not maintaining the full published navigable width/draught) in a number of places to prove that the behaviour of C&RT has been one of persistent failure. 

It is a good point. You will find, however, that problems with the K&A have indeed been persistent over the years since 2011. You would need to collate the information from others with experience of the navigation. It might even be pertinent to collect nationwide information. A big task, I know, but important.

 

You should perhaps start with asking help from people in KANDA, maybe even trying the FoI route via ‘WhatDoTheyKnow’. Remember that although reducing lock dimensions is possibly rare, proper maintenance of the main navigable channel is rare also, and obtaining evidence that dredging obligations have not been met is probably the easiest way to establish a general pattern of failure. The Excel document details are a good place to start from as the standard that should have been met. There must be annual reports from the relevant department in CaRT that succeeded BW's Asset Management one. Under the estimable Mr Holland they appear to have been a conscientious bunch, hopefully carried through to the present, hampered only by managerial dictats from on high.

 

edit to add: someone on TB has pointed out that several members of the DBA have had growing concerns over the ability of the barges to navigate as they should be able. Worth getting in touch with them also.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

It is a good point. You will find, however, that problems with the K&A have indeed been persistent over the years since 2011. You would need to collate the information from others with experience of the navigation. It might even be pertinent to collect nationwide information. A big task, I know, but important.

 

You should perhaps start with asking help from people in KANDA, maybe even trying the FoI route via ‘WhatDoTheyKnow’. Remember that although reducing lock dimensions is possibly rare, proper maintenance of the main navigable channel is rare also, and obtaining evidence that dredging obligations have not been met is probably the easiest way to establish a general pattern of failure. The Excel document details are a good place to start from as the standard that should have been met. There must be annual reports from the relevant department in CaRT that succeeded BW's Asset Management one. Under the estimable Mr Holland they appear to have been a conscientious bunch, hopefully carried through to the present, hampered only by managerial dictats from on high.

 

Thanks Nigel. Failure to maintain the navigable channel is exactly where I was going with this - it didn't feel like I should have to show persistent failure for the particular type of issue I was impeded by. I will get in touch with KANDA - I am let to understand that the required documentation may possibly already have been obtained and it may be that they have copies, save me wasting resources making a duplicate FoI requiest.

 

Being a sensible chap with other significant challenges in my life, I would rather not litigate but I guess I will have to see whether C&RT give me the option not to do so - they certainly were rather forward on the day regarding the application of blame and also that I would be held liable for costs.

Edited by wiltshirewonderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

The relevant legislation from the Transport Act 1968 -

 

106 Enforcement of maintenance duty.

(1) If, on an application by any person under this section to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, the court determines that there has been, in respect of any waterway, a serious and persistent failure by the Waterways Board to discharge the duty imposed on them by—

(a) subsection (1) of section 105 of this Act; or

(b) any order made under subsection (3) of that section,

the court may, subject to the provisions of this section, require the Board to remedy that failure; but, save as aforesaid, neither the said subsection (1) nor any order under the said subsection (3) shall be construed as imposing any duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject.

(2) The fact that proceedings on an application under subsection (1) of this section (hereafter in this section referred to as “enforcement proceedings”) are in progress in respect of any waterway or any part of a waterway, or that the court has in any such proceedings imposed any requirement on the Board, shall not prevent the Minister or, in relation to any waterway or any part of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers from making an order in respect of that waterway or part under section 104(3) or 105(3) of this Act; but—

(a) except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, where such an order is made while enforcement proceedings are in progress, the court shall nevertheless determine those proceedings on the basis of the duty of the Board as it stood when the proceedings were instituted; and

(b) the making of such an order shall in no case absolve the Board from complying with any requirement which is imposed by the court in any enforcement proceedings.

(3) If a relevant order is pending at the time when enforcement proceedings are instituted, or if, at any time after enforcement proceedings have been instituted and before the court has imposed any requirement on the Board in the proceedings, the Minister or, in relation to any waterway or part of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers notifies the Board that he is or, as the case may be, they are considering the making of a relevant order and gives the court such a certificate as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section—

(a) the court shall not, so long as the order is pending, impose any requirement on the Board in those proceedings; and

(b) if the order is made, the court shall, in determining in those proceedings whether there has been a failure by the Board to discharge their duty, have regard only to the duty (if any) to which the Board are subject in consequence of the making of the order.

(4) The said certificate is a certificate in writing to the effect that it appears to the Minister or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense and that, having regard to their financial position and their duty under section 18 of the Act of 1962 and section 41 of this Act, it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act.

(5) In subsection (3) of this section “relevant order” means, in relation to any enforcement proceedings, an order under section 104(3) or 105(3) of this Act in relation to the waterway or part of a waterway which is the subject of the proceedings; and for the purposes of that subsection an order is pending during the period of three months beginning with the day on which the Minister notifies or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers notify the Board that he is or, as the case may be, they areconsidering the making of the order and, if before the expiration of that period notice of the proposed order is published under Schedule 13 to this Act, during any further period until the order is made or the Minister notifies the Board that it will not be made.

(6) As soon as may be after giving the Board any such notification as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall give notice thereof in the London Gazette or, the Scottish Ministers shall give such notice in, the Edinburgh Gazette.

(7) For the purposes of this section enforcement proceedings shall be treated as instituted at the time when the writ or summons beginning the proceedings is served on the Board.

 

The obligation enforceable is in the previous section –

 

105 Maintenance of the Board’s waterways.

(1) With a view to securing the general availability of the commercial and cruising waterways for public use, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board, subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and

(b) to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft, that is to say, vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power.

(2) Neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall impose on the Board any duty to maintain a waterway, or any part of a waterway, in a suitable condition for use by any vessel of the kind mentioned in that paragraph unless the dimensions of the vessel (that it to say, its length, width, height of superstructure and draught)—

(a) correspond to, or are less than, those of a vessel of that kind which customarily used that waterway or part during the period of nine months ending with 8th December 1967; or

(b) if the waterway or part has been restored or improved since that date, are such as to make it suitable for use on that waterway or part;

but, save as aforesaid, the duty imposed by that paragraph shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied.

 

An essential caveat you should bear in mind is that CaRT would doubtless seek to exploit any vagueness in the definitions, i.e. as to which dimensions should apply (obviously, dimensions of such vessels as used the canal in the 9 months prior to December 1967 are not recorded). However (b) follows the “or” of (a), so for reasons I gave earlier, the minimum dimensions of the restored canal section as recorded in 2009 should apply.

If a canal has been closed, then restored and accepted back by CaRT, what is their obligation? The text you cite indicates that the court will not impose a duty not previously in place. How far is your argument dependent on a continuous application of the original legislation authorising the canal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

If a canal has been closed, then restored and accepted back by CaRT, what is their obligation? The text you cite indicates that the court will not impose a duty not previously in place. How far is your argument dependent on a continuous application of the original legislation authorising the canal?

You presumably refer to the qualification appended to s.106(1)? It is one of those tangled sentences difficult to unwind. As -

 

save as aforesaid, neither the said subsection (1) nor any order under the said subsection (3) shall be construed as imposing any duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject.”

 

There are other ways to read that, by way of emphasising different elements of the sentence as being those to which the Board would not otherwise be subject, but I will let that pass for now.

 

Specific to your question, my argument is not dependent on a continuous application of the original enabling legislation, nor of the state of the navigation at the time of the 1968 Act, nor on the classification under Schedule 12 of the Act. Stepping back a little, to the classification of waterways, see s.104 (3) -

 

The Minister . . .  may by order . . add to either of those Parts any inland waterway for the time being comprised in the undertaking of the Board which is not for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway.”

 

The whole point of classifying the waterways as either Commercial, Cruising or Remainder, is to specify dimensional duties and liabilities relating to the first two, and to relieve the Board from any obligations as to the last. Providing for a Remainder waterway to be re-classified as either Commercial or Cruising would be pointless unless the newly classified waterway was thereby protected, with minimal dimensional parameters to be statutorily enforceable.

 

The enforceable parameters of a Cruising waterway can be altered (either enhanced or degraded) by appropriate means after consultation, but other than that, reading s.105(2)(b) there appears to me to be a presumption that any improvement in a navigable waterway is to be recorded as the new improved standard to which that waterway then becomes subject. Standards once improved, in other words, could not be later dropped (other than by special application).

 

So “if the waterway or part thereof has been restored or improved . . .” those new improved dimensions become the new obligatory standard (one of the reasons BW were so vehemently opposed to IWA restorations in the early days).

 

Regardless, in the present case, BW became obligated in 2011 to maintain the standards to which they had been voluntarily maintaining the K&A prior to the Order classifying the whole of the K&A as a 'Cruising waterway’. It doesn’t matter what the original legislation provided for, nor does it matter that for so long, parts of the waterway were effectively closed under the Remainder classification. What matters is the improved condition of the waterway at the time of the 2011 Order. Maintaining that is a duty and liability to which the Board have been made subject under the terms of the 1968 Act, and a Court can properly order that it be enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I would doubt that the non-boating public (the 350,000,000 that walk the canal towpaths every year) wouldn't 'care a fig' whether a 72 foot or a 70 foot long boat, or a 14 foot beam or a 13' 11" beam can pass thru' the locks.

 

I would even suggest that the majority of them asked what size a NB is, would have no idea.

Yes, and probably a boat stuck in a lock would add a bit of interest and excitement to their walk along the canal....

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

I can confirm that!

You need to do it more often then - get it listed on a regular basis for more publicity - monthly sticking barges  - Get Slimmers World to sponsor you... - perhaps Damien will stick it on his boaters updates.:D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horace42 said:

Yes, and probably a boat stuck in a lock would add a bit of interest and excitement to their walk along the canal....

I can confirm that too. Our struggle to get Nuneaton down through Napton no. 9 lock in August drew a small crowd, mostly consisting of other boaters waiting their turn to use the lock so definitely interested. They were friendly and helpful, pulling on ropes as directed, and there was some excitement as the boat made its escape.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just checked and the notice that they have put up seems to have been deleted for some reason (Although other historic notices on the K&A are still available). Thankfully screen captures were made. Thought I'd share a copy....

 

 

CRT stoppage notice - Togg oversize claim.jpg

Edited by wiltshirewonderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving maximum dimensions of 4m and stating that the boat is the cause of the problem was a bit cheeky, to sa the least. I'd guess that was the reason the notice was withdrawn once more sensible eyes had seen it. I'd hope so, anyway.

 

Tam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, wiltshirewonderer said:

 

Being a sensible chap with other significant challenges in my life, I would rather not litigate but I guess I will have to see whether C&RT give me the option not to do so - they certainly were rather forward on the day regarding the application of blame and also that I would be held liable for costs.

That is always the most desirable course of action. Litigation should always be avoided if possible, and in such a case as this, every opportunity given to the authority to make good on their statutory obligations outwith court action. Institutional pride sadly gets in the way betimes, and Parliament has provided the means for enforcement when rationality and sense of fair play is ignored. One can only hope that realisation of the public’s awareness of the recourses available to them would tip the balance.

 

I have often wondered whether anybody has actually implemented s.106. I know of one case on the K&A where the then authority was successfully sued for lack of maintenance, but I seem to recall that that was prior to the 1968 Act, while the BTC were the relevant authority. I cannot be sure and do not have time to look it up just now, but KANDA could probably help with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

That is always the most desirable course of action. Litigation should always be avoided if possible, and in such a case as this, every opportunity given to the authority to make good on their statutory obligations outwith court action. Institutional pride sadly gets in the way betimes, and Parliament has provided the means for enforcement when rationality and sense of fair play is ignored. One can only hope that realisation of the public’s awareness of the recourses available to them would tip the balance.

 

I have often wondered whether anybody has actually implemented s.106. I know of one case on the K&A where the then authority was successfully sued for lack of maintenance, but I seem to recall that that was prior to the 1968 Act, while the BTC were the relevant authority. I cannot be sure and do not have time to look it up just now, but KANDA could probably help with that.

 

I have touched base with KANDA and also mentioned the predicament to the Dutch Barge Association as this issue may affect members. 

 

My current challenges are now reversing two miles to the nearest winding hole (On the 'wrong' side), turning around and trying to rescue the sale of my boat via what will likely be an expensive combination of crane hire and heavy haulage to Bristol docks. All rather frustrating and expensive at a time where I have very little in the way of time or money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Williams said:

We got Jaguar stuck at Marston Doles Bottom Lock in 1975..  Much flushing got her through.

Atalanta was banned from the oxford in 1976 I think because the canal had become too small for the boat. When i rebuilt her in 96 she gauged at 7’2 before we pulled her in. She is now on the summit again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.