Jump to content

Boat Sinks after being moved by film company.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

Netflix sank my home: Canal boat owner is left homeless when his 100-year-old vessel sinks after being 'moved without permission' for streaming crime drama Top Boy

  • Anthony Beanlands, 46, lived in a 100-year-old canal boat moored in London
  • Partially sank two weeks ago and Mr Beanlands blamed a production company
  • Claimed his boat was moved without his permission to aid filming by the water
  • Said he was contacted by people claiming to work for the production company 

 

Canal boat owner is left homeless when his 100-year-old vessel sinks | Daily Mail Online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe being a bit harsh, but as soon as I read it, I thought, here we go again :

 

No money, get a 'go fund me' page and let someone pay for my new boat.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Dav and Pen said:

This was apparently a 100 year old lifeboat so a long way past its sell by date. Bet the film company will have a job to replace like for like.

 

This is a 116 year old lifeboat conversion and worth saving, everything done to a superb standard - you can only see the wooden planks in the hull if the light shines on the 'glass like' paint at a certain angle.

 

 

CAM00473.jpg

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Maybe being a bit harsh, but as soon as I read it, I thought, here we go again :

 

No money, get a 'go fund me' page and let someone pay for my new boat.

 

 

 

 

This is a 116 year old lifeboat conversion and worth saving, everything done to a superb standard - you can only see the wooden planks in the hull if the light shines on the 'glass like' paint at a certain angle.

 

 

CAM00473.jpg

That’s lovely and shows what can be done. I don’t think the boat in question was brought for 5000 so doubt it looked like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Maybe being a bit harsh, but as soon as I read it, I thought, here we go again :

 

No money, get a 'go fund me' page and let someone pay for my new boat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I only skimmed through the article and didn't spot any reference to the boat's owner asking for money.

 

What did occur to me was, was this boat in such a parlous condition that being moved a few yards caused it to sink? Has it got a boat safety certificate? I guess that it may have only third-party insurance, so he may need to find the money for its repair himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

I only skimmed through the article and didn't spot any reference to the boat's owner asking for money.

 

What did occur to me was, was this boat in such a parlous condition that being moved a few yards caused it to sink? Has it got a boat safety certificate? I guess that it may have only third-party insurance, so he may need to find the money for its repair himself.

I think he's after Netflix to compensate him - I'd estimate his claim will be quite large as it is a 'national treasure' (allegedly!)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

At the end of the day it was his property and on the face of it , it has been damaged by a third party, it doesn't really matter the state of of if. I can imagine the shouting on here if someone found out a TV company had moved their £150K shiny boat and scratched a rubbing strake.

Quite correct up to a point - but was it not damaged already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't help feeling that the "national treasure" in question was going to sink if it was moved or not, he now has a useful scapegoat to claim against.

i think the production company felt responsible knowing they'd moved it without permission so offered a settlement, but he's now seen those fat Netflix pound signs and gone for a big pay day. hardly surprising with today's compensation culture.

 

certainly makes you think twice about re-mooring a boat that's broken free if you're then in the frame for damages should it sustain any after the fact though :( 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what this lifeboat was called and how many lives it saved.  Sad that no one seems to know/cares. Maybe the RNLI have records. Also sad that some boaters are all too ready to condemn some of the less well off members of the boating community.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the news article i read it said that a number of boats were moved and this boat was squashed in between them and started taking on water.

Edited by Skeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

certainly makes you think twice about re-mooring a boat that's broken free if you're then in the frame for damages should it sustain any after the fact though :( 

One would hope that:

  • Any of us on here would have the requisite skills to safely moor a boat.
  • Securing a vessel adrift would be considered a 'good samaritan' act in the same way that first aid is.

State of the boat disregarded, I'm surprised at the cynicism on here. On the face of it, the boat was afloat, the boat was moved, the boat sunk. It doesn't appear to have been in the process of sinking prior to that, and so if the facts are true it is the responsibility of the production company to make good the damage they have caused.

 

To take the car analogy from the article; if someone moved my car without permission and it was subsequently rear-ended by a third party and written off, I'd be a bit miffed regardless of the masive dent that was already in the nearside doors.

 

Edit: national treasure does seem a bit hyperbolic, though...

Edited by tehmarks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expect the production company (not Neflix I guess) will want to seek a settlement quickly without recourse to insurance claim as the likely payout (given the likely market value of the boat) will be peanuts compared with a more litigious route. Even throwing in something for inconvenience - but given that it was not habitable at the time and he was not living on it, that will be minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, tehmarks said:

 

State of the boat disregarded, I'm surprised at the cynicism on here. On the face of it, the boat was afloat, the boat was moved, the boat sunk. It doesn't appear to have been in the process of sinking prior to that, and so if the facts are true it is the responsibility of the production company to make good the damage they have caused.

 

Seconded. Anyone know how many of these lifeboats still exist?

Edited by XLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dav and Pen said:

The national treasure in question when it was still afloat

73308318-81BD-40F9-8715-0ED79F0B60A7.jpeg

Looks to me like that is being confiscated under section 8. ? 

Being pushed by a WHH tug which is one of the companies that cart use in the London area

Edited by Loddon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, XLD said:

I wonder what this lifeboat was called and how many lives it saved.  Sad that no one seems to know/cares. Maybe the RNLI have records. Also sad that some boaters are all too ready to condemn some of the less well off members of the boating community.

I think its an old ships lifeboat not a RNLI type boat. A lots were converted to leisure use. That type of boat doesn't like being squashed.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hudds Lad said:

i can't help feeling that the "national treasure" in question was going to sink if it was moved or not, he now has a useful scapegoat to claim against.

i think the production company felt responsible knowing they'd moved it without permission so offered a settlement, but he's now seen those fat Netflix pound signs and gone for a big pay day. hardly surprising with today's compensation culture.

 

I thought the same when reading the article. If moving it a little way further down the canal causes it to sink then I can't really believe it was long for continued floatation anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, phantom_iv said:

 

I thought the same when reading the article. If moving it a little way further down the canal causes it to sink then I can't really believe it was long for continued floatation anyway.

But you don’t KNOW that. The point is it was moved by someone other than the owner, so they must accept responsibility.

Edited by XLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Netflix owned the boat,they would nail whoever was responsible,to the wall!.?

Not a nice thing to happen to any boat owner.One moored behind me in the summer "sank".It took 1 hour and 3 borrowed bilge pumps (1 was mine!?) to re-float!.

The owner was living aboard and fitting out.After drying stuff out,he lost a few bits of paperwork!.??

My boat isn't a "national treasure",but it is my home,and I wouldn't trust anyone else with it,regardless of how much you pay me!.

 

"Sank"...If its not below the surface,it's not "sunk"!?. Surely it has just taken on water and "grounded"!?.?  Far better that being sank!!.

If he gets a good pay out,he will have the cash to restore our "national treasure"!?.??

 

 

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.