Jump to content

Single woman buys narrowboat to get on property ladder


David Mack

Featured Posts

21 minutes ago, matty40s said:

License £105, insurance £33, coal £46, gas £47, diesel £30. = £251

That's an annualised monthly figure, with June bought coal.

It doesnt include any maintenance on the boat.

 

That's before clothes, food, beer, mooring fee, electric, car tax, insurance diesel, tv licence, broadband internet, mobile phone, etc etc.

Boat life is not cheap, but is an wonderful way of life.

This is laughable for those in the real world. My rent was £1000pcm - Council Tax something around £200. This isn't in somewhere like Oxford or London either! Electricity is huge and rising (not issue with solar panels) gas is insane and a lot more expensive than coal. Also, licence for my boat is £72.50 and the mooring £208 a month, which we will disappear when cruising. We are saying over a thousand quid on rent and council tax alone. There is also far less interest than taking on a mortgage even if you got a loan for a boat. You are assuming she has a car or that most young boaters have a car too, we do not. 

 

Some people struggle to rent with pets too and as she said, she cannot get a mortgage. 

 

The only people not grounded in reality are the keyboard warriors on this post.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Presumably if this boat is as bad as being made out, the histeric boat community has washed their hands of it. 

 

That pretty much sums it up. The boat was bulk-marketed to the histeric community and nobody wanted it, so bad was the survey report. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, frangar said:

Really?? Are you another disillusioned dreamer who’s been sucked in by a starry eyed YouTube person??

Disillusioned by keyboard losers! Loving canal life like a YouTube dreamer too! Cheap as chips, epic winning! 

Just now, MtB said:

 

That pretty much sums it up. The boat was bulk-marketed to the histeric community and nobody wanted it, so bad was the survey report. 

 

Hysteric is about right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

That pretty much sums it up. The boat was bulk-marketed to the histeric community and nobody wanted it, so bad was the survey report. 

 

Presumably one or more of the previous custodians of this 'historic' vessel had the good years out of her without putting in the required money and maintenance to preserve it for future generations

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rusty69 said:

Presumably one or more of the previous custodians of this 'historic' vessel had the good years out of her without putting in the required money and maintenance to preserve it for future generations

 

 

I suspect this is the case. IIRC the repairs necessary would cost more than the value of the (repaired) boat done professionally, so it was generally anticipated the boat would be bought by someone who was a capable welder and and with access to hard standing or a yard to do the necessary work. It was up for sale for pocket money but still no-one wanted it, such was the amount of work required.

 

Then the boat turned up owned by Elizabeth Earle and it remains unclear whether she bought it as a colander and spent a tonne of money getting it fixed, or whether she bought it, ignored the survey and is just carrying on using it. She doesn't strike me as the type of person likely to a talented welder who did all the work themselves, from watching the video.

 

The odd thing is I don't remember it being anything like as long ago as the three years ago the OP mentions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Then if the current owner is able to do what previous owners have not, and us able to preserve it for future generations, perhaps she is entitled to call it whatever she damn well wants. 

 

Its that massive great "IF" at the start of your post, that is in doubt...!

 

I think a lot of posters here would be delighted to find she has completed the repairs not done by the previous owners, particularly the hysteric owners, but personally I have my doubts.

 

But either way yes I agree with you she can call it what she likes and do and much or as little maintenance as she chooses, it is none of my business. But if another historic boat is lost from lack of maintenance it I will see it as a terrible shame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Then if the current owner is able to do what previous owners have not, and is able to preserve it for future generations, perhaps she is entitled to call it whatever she damn well wants. 

Mines called all sorts of names. Especially when it goes wrong 😁

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Its that massive great "IF" at the start of your post, that is in doubt...!

 

I think a lot of posters here would be delighted to find she has completed the repairs not done by the previous owners, particularly the hysteric owners, but personally I have my doubts.

 

But either way yes I agree with you she can call it what she likes and do and much or as little maintenance as she chooses, it is none of my business. But if another historic boat is lost from lack of maintenance it I will see it as a terrible shame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it would be.

 

Perhaps, as may have already been suggested, a save "Maggie May" go funding page would give it a new lease of life. Get Rod Stewart onboard. Sorted. 

Edited by rusty69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Athy said:

I'm surprised that, in these days of equality of the sexes, the piece stresses that she is a single woman; are they implying that, without a man to do the proper work while she concentrates on the dusting, the cute and fluffy creature is doomed to failure? 

 

Well I got the opposite inference from the article, that as a single woman she was perfectly capable of doing it by herself. It's no less sexist than your interpretation of course. I don't think they'd write an article about a single bloke on a boat emphasising how well he'd done without a woman.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackrose said:

 

Well I got the opposite inference from the article, that as a single woman she was perfectly capable of doing it by herself. It's no less sexist than your interpretation of course. I don't think they'd write an article about a single bloke on a boat emphasising how well he'd done without a woman.

There is nothing "sexist" about my interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But looping back to the objection(s) about her calling it "Maggie" being objected to, it seems unlikely that any historic boat owner who genuinely appreciates and understands the historical value of their possession would call their boat by a name other than its own. 

 

That's all really. None of our business though. But this IS a discussion forum so people here are entitled to discuss whatever they like. Including what people choose to call their boats.

 

 

Perhaps there is so little left of the original vessel, except for the name, that renaming it seemed a logical option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Perhaps there is so little left of the original vessel, except for the name, that renaming it seemed a logical option. 

 

 

I don't follow.

 

If all that was left was a nameplate saying "Malvern", surely "Malvern" would be the logical name to give it! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But looping back to the objection(s) about her calling it "Maggie" being objected to, it seems unlikely that any historic boat owner who genuinely appreciates and understands the historical value of their possession would call their boat by a name other than its own. 

 

That's all really. None of our business though. But this IS a discussion forum so people here are entitled to discuss whatever they like. Including what people choose to call their boats.

 

 

Isn't it the case that working boats sometimes changed their name while they were still working?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

Isn't it the case that working boats sometimes changed their name while they were still working?

 

Yes but back then they weren't "historic".

 

"Historic" boats (and buildings) nowadays are required to be preserved in aspic. I'm surprised you didn't know that! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrBadger said:

 You are assuming she has a car or that most young boaters have a car too, we do not. 

 

The only people not grounded in reality are the keyboard warriors on this post.

Where in my post do I assume that she has a car, motorbike or jet ski etc

No kebroad scurriers here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I don't follow.

 

If all that was left was a nameplate saying "Malvern", surely "Malvern" would be the logical name to give it! 

 

 

Not to me it wouldn't. If all that existed was a plate saying 'Malvern', it would have no bearing on the original boat except for the name, unless the plate it was printed on was called 'Malvern'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Perhaps there is so little left of the original vessel, except for the name, that renaming it seemed a logical option. 

 

When I looked it over 9 years ago, there was a lot of the original boat remaining.

 

However what subsequently emerged is that the bit I couldn't see, (i.e. the bit below water) was a potential colander on an epic scale.

If some very major and expensive steelwork has been carried out since Braunston marina sold Malvern for a very knock down price, then she has maybe got herself a boat with a lot of potential.  If no such steelwork has been carried out, then at the least I would be checking on a regular basis that the bilge pump works!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

You assumed when you mentioned car tax.  It's not usual to pay car tax if you don't have a car.

I didnt assume anything, I gave a breakdown of my costs and rough guide to other expenses, I am fully aware that others may or may not have cars, dont pay TV licences, tax or other items.

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.