when is a narrowboat not a narrowboat

[Phil Speight]

I have been following this topic for a few days and thought I better join the forum to comment. I have been involved in this case for two and a half years now and was a witness at the trial.

I have been using hurleston locks for over 35 years and it's common knowledge that the bottom two locks are very tight, especially if the water level is low. If the level is low this lowers the boat directly in line with the subsided bulge in the lock wall and a 7' boat will be tight but will fit, if water levels are high the rubbing strakes will miss this bulge and the boat will fly through.

I have owned many boats over the years that have been very tight through these locks. Because Paul was aware of this he called me and asked me to get the boat through hurleston as the new owners where getting it stuck and he wanted some experience. I drove to Hurleston in the car and we took the boat through, it was tight but it went through. It has been through the narrowest locks in the country and may I add went through the other 22 locks no problem. How this has been deemed unfit for purpose is beyond me! There are tight locks all over the system, if we start prosecuting every boatbuilder when a boat is tight in a lock there will be none left.

There are some owners (including myself) who will leave a photo of their boat on the llangollen canal in the cabin when selling it in brokerage to prove that it has been through these locks.

British waterways have even pulled boats out of the bottom lock with the paddles fully open to flush it out, engine on full reverse and a Landrover attached to the back pulling it! There are local spectators who sit on the bench opposite of a weekend and wait for a boat to get stuck, they find this entertaining! It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to repair this lock but sadly as far as the lock keeper has told me, English Heritage will not let them touch it, along with Bunbury Iron lock.

If anybody thinks they can buy a boat and cruise the whole system without getting stuck somewhere, grounded somewhere or scraped through a tunnel somwhere (standege) they are sadly misguided, go buy a static caravan instead!

This system was built as a transport system, it is worn out, suffers from lack of maintanance and we have adapted it to our use, accept it's not perfect and enjoy it or pick another hobby.

To answer questions about the width.... it was measured by two surveyors, one for the prosecution and one for the defence in dry dock with plumb lines. It was also measured internally in dry dock and again internally in the water to see if it had spread or contracted in anyway, there was no movement and both agreed on the size.

As for the shellbuilder! Well he folded as soon as he found out about it. Paul however stayed in business and could not have been more accomadating to them. He didn't fold and open up under another name as most do, hats off to him.

This boat is 62ft and there are plenty of places this boat won't go, they where fully aware of this when they purchased it, does this also make it not fit for purpose? I dont thing so!

In fact the shortest canal (as far as iar as i'm aware) is the Bridgewater and Taunton canal at 51ft, so everybody now go back to your shell builder and prosecute them as your 52ft boat or above will not cruise the whole system and is "not fit for purpose".

Absolutely 100%. I still don`t understand the measuring bit mind you! Whatever , well said and welcome.

[churchward]

I have been following this topic for a few days and thought I better join the forum to comment. I have been involved in this case for two and a half years now and was a witness at the trial.

I have been using hurleston locks for over 35 years and it's common knowledge that the bottom two locks are very tight, especially if the water level is low. If the level is low this lowers the boat directly in line with the subsided bulge in the lock wall and a 7' boat will be tight but will fit, if water levels are high the rubbing strakes will miss this bulge and the boat will fly through.

I have owned many boats over the years that have been very tight through these locks. Because Paul was aware of this he called me and asked me to get the boat through hurleston as the new owners where getting it stuck and he wanted some experience. I drove to Hurleston in the car and we took the boat through, it was tight but it went through. It has been through the narrowest locks in the country and may I add went through the other 22 locks no problem. How this has been deemed unfit for purpose is beyond me! There are tight locks all over the system, if we start prosecuting every boatbuilder when a boat is tight in a lock there will be none left.

There are some owners (including myself) who will leave a photo of their boat on the llangollen canal in the cabin when selling it in brokerage to prove that it has been through these locks.

British waterways have even pulled boats out of the bottom lock with the paddles fully open to flush it out, engine on full reverse and a Landrover attached to the back pulling it! There are local spectators who sit on the bench opposite of a weekend and wait for a boat to get stuck, they find this entertaining! It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to repair this lock but sadly as far as the lock keeper has told me, English Heritage will not let them touch it, along with Bunbury Iron lock.

If anybody thinks they can buy a boat and cruise the whole system without getting stuck somewhere, grounded somewhere or scraped through a tunnel somwhere (standege) they are sadly misguided, go buy a static caravan instead!

This system was built as a transport system, it is worn out, suffers from lack of maintanance and we have adapted it to our use, accept it's not perfect and enjoy it or pick another hobby.

To answer questions about the width.... it was measured by two surveyors, one for the prosecution and one for the defence in dry dock with plumb lines. It was also measured internally in dry dock and again internally in the water to see if it had spread or contracted in anyway, there was no movement and both agreed on the size.

As for the shellbuilder! Well he folded as soon as he found out about it. Paul however stayed in business and could not have been more accomadating to them. He didn't fold and open up under another name as most do, hats off to him.

This boat is 62ft and there are plenty of places this boat won't go, they where fully aware of this when they purchased it, does this also make it not fit for purpose? I dont thing so!

In fact the shortest canal (as far as iar as i'm aware) is the Bridgewater and Taunton canal at 51ft, so everybody now go back to your shell builder and prosecute them as your 52ft boat or above will not cruise the whole system and is "not fit for purpose".

Hmm you make some excellent points and it is very interesting to hear your first hand account of getting the boat through the lock. It does make me scratch my head and wonder how they won the case. I totally agree that you really have to enjoy the canals warts and all and fit in with life on the cut not it conform to anyones "perfect world" view.

 

Mind you it won't stop us moaning!

[Phil Speight]

It's dead easy to measure ashore with humble plumb lines. It is the 1/16 inch that is more difficult to achieve!

So - do you have two plumb lines hanging from above the boat and measure between them ? Sorry - I`m only a painter, that is to say - a plasterer with learning difficulties.

[Guest]

I agree with a lot of what has been said, including the points about boat lengths etc. I still would like to know if the boat in question was specified as being 6-10 or not. For me this is the crux of the matter. If specified or advertised as 6-10 then that is what it should measure (within a sensible tolerance). If however it was specified as a narrowboat, then that is an entirely different matter.

[carlt]

It's dead easy to measure ashore with humble plumb lines. It is the 1/16 inch that is more difficult to achieve!

You need the giant size micrometer, for that sort of accuracy.

[Guest]

So - do you have two plumb lines hanging from above the boat and measure between them ? Sorry - I`m only a painter, that is to say - a plasterer with learning difficulties.

That is how I do it. Two marks on the floor and a tape measue in between. Yo need to be "square" to the baseplate, and choose a day when it isn't blowing a force eight.

[Phil Speight]

I agree with a lot of what has been said, including the points about boat lengths etc. I still would like to know if the boat in question was specified as being 6-10 or not. For me this is the crux of the matter. If specified or advertised as 6-10 then that is what it should measure (within a sensible tolerance). If however it was specified as a narrowboat, then that is an entirely different matter.

Ah ! Do you then hang a plumb line off the gunwhale each side of the boat and measure between them under the bottom plate?

As to the width of the boat in question - if a specific width is crucial then unfortunately it must be the one that BW say is the correct/appropriate one whatever it does or does not say on any customer contract. Which is a pity because it sometimes seems ( rightly or otherwise ) that they really don`t have much of a clue about the navigations they are responsible for. We all know 7`0" will go most if not all places that can accommodate a boats length where the locks are properly maintained. Perhaps English Heritage need reminding that Hurleston is no longer in it`s original condition and could well be of greater historic significance if it was restored. Some hope eh!

Cheers

Phil

[Yoda]

I am a boat fitter. I buy boats and fit them out and sell them on, to a high standard.

 

Two and a half years ago I sold a boat to a couple new to boating, who were going to live on it. Eventually they sailed up the Llangollan Canal, found the locks at Hurleston very tight, had the boat measured and it came out at 7' 1/16". They took me to court, saying it was unsafe to use, even though the boat has been up and down the locks at least once.

 

Last week a judge ordered that the boat was unfit for purpose and that a boat of that size is worth less on the open market than a boat of 6'10". The expert that the owners used [valued the boat at] 40% off the price they paid.

 

We all know this is nonsense, but has left me in a state of bankruptcy, just because a couple made the wrong lifestyle choice and bought a narrowboat.

 

I plead for people who think its a good idea to live on a boat to hire one first and make sure they will cope, and not have to resort to suing the boat fitter who didn't even build the boat in the first place.

 

You should warn your readers that boats of 7' are not worth a bean (apparently).

 

There are some key points here that do not rest well.

 

Two inexperienced people buy a boat. The boat was the size of a narrow boat. The builders of narrow boats used plus or minus one inch as a tolerance to build. The fit out did not change the size of the boat. Narrow boats are generally narrower when in water. It took this couple more than two years to complain and take the supplier to court. The boat was out of any common right of guarantee.

 

The supplier of the boat ie the person whom fitted it out and has been bankrupted made the boat suitable to travel the whole system, as a livaboard, except for its length.

 

This couple should be taken back to court as this case cannot be proven correctly.

[RLWP]

You need the giant size micrometer, for that sort of accuracy.

 

Giant vernier calipers would be easier. You could sit the bottom of the hull on the scale with the jaws up each side.

 

Richard

[Hairy-Neil]

Giant vernier calipers would be easier.

 

I know a man who could laser scan it. Would measure it more accurately than to a 1/16th......

 

 

English Heritage will not let them touch it.....

 

Utter rubbish. BW, Waterway Recovery Group and the canal societies/trusts are regularly rebuilding locks bridges etc, up and down the country, that are listed buildings. Certainly the red tape makes the job harder but not impossible.

[norman18grp]

To quote paul from his posts last year

iam based in chester, the boat builder is in e port, he certainly doesnt do a stirling job on his boats! there are two builders side by side in the port , they work together under various names to supply shoody goods to unsuspecting customers.

 

&

 

i am taking full responsibility!!! the shell builder put a decloration of conformity on the shell but this means nothing, he will not take any responsiblity for his shell. and he is still turning out the same standard shells.

i am in a corner, fighting bw about the width of the hurston lock, the shell builder. who doesnt want to know, and the customers who say the boat is unfit for purpose, who have happily lived on it for 18 months!hoping for compensation from me, for something i didnt do wrong in the first place!

 

&

 

the boat is made to 6' 11" instead of 6' 10", i have had the boat up hurlston by playing with water levels, i do dot except the boat is unfit for purpose!it clearly is!the customers are trying it on, for cash compensation! after being told by a bw employee that they should sue the boat builder when they couldnt get it through hurlston!(bw passing the buck!) they are new to boats and tried to get it in the first lock at an angle, carlt if you know hurlston you will know its problems with bulges and bw wont except it needs fixing.

 

7' 1/16" ?

 

If you were told (and have it in writing) from the shell builder that the beam was 6' 11"

Was this document produced in court ?

[Yoda]

It makes no difference as there is nothing written to say a boat has to be 6/10 for the whole of the UK.

[norman18grp]

but if the boat was ordered to specific dimensions then surely the blame was with the shell builder not the fitter ?

[Hairy-Neil]

but if the boat was ordered to specific dimensions then surely the blame was with the shell builder not the fitter ?

 

It's pretty irelevant as plhoug says in post 69, the shell builder folded as soon as he was made aware of the problem.

[norman18grp]

It's pretty irelevant as plhoug says in post 69, the shell builder folded as soon as he was made aware of the problem.

 

Ok all Paul's fault then

[Hairy-Neil]

Ok all Paul's fault then

 

Fault is debateable, but rightly or wrongly the buck seems to stop with him.

[plhoug]

To answer questions about the width.... it was measured by two surveyors, one for the prosecution and one for the defence in dry dock with plumb lines. It was also measured internally in dry dock and again internally in the water to see if it had spread or contracted in anyway, there was no movement and both agreed on the size.

 

Welcome and many thanks for your post regarding Pauls troubles.

 

Can I ask if it was made known to you during this case whether the owners contracted Paul for a 62' 'Narrow Boat' or a '62' X 6' 10" Narrow Boat', as it seems that it's this point, about its width, that is crucial in all of this.

 

Many thanks

John

Thanks all for making me welcome.

This boat was not ordered by the customers, it was already completed when they purchased it. It was launched in April 2006 and put up for sale. They saw it and purchased it in July 2006. it was not ordered to any size, it was purchased as a narrowboat.

 

Thanks, Paul

[plhoug]

I know a man who could laser scan it. Would measure it more accurately than to a 1/16th......

 

 

 

 

Utter rubbish. BW, Waterway Recovery Group and the canal societies/trusts are regularly rebuilding locks bridges etc, up and down the country, that are listed buildings. Certainly the red tape makes the job harder but not impossible.

 

You are quite right, they are regularly rebuilding locks and bridges all the time that are listed buildings but as I said in my post English Heritage have refused. I didn't know hurleston was protected until the lock keeper told me. Wether she is right or wrong I dont know. The other lock I mentioned is Beeston Iron lock, this is protected and because english heritage have refused the repair to the steel plating in the lock wall, boats cannot travel through together bacause of the warp in the lock. BW put it in the winter stoppage list three or four years ago while awaiting the result of an application to English heritage. The application was refused and the repair cancelled. So yes, listed structures are repaired all the time but not when a refusal is given.

 

Thanks

Paul

[bargeeboy]

You are quite right, they are regularly rebuilding locks and bridges all the time that are listed buildings but as I said in my post English Heritage have refused. I didn't know hurleston was protected until the lock keeper told me. Wether she is right or wrong I dont know. The other lock I mentioned is Beeston Iron lock, this is protected and because english heritage have refused the repair to the steel plating in the lock wall, boats cannot travel through together bacause of the warp in the lock. BW put it in the winter stoppage list three or four years ago while awaiting the result of an application to English heritage. The application was refused and the repair cancelled. So yes, listed structures are repaired all the time but not when a refusal is given.

 

Thanks

Paul

OH YES THEY CAN !!!!!!!

 

 

Okay for acceptable size NB's but not of course Phil's pair !!

Edited April 22, 2009 by bargeeboy

[Timleech]

You are quite right, they are regularly rebuilding locks and bridges all the time that are listed buildings but as I said in my post English Heritage have refused. I didn't know hurleston was protected until the lock keeper told me. Wether she is right or wrong I dont know.

 

Thanks

Paul

 

Very odd if that is the case, as Hurleston bottom lock was 'widened' about 35 years ago and has evidently come in again since. If they were allowed to do it then, why not now? I can only imagine that, if true, the plan submitted for the work has been rejected as 'unsuitable', & they need to come up with another plan.

 

Tim

[plhoug]

OH YES THEY CAN !!!!!!!

 

 

Okay for acceptable size NB's but not of course Phil's pair !!

Now that was risking life and limb, he he . Well done!

 

Very odd if that is the case, as Hurleston bottom lock was 'widened' about 35 years ago and has evidently come in again since. If they were allowed to do it then, why not now? I can only imagine that, if true, the plan submitted for the work has been rejected as 'unsuitable', & they need to come up with another plan.

 

Tim

It may not be protected, could just be the lock keeper covering for BW's lack of funds to repair!

[Phil Speight]

I know a man who could laser scan it. Would measure it more accurately than to a 1/16th......

 

 

 

 

Utter rubbish. BW, Waterway Recovery Group and the canal societies/trusts are regularly rebuilding locks bridges etc, up and down the country, that are listed buildings. Certainly the red tape makes the job harder but not impossible.

Sorry. I should have said "If, as I am told, English Heritage won`t let them touch it."

[alan_fincher]

Here's a suggestion.

 

If the "heritage" features of this lock mean it can't be rebuilt, why not take the chance to recreate a Thurlwood Steel Lock look-alike alongside ?

 

OK, maybe there's not space, but it would allow the recreation of a now demolished bit of waterways history.

 

6' 10" (or less) boats could still work the historic lock, whilst "fatter" ones could lock through "Thurlwood".

 

 

 

This wasn't a serious suggestion, BTW, before anybody assumes it was - but dafter things can and do happen!

[paul851]

well, this is causing a stir! you can only imagine how I feel, having been dragged through the courts by money grabbing leeches.

 

I am no Alan Sugar but do a good solid job of my boats, and the comments that I shouldnt be in business deeply hurt me.

 

If you buy a tv, that doesn't work properly, you take it straight back to comet! this couple only contacted me 3 months after they first thought they had a problem,(first three months of winter,btw) the judge came to the decision that they had clearly accepted the boat.

it did take over 2 years to finally come to trial, only because of their conduct in the first 3 attempted trials, which has cost them thousands of pounds in costs. most not paid, as I have already said.

 

 

I do however, think we have gone off the track......................................................

 

 

A 7' BOAT IS CLEARLY NOT WORTH 40% LESS THAN A 6' 10" BOAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[denboy]

well, this is causing a stir! you can only imagine how I feel, having been dragged through the courts by money grabbing leeches.

 

I am no Alan Sugar but do a good solid job of my boats, and the comments that I shouldnt be in business deeply hurt me.

 

If you buy a tv, that doesn't work properly, you take it straight back to comet! this couple only contacted me 3 months after they first thought they had a problem,(first three months of winter,btw) the judge came to the decision that they had clearly accepted the boat.

it did take over 2 years to finally come to trial, only because of their conduct in the first 3 attempted trials, which has cost them thousands of pounds in costs. most not paid, as I have already said.

[code][quote]As a matter of interest who was the shell builder who dropped you in the sh*te?[/quote]

[/code]

 

I do however, think we have gone off the track......................................................

 

 

A 7' BOAT IS CLEARLY NOT WORTH 40% LESS THAN A 6' 10" BOAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

messed that up didnt I

Edited April 22, 2009 by denboy