Sitting on the bottom

[sueb]

Is it Boatbot's boat sitting on the bottom at the top of Hilmorton Locks? There is a boat surrounded by a blue bund and BW aware tape looking very sad.

Sue

[Guest wanted]

Is it Boatbot's boat sitting on the bottom at the top of Hilmorton Locks? There is a boat surrounded by a blue bund and BW aware tape looking very sad.

Sue

 

I know it's very sad for whoever's boat is in trouble. but I had to read that sentance about ten times!

[Mick and Maggie]

Is it Boatbot's boat sitting on the bottom at the top of Hilmorton Locks?

 

We saw the boat at the end of February, it looked to be completly abandoned. When we looked through a window, we could see the owners belongings floating around inside. It looked a sad sorry sight even then.

[sueb]

We saw the boat at the end of February, it looked to be completly abandoned. When we looked through a window, we could see the owners belongings floating around inside. It looked a sad sorry sight even then.

If this is Boatbots boat he has posted on this forum asking for help as he is in Australia, I believe. I was surprised to see it sunk as I thought it had been sorted.

Sue

[boatbot]

If this is Boatbots boat he has posted on this forum asking for help as he is in Australia, I believe. I was surprised to see it sunk as I thought it had been sorted.

Sue

I am afraid so Sue-I thought it was sorted and everyone said it was fine suddenly it isn't-Its being pumped out by Foxtons-I am due back in 3 weeks-not soon enough-it will be re-floated and I will have to rebuild it-I will have to start again-I can do it but we have to resettle first in the country-

[sueb]

I hope others learn by your experience. You can't leave a boat unattended for months especially with the hard winter we have just had. Sorry it is your boat and I hope you are able to salvage it. I hope your insurance will pay towards the repair?

Sue

[mayalld]

I hope others learn by your experience. You can't leave a boat unattended for months especially with the hard winter we have just had. Sorry it is your boat and I hope you are able to salvage it. I hope your insurance will pay towards the repair?

Sue

 

At the risk of sounding harsh, I hope they don't.

 

Insurance claims are paid from premiums, and the more claims that are paid, the more the upward pressure on premiums.

 

If insurance companies start paying out every time a boat owner recklessly neglects to keep their boat safe, we all pay.

[Evo]

At the risk of sounding harsh, I hope they don't.

 

Insurance claims are paid from premiums, and the more claims that are paid, the more the upward pressure on premiums.

 

If insurance companies start paying out every time a boat owner recklessly neglects to keep their boat safe, we all pay.

 

 

Cant agree with that...!!!! So what in your eyes is a just claim.....I dont know all the facts, i dont even know what sank it in the first place. It could be a genuine failure of something that could of sank it overnight or on the other hand the owner - whilst sitting down in Aus - could of easily organised someone to sink it deliberately - just for the insurance money. Either way the insurance should pay out IMO.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Evo

[Chris Pink]

At the risk of sounding harsh, I hope they don't.

 

Insurance claims are paid from premiums, and the more claims that are paid, the more the upward pressure on premiums.

 

If insurance companies start paying out every time a boat owner recklessly neglects to keep their boat safe, we all pay.

 

You'd be the first to moan long and hard if your boat sank and the insurance didn't pay out.

 

If you follow your logic then you are calling for default on all insurance claims.

 

Or are you simply making yet another callous and unfeeling judgement on another's misfortune?

[alan_fincher]

Good, I've got one of the comfiest chairs near the front this time, been to the loo, and got an adequate supply of beer and nibbles......

 

I'm well set!

 

Off you go, chaps!

[Catrin]

Budge up, Dear, I'll join you.

[Athy]

Poor Baotbot does seem to be plagued by misfortune. The boat isn't called 'Titanic' by any chance, is it?

[Chris Pink]

Good, I've got one of the comfiest chairs near the front this time, been to the loo, and got an adequate supply of beer and nibbles......

 

I'm well set!

 

Off you go, chaps!

 

and don't you start!

[jenlyn]

At the risk of sounding harsh, I hope they don't.

 

Insurance claims are paid from premiums, and the more claims that are paid, the more the upward pressure on premiums.

 

If insurance companies start paying out every time a boat owner recklessly neglects to keep their boat safe, we all pay.

 

another stupid remark, i think. get a life!!!

[RLWP]

Cant agree with that...!!!! So what in your eyes is a just claim.....I dont know all the facts, i dont even know what sank it in the first place. It could be a genuine failure of something that could of sank it overnight or on the other hand the owner - whilst sitting down in Aus - could of easily organised someone to sink it deliberately - just for the insurance money. Either way the insurance should pay out IMO.

 

There is some background here

 

and here

 

Richard

[mayalld]

Cant agree with that...!!!! So what in your eyes is a just claim.....I dont know all the facts, i dont even know what sank it in the first place. It could be a genuine failure of something that could of sank it overnight or on the other hand the owner - whilst sitting down in Aus - could of easily organised someone to sink it deliberately - just for the insurance money. Either way the insurance should pay out IMO.

 

We actually DO know a good many facts about this case.

• Boatbot went to Australia for a prolonged time, without making any adequate provision for his boat to be cared for
  
• The boat was reported to be sinking, and Carlt actually went out with pumps to sort it
  
• Even after that, boatbot didn't make arrangements to have his boat properly looked after
  
• Inevitably, it was reported to be sinking again. Given what had gone before, the advice offered was that boatbot couldn't continue to rely on wellwishers to sort this out, and he should call in the professionals
  
• Boatbot arranged with a boatyard to rescue the boat a second time, and implied that they would now be looking after the boat to ensure that it didn't sink
  
• The boat was again left unattended, and sank
  

 

As far as I can see, the boat sank due to the reckless acts of the owner in failing to take proper care that it didn't sink.

 

 

 

another stupid remark, i think. get a life!!!

 

Well, I presented a reasoned case why the insurance shouldn't pay out, and you respond with a personal attack.

 

What, I wonder, does that say about each of us?

[Chris Pink]

Well, I presented a reasoned case why the insurance shouldn't pay out, and you respond with a personal attack.

 

No you didn't, you posted an unnecessary and malicious piece of nastiness.

 

I really hope Dave that something happens to you where you need help, from insurance or anybody else, and the people you hope would help you pass you by saying "well it was his fault"

 

Perfect are you?

 

What is insurance for then if you are so perfect? Have BW granted you exemption from 3rd party risks?

 

Arrogance. Again.

 

A complete lack of empathy. Again.

 

You really really inhabit a sad world.

 

 

And your response to raymac? "Get that heap of junk out of my channel I'm coming through" ??

Edited April 7, 2010 by Chris Pink

[Graham Davis]

Doesn't make good reading does it?

[Naughty Cal]

Budge up, Dear, I'll join you.

 

Room for another one?

[jenlyn]

We actually DO know a good many facts about this case.

• Boatbot went to Australia for a prolonged time, without making any adequate provision for his boat to be cared for
  
• The boat was reported to be sinking, and Carlt actually went out with pumps to sort it
  
• Even after that, boatbot didn't make arrangements to have his boat properly looked after
  
• Inevitably, it was reported to be sinking again. Given what had gone before, the advice offered was that boatbot couldn't continue to rely on wellwishers to sort this out, and he should call in the professionals
  
• Boatbot arranged with a boatyard to rescue the boat a second time, and implied that they would now be looking after the boat to ensure that it didn't sink
  
• The boat was again left unattended, and sank
  

 

As far as I can see, the boat sank due to the reckless acts of the owner in failing to take proper care that it didn't sink.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I presented a reasoned case why the insurance shouldn't pay out, and you respond with a personal attack.

 

What, I wonder, does that say about each of us?

 

oh, shut up!! every time i come on here, your making constant self righteous remarks. as i said, get a life

[mayalld]

You'd be the first to moan long and hard if your boat sank and the insurance didn't pay out.

 

If you follow your logic then you are calling for default on all insurance claims.

 

Or are you simply making yet another callous and unfeeling judgement on another's misfortune?

 

I am making a judgement that Boatbot s largely the author of his own misfortune. He foolishly failed to take proper precautions, and even after two near sinkings still failed to take appropriate action to safeguard the boat.

 

I don't know who the insurer is, but the Navigators and General policy contains the following wording;

 

Due care and diligence

You must exercise due care and diligence at all

times and do all you reasonably can to prevent

loss or damage to your vessel.

 

It seems to me that Boatbot has NOT exercised due care and diligence, or done all that he reasonably could to prevent the sinking. As such, his insurers would have a right to refuse the claim.

 

Insurance is about paying a premium to guard against those things that you may be unable to prevent, not paying a premium to absolve yourself of all responsibility.

 

So, call me callous and unfeeling if you wish, but I stand by what I've said. I don't expect that many will post to agree with me, lest they to be condemned in such terms. Doesn't stop me being right though.

 

 

 

 

oh, shut up!! every time i come on here, your making constant self righteous remarks. as i said, get a life

 

I take it that you have nothing to say, no argument to offer, as to why my argument is wrong?

 

No, much easier to shout "Burn the witch" isn't it?

[the grinch]

sorry to hear that the old tub sank, thought that it was in safe hands. had i known it wasn't like Carl i would have done what i could to help. having 40 years experience of canals i probably would have been able to sort out why she was shipping water.

you say Tony, Sam and the gang are getting her back up again. they should be able to tell you why he believes she sank and what needs to be done to prevent further trouble.

[jenlyn]

I am making a judgement that Boatbot s largely the author of his own misfortune. He foolishly failed to take proper precautions, and even after two near sinkings still failed to take appropriate action to safeguard the boat.

 

I don't know who the insurer is, but the Navigators and General policy contains the following wording;

 

Due care and diligence

You must exercise due care and diligence at all

times and do all you reasonably can to prevent

loss or damage to your vessel.

 

It seems to me that Boatbot has NOT exercised due care and diligence, or done all that he reasonably could to prevent the sinking. As such, his insurers would have a right to refuse the claim.

 

Insurance is about paying a premium to guard against those things that you may be unable to prevent, not paying a premium to absolve yourself of all responsibility.

 

So, call me callous and unfeeling if you wish, but I stand by what I've said. I don't expect that many will post to agree with me, lest they to be condemned in such terms. Doesn't stop me being right though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take it that you have nothing to say, no argument to offer, as to why my argument is wrong?

 

No, much easier to shout "Burn the witch" isn't it?

 

yeh sure, by all means burn the witch, i dont mind, will even supply the firelighters

[mayalld]

No you didn't, you posted an unnecessary and malicious piece of nastiness.

 

In your opinion?

 

In my view, it was an entirely necessary reality check.

 

People need to take responsibility, and not believe that insurance is a carte blanche to be reckless.

 

I really hope Dave that something happens to you where you need help, from insurance or anybody else, and the people you hope would help you pass you by saying "well it was his fault"

 

Perfect are you?

 

What is insurance for then if you are so perfect? Have BW granted you exemption from 3rd party risks?

 

Insurance is to protect against the unexpected.

 

A boat that has been left unattended for months sinking is not unexpected, it is entirely expected.

 

Arrogance. Again.

 

A complete lack of empathy. Again.

 

You really really inhabit a sad world.

 

No, I inhabit a world where people take personal responsibility rather than expecting that whatever happens as a result of their own foolishness, somebody will pick up the pieces

 

And your response to raymac? "Get that heap of junk out of my channel I'm coming through" ??

 

Not at all. That situation is entirely different. So far as I can see, raymac has not at any point been reckless as to whether his boat sank, unlike Boatbot.

[Chris-B]

Budge up, Dear, I'll join you.

Any room left?

I have cheese footballs and Shiraz