is the boat too wide or not??

[Guest]

The idea is farfrom original BTW. It was standard to use similar gauges at a place where I once worked (road tanker shells). They were usually made out of steel box section.

[David Schweizer]

The problem is if a boat is of questionable beam it would be necessary to measure it in as many places as possible so going through the cabin really isn't that sensible IMO.

Why should anyone assume that our boat is of questionable beam? Given that the builder was one of the most respected builders around in the early 1980's, I doubt whether it is more than a 1/6" difference all the way down. it was just built wider because that was the sort of width most narrowboats were at the time.

[Dominic M]

Notwithstanding all of the above, the danger is that an unsuspecting buyer will visit the brokerage, like the boat and buy her subject to survey.

I doubt whether a prospective buyer would think to query the beam.

 

Would a surveyor ??

It must be a duty on the part of the vendor and the broker to reveal the information. It is with a house sale. To withhold that information is an unacceptable sharp practice.

 

Thats spot on Tim. Mr Hopley measuring in a dry dock finds the boat 1/16" of an inch "oversize", I would imagine any boat hull is capable of flexing to that degree irrespective of the builder. His report is seriously flawed and only an on site test would really prove the point. Also if Hopleys report IS valid then all of us with 7ft & + boats have "devalued" craft! - I think not and he should be challenged on his findings, particulary as they dont take into evidence any historical use either recent or long back of those locks.

Measure the damn thing in the water. It's not that difficult. Then make that point to a prospective buyer. Get a second surveyor to provide a report. But to sell it without disclosing the history is just the behaviour of a charlatan. I would never do that.

[robkg]

I think you are all missing the point, its been judged by a crown court judge as worth thousands less than a simular "thinner" boat, how can it be sold at 50k.

How about an off the wall suggestion (made in jest)

 

If Paul were to buy the boat from the broker for the £50k asking price, and then take the sellers to court, claiming the boat was unfit for purpose, he surely ought to win and in doing so recovers £14k of his money. (I realise that he would still need to sell the boat on, but to maybe less litigious buyers)

 

Rob

[Grace and Favour]

I am a fairy and my name is nuff....

 

We didn't realise your name was Nuff!

[Laurence Hogg]

How about an off the wall suggestion (made in jest)

 

If Paul were to buy the boat from the broker for the £50k asking price, and then take the sellers to court, claiming the boat was unfit for purpose, he surely ought to win and in doing so recovers £14k of his money. (I realise that he would still need to sell the boat on, but to maybe less litigious buyers)

 

Rob

 

Who is selling this boat - is there a link?

[paul851]

Who is selling this boat - is there a link?

 

 

 

the boat arrived at the brokers yesterday afternoon, the boat is not yet online,Iam going to speak to the brokers before naming them.

[magnetman]

Why should anyone assume that our boat is of questionable beam? Given that the builder was one of the most respected builders around in the early 1980's, I doubt whether it is more than a 1/6" difference all the way down. it was just built wider because that was the sort of width most narrowboats were at the time.

 

No, I didn't mean your boat. I simply meant that the method you described was not in my view a reliable way of measuring a boat's beam because there won't usually be enough sliding windows or side doors to do it that way. The beam of a canal boat may vary along its hull if it is either very old or perhaps very new and very badly put together. The only way to reliably find the widest point is to measure it in as many places as possible and this cannot be done using the through cabin method you suggested.

[alan_fincher]

3x2

I hope you are able to buy straighter 3 x 2 than I am !

 

I can't imagine making a frame like that, and if it is 7'0" exactly between the bars at the joining piece, that it still would be so at any distance you chose from it., (not to guaranteed 1/16" accuracy, anyway).

 

That said, I accept you could still hook it on, and note where the widest point was, then take it off, and actually check the accuracy of your "7 foot" measure at that particular "offset".

 

What I do know is that when our boat has been docked we can't get the rear hatch open without a fight, but that it works fine when the boat is afloat. This tells me (definitely) that narrow boats can change shape when pulled out of the water, so any measurement taken on dry land might not be accurate if the boat is refloated.

[Guest]

I hope you are able to buy straighter 3 x 2 than I am !

 

I can't imagine making a frame like that, and if it is 7'0" exactly between the bars at the joining piece, that it still would be so at any distance you chose from it., (not to guaranteed 1/16" accuracy, anyway).

 

That said, I accept you could still hook it on, and note where the widest point was, then take it off, and actually check the accuracy of your "7 foot" measure at that particular "offset".

 

What I do know is that when our boat has been docked we can't get the rear hatch open without a fight, but that it works fine when the boat is afloat. This tells me (definitely) that narrow boats can change shape when pulled out of the water, so any measurement taken on dry land might not be accurate if the boat is refloated.

I was being flippant/sarcastic ;-) I think 40mm box section would be ok, that's what they used on road tankers anyway. It is not too heavy, but quite rigid. You wouldn't get to within 1/16inch though with this method. IfI didn't have the chance of using plumlines ashore though, I would try this method if buying a shell afloat (which I almost did.) I think you could tell the difference between 6-10 and 7-0 quite easily?

 

Our boat does strange things when docked too.

[magnetman]

I was being flippant/sarcastic ;-) I think 40mm box section would be ok, that's what they used on road tankers anyway. It is not too heavy, but quite rigid. You wouldn't get to within 1/16inch though with this method. IfI didn't have the chance of using plumlines ashore though, I would try this method if buying a shell afloat (which I almost did.) I think you could tell the difference between 6-10 and 7-0 quite easily?

 

Our boat does strange things when docked too.

 

Were you talking about making the goalposts in steel?

 

surely that would be seriously heavy to manipulate while walking on the roof of the boat.

 

There must be easier ways

 

 

 

It must be a duty on the part of the vendor and the broker to reveal the information. It is with a house sale. To withhold that information is an unacceptable sharp practice.

 

 

Measure the damn thing in the water. It's not that difficult. Then make that point to a prospective buyer. Get a second surveyor to provide a report. But to sell it without disclosing the history is just the behaviour of a charlatan. I would never do that.

 

What method would you recommend to get within 3mm?

[Guest]

Were you talking about making the goalposts in steel?

 

surely that would be seriously heavy to manipulate while walking on the roof of the boat.

 

There must be easier ways

Well I repeat, the lads who built road tankers at a previous employment used to use such items without problems. 40mm box is quite light. They just used to weld the pieces together, but with ingenuity, it could also be made foldable and adjustable. Tis only like a giant vernier (but less accurate!)

[Laurence Hogg]

Well I repeat, the lads who built road tankers at a previous employment used to use such items without problems. 40mm box is quite light. They just used to weld the pieces together, but with ingenuity, it could also be made foldable and adjustable. Tis only like a giant vernier (but less accurate!)

 

Heres a fella who will convince anyone its 6ft 10" and move the goalposts http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28905

[mike phipps]

This sort of case really highlights the problem on civil law in that you only have to prove "balance of probability" not "beyond all reasonable doubt".

 

The judge will have hopefully been selected or put himself forward as he / she has some interest in the subject or a background that would at least partially qualify hi to make an informed judgment.

 

That aside the judge then has to make a ruling based on the evidence place before him. Now this is the key........ The better (read more convincing) the expert witness/s is/ are the more likely the result will be based on the better story, not necessarily evidence.

 

One would hope that full legal process and disclosure was carried out.

 

So on the day even if the judge is personally not convinced he has to go on the better expert witness.

 

Sadly this very often comes down to who has the biggest pot of money to throw at the case.

 

Would be interesting to find out if the plaintiff did this left right and center, as often they do as a way of supplementing their income or lifestyle, even as an amusement.

 

IMO civil law like this is just a big game of brag.

 

Biggles

[Keeping Up]

It would be easy to have a boat that was 6ft 10in wide, that wouldn't pass through a 7ft lock - by having a curve in it.

 

Similarly it would be easy to have a lock that was over 7ft wide, that struggled to accommodate a boat that was 6ft 10in wide - again, by having a curve in it. I believe that is at least a part of the problem with Hurlestone (and only near the bottom).

 

Different measuring techniques could be used to prove or disprove where the fault lay, according to what you wanted the answer to be, in each of the above cases.

 

Our old boat had a bend in it. It passed through Hurlestone easily in one direction but was quite a tight fit when going the other way.

[mike phipps]

as a new member to this forum it has now become my no.1 first logg onto page i remember the story well when it first appeared it is quite obviouse paul is a well respected boat fitter if this boat was valued at 40 percent below its value at 36k now the owners want 50k so come on there must be some legal advisers or soliciters out ther who can help advise and say hey ?? you,ve got your original 36k back and not lost on your boat the last few years give paul the 14k he is due ?? i personally would think paul has every right to placce an add and say ---- skylark great boat i fitted out but deemed to wide to go up the llangollen now for sale viewing available on the llangollen i wish you well paul . Mike

[Guest]

It would be easy to have a boat that was 6ft 10in wide, that wouldn't pass through a 7ft lock - by having a curve in it.

 

Similarly it would be easy to have a lock that was over 7ft wide, that struggled to accommodate a boat that was 6ft 10in wide - again, by having a curve in it. I believe that is at least a part of the problem with Hurlestone (and only near the bottom).

 

Different measuring techniques could be used to prove or disprove where the fault lay, according to what you wanted the answer to be, in each of the above cases.

 

Our old boat had a bend in it. It passed through Hurlestone easily in one direction but was quite a tight fit when going the other way.

Banana boats are an old problem, and as you rightly say will often measure OK and still jam in a lock.

 

In relation to Hurlestone, it is sometimes possible to jam a boat, but on reversing through it will be fine.

 

We helped get the butty Ilford through a couple of years ago by lowering the levels.

[ymu]

It was the judges view that it was with danger and risk that the boat was taken through the locks after hearing the owners statements, however now they seem to have changed their mind and have told the broker, "the boat has been up the llangollen so the beam is not a major problem" they either lied in court or lying now!!

 

it was put to them at the very begining to have the boat taken through the lock by a profesional helmsman, they declined the offer.

I'd be very surprised if the courts didn't take an extremely dim view of this. I'd be talking to my solicitor with a view to getting my money back. It would appear that they lied to the court. If they didn't, they'll have to prove it. In court.

 

Jeffrey Archer didn't get away with it. No reason why they should.

[Timleech]

as a new member to this forum it has now become my no.1 first logg onto page i remember the story well when it first appeared it is quite obviouse paul is a well respected boat fitter if this boat was valued at 40 percent below its value at 36k now the owners want 50k so come on there must be some legal advisers or soliciters out ther who can help advise and say hey ?? you,ve got your original 36k back and not lost on your boat the last few years give paul the 14k he is due ?? i personally would think paul has every right to placce an add and say ---- skylark great boat i fitted out but deemed to wide to go up the llangollen now for sale viewing available on the llangollen i wish you well paul . Mike

 

I wouldn't assume that 40 percent was the final figure settled by the court - Paul has just mentioned 'thousands' and an 'undisclosed' amount, though no doubt he knows all too well the actual figure.

 

Tim

Edited April 4, 2010 by Timleech

[kienik]

I wouldn't assume that 40 percent was the final figure settled by the court - Paul has just mentioned 'thousands' and an 'undisclosed' amount, though no doubt he knows all too well the actual figure.

 

Tim

 

Of corse he knows the actual figure, but do you really expect him to reveal it on this forum?, for gods sake this man has been through far enough without people jumping on the "ooooooh how much" bandwagon, would you seriously have told all and sundry if you were in this situation, i think not!!.

 

as a new member to this forum it has now become my no.1 first logg onto page i remember the story well when it first appeared it is quite obviouse paul is a well respected boat fitter if this boat was valued at 40 percent below its value at 36k now the owners want 50k so come on there must be some legal advisers or soliciters out ther who can help advise and say hey ?? you,ve got your original 36k back and not lost on your boat the last few years give paul the 14k he is due ?? i personally would think paul has every right to placce an add and say ---- skylark great boat i fitted out but deemed to wide to go up the llangollen now for sale viewing available on the llangollen i wish you well paul . Mike

 

Mike, ansolutely fantastic reply to this topic, i agree 100% with you, well done to you for a positive response to this whole horrible situation that Paul has had to deal with.

 

Nik

[Timleech]

Of corse he knows the actual figure, but do you really expect him to reveal it on this forum?, for gods sake this man has been through far enough without people jumping on the "ooooooh how much" bandwagon, would you seriously have told all and sundry if you were in this situation, i think not!!.

 

 

Nik

 

No, I wouldn't expect him to, that wasn't my point at all. I was merely suggesting that the '40% devaluation' figure seemed to have been taken by some to be the final figure, where in fact it might not have been so.

 

 

Tim

[Laurence Hogg]

I am sure that everyone on here agrees that this is a terrible mistake made by the court. I dont know how to set this up but a poll on the points under discussion might provide some real evidence on opinion in regard to what is right and what is wrong. A 1/16th of an inch difference could be made by impacting a lock gate, engine vibration etc. The surveyor should have realized this. I am happy to provide as much material historical evidence as is necessary, in the past this won a case for a well known Braunston firm accused of the same "over width" problem. Anyone care to have a go or tell me how to do it?

[magnetman]

I am sure that everyone on here agrees that this is a terrible mistake made by the court. I dont know how to set this up but a poll on the points under discussion might provide some real evidence on opinion in regard to what is right and what is wrong. A 1/16th of an inch difference could be made by impacting a lock gate, engine vibration etc. The surveyor should have realized this. I am happy to provide as much material historical evidence as is necessary, in the past this won a case for a well known Braunston firm accused of the same "over width" problem. Anyone care to have a go or tell me how to do it?

 

 

1/16 of an inch is 1.5875mm. that's about the same thickness as a 2 pence coin, depending on whether you take the measurement on the queen's head or just adjacent to it

 

I am astounded that someone could claim to be able to measure the maximum beam of a boat to this sort of accuracy.

[Guest]

1/16 of an inch is 1.5875mm. that's about the same thickness as a 2 pence coin, depending on whether you take the measurement on the queen's head or just adjacent to it

 

I am astounded that someone could claim to be able to measure the maximum beam of a boat to this sort of accuracy.

 

You've just took the words out my mouth....

[Guest]

1/16 of an inch is 1.5875mm. that's about the same thickness as a 2 pence coin, depending on whether you take the measurement on the queen's head or just adjacent to it

 

I am astounded that someone could claim to be able to measure the maximum beam of a boat to this sort of accuracy.

I am not astounded at all if the boat was on land. A two pence piece is a country mile to an engineer. It is debatable if a surveyor would have suitable equipment though, although I suppose they could employ somebody with the expertise.