Boat Sinking on the Macc - Poynton/Middlewood Area

[Ex- Member]

Just read this thread and wondered if salvage rights come into the equation.

 

Clearly C&RT need to be doing more, an abandoned boat on their canal/river is surely is their responsibility. Ignoring a listing boat which is highly likely to sink and pollute is in affect gross negligence. Police don't leave wrecked cars on the side of the road and expect road users to clean it up.

 

With all good intenion one could board a boat to rescue it, but is this trespass? It's not your property. Then you could in the process of rescuing the craft cause some other problem damage or harm to person or property where you would very likely be liable.

 

I would assess that boarding a sinking boat in an attempt to rescue it is a very high risk action for any individual or even a small group. Carlt seems to have done ok out of it however others might not be so lucky.

[jelunga]

There is one sunk at Stoke Lock on the Trent. Has been sunk for over 3 weeks leaking oil or fuel into the Trent. CRT have put an oil boom around it but it is still leaking oil into the Trent. Shouldn't the EA be pushing CRT to clear it up?

[carlt]

Carlt seems to have done ok out of it.

Not really.

 

I had no wish to acquire either boat and spent money on them to get them fit to licence then gave them away again.

 

It is also worth noting that I do know what I'm doing and have public liability insurance to cover any possible mishaps though I don't think either knowledge or insurance is necessary to do a spot of bucketing, chuck a pump in or just tie it fast to the bank so it doesn't head for the centre channel if it does go down.

[Chris Pink]

Just read this thread and wondered if salvage rights come into the equation.

 

Clearly C&RT need to be doing more, an abandoned boat on their canal/river is surely is their responsibility. Ignoring a listing boat which is highly likely to sink and pollute is in affect gross negligence. Police don't leave wrecked cars on the side of the road and expect road users to clean it up.

 

With all good intenion one could board a boat to rescue it, but is this trespass? It's not your property. Then you could in the process of rescuing the craft cause some other problem damage or harm to person or property where you would very likely be liable.

 

I would assess that boarding a sinking boat in an attempt to rescue it is a very high risk action for any individual or even a small group. Carlt seems to have done ok out of it however others might not be so lucky.

 

I know of a sunk boat that was/is in 10 foot of water just off the navigation channel on the Avon. A year ago when it went down the riparian owner said we could have if we raised it and towed it away. Knowing the owner well enough to know that 1, he would have just rolled up said 'thanks chaps' and taken possession and 2, he is still of the opinion it's worth substantial sums of money even in 10' of water, it's still there. CRT don't seem particularly fussed. most local boaters know where it is.

 

it's a rather beautiful 1930s or older 50 foot wooden tug (a proper boat not a narrow boat) in very good nick (stupidity sank it not rot) a very substantial boat with some very lovely large pieces of wood and forgework.

 

So rather a shame but I wouldn't go near it.

 

Having said that I know people who have refloated boats, told BW, kept them afloat for 6 months or so and taken them on when nobody claims them.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Skye]

Not really.

 

I had no wish to acquire either boat and spent money on them to get them fit to licence then gave them away again.

 

It is also worth noting that I do know what I'm doing and have public liability insurance to cover any possible mishaps though I don't think either knowledge or insurance is necessary to do a spot of bucketing, chuck a pump in or just tie it fast to the bank so it doesn't head for the centre channel if it does go down.

I agree 100% with your last bit. It doesn't take a lot to prevent more serious consequences with a timely intervention. Twice now while out walking the dogs I've pulled back in and re tied up boats (Don't want to apportion blame but on both occasions there was a gang of youths hanging about).

 

Most people still have the common sense and community spirit to intervene in many situations despite the ever growing claim society.

[furnessvale]

Er - - yes!

 

If the boat isn't yours in the first place - and you take it (in any condition) I think that's known as theft!

 

(See Dorothea!)

 

Not necessarily. A reasonable belief that the property was abandoned is a defence to a charge of theft.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Skye]

Not necessarily. A reasonable belief that the property was abandoned is a defence to a charge of theft.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

That's an interesting point, I once found an engagement ring and took it to the local police station, I was informed that after a set period of time the find would be mine. Fortunately the owner claimed it and the thank you card was worth more to me than the ring (and the story about it's loss was worth even more!)

[Skye]

I know of a sunk boat that was/is in 10 foot of water just off the navigation channel on the Avon. A year ago when it went down the riparian owner said we could have if we raised it and towed it away. Knowing the owner well enough to know that 1, he would have just rolled up said 'thanks chaps' and taken possession and 2, he is still of the opinion it's worth substantial sums of money even in 10' of water, it's still there. CRT don't seem particularly fussed. most local boaters know where it is.

 

it's a rather beautiful 1930s or older 50 foot wooden tug (a proper boat not a narrow boat) in very good nick (stupidity sank it not rot) a very substantial boat with some very lovely large pieces of wood and forgework.

 

So rather a shame but I wouldn't go near it.

 

Having said that I know people who have refloated boats, told BW, kept them afloat for 6 months or so and taken them on when nobody claims them.

Hi Chris

 

Have you offered to buy the boat in its current location? Could be an interesting salvage job!

[bigcol]

The thing thats gets me,

is talking dont get anywhere, if you see a boat in peril Action to make it safe is the right thing to do

 

 

There Was boat oposite us left for months, no licence no engine, and a section 8, taking in water couple of times baling water out, after nothing happened re the boat getting moved or what ever I gave up

phoned carlt reported the boatsinking

in the end it was a nats piss from going down I emailed carlt and let them now again claiming salvage, they emailed me back and phoned giving me permision to get it out on their behalf

A day later using a very large pump Poled it over and had it lifted.

It took a whole day and a decent pump to get the water out

Got a email just a week ago confirming they cannot trace a owner and noones come forward and classing it as abandoned, and that the boat is now mine to dispose off.

 

Getting involved especialy, making a boat safe etc, stoping a boat becoming in peril is the right thing to do,

and somtimes can be rewarding.

 

Ive tied up, re tied, even got a pump out on boats I see needing help, and the owners have come to the boat always being gratefull that somones cared.

 

If I ever cruise on my boat I will alway like to think if I/my wife or our boat needed assistance help would be offered.

 

 

col

Edited March 6, 2013 by bigcol

[stickleback]

Twice now while out walking the dogs I've pulled back in and re tied up boats (Don't want to apportion blame but on both occasions there was a gang of youths hanging about).

 

Most people still have the common sense and community spirit to intervene in many situations despite the ever growing claim society.

 

My partner and I found a narrow boat adrift on the Ashby - very rural, no groups of youths about, but the ropes were covered in algae etc and rotten. Could only assume it had been continuously moored for a very long time with no checks done on it and the ropes had parted when some boat had gone by. We tied it up again, losing a couple of our (old, bright blue nylon-y but serviceable) ropes in the process. I wouldn't be surprised if it is still in the same spot !

Edited March 6, 2013 by stickleback

[carlt]

I wouldn't be surprised if it is still in the same spot !

Continuously moored harms nobody whereas continuously drifting about, obstructing the channel, is a right pain.

 

It bemuses me to watch boaters selfishly nudging a loose boat out of their way, not bothering to take two minutes to tie it back up.

 

It's a bit like dog shit.

 

If some inconsiderate dog owner has not removed their crap then I will flick it in the hedgerow or canal rather than let the next person along run the risk of having to scrape it off their shoe.

[Chris Pink]

Hi Chris

 

Have you offered to buy the boat in its current location? Could be an interesting salvage job!

 

Number 2 in my post.

 

And it's been down now for a year including the last three months of floods. It's almost certainly full of silt if not buried completely.

 

CRT should clear it - it's a hazard to navigation. Or at least mark it. But pigs will fly before they do anything.

[furnessvale]

That's an interesting point, I once found an engagement ring and took it to the local police station, I was informed that after a set period of time the find would be mine. Fortunately the owner claimed it and the thank you card was worth more to me than the ring (and the story about it's loss was worth even more!)

 

Yes, the interesting bit is the word "reasonable". Would it be "reasonable" to believe a gold ring, or perhaps a wad of banknotes, was "abandoned" rather than lost?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Grace and Favour]

True...However I have acquired 2 boats in the past when the owners turned up to see me refloating it and telling me to keep it as they couldn't cope any more.

 

On two other occasions I managed to persuade them to persevere only to hear that they'd given the boat away the next day.

 

Ah! That's a different situation, of course, that's being gifted a boat, and is to be thoroughly applauded!

[Kiwidad]

There is one sunk at Stoke Lock on the Trent. Has been sunk for over 3 weeks leaking oil or fuel into the Trent. CRT have put an oil boom around it but it is still leaking oil into the Trent. Shouldn't the EA be pushing CRT to clear it up?

 

There is also the sunk one at Redhill. A lovely wee boat that I would have and fix up in a heartbeat!

[matty40s]

.

 

There is also the sunk one at Redhill. A lovely wee boat that I would have and fix up in a heartbeat!

Gone now, and the tugs are out now as well. Looks like one of them had its tiller hit by a boat as it has a 90 degree angle in it. There are also about 7 or 8 of the pontoons on the bank as well. Glad i wasn't moored there in the last 4 months.

Edited March 6, 2013 by matty40s

[carlt]

Ah! That's a different situation, of course, that's being gifted a boat, and is to be thoroughly applauded!

You might say "gifted" but at the time it felt more like "burdened".

[lewisericeric]

Bit more of an update HERE

 

I'm going to head in about an hour to see what the latest is although CRT have been there since late morning. - not sure which side of CRT

[lewisericeric]

CRT came today and I've posted some more pics HERE which shows how the boat has been left this evening.

 

I think the farmer is actually doing more than CRT which is slightly disappointing. In fact, personally, I'm really disappointed in CRT. Disappointed, but not surprised

[John Holden]

I think the farmer is actually doing more than CRT which is slightly disappointing. In fact, personally, I'm really disappointed in CRT. Disappointed, but not surprised

 

So what do you expect of CRT? "No get off, we want to recover the boat" or have they perhaps talked to the farmer who has agreed to recover the boat on behalf of CRT?

[Ian Mac]

Am I missing something here, why do CRT have to do anything? Its not their boat, they probably already know the owner has no money, no licence fee received perhaps? So if its not blocking the channel, why touch it, unless they can claim the salvage, which the local farmer may already be doing. CRT are not there to look after peoples boats that is the owners job, I don't want them spending my license money on someone else's problem, I want them to maintain the waterway with my ex money, which is what I'm paying them for, I also pay insurance in case I sink, so some one can sort the mess out.

So stop slagging CRT off, its not their fault, someone doesn't/can't care about their boat, they need to pick the bill up.

--

cheers Ian Mac

 

had a 500 error and it double posted! so edited to fix

Edited March 6, 2013 by Ian Mac

[carlt]

I think the farmer is actually doing more than CRT which is slightly disappointing. In fact, personally, I'm really disappointed in CRT. Disappointed, but not surprised

The channel is no longer obstructed therefore CRT have done their job.

 

Any further enforcement measures (should there be any) may take longer now that the emergency is over.

[lewisericeric]

Personally it just shocks me that they tell us all that an environment team is on the way yet there's been no sign. Secondly, I thought it was their responsibility to take boats that have no valid license and sank, etc off the water. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not exactly up to date on what CRT does or doesn't do but I did think that WAS their responsibility. Not a farmer

Edited March 6, 2013 by lewisericeric

[carlt]

Personally it just shocks me that they tell us all that an environment team is on the way yet there's been no sign. Secondly, I thought it was their responsibility to take boats that have no valid license and sank, etc off the water. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not exactly up to date on what CRT does or doesn't do but I did think that WAS their responsibility. Not a farmer

Why do you think that they have the authority to carry out those responsibilities in the time frame that you expect?

 

The farmer may well be attempting to rescue the boat before CRT can "remove" it.

 

The boat is safe and not causing an obstruction, that is the priority.

 

Removing a boat from the water because you don't think it looks nice is way down the list.

[lewisericeric]

 

Removing a boat from the water because you don't think it looks nice is way down the list.

 

Um....not really sure when I said that??? I think in numerous posts I've said why I thought the boat should be removed - and why it should have been removed long before it sank. Im not arguing that the farmer may well be attempting to remove it - i know he is. My thoughts were only why CRT havent removed the boat beforehand, as I believed that doing this was one of their enforcement policies. Thats all I don't understand. Nothing to do with me thinking it looks a mess. My concern right now is simply for a boat that's leaking diesel and oil all over the place.

 

But on the other hand carlt - WHY is it further down the list in your opinion?? Someone else on this thread mentioned he'd rather his license fee go towards paying for the maintenance of the waterways - like it or not, this is a case of maintaining the waterways and I think this IS what our license fee should be going on - not director bonuses. But I suppose that's a different matter altogether.

Edited March 6, 2013 by lewisericeric