landowners insurance

[b0atman]

When we where BW a government department fallen tree clearing was a service to landowners and boaters alike.

Now we are a charity struggling for money maybe one of the top paid office wallahs should look at claiming off the owner of a fallen tree for compensation.

When one falls onto a boat does boaters insurance just cover it no questions asked or do they try and get money from trees owner.

Just a point !

[Speedwheel]

Usually BW/CaRT are the owners.

[MtB]

Interesting point, but liability for the cost of clearing a fallen tree (or damage caused), is not created or affected in any way by the existence of an insurance policy.

 

MtB

Maybe a better way of putting it is, IF a landowner turns out to be responsible for the cost of clearing his fallen tree, then CRT are entitled to pursue him for that cost.

 

This applies whether or not he has chosen to purchase an insurance policy to cover him against that risk.

 

MtB

[JamesWoolcock]

Usually BW/CaRT are the owners.

No, generally on the off side it is not CRT land.

Yes, and bill the riparian owners and for pruning too.

 

James

Edited February 17, 2014 by JamesWoolcock

[BEngo]

CRT generally own a strip on the offside, as well as the towpath and hedge. The size of the strip varies from a few feet, to a long way. Any trees that grow in that strip are CRT's problem.

 

N

[furnessvale]

CRT generally own a strip on the offside, as well as the towpath and hedge. The size of the strip varies from a few feet, to a long way. Any trees that grow in that strip are CRT's problem.

 

N

I believe the opposite to be true i.e. occasionally CRT own a strip.

 

If CRT generally owned a strip of land on the offside, the whole concept of "end of garden" moorings would be out of the window and they would be charging a full mooring rate.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[MartinC]

Interesting point, but liability for the cost of clearing a fallen tree (or damage caused), is not created or affected in any way by the existence of an insurance policy.

 

MtB

Maybe a better way of putting it is, IF a landowner turns out to be responsible for the cost of clearing his fallen tree, then CRT are entitled to pursue him for that cost.

 

This applies whether or not he has chosen to purchase an insurance policy to cover him against that risk.

 

MtB

 

A big "IF" and another lawyers paradise. I am sure most boaters would not want CaRT spending money on this sort of legal action unless it was an open and shut case, which is very hard to establish. Even then there is the problem that, if an insurer was involved, and the tree was an obvious danger, the insurer is unlikely to indemnify, so insurance is mainly irrelevant.

 

Another thought. Local Authorities have the power to order cutting back of growth obstructing footways and the power to do the work and charge the property owner if he fails to act. I wonder if any of the canal construction acts included the provision that neighbouring property owners should not cause obstruction?

[Mike Todd]

 

A big "IF" and another lawyers paradise. I am sure most boaters would not want CaRT spending money on this sort of legal action unless it was an open and shut case, which is very hard to establish. Even then there is the problem that, if an insurer was involved, and the tree was an obvious danger, the insurer is unlikely to indemnify, so insurance is mainly irrelevant.

 

Another thought. Local Authorities have the power to order cutting back of growth obstructing footways and the power to do the work and charge the property owner if he fails to act. I wonder if any of the canal construction acts included the provision that neighbouring property owners should not cause obstruction?

I did try to raise this proposal at the time when BW was being metamorphed into CRT but the unwillingness to engage in legislation seems to have ruled it out.

 

Still seems to me to be the way forward and worth campaigning for.

[Paul C]

 

I am sure most boaters would not want CaRT spending money on this sort of legal action unless it was an open and shut case, which is very hard to establish.

 

Why would it be so hard to establish? The offside bank (thus, the location of the offending tree) is either CRT land or its someone else's land, of which there are, in the main, accurate records.

[MartinC]

 

Why would it be so hard to establish? The offside bank (thus, the location of the offending tree) is either CRT land or its someone else's land, of which there are, in the main, accurate records.

No not too difficult to establish ownership of the land or tree, but I was responding to MtB's posting, establishing liability in this sort of case is not easy.