CRT are thy taking notice or just turning a blind eye? - sunk boat with no action taken

[furnessvale]

A car hit a wall near us recently. The owner of the wall claimed on his insurance, got it repaired, gave his ins co the details of the car involved and left them to recover the costs from the drivers ins co. I can't understand why the same process can't happen in the case of a sunken boat (though obviously it will take time to get costs agreed, equipment to the site etc. )

Do CRT have an insurance company or do they self insure as some large organisations do?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Tony Dunkley]

I know that but others seems to think it's a problem.

 

I've raised over 50 boats, some of them having been sunk for over a year and never once had an issue with suction preventing refloating.

That's right, a sunk boat is rarely the kind of problem or 'big deal' that some like to portray it as, although having said that, coping with and recovering a sinker is clearly well beyond the competence and understanding of the goons who are now in charge of our waterways.

[carlt]

 

Which was what the OP was complaining about. Things that take time, take time!

Though when BW had its own work force things took less time.

 

Saying that, though, there should be a provision for emergency works in their term contract..

[pearley]

Many years ago one if my employees driving a company car had a tyre blow out causing him to leave the road, demolish a telegraph pole and end up against a phone box. The bill for replacement was sent to me, leaving me to get the insurers to pay it. I wasn't given any option. The GPO just got on with it.

 

So why can't CRT do the same. The boat has to be removed as it is causing an obstruction. So get in and move it and send the bill to the registered owner. It is his responsibility, not the insurers.

[Alf Roberts]

because they have to give 28 days notice to the owner?

 

by law

 

oh, I see, CRT don't do law any more

I understand that they can move it if it's causing an obstruction - which, obviously, it is - but they can't charge for that.

[Tony Dunkley]

because they have to give 28 days notice to the owner?

 

by law

 

oh, I see, CRT don't do law any more

I understand that they can move it if it's causing an obstruction - which, obviously, it is - but they can't charge for that.

That's true, but there's nothing to stop them raising the boat and then billing the owner specifically for that, as opposed to billing him for 'moving' it. If the raising and recovery are done expediently and efficiently, then the residual value of the boat, upon which they can exercise a lien, will almost certainly exceed the cost of recovery.

[Emerald Fox]

If it inconveniences you to get round the sunken boat then make a claim to the owner's insurance company for compensation for your time and grief.

 

Perhaps the Chinese army could pull it out by 3pm this afternoon?

[bigcol]

Get one long pole

Sign on top of obstruction ,with the insurance company's detail and phone number

Insurance company happy gets free advertising

And canal users happy as if they damage their boat they know who to claim from. Lol

 

Shouldn't be long for the wreck to be salvaged

 

If this wreck blocked the whole navigation, or boats could get passed, of course CRT would have it removed admediatley ?

 

In the time it takes to post this post full of garbage,

It takes just one person, 10 minutes!!! one phone, notify insurance company, phone salvage company that can do the job straight away,

send bill to owner and copy to insurance company.

 

Job done

Edited February 2, 2015 by bigcol

[Emerald Fox]

Very good. What he says.

[costalot]

I imagine to get a licence you have to provide insurance details.?

I also imagine the owner, knows what's happened, or could be out the country?

 

But what ever, surely CRT can instruct the insurance company, and advise that it's a danger to other canal users, as its in the middle of the navigation, and any damage to their customers boats will be forward to them?. As the boat is their risk

 

As long as they know the boats blocking the navigation,they will be responsible if the sunken wreck causes damage.

 

Or is my head in the clouds again

 

Col

I suspect the boat is the owners "risk" until the owner informs their insurer. Most marine insurers require the owner to obtain all the quotations for repair/recovery. It's unlikely the insurer will take instructions from CRT. If the owner delays informing their insurer they (the owner) may find the insurer won't cover the totally insured part of the recovery because the insurer may claim the owner has been negligent.

[bigcol]

I suspect the boat is the owners "risk" until the owner informs their insurer. Most marine insurers require the owner to obtain all the quotations for repair/recovery. It's unlikely the insurer will take instructions from CRT. If the owner delays informing their insurer they (the owner) may find the insurer won't cover the totally insured part of the recovery because the insurer may claim the owner has been negligent.

 

Total understanding, so if the owners away for 3 months, CRT does nothing,

Surely CRT have a responsibility to it customers first off

Its an obstruction that has to be removed. Remove it for their customers, for deep draft and Widebeam boats.

(Could a large boat get passed now?)

 

Bill the owner, cc to insurance company.

What is the point in us sending the insurance details and policies number when we apply for licences.

 

So basically we're could be in for a long wait?, the boat once recovered should be kept till the savage bill is paid.

It is winter, I don't know that water way, but if this was summer, in the middle of grand Union , just north of a large hire company in linslade, yep I give it a day, it be removed, so why is this different?

 

All the best

 

Col

[Laurence Hogg]

What seems overlooked here is that the boat is a potential pollution risk which would damage many miles of canal. It must have diesel on board for a start let alone engine oil and loo chemicals etc. CRT (BW) failed to act properly to the pollution risk caused by a fire in Ettingshall a few years ago and from a spillage that could have been contained they ended up with 11 miles of polluted canal tens of thousands of dead fish because no one used their head and contained the scene. Ok that would mean closing the canal and getting on with the job which probably felt like felt "too much" for a Friday afternoon so they left it and look what happened. CRT are responsible for keeping the track clear, would you see a wrecked lorry left in the middle lane of the M6?

Edited February 3, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[bigcol]

What seems overlooked here is that the boat is a potential pollution risk which would damage many miles of canal. It must have diesel on board for a start let alone engine oil and loo chemicals etc. CCRT (BW) failed to act properly to the pollution risk caused by a fire in Ettingshall a few years ago and from a spillage that could have been contained they ended up with 11 miles of polluted canal tens of thousands of dead fish because no one used their head and contained the scene. Ok that would mean closing the canal and getting on with the job which probably felt like felt "too much" for a Friday afternoon so they left it and look what happened. CRT are responsible for keeping the track clear, would you see a wrecked lorry left in the middle lane of the M6?[/quote

 

Lawrence is so correct!

Totally overlooked !!This reason alone the boat needs to be salvage admediatley.

I would imagine if this was reported, the potential claim could run into thousands, millions, here we are on a forum posting away, while damage could potentially ruin wide life and Irreversible damage. CRT or the insurance company should be on a sinking straight away.

Why was the obvious not metioned earlier??

 

Folks sitting at their desk, playing candy crush, please pick up the phone, it's on your desk somewhere

Edited February 2, 2015 by bigcol

[Arthur Marshall]

There may be no insurance for sinking if the owner only has 3rd party. I don't think my policy covers me for recovery after sinking. It's odd that it's burnt out and sunk in the middle of the canal - was it stolen and vandalised? That might affect liability.

[Athy]

 

 

 

the boat once recovered should be kept till the savage bill is paid.

 

 

Col

You've obviously had experience of the type of company which carries out this work.

[Pete & Helen]

Can't agree more with Laurance and Bigcol.

 

The Upper Peak had a sinking and it was just left to fall apart. It wasnt easy getting past and I think one or two boats must have added to the damage

 

It started like this, where it would have taken very little to recover it

http://s1312.photobucket.com/user/pedroc321/media/crew2_zps9043de14.jpg.html

 

 

and soon ended up like this,with bits floating along the cut

http://s1312.photobucket.com/user/pedroc321/media/crew1_zpsf8dab743.jpg.html

 

In my mind (and others are quite at liberty to disagree) There should be in the licence agreement that CRT give the owner x days to provide them with a plan of re-floating / moving the boat, and that all 3 parties (which includes the insurance) work together. CRT should have the responsibility of contacting the owner if he is not around when the boat sinks, after all we give them contact details. There should be the ability of CRT to do the work themselves if they have taken all possible steps to contact the owner and can't, and the boat is causing an obstruction or pollution risk.

Should all insurance policies cover recovery after a sinking?

Edited February 2, 2015 by Pete & Helen

[Alf Roberts]

there is. it's called Section 8 ( yes, that section 8 ) drafted to deal with exactly this. it was never intended as an enforcement tool it was intended to provide a route to firstly get the owner to deal with and secondly to enable CRT to deal with 'sunk, stranded or abandoned boats' if the owner failed to.

 

That it is now used as an eviction tool rather than the original intention is, to borrow Nigel's phrase, perverse.

 

incidentally, all marine insurances contain a salvage provision as this is intrinsically 'third party'.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Arthur Marshall]

incidentally, all marine insurances contain a salvage provision as this is intrinsically 'third party'.

So it does - my error.

[Laurence Hogg]

The incident is now reported to the Environment Agency as a high pollution risk, the incident number is 1310715.

CRT seem so laid back on incidents. At no point on the Wyrley was any warning of the obstruction posted, our boat passed Pelsall, Birchills and Sneyd junctions where all should have had a navigation warning.

[jenlyn]

Not much chance of them seeing a sunken boat from a computer screen in Milton Keynes.

Perhaps the data inputter is on holiday, or extended leave.

[bigcol]

Well done Lawrence,

 

Lawrence may be the only person who's picked up the phone and done something about this today,

 

Be nice to know what plan of action now the report is going, who's now picking up the phone?

Edited February 2, 2015 by bigcol

[Laurence Hogg]

The EA number to ring is 0800 80 70 60 and quote the reference 1310715.

[Emerald Fox]

Will CRT's Managing Director have to forego his annual bonus because of his/her lack of interest / tardiness in this matter?

[Laurence Hogg]

Will update this tomorrow.

[Rufford]

Just put up a poster in Bloxwich with the location of the sunken STEEL boat and Im sure it will be recovered in no time ;-)