Jump to content

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

Laurence Hogg

By Laurence Hogg
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Dave_P Veteran

Dave_PDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

On a serious point, part (5) of section 8 of the 1983 act states:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of this section the Board may at any time move without notice a relevant craft if it be an obstruction or a source of danger."
This boat is both an obstruction and a source of danger. They ought to move it, irrespective of insurance/ownership issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laurence Hogg Veteran

Laurence Hogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is the situation today, the boat has slipped towards the towpath and passing it now will be very difficult, CRT have done nothing as far as I can see, I was in Broad St depot this morning and not even a notice is posted there.

 

gallery_5000_522_163183.jpg

 

gallery_5000_522_40454.jpg

 

WILL KEEP YOU POSTED

Link to comment
Share on other sites
onionbargee Influencer

onionbargee

Posted
Posted

CRT only have just a skeleton staff, and in the winter they are all on the maintaince programme. If boats can get round this then they ain't bothered, they will see it as the insurance companies or owners problem. CRT is run by supermarket managers who have no pride in the canals, its just a business.

 

There was a burnt out plastic cruiser sunk round my neck of the woods for maybe a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted

CRT only have just a skeleton staff, and in the winter they are all on the maintaince programme. If boats can get round this then they ain't bothered, they will see it as the insurance companies or owners problem. CRT is run by supermarket managers who have no pride in the canals, its just a business.

 

There was a burnt out plastic cruiser sunk round my neck of the woods for maybe a year.

True. A few years ago I was on Alton loaded when a boat sank mid channel near Hall Green stop lock. I couldn't get through the gap but all the hire boats could.

 

I contacted BW, as was, but no attendance for two days. Eventually I was forced to have a run at the gap knowing full well what would happen. rolleyes.gif When I phoned them to say I was well stuck and boats were now queuing, it took them 45 minute to attend.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLWP Veteran II

RLWP

Posted
Posted

 

Is this the boat that C&RT said they had tried to move but couldn't because it's 'grounded', and were now going to check daily to ensure that it hasn't moved ?

What a bunch of clowns

 

 

This is the situation today, the boat has slipped towards the towpath and passing it now will be very difficult

 

I thought I had heard of sunken boats moving before

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

I thought I had heard of sunken boats moving before

 

Richard

You're quite right, they should have used a lot more of the red and white hazard tape to stop it from slipping a couple of feet further into the channel. Do you think it's moved far enough to be in a different 'place' now, or will they still have to serve a Patrol Notice on it for overstaying ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cuthound Veteran II

cuthoundDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

This is the situation today, the boat has slipped towards the towpath and passing it now will be very difficult, CRT have done nothing as far as I can see, I was in Broad St depot this morning and not even a notice is posted there.gallery_5000_522_163183.jpggallery_5000_522_40454.jpgWILL KEEP YOU POSTED

OMG, the leaking pollutants have caused the canal to solidify! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

There are a couple of assumptions being drawn about this boat which I am not sure are backed up by facts, unless someone can come forward to verify them. The first assumption seems to be that the relevant parties know who the boat owner actually is, do we know this for certain? We are told that 'he' regularly moors in this area but that doesn't mean that we know who 'he' is. The second assumption is that the boat has insurance, again do we know this for a fact? Do we even know if it was licenced? (the means by which CRT would know the owner).

 

I was curious about this boat when I first saw this thread since I posted on 5th January on another thread that there was a boat moored by Olinthus bridge which wasn't moored to the bank in that it had a chain over the boats into the water and a rope over the stern into the water, but no mooring line to the bank. I'd be interested to know if this is the same boat. Unfortunately due to the fire damage it is difficult to tell but if anyone knows the name of this sunken boat, I'd recognise if I saw it. The curious bit is if it is the same boat as I saw moored, it raises the question of how the arsonist got aboard the boat since I can't see the average yob wading into a freezing cold canal to set fire to a boat.

 

Perhaps the lack of enthusiam from CRT for recovery of the boat is if they have no owner details (and it is currently on a VERY lightly used piece of frozen canal) they will have to carry the cost of recovery and once they've raised it they will then have to store it somewhere, or do something else with it. From our experience of going around that part of the BCN this winter, the number of boaters inconvenienced by this wreck will probably be in single figures!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sabcat Rising Star

Sabcat

Posted
Posted

There are a couple of assumptions being drawn about this boat which I am not sure are backed up by facts, unless someone can come forward to verify them. The first assumption seems to be that the relevant parties know who the boat owner actually is, do we know this for certain? We are told that 'he' regularly moors in this area but that doesn't mean that we know who 'he' is. The second assumption is that the boat has insurance, again do we know this for a fact? Do we even know if it was licenced? (the means by which CRT would know the owner).

 

I was curious about this boat when I first saw this thread since I posted on 5th January on another thread that there was a boat moored by Olinthus bridge which wasn't moored to the bank in that it had a chain over the boats into the water and a rope over the stern into the water, but no mooring line to the bank. I'd be interested to know if this is the same boat. Unfortunately due to the fire damage it is difficult to tell but if anyone knows the name of this sunken boat, I'd recognise if I saw it. The curious bit is if it is the same boat as I saw moored, it raises the question of how the arsonist got aboard the boat since I can't see the average yob wading into a freezing cold canal to set fire to a boat.

 

Perhaps the lack of enthusiam from CRT for recovery of the boat is if they have no owner details (and it is currently on a VERY lightly used piece of frozen canal) they will have to carry the cost of recovery and once they've raised it they will then have to store it somewhere, or do something else with it. From our experience of going around that part of the BCN this winter, the number of boaters inconvenienced by this wreck will probably be in single figures!

 

There's no assumption needed. The cut is obstructed, it's CRT's job to sort it. So far they haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

 

There's no assumption needed. The cut is obstructed, it's CRT's job to sort it. So far they haven't.

 

 

Bigger fish to fry, like persecuting historic boat owners for not displaying the registration numbers of their licenced craft in the prescribed size and format.

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

 

 

Bigger fish to fry, like persecuting historic boat owners for not displaying the registration numbers of their licenced craft in the prescribed size and format.

 

 

MtB

You should not joke about such things. It's an £18 fine and also a serious breach of T&C's for which the licence can be taken away.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wonder what counts as a trivial breach....


You should not joke about such things. It's an £18 fine and also a serious breach of T&C's for which the licence can be taken away.

 

 

Are you SURE?

 

Nigel would have us believe the T&Cs are optional and provided the boat has insurance, a BSS and <something else wot I can't remember> CRT are obliged to issue a licence.

 

 

MtB

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wonder what counts as a trivial breach....

 

 

 

Are you SURE?

 

 

 

Nigel would have us believe the T&Cs are optional and provided the boat has insurance, a BSS and <something else wot I can't remember> CRT are obliged to issue a licence.

 

 

MtB

The Trust has used its alledged powers under s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 to amend a susequent Act of Parliment. In regard to the historic boat owner, it has taken a clause in an Act and replaced it with an amended version in its own T&Cs. It has replaced an £18 fine with the ability to remove a licence.

 

However, Nigel is correct because CaRT has stopped short of claiming power to alter the 1995 Act such that an owner can not simply reapply.

 

I am informed that the Trust intends to close the loophole of boaters owning more than one boat by ammending its T&Cs to enable it seize all boats for any contravention of its T&Cs.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted

 

I am informed that the Trust intends to close the loophole of boaters owning more than one boat by ammending its T&Cs to enable it seize all boats for any contravention of its T&Cs.

Shouldn't that read " in an attempt to con boaters into thinking we can lawfully seize . . . " . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.