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

[RLWP]

 

How many boats are queueing to get through?

 

None. There is a space between the boat and the towpath, there are alternative routes and this is a remaindered waterway

 

Richard

[alan_fincher]

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.

 

 

 

 

So where are you getting that £18 fine information from, Allan?

 

Giving the unfortunate tone of the email that they sent out on this issue, I'm surprised any possib;e fine or removal of licence wasn't threatened.

 

Or should your post be taken as tongue in cheek?

[Emerald Fox]

Slap a notice on it saying 'Free to anyone who wants this' if the owner can't be found. It will be gone by this afternoon.

 

And if the owner turns up and says Where's my boat, it's been stolen! his insurance company will compensate him for the theft.

 

(and you can take that notice off our boat that says 'Free to anyone who wants this', heh!)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

So where are you getting that £18 fine information from, Allan?

 

Giving the unfortunate tone of the email that they sent out on this issue, I'm surprised any possib;e fine or removal of licence wasn't threatened.

 

Or should your post be taken as tongue in cheek?

It's the BW 1971 Act Section 9(1) and 9(5) but rereading its a £20 fine.

 

 

[alan_fincher]

It's the BW 1971 Act Section 9(1) and 9(5) but rereading its a £20 fine.

 

 

 

Could be cheaper to give them £10 for a set of Index Number plates from their "time limited" offer then!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Could be cheaper to give them £10 for a set of Index Number plates from their "time limited" offer then!

The T&C's suggest that if you do not display an index number then they may attach an index number to your boat which you must not remove

 

You may wish to ask them if the £10 includes the free fitting service.

[Tim Lewis]

This picture was taken by our crew 31st January, it shows a arson attacked boat sunk on the Wyrley and Essington canal, CRT have known about this for days so why is it still there?

In the old BW days this would have been removed asap, now all we have is some tape (useless) a oil boom (useless) and no action. No warning signs posted just come along and try to get round it. Not easy with a 3ft 3" drafted boat!

 

Is this what we expect from the new regime?

 

It's made the papers:

 

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/02/10/remove-this-eyesore-now-calls-for-boat-clean-up-near-wolverhampton-amid-pollution-fear/

 

Tim

[Sabcat]

CRT are a shower of crap.

[Arthur Marshall]

CRT are a shower of crap.

You can always rely on someone here for positive thinking and contructive posts....

[Tony Dunkley]

According to the newspaper article linked to above this wreck has now been there for a month. Why, I wonder, was it deemed to be far more important and urgent to seize and remove a boat from the Trent at Newark whilst ignoring this one. The boat at Newark was afloat and moored to private land, not an obstruction or pollution hazard, and above all was not even on their waters at the time, whilst this one actually is offending on all counts.

[onionbargee]

The window holes arent even under the water level, nor is the stern, only the front doors are , a decent pump would have that up in no time. A days work for CRT, if they had any motivation at all.

[Laurence Hogg]

According to the newspaper article linked to above this wreck has now been there for a month. Why, I wonder, was it deemed to be far more important and urgent to seize and remove a boat from the Trent at Newark whilst ignoring this one. The boat at Newark was afloat and moored to private land, not an obstruction or pollution hazard, and above all was not even on their waters at the time, whilst this one actually is offending on all counts.

 

CRT and the local councils have spent a fortune dredging, cutting back foliage & trees, tidying the towpath, installing moorings, which in all are better than many a cruiseway and actually have turned the Wyrley and Esssington into a really nice canal to go along, yet they leave this on show for HOW long?

 

CRT you are crap at your job, this is not the way to portray your navigations and I hope Phil Bateman gets his teeth into their backside really sharp. If Dean Davies was still the manager this would not be happening.

[bigcol]

Just returned to this Thread.

 

Surely this boat should have been long gone!!

Cannot believe CRT would allow a boat to stay so long at the same place!.

Well past the 14 day stay allowance.

 

 

Seriously there's got to be another story here, what about the environmental issues, how flipping long does CRT have to realize that it's just about picking up a phone, you have one on your desk! get it gone today, forget the emails etc, it's nice to talk.

 

Col

[RLWP]

Seriously there's got to be another story here, what about the environmental issues, how flipping long does CRT have to realize that it's just about picking up a phone, you have one on your desk! get it gone today, forget the emails etc, it's nice to talk.

 

Col

 

With my license money? On a remaindered canal where there is little traffic, a way past the boat and alternative routes and it is someone elses responsibility?

 

Richard

[Tony Dunkley]

 

With my license money? On a remaindered canal where there is little traffic, a way past the boat and alternative routes and it is someone elses responsibility?

 

Richard

A sunken derelict boat obstructing a navigation is ultimately the responsibility of the navigation authority. The excuses you're making for C&RT doing nothing are just irrelevant and nonsense.

If this boat was raised by C&RT using their own equipment and staff the real cost would in fact be no more than a few pounds . . . . a theoretical cost 'on paper' and little more. There would, however, be a potential profit in it as, depending on the eventual outcome, C&RT could find themselves in a position to sell the boat and pocket the proceeds.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

A sunken derelict boat obstructing a navigation is ultimately the responsibility of the navigation authority. The excuses you're making for C&RT doing nothing are just irrelevant and nonsense.

If this boat was raised by C&RT using their own equipment and staff the real cost would in fact be no more than a few pounds . . . . a theoretical cost 'on paper' and little more. There would, however, be a potential profit in it as, depending on the eventual outcome, C&RT could find themselves in a position to sell the boat and pocket the proceeds.

I presume that you are well acquainted with this area? Agreeing that raising the boat would be comparatively cheap there is then the problem of what to do with it. If there is an insurance issue they cannot dispose of it until that has been resolved (assuming that it was insured). So CRT have to take it somewhere to store it since there isn't much in the way of moorings around there. If they just try to moor it to the towpath side at that location (not necessarily particularly easy)some nugget will just sink it again for them. Norton Canes is probably the nearest reasonable secure storage place (11 miles away) but since this is a private yard they will have to pay to store it there.The nearest CRT yard I can think of would be at Ocker Hill, again 11 miles away plus 8 locks.Both options would involve tying up CRT workers who could be speeding up the stoppage work. As I said before, on a piece of VERY lightly used canal (at the moment) why is there any rush? Boats can still get through and the owner should be organising some form of recovery that doesn't involve CRT expenditure.

 

Oh sorry I forgot, your whole raison d'etre is to give CRT/BW or anyone else involved in try to run the waterways a good kicking at every available opportunity, my mistake

Edited February 11, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Paul C]

A sunken derelict boat obstructing a navigation is ultimately the responsibility of the navigation authority. The excuses you're making for C&RT doing nothing are just irrelevant and nonsense.

If this boat was raised by C&RT using their own equipment and staff the real cost would in fact be no more than a few pounds . . . . a theoretical cost 'on paper' and little more. There would, however, be a potential profit in it as, depending on the eventual outcome, C&RT could find themselves in a position to sell the boat and pocket the proceeds.

 

Its not obstructing the navigation, boats can get through.

[matty40s]

I am pretty sure I would not have got Baldock past there, I was dredging the centre channel as it was.An unladen Barnet only just made it past when the hulk was to the side.

[Paul C]

A sunken derelict boat obstructing a cruiseway is ultimately the responsibility of the navigation authority. The excuses you're making for C&RT doing nothing are just irrelevant and nonsense.

If this boat was raised by C&RT using their own equipment and staff the real cost would in fact be no more than a few pounds . . . . a theoretical cost 'on paper' and little more. There would, however, be a potential profit in it as, depending on the eventual outcome, C&RT could find themselves in a position to sell the boat and pocket the proceeds.

 

Its a remainder waterway, not a cruiseway. Ultimately, the responsibility for keeping cruiseways open is CRTs, but for remainder waterways, there is no requirement.

 

Probably better trying on the pollution angle, rather than the obstruction angle.

[gaggle]

 

Its not obstructing the navigation, boats can get through.

Yes it is an obstruction that can be passed , its not a blockage but certainly having to sail around it yes it is an obstruction.

[Paul C]

Yes it is an obstruction that can be passed , its not a blockage but certainly having to sail around it yes it is an obstruction.

 

Ok fair enough - see post #94.

[Tony Dunkley]

I presume that you are well acquainted with this area? Agreeing that raising the boat would be comparatively cheap there is then the problem of what to do with it. If there is an insurance issue they cannot dispose of it until that has been resolved (assuming that it was insured). So CRT have to take it somewhere to store it since there isn't much in the way of moorings around there. If they just try to moor it to the towpath side at that location (not necessarily particularly easy)some nugget will just sink it again for them. Norton Canes is probably the nearest reasonable secure storage place (11 miles away) but since this is a private yard they will have to pay to store it there.The nearest CRT yard I can think of would be at Ocker Hill, again 11 miles away plus 8 locks.Both options would involve tying up CRT workers who could be speeding up the stoppage work. As I said before, on a piece of VERY lightly used canal (at the moment) why is there any rush? Boats can still get through and the owner should be organising some form of recovery that doesn't involve CRT expenditure.

 

That's nonsense, any question re. insurance is totally irrelevant, and in any event is a matter for which the boat owner is responsible. C&RT have the statutory powers to remove the boat and recover the cost of doing so.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Its a remainder waterway, not a cruiseway. Ultimately, the responsibility for keeping cruiseways open is CRTs, but for remainder waterways, there is no requirement.

 

 

Do C&RT suspend their Licence T & C's when a boat enters a so- called 'remainder waterway' ?

[Paul C]

That's nonsense, any question re. insurance is totally irrelevant, and in any event is a matter for which the boat owner is responsible. C&RT have the statutory powers to remove the boat and recover the cost of doing so.

 

How do you recover costs from someone with no money?

 

Do C&RT suspend their Licence T & C's when a boat enters a so- called 'remainder waterway' ?

 

It would be worth your while acquainting yourself with the legal responsibilites surrounding remainder waterways vs cruiseways.

[alan_fincher]

The T&C's suggest that if you do not display an index number then they may attach an index number to your boat which you must not remove

 

You may wish to ask them if the £10 includes the free fitting service.

 

I suspect it is more likely to be like if you want car accessories fitted by Halfrauds!