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

[Tony Dunkley]

 

How do you recover costs from someone with no money? ------- Answer : - The 1983 British Waterways Act.

 

It would be worth your while acquainting yourself with the legal responsibilites surrounding remainder waterways vs cruiseways.------------- Answer : - I already know them, hence the T & C's question.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Paul C]

I think that's the crux of the issue - you believe that CRT will be able to successfully recover 100% of their costs using the powers they have (under 1983 British Waterways Act). I believe they would be at risk of not recovering some or any of their costs if they acted too hastily in certain situations. I agree that on some occasions time is of the essence in acting quickly to prevent eg pollution or further property damage, but I am unconvinced this is one of those situations. They are certainly losing the goodwill of the public in leaving this boat for so long, however.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think that's the crux of the issue - you believe that CRT will be able to successfully recover 100% of their costs using the powers they have (under 1983 British Waterways Act). I believe they would be at risk of not recovering some or any of their costs if they acted too hastily in certain situations. I agree that on some occasions time is of the essence in acting quickly to prevent eg pollution or further property damage, but I am unconvinced this is one of those situations. They are certainly losing the goodwill of the public in leaving this boat for so long, however.

Why do you believe that ?

[Sabcat]

I think that's the crux of the issue - you believe that CRT will be able to successfully recover 100% of their costs using the powers they have (under 1983 British Waterways Act). I believe they would be at risk of not recovering some or any of their costs if they acted too hastily in certain situations. I agree that on some occasions time is of the essence in acting quickly to prevent eg pollution or further property damage, but I am unconvinced this is one of those situations. They are certainly losing the goodwill of the public in leaving this boat for so long, however.

 

So what if the owner says "I've got no insurance and no money, you're getting nothing from me". Do I take a couple of planters with me next time I pass that way and make a feature of it?

 

It's a lot of crap. CRT are responsible for moving that boat. They haven't because they're a waste of time.

[Timleech]

 

So what if the owner says "I've got no insurance and no money, you're getting nothing from me". Do I take a couple of planters with me next time I pass that way and make a feature of it?

 

It's a lot of crap. CRT are responsible for moving that boat. They haven't because they're a waste of time.

 

They can't just 'do' things these days, unless it's a real emergency.

I'm not party to the details, but anything like that will need ownership issues thoroughly investigated, and if they decide to take action they'll need Method Statements, Risk assessments and all the rest, budget will need to be applied for etc. I think jobs like that tend to be handed over to contactors now, which means even more paperwork.

Not criticising or defending, just saying.

 

There was a fibreglass cruiser sunk on the lock mooring at Dutton for 14 months, not blocking navigation but definitely in the way on a busy waterway (once the breach had been 'repaired'), and restricted me from using my moorings in the manner I was paying for.

Complaints went unanswered. Some did get a response, along the lines of 'it's working through the system'. I could easily have raised it myself, and offered to do so, but they weren't interested probably because I didn't jump through all the Achilles hoops to stay on their Approved Vendor list. I think they have an agreement with one company for jobs like that in this area.

 

Tim

[onionbargee]

If you over stay on a visitor mooring CRT will take full responsibility of the situation, but when it comes to something they might incur a cost they magically loose interest !

[Emerald Fox]

(A quote from above)

"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."

 

CRT could deal with this issue, and then send the bill to the owner's insurance company. How simple can it be?

Why is everything in Britain so twisted & unnecessarily complicated. And broken?

[Laurence Hogg]

I think many of us on here have forgotten the real problem that exists here in Wednesfield. This wreck is leaking DIESEL into the canal and this is visible over quite a patch. Both the EA and CRT know this yet no action is taken to secure the problem. Who else could be contacted to make these people wake up that the waterway is getting polluted and wildlife is in danger?

[mark99]

I think many of us on here have forgotten the real problem that exists here in Wednesfield. This wreck is leaking DIESEL into the canal and this is visible over quite a patch. Both the EA and CRT know this yet no action is taken to secure the problem. Who else could be contacted to make these people wake up that the waterway is getting polluted and wildlife is in danger?

 

The local angling club (if there is one) may go via the Angling Trust to put pressure on CaRT.

 

Fish Legal (formerly the Anglers Co-operative Association) have a very successful record (don't think they have lost a case) of prosecuting polluters (under Common Law) unfortunately that's, IIRC, only after damage is caused.

 

NB The slick may harm birdlife too.

Edited February 11, 2015 by mark99

[Tony Dunkley]

I think many of us on here have forgotten the real problem that exists here in Wednesfield. This wreck is leaking DIESEL into the canal and this is visible over quite a patch. Both the EA and CRT know this yet no action is taken to secure the problem. Who else could be contacted to make these people wake up that the waterway is getting polluted and wildlife is in danger?

In fact, if the EA were functioning as they should be and fulfilling their own brief, they would be pressurising C&RT into raising it without delay, and holding them responsible for the pollution.

[matty40s]

Natural England will put the cat amongst the pigeons.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

They can't just 'do' things these days, unless it's a real emergency.

I'm not party to the details, but anything like that will need ownership issues thoroughly investigated, and if they decide to take action they'll need Method Statements, Risk assessments and all the rest, budget will need to be applied for etc. I think jobs like that tend to be handed over to contactors now, which means even more paperwork.

 

They don't need consider the ownership issue Tim, the 1983 Act gave them everything they need to take immediate action and full control in a situation such as this.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

So what if the owner says "I've got no insurance and no money, you're getting nothing from me". Do I take a couple of planters with me next time I pass that way and make a feature of it?

 

It's a lot of crap. CRT are responsible for moving that boat. They haven't because they're a waste of time.

I think that you'll find that the initial responsibility for moving the boat lies with the owner. CRT have the powers to step in if he can't/wont exercise that responsibility but they have to give him the opportunity to recover his own boat by whatever means. If they jump in with the (unnecessary) urgency that a lot on this thread ask for he would be well within his rights to refuse to reimburse CRT because he was making his own arrangements. I don't know who the owner is so don't know whether he is insured or not.

 

I think many of us on here have forgotten the real problem that exists here in Wednesfield. This wreck is leaking DIESEL into the canal and this is visible over quite a patch. Both the EA and CRT know this yet no action is taken to secure the problem. Who else could be contacted to make these people wake up that the waterway is getting polluted and wildlife is in danger?

Just how big is this horrific oil slick from this boat? Since was burnt there is a possibility that a lot of the fuel has gone anyway. I haven't been past it since the fire so I don't know how much fuel it is (or isn't) losing. On the subject of pollution, I've just come up the Dudley No2 canal and there was diesel on the surface for a lot of the way , what are we going to do about that?? Last year I travelled the K & A from Bathhampton Swing Bridge through to Dundas where the diesel on the water surface was so thick it didn't even refract the light, diesel pollution of the waterway is unfortunately too common these days. Perhaps we should be seeking out and prosecuting ALL those boats that do so.

In fact, if the EA were functioning as they should be and fulfilling their own brief, they would be pressurising C&RT into raising it without delay, and holding them responsible for the pollution.

So EA join CRT and BW in your hate list, is there any waterways authority that you don't despise? Port of London Authority?? Penzance Harbourmaster???

[Tony Dunkley]

I think that you'll find that the initial responsibility for moving the boat lies with the owner. CRT have the powers to step in if he can't/wont exercise that responsibility but they have to give him the opportunity to recover his own boat by whatever means. If they jump in with the (unnecessary) urgency that a lot on this thread ask for he would be well within his rights to refuse to reimburse CRT because he was making his own arrangements. I don't know who the owner is so don't know whether he is insured or not. . . .

. . . . . Rubbish

 

 

 

Just how big is this horrific oil slick from this boat? Since was burnt there is a possibility that a lot of the fuel has gone anyway. I haven't been past it since the fire so I don't know how much fuel it is (or isn't) losing. On the subject of pollution, I've just come up the Dudley No2 canal and there was diesel on the surface for a lot of the way , what are we going to do about that?? Last year I travelled the K & A from Bathhampton Swing Bridge through to Dundas where the diesel on the water surface was so thick it didn't even refract the light, diesel pollution of the waterway is unfortunately too common these days. Perhaps we should be seeking out and prosecuting ALL those boats that do so. . . .

. . . . . Illogical

 

 

 

So EA join CRT and BW in your hate list, is there any waterways authority that you don't despise? Port of London Authority?? Penzance Harbourmaster? . . . Silly

Ten out of ten for consistency.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Paul C]

Why do you believe that ?

 

Other posters have outlined the areas of difficulty.

 

I think many of us on here have forgotten the real problem that exists here in Wednesfield. This wreck is leaking DIESEL into the canal and this is visible over quite a patch. Both the EA and CRT know this yet no action is taken to secure the problem. Who else could be contacted to make these people wake up that the waterway is getting polluted and wildlife is in danger?

 

See post #94.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Other posters have outlined the areas of difficulty.

 

And they, also, are wrong . . . . the difficulties exist solely in your collective imaginations, and are a sad illustration of the ease with which an incompetent and useless authority such as C&RT can excuse their failures.

[Paul C]

And they, also, are wrong . . . . the difficulties exist solely in your collective imaginations, and are a sad illustration of the ease with which an incompetent and useless authority such as C&RT can excuse their failures.

 

I appreciate its your opinion to express, however I am not convinced. I'd need something more solid to go on than single word insults like "Rubbish", "Illogical" or "Silly" to sway me. You might have a point, but its clouded by this pervasive and overriding grudge you have with CRT which seems to cloud your ability to put forward balanced and constructive arguments.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I appreciate its your opinion to express, however I am not convinced. I'd need something more solid to go on than single word insults like "Rubbish", "Illogical" or "Silly" to sway me. You might have a point, but its clouded by this pervasive and overriding grudge you have with CRT which seems to cloud your ability to put forward balanced and constructive arguments.

 

Not insults, but my assessment of the content of the Post.

 

What you, incorrectly, describe as " this pervasive and overriding grudge you have with CRT " is no such thing at all. My opinion of C&RT, and those responsible for running it, is based on their performance and record since the formation of the Trust, and the benefit of 54 years of observing how other Navigation Authorities operated and worked, with 46 of those years as either a working boatman or a commercial boat operator, dealing with them as part of running a business.

 

As to the 'balanced and constructive arguments' you mention, they are distributed amongst the Posts I've made since joining this Forum, frequently obscured by a lot of ill informed tripe dished up in irrational and unthinking defence of C&RT, but they're there to read if you want to.

[Paul C]

Ok no worries. Its just the way it appears.

[Tony Dunkley]

Ok no worries. Its just the way it appears.

 

I'm sure you're right, and PR is not something I've ever gone in for, especially not in the way Parry and C&RT do, as a means of disguising incompetence and failure.

 

There you are, I'm at it again.

[Captain Zim]

Watching this post unfold is like a perfect example of everything that is wrong in modern Britain. A boat has sunk. On all fronts the common sense approach is to float it and get it out of the way. Instead, we have multiple counter arguments for why this cannot happen. It is fascinating but also ridiculous. I might adapt it for a farcical play. I'll change the names of course, to avoid embarrassment.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Captain Zim

[RLWP]

Watching this post unfold is like a perfect example of everything that is wrong in modern Britain. A boat has sunk. On all fronts the common sense approach is to float it and get it out of the way. Instead, we have multiple counter arguments for why this cannot happen. It is fascinating but also ridiculous. I might adapt it for a farcical play. I'll change the names of course, to avoid embarrassment.

 

We have nothing of the sort! We have a burned out and sunken boat, and seven pages of speculation by people on an internet forum. No-one directly involved is contributing to this thread

 

Richard

[Paul C]

Watching this post unfold is like a perfect example of everything that is wrong in modern Britain. A boat has sunk. On all fronts the common sense approach is to float it and get it out of the way. Instead, we have multiple counter arguments for why this cannot happen. It is fascinating but also ridiculous. I might adapt it for a farcical play. I'll change the names of course, to avoid embarrassment.

 

So why haven't you yourself floated it and got it out the way? After all, its common sense.....

[Captain Zim]

That's a good question. What are the rules of salvage in terms of claiming back costs?

 

We have nothing of the sort! We have a burned out and sunken boat, and seven pages of speculation by people on an internet forum. No-one directly involved is contributing to this thread

 

Richard

I'm not sure I understand what that's got to do with it? CRT are the authority and regardless of the ownership of the boat, they are best placed to float it and get it out of the way. Worry about the details afterwards. Like I said, a perfect example of prevarication and long excuses for doing nothing.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

We have nothing of the sort! We have a burned out and sunken boat, and seven pages of speculation by people on an internet forum. No-one directly involved is contributing to this thread

 

Richard

The two parties directly involved are the owner and C&RT. Would you expect either of them to want to draw attention to their shortcomings by posting on this Forum ? In any case both would appear to be overwhelmed by the situation and without either the will or ability to deal with it.