Jump to content

Featured Posts

All good points, Jon, but I wasn't aware that an inability to afford the cost of living somewhere (anywhere) was a valid excuse for doing so without paying.

 

 

It is on here, silly! And always has been.

 

This place is like the strange looking glass world of Alice in Wonderland compared to the real world out there.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points, Jon, but I wasn't aware that an inability to afford the cost of living somewhere (anywhere) was a valid excuse for doing so without paying.

 

nope me neither. i'm not trying to make excuses and have been very vocal about these squats and the impact they have on other river users, especially when it comes to forcing the hand of the authorities to go down the legal route of acquiring new powers to remove them. we'd all love to see some moorings being created locally but the city council simply won't allow it. This is a rowing town don't yew know. The majority riparian landowners in Oxford are city council, university, CRT and the EA, each of which are engaged through UMBEG in restricting the ability to live on boats in Oxford rather than recognising the benefits of it.

 

I'm not a residential boater by the way, I only work here.

 

 

 

Edited to add: I'm not trying to make any particular point by the way. Just laying out facts as i see them to see what opinions there are out there about this. I've got my own opinions but open to listening to others. Discussion forum, ennit.

Edited by Jon Ody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the site and the mill stream on googlemaps it's hard to see why it isn't EA waters.

 

The millstream is clearly part of the Thames so why would an EA boat licence not be required? Ownership of the land there is a red herring surely, where boat licencing, BSS, insurance etc is concerned.


I'm sure UMBEG will have been totally on the case meaning the boat probably WAS legitimately licenced, if not moored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

nope me neither. i'm not trying to make excuses and have been very vocal about these squats and the impact they have on other river users, especially when it comes to forcing the hand of the authorities to go down the legal route of acquiring new powers to remove them. we'd all love to see some moorings being created locally but the city council simply won't allow it. This is a rowing town don't yew know. The majority riparian landowners in Oxford are city council, university, CRT and the EA, each of which are engaged through UMBEG in restricting the ability to live on boats in Oxford rather than recognising the benefits of it.

 

I'm not a residential boater by the way, I only work here.

 

 

 

Edited to add: I'm not trying to make any particular point by the way. Just laying out facts as i see them to see what opinions there are out there about this. I've got my own opinions but open to listening to others. Discussion forum, ennit. smile.png

But with the history of decrepit boats mooring on the canal and Castle Mill Stream it is no wonder that the Council doesn't want a return to the situation that existed pre-1985. That is why the Agenda 21 moorings were created https://www.crtmoorings.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=2727https://www.crtmoorings.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=2727

 

Having created those moorings to accommodate many of the boaters that were living on the Hythe Bridge Arm and nearby, it is hardly surprising that they don't want the whole situation that existed then to start up again AND have Agenda 21 provision available.

Roger

Looking at the site and the mill stream on googlemaps it's hard to see why it isn't EA waters.

 

The millstream is clearly part of the Thames so why would an EA boat licence not be required? Ownership of the land there is a red herring surely, where boat licencing, BSS, insurance etc is concerned.

I'm sure UMBEG will have been totally on the case meaning the boat probably WAS legitimately licenced, if not moored.

One would think that but it has been a grey area of ownership (neither CRT (BW) or EA) for decades hence the way that people have been able to moor without any real sanction on the stream.

Roger

Edited by Albion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My instincts tell me that this boat wouldn't have had BSS, license or insurance. I don't have any evidence for any of that though.

 

I will point out that having a BSS certificate doesn't guarantee that you have a safe boat, or vice versa. There are many crooked BSS examiners out there and even the good ones can make mistakes. I've seen many boats in the oxford area with BSS certificates and licenses and insurance and moorings etc etc that one could quite accurately describe as deathtraps. i'm not saying that it's an oxford problem either, the boat safety scheme shortcomings are a national problem.

Have you knowledge of crooked BSS examiners? Rob at the BSS office would love to know as they can be removed from the scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard so much of a whisper of this.

 

Nor have I.

 

I'm sure word would get around if there was an examiner willing to issue BSS certs on boaters 'self-declaration of conformity' :D

I don;t think an examiner would ever do it, for fear of the legal consequences in the event of a fatality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the site and the mill stream on googlemaps it's hard to see why it isn't EA waters.

 

The millstream is clearly part of the Thames so why would an EA boat licence not be required? Ownership of the land there is a red herring surely, where boat licencing, BSS, insurance etc is concerned.

 

I would understand it to be EA waters too. Wasn't there a kerfuffle recently about needing an EA license in order to exit Isis lock to turn around to come back onto the canal? to get from the canal to the mill stream you'd have to exit isis lock onto EA waters and then go upstream under a low bridge. it's quite likely that EA patrol boats wouldn't fit under that bridge, or even through the sheepwash perhaps.

 

BSS and insurance aren't legal requirements, but they are required for licensing. I've heard of boaters cancelling their insurance the day after they receive the license for example, and a BSS certificate can be acquired by post for a £50 bung. If they're not being enforced then has a crime been committed?

 

The EA have the powers (since 2012?) to go looking for boats without licenses rather than waiting for them to pass through locks, but that doesn't mean they have the manpower or other resources to do so. I understand that the EA are giving thames boaters a grace period until April to license their boats (EA licenses run from 1st january - 31st december regardless of the date of application). The EA are refusing to issue multiple temporary licenses to boats who are based on the thames, ie they'd need to prove they're visiting from another waterway.

 

it wouldn't surprise me to discover that of the dozen or so boats permanently moored up that stream none of them have licenses (i'm not saying that's the case, just it wouldn't be a surprise). there are quite a few examples of unlicensed boats on the main channel in oxford which aren't being dealt with, let alone tucked away in remote backwaters. (see also the river cherwell, sheepwash channel, dukes cut, iffley weirs stream and the hinksey stream for other hiding places off the main river navigable by a narrowboat, let alone smaller boats on back of houses etc all through the city)

 

I'm sure UMBEG will have been totally on the case meaning the boat probably WAS legitimately licenced, if not moored.

 

Never underestimate the inefficiency of bureaucracy. I get the impression that UMBEG is little more than a talking shop. UMBEG doesn't have any staff to do it's dirty work, and all off the authorities are already stretched beyond their means. The EA is the responsible body and there's as much chance of an oxford boat being unlicensed as anywhere else under their jurisdiction. More, chance of getting away with it perhaps, because of all the potential hiding places for a boat in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nor have I.

 

I'm sure word would get around if there was an examiner willing to issue BSS certs on boaters 'self-declaration of conformity' biggrin.png

I don;t think an examiner would ever do it, for fear of the legal consequences in the event of a fatality.

I have. There are also legal consequences for dodgy MOT testers but it doesn't seem to stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My instincts tell me that this boat wouldn't have had BSS, license or insurance. I don't have any evidence for any of that though.

 

I will point out that having a BSS certificate doesn't guarantee that you have a safe boat, or vice versa. There are many crooked BSS examiners out there and even the good ones can make mistakes. I've seen many boats in the oxford area with BSS certificates and licenses and insurance and moorings etc etc that one could quite accurately describe as deathtraps. i'm not saying that it's an oxford problem either, the boat safety scheme shortcomings are a national problem.

 

 

Please may I have your evidence to support that statement, as I am not aware of the crooked ones.

 

You can PM, phone, email or write in. We will be very happy to consider anything you bring forward that we can act on in some way. I will need names or at least other traceable or specific evidence that we can utilise.

 

Illegality and failing to abide by our conditions of registration are taken extremely seriously. I and my colleagues monitor such matters very closely.

 

This is a general request and anyone can contact us with information in confidence.

 

However, until the evidence is before me, I happy to say that BSS examiners are very conscientious and general diligent. All the guys I talk to, and I know most of the 220 authorised examiners, are interested in your safety, not just the piece of paper.

 

 

 

By the way this is the third fire in which a dog has died since December and as a dog owner, I can understand the absolute devastation of the affected owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you knowledge of crooked BSS examiners? Rob at the BSS office would love to know as they can be removed from the scheme.

 

Send me a PM with contact information and i'll be in touch whenever they come up. Or should I start naming and shaming them publicly here?

 

I'm led to believe that in order for BSS office to act they must receive a complaint from the recipient of the dodgy certificate and can't take any action otherwise, kinda like asking drug addicts to name their dealers. I could produce a list of Oxfordshire examiners and give examples with photographic evidence of unsafe boats that have received BSS certificates from the last five years, but have never acted on it because the beneficiary customer is the one who must complain, not the next engineer to work on the boat who witnesses the examiners shortcomings. It's not in my interests to make enemies amongst local professionals, so I stay out of it. Also it would be quite unfair of me because I only generally see the work of Oxfordshire examiners and I understand the issue to be national. I do recognise that the standard of professional workmanship is higher elsewhere due to err having any kind of boat repair facility at all wheras in Oxford it's DIY or nothing, so that may be where the Oxford safety issues arise from.

 

Think about it: The customer wants an easy pass. The customer actively seeks out an examiner who he knows will pass a boat, whether through ignorance or incompetence or downright criminality. The examiner with the lowest standards gets the most work. The examiners who are thorough get the least work. BSS examiners are self-employed and self-regulating, so the motivation for the examiner is to produce the most passes in as short a time-frame as possible. The system is flawed beyond belief. I've already said it above, having a BSS certificate doesn't suggest that a boat is safe.

 

I'll happily argue the shortcomings of the BSS but that's a whole other topic and i'd need time to dig up the evidence to back up my arguments with.

 

I'd rather see some evidence that the boat safety scheme does work, I think of it more as a(nother) BW PR stunt more for politicians than the public.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please may I have your evidence to support that statement, as I am not aware of the crooked ones.

 

You can PM, phone, email or write in. We will be very happy to consider anything you bring forward that we can act on in some way. I will need names or at least other traceable or specific evidence that we can utilise.

 

Thanks Rob, I'll be in touch.

 

 

 

However, until the evidence is before me, I happy to say that BSS examiners are very conscientious and general diligent. All the guys I talk to, and I know most of the 220 authorised examiners, are interested in your safety, not just the piece of paper.

 

Unfortunately I see the evidence to the contrary quite regularly.

 

 

 

By the way this is the third fire in which a dog has died since December and as a dog owner, I can understand the absolute devastation of the affected owners.

 

Ennit. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EA are on a hiding to nothing - they are constrained by how much they can get from DEFRA and it is said (ridiculously as it might appear) that they don't know how much they've got to spend until October of the calendar year). Such are the wondrous ways of government.

Boating and the like is an even smaller part of EA's function, even though registration fees do contribute a significant proportion of their income (some of which fees are filtered off to other parts of EA's empire).

 

As with CaRT they will remove offending boats and structures but don't really make a huge effort unless there's a reasonable likelihood of recovering their costs.; Any fines go to the courts' funds and only the fine goes to the claimant.

 

EA doesn't own much, locks and lock cuts and some properties. They almost certainly don't own the Castle mill stream and only have responsibility of water management. I am confused (not in this particular case) about where the 'land-grab' really is. Last year on approaching Bossom's (going upstream) I noticed a patch of land - where the mill stream starts - that had been 'fenced off'. There was a number of small boats collected and folks with banners, protesting. Was this not the Land Grab, or another ditto?

The area near St. Barnabas has had boats in various states of disrepair for many years with not attempt to claim ownership - so are these two linked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I could produce a list of Oxfordshire examiners and give examples with photographic evidence of unsafe boats that have received BSS certificates from the last five years, but have never acted on it because the beneficiary customer is the one who must complain, not the next engineer to work on the boat who witnesses the examiners shortcomings.

 

That's a big climb down from your initial assertion that there are 'crooked' BSS examiners, by which I imagine you mean corrupt.

 

I agree with you about the pressure BSS bods must feel to engage in a 'race to the bottom', but that's completely different from alleging BSS bods are selling certs without inspecting the boats.

 

Besides there are plenty of trivial BSS rules that bring the scheme into disrepute. How many people have died, for example, due to breach of the rule requiring there to be a label on the diesel tank filler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one's ever claimed that having a cert makes a boat safe, because you can't. The things have elec, gas and fuel and get knocked around a bit. Keeping it safe is the owner's job. Ive always regarded the BSS as an expensive and pointless exercise really but it's got better (and more expensive) since it started, and at least it reassures me that my gas isn't leaking. I've never heard of being able to get one for a £50 bung and I've never heard of a bent examiner, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's a big climb down from your initial assertion that there are 'crooked' BSS examiners, by which I imagine you mean corrupt.

 

I'm just going to climb all the way down from that one now. I've sent a PM to Rob and hope we can build on that with actual evidence in actual cases.

 

I may be going over the top with words like crooked and bungs and apologise for any offence caused. There are certainly BSS examiners who do not do their jobs as thoroughly as they should, as I'm sure there are in all walks of life. The difference being that if a greengrocer does his job to a low standard they'd get less business as a result, but if a BSS examiner does his work to a low standard he'll get more business as a result. At least that's how it seems to work around here. Here being Oxford, where we've had three boat fires within a mile within six months. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm just going to climb all the way down from that one now. I've sent a PM to Rob and hope we can build on that with actual evidence in actual cases.

 

I may be going over the top with words like crooked and bungs and apologise for any offence caused. There are certainly BSS examiners who do not do their jobs as thoroughly as they should, as I'm sure there are in all walks of life. The difference being that if a greengrocer does his job to a low standard they'd get less business as a result, but if a BSS examiner does his work to a low standard he'll get more business as a result. At least that's how it seems to work around here. Here being Oxford, where we've had three boat fires within a mile within six months. sad.png

 

 

We have the same problem here in the gas industry. Landlord gas safety certificates can be obtained for as little as £30. Not worth even driving to site for that price. One wonders how one's competitors can turn a profit for that price...

 

The possibilty no-one has mentioned yet with three boat fires in such a small area in such a short period of time is that it's arson, and nothing to do with BSS compliance, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Ody

 

You may or may not be linking the fires with the BSS or lack of.

 

Where is the evidence that these fire were caused by something that would have failed the boat for its BSS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised that colleagues vouch for the whiter-than-whiteness of examiners when they also warn us about biased or sharp practice by boat surveyors who are, unless I'm mistaken, often the same people. Is this not correct?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EA are on a hiding to nothing - they are constrained by how much they can get from DEFRA and it is said (ridiculously as it might appear) that they don't know how much they've got to spend until October of the calendar year). Such are the wondrous ways of government.

Boating and the like is an even smaller part of EA's function, even though registration fees do contribute a significant proportion of their income (some of which fees are filtered off to other parts of EA's empire).

 

As with CaRT they will remove offending boats and structures but don't really make a huge effort unless there's a reasonable likelihood of recovering their costs.; Any fines go to the courts' funds and only the fine goes to the claimant.

 

EA doesn't own much, locks and lock cuts and some properties. They almost certainly don't own the Castle mill stream and only have responsibility of water management. I am confused (not in this particular case) about where the 'land-grab' really is. Last year on approaching Bossom's (going upstream) I noticed a patch of land - where the mill stream starts - that had been 'fenced off'. There was a number of small boats collected and folks with banners, protesting. Was this not the Land Grab, or another ditto?

The area near St. Barnabas has had boats in various states of disrepair for many years with not attempt to claim ownership - so are these two linked?

 

The two are linked. One is immediately upstream from Botley Road Bridge (AKA Osney Bridge, the lowest bridge on the thames) on the city/footpath side opposite some allotments, at the backs of houses which front onto Abbey Road. The other is the castle mill stream parallel with the canal opposite college cruisers in Jericho. The Jericho footbridge is immediately next to where the most recent boat fire was.

 

Both land grabs are being managed by a chap called Edward Surridge. His website on the subject is here:

https://communitieslandandboatorg.wordpress.com/

 

I am particularly appalled by the comments that he has attracted from local residents, and the anti-boater sentiment that it has generated locally.

 

There are other examples of Ed's work online, usually involving some sort of sham charity and illiterate ramblings. I don't like him at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Ody

 

You may or may not be linking the fires with the BSS or lack of.

 

Where is the evidence that these fire were caused by something that would have failed the boat for its BSS.

 

 

I have been making the point that a BSS certificate or lack of it is irrelevant to the safety of a boat.

 

And I've been put in my place regarding my choice of words, and I have apologised for any offence I may have caused.

 

And I've sent Rob@BSS a PM and hope to bring any examples of BSS shortcomings that I may see in the future to his attention.

 

I have no evidence either way as to the cause of the fire, apart from links that I have shared, whilst noting that the source (Oxford Mail) is unreliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I have been making the point that a BSS certificate or lack of it is irrelevant to the safety of a boat.

 

And I've been put in my place regarding my choice of words, and I have apologised for any offence I may have caused.

 

And I've sent Rob@BSS a PM and hope to bring any examples of BSS shortcomings that I may see in the future to his attention.

 

I have no evidence either way as to the cause of the fire, apart from links that I have shared, whilst noting that the source (Oxford Mail) is unreliable.

No BSS certificate means no valid insurance either. Let's not take the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The possibilty no-one has mentioned yet with three boat fires in such a small area in such a short period of time is that it's arson, and nothing to do with BSS compliance, or not.

 

I think I can count 9-10 serious boat fires around oxford in the last three years, of which three were most likely arson and one was most likely not. I don't think that anybody has been charged over any of them. One of the "three in a mile" was in a marina and the boat was undergoing refit work so likely accident not arson. the november 'land grab' fire had three people on the boat at the time (locked inside the boat mind, had to evacuate through a window into the water), again the most recent fire seems to have had someone onboard at the time as well. I wouldn't rule it out but it would be wrong to jump to a conclusion.

 

There has definitely been arson on boats in oxford in recent years though. An abandoned Anglo Welsh hireboat at Dukes Cut ~2012 springs to mind.

 

That and the St Edwards elsan/bins point also ~2012, just a few days after the city council anti-boat crackdown went public. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone. It is very sad to hear of any boat fire, especially when there is a loss of life.

I think one thing is to make sure your are happy with the equipment on your boat and that it is safe. My Narrow boat that I bought last August has a BSS, issued in 2013, but I still checked things over myself to make sure it is safe. I have found that although I have three fire extinguishers in the boat (that do look a bit old) My length of boat should have nearly double that.

I have also found out that my gas locker has a vent near the bottom, but it vents straight into my bilges !! As a temporary measure I have my gas bottle outside. I plan to move the gas box to a safe position as soon as I can, but at the moment I can not move it because it is trapped in by a steel beam supporting the floor at the back. So does that mean the gas box was moved only a few months after the inspection and trapped in place with a steel beam ?

 

Either way stay safe and make sure you know what do if the worst happens.

 

John.

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
  • 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.