custodians of the waterways-priorities

[matty40s]

All the management hours and paperwork involved in the New T & C, all the huffing chugging and puffing to get new friends, all the expense and time involved in trustees meetings and user group meetings.......

 

....and 6 months on this boat is still sunk, still leaking oil, still.......

 

[Jerra]

All the management hours and paperwork involved in the New T & C, all the huffing chugging and puffing to get new friends, all the expense and time involved in trustees meetings and user group meetings.......

 

....and 6 months on this boat is still sunk, still leaking oil, still.......

 

 

Still leaking oil after 6 months! What is it an oil tanker?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

As we travel around we tend to see quite a lot of sunken boats (another seen today between Stockton and Braunston) are you saying that CRT should be spending bucket loads of money raising them and storing them because the owners can't/wont? I think that if you did a count of all the sunken boats on the system it would involve a lot of cash to raise them all and put them into storage. If the canal isn't blocked then the onus is on the owner to shift it.

[Mike Tee]

Storing them???

 

Give them a fortnight to get their insurers involved - if no action, pull them out, cut them up and weigh them in at the scrap yard. Or if of value, sell them.

 

Oh, no insurance? Shame.

 

Unless they are sunk on a paid mooring, then they can stay there as long as they clear up any oil spill.

[mrsmelly]

Storing them???

 

Give them a fortnight to get their insurers involved - if no action, pull them out, cut them up and weigh them in at the scrap yard. Or if of value, sell them.

 

Oh, no insurance? Shame.

 

Unless they are sunk on a paid mooring, then they can stay there as long as they clear up any oil spill.

 

What if they have a cc licence and have been on the bottom for over 14 days?

 

Tim

[Mike Tee]

 

What if they have a cc licence and have been on the bottom for over 14 days?

 

Tim

Drag them through the next bridge

[NigelMoore]

 

What if they have a cc licence and have been on the bottom for over 14 days?

 

Tim

 

Now that might get some action.

 

If a floating boat that does not move for 6 months is an obstruction, and/or deserving of being treated under s.8, why is a sunken boat any less qualified for that treatment?

 

Such a situation is precisely what s.8 powers were provided for: to enable the authority to deal with sunk, stranded or abandoned boats, or those left or moored in the waterway without lawful authority.

 

With a responsibility to maintain both towpath and navigation in good order, exercising s.8 in such cases is an obligation to boot. All supporters of s.8’ing floating boats if merely shuffling about insufficiently, should be jumping up and down for this boat and others to be treated the same way.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I think it would possibly simplify things if there were some provision whereby if your boat has sunk you have 15 days to notify CRT of this and what arrangements you are making for it's recovery.The 15 day period covers the excuse "But I didn't know that my boat had sunk", since it shouldn't be left unattended on the cut for more that 14 days. After 15 days of non-reporting it should be a declared that the boat is legally abandoned and CRT or their contractors can dispose if it in whatever way they consider appropriate (cut it up for scrap value if they wish). As a follow on from this, if you had notified CRT of the sinking you would then get a period of 28 days to recover the boat after which CRT (or their contractors) WILL recover it and all costs (and risks) of doing so will be passed to the owner. If the boat is further damaged during this recovery the owner should have no comeback on CRT.

 

The Act gives CRT the responsibility and powers to clear these hulks but should they do so prematurely the owner can then come forward to claim he was making his own arrangements and make some spurious claim for damage or loss, the above additions to the Act would mean that everyone would know exactly where they stood.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think it would possibly simplify things if there were some provision whereby if your boat has sunk you have 15 days to notify CRT of this and what arrangements you are making for it's recovery.The 15 day period covers the excuse "But I didn't know that my boat had sunk", since it shouldn't be left unattended on the cut for more that 14 days. After 15 days of non-reporting it should be a declared that the boat is legally abandoned and CRT or their contractors can dispose if it in whatever way they consider appropriate (cut it up for scrap value if they wish). As a follow on from this, if you had notified CRT of the sinking you would then get a period of 28 days to recover the boat after which CRT (or their contractors) WILL recover it and all costs (and risks) of doing so will be passed to the owner. If the boat is further damaged during this recovery the owner should have no comeback on CRT.

 

The Act gives CRT the responsibility and powers to clear these hulks but should they do so prematurely the owner can then come forward to claim he was making his own arrangements and make some spurious claim for damage or loss, the above additions to the Act would mean that everyone would know exactly where they stood.

 

The 1983 BW Act empowers C&RT to remove any sunken vessel after the expiry of the 28 days S.8 notice . . . . you're about 32 years too late with that idea.

It was precisely for this situation that S.8 of the 1983 Act was written in, but C&RT now, amongst other abuses, use it as a means of attempting to control alleged 'overstaying' on casual moorings.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

the above additions to the Act would mean that everyone would know exactly where they stood.

 

Nothing much wrong with your suggestions – but you are re-inventing the wheel.

 

With a boat in this situation, CaRT must take all reasonable steps to identify the owner and get them to do something with it. Failing to identify the owner they post a s.8 Notice on or nearby the vessel giving 28 days to remedy the situation.

 

If after expiry of that time no-one accepts responsibility, CaRT remove the vessel from the waterway. If no-one turns up within 6 weeks, title vests in CaRT and they do what they like with it.

 

If the owner turns up within 12 months of seizure, CaRT either give the boat back after re-imbursement of the cost of retrieval and storage, or, if already sold/scrapped, give him what they received for it less the costs of retrieval, storage and disposal. If those costs exceed the amount they received, then the owner gets nothing but the bill for the outstanding amount.

 

It is all provided for under s.8.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Nothing much wrong with your suggestions – but you are re-inventing the wheel.

 

With a boat in this situation, CaRT must take all reasonable steps to identify the owner and get them to do something with it. Failing to identify the owner they post a s.8 Notice on or nearby the vessel giving 28 days to remedy the situation.

 

If after expiry of that time no-one accepts responsibility, CaRT remove the vessel from the waterway. If no-one turns up within 6 weeks, title vests in CaRT and they do what they like with it.

 

If the owner turns up within 12 months of seizure, CaRT either give the boat back after re-imbursement of the cost of retrieval and storage, or, if already sold/scrapped, give him what they received for it less the costs of retrieval, storage and disposal. If those costs exceed the amount they received, then the owner gets nothing but the bill for the outstanding amount.

 

It is all provided for under s.8.

My query would by why should an owner who has abandoned his boat on the cut and doesn't bother to show up for 11 months be entitled to anything at all?

[Paul C]

My query would by why should an owner who has abandoned his boat on the cut and doesn't bother to show up for 11 months be entitled to anything at all?

 

Sunk or not, its their boat. The asset and the liability lies (and rightly must lie) with the same person. The law allows for a time period after which the asset/liability becomes CRTs, which happens to be set at 12 months because in the underlying legislation, it is spelled out in black and white.

 

I imagine in many cases of sunk boats the liability of its recovery/transportation must come close to, or exceed its asset value (a good comparison might be a worn out car tyre - there is a disposal cost vs the worth of basically £0, so it has a negative value). But certainly it can't be said to be true in ALL cases.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Sunk or not, its their boat. The asset and the liability lies (and rightly must lie) with the same person. The law allows for a time period after which the asset/liability becomes CRTs, which happens to be set at 12 months because in the underlying legislation, it is spelled out in black and white.

 

I imagine in many cases of sunk boats the liability of its recovery/transportation must come close to, or exceed its asset value (a good comparison might be a worn out car tyre - there is a disposal cost vs the worth of basically £0, so it has a negative value). But certainly it can't be said to be true in ALL cases.

 

In fact, title to the vessel, permitting disposal and sale, passes to C&RT six weeks after removal.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

In fact, title to the vessel passes to C&RT six weeks after removal.

If title passes to CRT six weeks after removal, why do they have to re-imburse the 'owner' for up to 12 months? If title had passed to CRT they would be the owner.

 

Edited: Seen the above update clarifying that CRT don't actually become the owner.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Tony Dunkley]

If title passes to CRT six weeks after removal, why do they have to re-imburse the 'owner' for up to 12 months? If title had passed to CRT they would be the owner.

1983 BW Act , Section 8, Subsection (4) : -

 

(4) If within six weeks of its removal by the Board any relevant craft cannot be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Board to belong to any claimant, it shall, together with any furniture, tackle and apparel and any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board, vest in the Board:

[NigelMoore]

1983 BW Act , Section 8, Subsection (4) : -

 

Quoting the entirety for the avoidance of squabbles –

 

s.8 Removal of vessels.

 

(l) In this section—

 

"owner" in relation to any relevant craft means the owner of the relevant craft at the time of sinking, stranding or abandonment and includes a person letting a vessel for hire, whether or not that person owns the vessel;

"relevant craft" means any vessel which is sunk, stranded or abandoned in any inland -waterway or in any reservoir owned or managed by the Board or which is left or moored therein without lawful authority and includes any part of such vessel.

 

(2) The Board may remove any relevant craft after giving not less than 28 days' notice to the owner of the relevant craft, stating the effect of this section.

 

(3) All expenses incurred by the Board in—

 

( a ) the removal, storage or destruction of the relevant craft;

( b ) the removal or storage of any furniture, tackle and apparel of the relevant craft, or any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board the relevant craft; or

( c ) marking, watching, buoying or otherwise controlling the relevant craft;

 

may be recovered by the Board from the owner of the relevant craft.

 

(4) If within six weeks of its removal by the Board any relevant craft cannot be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Board to belong to any claimant, it shall, together with any furniture, tackle and apparel and any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board, vest in the Board: Provided that, if within twelve months of its removal a claim to the relevant craft is made by a person who subsequently proves that he is the owner thereof, the Board shall, if the relevant craft is unsold, permit the owner to retake it with any furniture, tackle, apparel, cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board upon payment of the expenses referred to in subsection (3) of this section or, if the relevant craft and the furniture, tackle and apparel and any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board have been sold, the Board shall pay to such owner the amount of the proceeds of such sale after deducting the said expenses, and in case such proceeds shall be insufficient to reimburse the Board such expenses the deficiency may be recovered by the Board.

 

(5) 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.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I begin to see why these sunken craft often remain in position for so long now. Under Section 8(2) the Board (now CRT) can remove the boat but have to give the owner 28 days notice, so how long do they leave it if they can't find out who owns it? Let's assume a floating shed that has been sold on several times since the last time anyone admitted ownership to BW/CRT by buying a licence. And to add insult to injury after they've recovered the boat and scrapped it someone can come forward, up to 12 months later demanding a share of the scrap value. CRT then have to evidence how much they've spent in recovering the boat to prove that the owner owes them money rather than the other way around. Talk about a long drawn out job!

 

Having looked up the scrap value of steel these days (about £110 per ton) there must be someone capable of making money out of disposing of these hulks on behalf of CRT so that there is zero cost to them.

[NigelMoore]

Under Section 8(2) the Board (now CRT) can remove the boat but have to give the owner 28 days notice, so how long do they leave it if they can't find out who owns it?

 

28 days from service of the Notice.

 

As with all these things, context is key, and you need to read the whole Act. In this case, the options when serving notices are provided in s.17: -

 

(2) Any notice such as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section may be served —

( a ) by delivering it to the person upon whom it is to be served or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post to him at that address; or

( b ) if the person is a body corporate, by serving it in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection on the secretary or clerk of that body; or

( c ) if the person is a partnership, by serving it in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection on a partner or a person having the control or management of the partnership business; or

( d ) if in the case of a notice relating to a vessel the name and address of the person upon whom the notice is to be served cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, by exhibiting it in a conspicuous position on or near the vessel;

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

28 days from service of the Notice.

 

As with all these things, context is key, and you need to read the whole Act. In this case, the options when serving notices are provided in s.17: -

( d ) if in the case of a notice relating to a vessel the name and address of the person upon whom the notice is to be served cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, by exhibiting it in a conspicuous position on or near the vessel;

But then how long does a 'Reasonable enquiry' take? How long is a piece of string!! If they could just post the notice on the boat at the outset things might be simpler. I still don't really understand why it was written into the Act that the owner can re-appear after 12 months and have a claim on any profit. The 6 week transfer of title to the Board should have been the point at which ownership was lost.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Quoting the entirety for the avoidance of squabbles –

 

 

Blessed be the peacemakers, for though their Posts be mighty, yet still they surpasseth the understanding of those disciples of this Forum who hath yet to see the light.

[NigelMoore]

But then how long does a 'Reasonable enquiry' take? How long is a piece of string!! If they could just post the notice on the boat at the outset things might be simpler.

 

Are you bewailing the minimal humanity and reasonableness of the legislation?

 

Fret not, in this day and age any boat sunk in such a position could be deemed to be a hazard giving rise to a risk of injury to any person, in addition to presenting a hindrance to navigation giving rise to a risk of damage to property. That being so, subsection (5) applies and they can deal with it instantly without any notice at all.

 

Moreover, if an owner turns up for the “profit”, he will not only have to reimburse CaRT for their expenses, he can be held liable for the criminal action and a fine, on summary conviction, of up to £1,000 [with government proposing a fourfold increase].

 

Is all that sufficiently expeditious and unpleasant for you?

[Bod]

 

Blessed be the peacemakers, for though their Posts be mighty, yet still they surpasseth the understanding of those disciples of this Forum who hath yet to see the light.

 

How wonderfully true!

Well said Tony.

 

Bod

[baz gimson]

Based on the value of scrap steel quoted above, the idea that any one could make a profit from removing sunken boats is laughable. The cost of refloating, towing to a suitable location and then craning out and road transport to a scrap yard would be far in excess of the value of the scrap.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Based on the value of scrap steel quoted above, the idea that any one could make a profit from removing sunken boats is laughable. The cost of refloating, towing to a suitable location and then craning out and road transport to a scrap yard would be far in excess of the value of the scrap.

That sort of returns to my original point, raising and removing these sunken hulks is likely to cost CRT bucket loads of money. Some of the sunken boats I have past probably have no scrap value at all since they have been, sadly, wooden boats. Loads of work, no return for it.

[Peter X]

Based on the value of scrap steel quoted above, the idea that any one could make a profit from removing sunken boats is laughable. The cost of refloating, towing to a suitable location and then craning out and road transport to a scrap yard would be far in excess of the value of the scrap.

This sounds likely, doesn't it? But I'd expect these costs to vary a bit according to the location of the boat, and that CRT could get economies of scale by having people specialising in this work who become efficient at it.

 

Another factor which may come into play is that if CRT leave any hulk with a negative value (resale or scrap value - costs) in the cut, the numbers will slowly increase and it's not a good selling point for the canals. So each hulk effectively has an annual but very indirect cost; good luck to any accountant trying to work out what that cost is. The trouble is, accountants tend to regard such a cost as zero when it isn't.