custodians of the waterways-priorities

[Paul C]

Given that 100% of the boats on the canals should be 1) registered and 2) insured, I think the problem is more to do with losing track of these details and checks, rather than CRT simply not removing boats (in a timely manner). To this end, and with the new T&Cs, maybe gradually over time the gaps where the info falls into will close up and the success rate in obliging owners, or their insurers, to see through their responsibilities will improve.

[NigelMoore]

I think the problem is more to do with losing track of these details and checks, rather than CRT simply not removing boats (in a timely manner).

 

I can’t agree. I believe Wander Vagabond has correctly identified the reasons – “loads of work, no return for it.”

 

Even if they recover the costs of removal and disposal from the owner, there is no “return” for it, regardless of the value of the boat. It is, of course, a far better situation than with dredging – no much value in dredging spoil – in fact the cost of disposing of that is rising all the time, and there are no re-imbursement avenues at all.

 

Maintaining the navigability of the canals through either dredging or removing sunken boats is an obligation under the Acts, not a money-spinner. The only reason they remove perfectly viable, floating boats as they do frequently enough, is as a salutary warning to boat owners of the dire consequences of not playing by their rules; doing the same for sunken/abandoned boats would be doing the owners a favour rather than punishing them. The only “return” in keeping the navigation open is, as I say, in fulfilling their obligation to keep the canals and towpath open and available for the public’s use.

 

There is, however, an arguable case they could make for differentiating between the removal of towpath side boats and the dredging of the canal. Their obligation under the Transport Act 1968 extends only to the “main navigable channel” of the waterways therein classified [as “Commercial”, Cruising”, or “Remainder”].

 

That “main navigable channel” could be held to equate to what they classify as the “minimum operational channel” when specifying the maximum extent to which moored boats may be permitted to ‘permanently’ occupy offside waterspace.

 

This is certainly the argument they have used when refusing to dredge to the banks of the river Brent section of the Grand Union Canal – and boats on the ‘towpath’ moorings there are left to sit on the mud unless they organise their own dredging or pay extra to BW/CaRT to include the bit outside of the central channel.

[Paul C]

 

I can’t agree. I believe Wander Vagabond has correctly identified the reasons – “loads of work, no return for it.”

 

Even if they recover the costs of removal and disposal from the owner, there is no “return” for it, regardless of the value of the boat. It is, of course, a far better situation than with dredging – no much value in dredging spoil – in fact the cost of disposing of that is rising all the time, and there are no re-imbursement avenues at all.

 

Maintaining the navigability of the canals through either dredging or removing sunken boats is an obligation under the Acts, not a money-spinner. The only reason they remove perfectly viable, floating boats as they do frequently enough, is as a salutary warning to boat owners of the dire consequences of not playing by their rules; doing the same for sunken/abandoned boats would be doing the owners a favour rather than punishing them. The only “return” in keeping the navigation open is, as I say, in fulfilling their obligation to keep the canals and towpath open and available for the public’s use.

 

There is, however, an arguable case they could make for differentiating between the removal of towpath side boats and the dredging of the canal. Their obligation under the Transport Act 1968 extends only to the “main navigable channel” of the waterways therein classified [as “Commercial”, Cruising”, or “Remainder”].

 

That “main navigable channel” could be held to equate to what they classify as the “minimum operational channel” when specifying the maximum extent to which moored boats may be permitted to ‘permanently’ occupy offside waterspace.

 

This is certainly the argument they have used when refusing to dredge to the banks of the river Brent section of the Grand Union Canal – and boats on the ‘towpath’ moorings there are left to sit on the mud unless they organise their own dredging or pay extra to BW/CaRT to include the bit outside of the central channel.

 

You've not really properly understood my point. If owners/insurers took responsibility and moved sunken boats at their own cost, there would be no need to involve CRT. If CRT obliged the owners to do this more often, it would go a long way to solving the problem. Of course there's no return for the work of removing a boat - its a negative cost; a disposal cost. I'm saying CRT shouldn't be getting into that area, they should leave it to the owners/insurers.

[NigelMoore]

 

You've not really properly understood my point. If owners/insurers took responsibility and moved sunken boats at their own cost, there would be no need to involve CRT. If CRT obliged the owners to do this more often, it would go a long way to solving the problem. Of course there's no return for the work of removing a boat - its a negative cost; a disposal cost. I'm saying CRT shouldn't be getting into that area, they should leave it to the owners/insurers.

 

I don’t believe I have misunderstood you, and am in perfect agreement that CaRT should be getting onto the owners to sort out sunken etc boats. The only bit I disagreed with was the portion I quoted: the suggestion that this was probably often not done because the contact details for all these sunken boats had been somehow mislaid.

 

The rest of the post was supporting the idea that WV’s rationale for leaving them be was the more likely. I did not imagine nor suggest that you were arguing for the financial viability of removing sunken boats – if that was what you thought?

 

However s.8 is there for when the owners cannot be found and that is when prompt action should be taken to involve themselves [regardless of the cost] - because that is part of their raison d'etre.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

I don’t believe I have misunderstood you, and am in perfect agreement that CaRT should be getting onto the owners to sort out sunken etc boats. The only bit I disagreed with was the portion I quoted: the suggestion that this was probably often not done because the contact details for all these sunken boats had been somehow mislaid.

 

The rest of the post was supporting the idea that WV’s rationale for leaving them be was the more likely. I did not imagine nor suggest that you were arguing for the financial viability of removing sunken boats – if that was what you thought?

 

However s.8 is there for when the owners cannot be found and that is when prompt action should be taken to involve themselves [regardless of the cost] - because that is part of their raison d'etre.

I think we seem to all be more or less in agreement that the first line of recovery of these boats should come through the owner/insurer. When the navigation itself is blocked I would also agree that CRT need to step in earlier than perhaps they would when a boat is merely sunken alongside the embankment, I do get a little uncomfortable with the 'regardless of cost' bit however (again unless the navigation is blocked). The more that we demand of CRT, the more we are going to end out paying in licence fee.

 

There seemed a bit of excitement generated on these boards earlier this year (or was it late last year) over a sunken boat on the Wyreley and Essington which numerous people were insistent should be moved 'immediately'. This was a boat that was not blocking the canal, it was a very lightly used piece of canal (at that time of year) and there was every possibility of the canal re-freezing thereby rendering it impassable again anyway. The number of people inconvenienced by this boat would probably have been in single figures and yet there was a cry for urgency to remove it. Similarly, looking at the photo at the start of this post, the boat concerned does not appear to be obstructing much. Yes I agree it makes the place 'look untidy' but then if that were grounds for taking urgent action there are a few boats in use that would have to look out, fortunately that is not a valid criteria!

[NigelMoore]

I do get a little uncomfortable with the 'regardless of cost' bit however (again unless the navigation is blocked).

 

I understand that, and you will have noticed that I have provided an “out” for CaRT in terms of their legal obligations as distinct from any moral imperative.

 

A point remaining to be insisted upon however, is the requirement for consistency; if a sunken boat outside the “main navigable/minimum operational channel” is creating no management imperative, then even less so is a floating boat. In either case, the correct procedure is to enforce owner compliance with the law. Only where such an owner is unknown, should s.8 be brought into play – unless, as the legislation provides for, the offending boat is presenting a risk of danger or impediment

Edited March 29, 2015 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

Only where such an owner is unknown, should s.8 be brought into play – unless, as the legislation provides for, the offending boat is presenting a risk of danger or impediment

 

An interesting point which I am in the middle of investigating just now – IF seizure of goods under s.8 was a distress for debt [which I aver it manifestly is not], then it would have become a power subject to court order under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which in some respects replaces chapters of the Marlborough statutes.

 

That means that in cases where CaRT have seized and held a boat as a lien upon non-payment of licence fees and done so without obtaining a court order to that effect, then they are guilty of an offence carrying a fine up to Level 5. This is precisely what Shoosmiths are demanding in the latest incident of which I am aware – refusing to release a seized boat unless alleged debts over and above the removal and storage costs are paid over.

 

It is all adding up the aspects confirming the applicability of s.8 to those cases only where the owner is unknown/unreachable [the exception being cases of obstruction, which does not demand removal and storage, simply moving off a bit further away to relieve the obstruction.] To recover the debt of unpaid licence fees they must go to court as s.5 provides, not leapfrog to s.8 as leverage against the debt when even s.8 provides for release to an owner when he coughs up only the cost of removal and storage. S.8 properly used is an action to clear the waterway and NOT an enforcement tool for licensing.

 

This view does involve questioning why unlicensed boats are removed in preference to boats sunk, stranded or abandoned.