Jump to content

Boat left adrift/abandoned? Hyde Lock, Kinver.


jonesthenuke

Featured Posts

On 16/02/2018 at 18:47, jonesthenuke said:

 

A CRT letter has been attached to the roof of the boat but remains unopened. The boat has no visible name or registration number that I could see on a brief inspection. I will post a photo tomorrow as its dark now.

 

Maybe CRT don't know who owns the boat so are unable to contact them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe CRT don't know who owns the boat so are unable to contact them

In which case why is it still there and not lifted out months ago?

This does seem to be a gap in the CRT enforcement strategy. Stealth boats appear to simply be left alone by CRT enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

In which case why is it still there and not lifted out months ago?

This does seem to be a gap in the CRT enforcement strategy. Stealth boats appear to simply be left alone by CRT enforcement.

I don't know the legal hoops that CRT have to jump through to remove a boat from their waters. I am sure someone on her does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't know the legal hoops that CRT have to jump through to remove a boat from their waters. I am sure someone on her does.

 

It's an interesting point. The CRT use Section 8 to hook out unlicenced boats happily when they know the owner. The steadily increasing number of stealth boats out and about suggests an anonymous boat is immune from any action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

It's an interesting point. The CRT use Section 8 to hook out unlicenced boats happily when they know the owner. The steadily increasing number of stealth boats out and about suggests an anonymous boat is immune from any action.

I would suggest its more difficult taking court action and saying you don't know who its against and proving you have taken all reasonable steps to find them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I would suggest its more difficult taking court action and saying you don't know who its against and proving you have taken all reasonable steps to find them

 

What court action would that be then, for the abandoned and unused boat such which is the subject of this thread? ;)

 

But to expand on the point, S8 as I understand it does not itself require a court order. In the case of a boat which is also a home, CRT apply for a court order so as to ensure the human rights of the occupier are not infringed. 

In the case of a stealth boat where it IS a home but the occupier refuses to identify themselves, proceeding to execute a S8 would force them to give up their anonymity in order to assert their human rights, I would imagine. Probably Nigel would have a better informed view than me. 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

What court action would that be then, for the abandoned and unused boat such which is the subject of this thread? ;)

 

But to expand on the point, S8 as I understand it does not itself require a court order. In the case of a boat which is also a home, CRT apply for a court order so as to ensure the human rights of the occupier are not infringed. 

In the case of a stealth boat where it IS a home but the occupier refuses to identify themselves, proceeding to execute a S8 would force them to give up their anonymity in order to assert their human rights, I would imagine. Probably Nigel would have a better informed view than me. 

As I said I don't know what is required or the time frame

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

What court action would that be then, for the abandoned and unused boat such which is the subject of this thread? ;)

 

But to expand on the point, S8 as I understand it does not itself require a court order. In the case of a boat which is also a home, CRT apply for a court order so as to ensure the human rights of the occupier are not infringed. 

In the case of a stealth boat where it IS a home but the occupier refuses to identify themselves, proceeding to execute a S8 would force them to give up their anonymity in order to assert their human rights, I would imagine. Probably Nigel would have a better informed view than me. 

That is correct.

Ironically, s.8 was designed – as I understand it – specifically for boats without known owners [known owners of unregistered or unlicensed boats could and should be pursued under relevant statutory or byelaw offences respectively].

So any boat sunk, stranded, abandoned, or unlicensed/registered without a known owner, can be subjected to the s.8 procedure without further ado [having done their best to ascertain and contact an owner]. It appears that a letter was left on the boat, and provided that was because any contact information held was not useful, the necessary provisions were met and a s.8 Notice could be issued allowing 28 days for the problem to be sorted. Failing anybody turning up and sorting the situation out within that time, the boat could be removed.

Additionally, if pertinent, if the boat was considered an obstruction CaRT could move the boat away so as to ameliorate the obstruction - and do so without any notice at all.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spoken at length to the mooring officer today.  The lengthy phone call left me with no real information as to what was going on other than CRT now recognise that they have been told about the boat and the risk of pollution, but will probably do nothing constructive unless it sinks or obstructs the waterway. The majority of the conversation was a rather repetitive explanation of how the boat may be licenced, or not; how CRT may know who the owner is, or not; and that they may have contacted the owner, or then again not. Every topic was followed by an explanation that all of the owners details and CRTs actions are confidential and thus I could not be party to any of this information. Several times it was mentioned that the moorings part of CRT is separate from the Customer Services side and so on, with the resulting compartmentalisation stifling effective communication (what a surprise that is!).

I was also the beneficiary of a an explanation of why I should not access or interfere with the boat as this could be unsafe. Not sure what specific risks CRT would get quite so agitated about; the boat is tethered to the bank and has not sunk yet. So, based on CRT explicit advice, the next time I see a CRT work boat adrift I will leave it adrift. 

I have now had a message to ring them back tomorrow, so will see what they say..........

 

PS Do CRT read these threads? I rather hope so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

I have spoken at length to the mooring officer today.  The lengthy phone call left me with no real information as to what was going on other than CRT now recognise that they have been told about the boat and the risk of pollution, but will probably do nothing constructive unless it sinks or obstructs the waterway. The majority of the conversation was a rather repetitive explanation of how the boat may be licenced, or not; how CRT may know who the owner is, or not; and that they may have contacted the owner, or then again not. Every topic was followed by an explanation that all of the owners details and CRTs actions are confidential and thus I could not be party to any of this information. Several times it was mentioned that the moorings part of CRT is separate from the Customer Services side and so on, with the resulting compartmentalisation stifling effective communication (what a surprise that is!).

I was also the beneficiary of a an explanation of why I should not access or interfere with the boat as this could be unsafe. Not sure what specific risks CRT would get quite so agitated about; the boat is tethered to the bank and has not sunk yet. So, based on CRT explicit advice, the next time I see a CRT work boat adrift I will leave it adrift. 

I have now had a message to ring them back tomorrow, so will see what they say..........

 

Sad to say CART acting reactively instead of proactively ... this whole scenario highlights why there are so many stealth boats on the system, yet the owners licensed and insured boaters that are genuinely CC'ing get letters passing through the same area all be it weeks apart. 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

I have spoken at length to the mooring officer today.  The lengthy phone call left me with no real information as to what was going on other than CRT now recognise that they have been told about the boat and the risk of pollution, but will probably do nothing constructive unless it sinks or obstructs the waterway. The majority of the conversation was a rather repetitive explanation of how the boat may be licenced, or not; how CRT may know who the owner is, or not; and that they may have contacted the owner, or then again not. Every topic was followed by an explanation that all of the owners details and CRTs actions are confidential and thus I could not be party to any of this information. Several times it was mentioned that the moorings part of CRT is separate from the Customer Services side and so on, with the resulting compartmentalisation stifling effective communication (what a surprise that is!).

I was also the beneficiary of a an explanation of why I should not access or interfere with the boat as this could be unsafe. Not sure what specific risks CRT would get quite so agitated about; the boat is tethered to the bank and has not sunk yet. So, based on CRT explicit advice, the next time I see a CRT work boat adrift I will leave it adrift. 

I have now had a message to ring them back tomorrow, so will see what they say..........

 

PS Do CRT read these threads? I rather hope so.

 

If you don't get a sensible answer from tomorrow's phone call, definitely email Richard P. You are trying to prevent an environmental and personal disaster for the owner and local CRT are being totally unhelpful and obfuscatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jonesthenuke said:

I have spoken at length to the mooring officer today.  The lengthy phone call left me with no real information as to what was going on other than CRT now recognise that they have been told about the boat and the risk of pollution, but will probably do nothing constructive unless it sinks or obstructs the waterway. The majority of the conversation was a rather repetitive explanation of how the boat may be licenced, or not; how CRT may know who the owner is, or not; and that they may have contacted the owner, or then again not. Every topic was followed by an explanation that all of the owners details and CRTs actions are confidential and thus I could not be party to any of this information. Several times it was mentioned that the moorings part of CRT is separate from the Customer Services side and so on, with the resulting compartmentalisation stifling effective communication (what a surprise that is!).

I was also the beneficiary of a an explanation of why I should not access or interfere with the boat as this could be unsafe. Not sure what specific risks CRT would get quite so agitated about; the boat is tethered to the bank and has not sunk yet. So, based on CRT explicit advice, the next time I see a CRT work boat adrift I will leave it adrift. 

I have now had a message to ring them back tomorrow, so will see what they say..........

 

PS Do CRT read these threads? I rather hope so.

 

At CRT boaters' meetings any queries/ comments regarding specific boats would always be responded to by stating that due to Data Protection no information could be disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rgreg said:

At CRT boaters' meetings any queries/ comments regarding specific boats would always be responded to by stating that due to Data Protection no information could be disclosed.

A concise explanation such as yours above would have been fine. The CRT official took about 10 minutes over the same issue. I reiterated several times that I have no interest in knowing who owned the boat, I was only interested in seeing if CRT proposed to take suitable action to mitigate the risk. Sorry, I am just airing some mild frustration!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

I have heard that (if you use Twitter) a tweet to the public @CanalRiverTrust account tends to get noticed higher up the chain.

Absolutely, local problems such as a blocked elsan are often sorted the same day, when a conventional approach can take a week or more to be resolved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been the same for years.

I was moored in Berkhampstead in 2009 and there was a small narrow boat called Bob going down at the back in the pound below the Rising Sun exactly like the boat in the OP.

I reported it, and again a week later, then again...eventually an ex member on here who was in BW enforcement and moored in the same area emailed me and said they were aware and dealing with it.

After another 6 weeks it finally sank and deposited it's engine bay contents in that pound (which is a river section).

As I was coming out of London in 2011 it had just been raised after sinking again in the pound below Cowroats lock...surrounded by oil booms...too late again. 

BW before them and CRT now are not the answer. I have seen many sunken boats across the CRT canals and rivers which re-inforce this view.

Environental groups or EA themselves are the only swift responders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jonesthenuke said:

PS Do CRT read these threads? I rather hope so.

They certainly do! Whether they read everything is debatable of course, but they do keep track of certain posters and topics. They have even exhibited posts in the High Court as evidence, BW/CaRT members of the Forum emailing copies to the legal department at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

They certainly do! Whether they read everything is debatable of course, but they do keep track of certain posters and topics. They have even exhibited posts in the High Court as evidence, BW/CaRT members of the Forum emailing copies to the legal department at least.

 

Might I venture to suggest that organisations such as CRT cannot themselves read? Individual members of CRT certainly do read posts here which might be of specific interest to their role in CRT given what you say, but I cannot imagine anyone (probably at Shoosmiths) given the specific task of tracking everything you write here is going to take much interest in a thread about a sinking boat and the risk of polution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

but I cannot imagine anyone (probably at Shoosmiths) given the specific task of tracking everything you write here is going to take much interest in a thread about a sinking boat and the risk of polution.

Well, not until the EA charge CRT with polluting an inland waterway.  After that Shoosmiths might pay more attention!

Edited by TheBiscuits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Might I venture to suggest that organisations such as CRT cannot themselves read? Individual members of CRT certainly do read posts here which might be of specific interest to their role in CRT given what you say, but I cannot imagine anyone (probably at Shoosmiths) given the specific task of tracking everything you write here is going to take much interest in a thread about a sinking boat and the risk of polution.

Unusually pedantic of you MtB! 

Shoosmiths do not expend resources trawling through this site; their gleaning of material is third hand from their client – and yes, I agree that the focus will be limited.

It is ‘debbifiggy’ who keeps an eye out for anything that might be of interest, and she emails the relevant department with copies of the posts that catch her eye. It is many a long year since she was visible on the site, let alone make contributions, but she is active nonetheless, and cannot be alone.

It would be nice to think that she &/or any others were alert to news items and opinions that their bosses should be interested in, not just looking for ammunition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rgreg said:

At CRT boaters' meetings any queries/ comments regarding specific boats would always be responded to by stating that due to Data Protection no information could be disclosed.

We have had a similar response from CRT East Midlands regarding three boats which have been dumped on the Lincoln CRT 48 hour visitors moorings since October. 

Although they did tell us that action was being taken they couldn't discuss details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Well, not until the EA charge CRT with polluting an inland waterway.  After that Shoosmiths might pay more attention!

In 2016 the company Thames Water were fined a million pounds for polluting the Wendover Arm.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thames-water-fined-1-million-for-pollution-to-grand-union-canal

Hailed as a record level of fine back then, it paled into insignificance last year, when the same company was hit with a £20 million fine for polluting the Thames with sewerage.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/22/thames-water-hit-with-record-fine-for-huge-sewage-leaks

So far as I recall, however, BW/CaRT always had someone else to blame for canal pollution – as in this potential case -  and Shoosmiths wouldn’t be bothered anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jonesthenuke said:

A concise explanation such as yours above would have been fine. The CRT official took about 10 minutes over the same issue. I reiterated several times that I have no interest in knowing who owned the boat, I was only interested in seeing if CRT proposed to take suitable action to mitigate the risk. Sorry, I am just airing some mild frustration!

I have emailed Richard Parry explaining the situation and expressing my dissatisfaction at Cart's lack of interest.  I've forwarded the link to this thread.  If anyone else would like to email him I think it would help.     richard.parry@canalrivertrust.org.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Unusually pedantic of you MtB! 

 

Really? I am always being charged with pedanticalism here! Only the other day it happened when I drew the obvious (to me anyway) distinction between a boater damaging the canal infrastructure through misuse and them causing wear and tear on it through normal use. Not pedantic at all I'm sure you will agree ;)

But I often see on here the attitude I was trying to counter. Comments such as "I know CRT are aware of 'x' because I sent them an email nine weeks ago telling them. " I hold that only the person who read the email (and possibly forgot to do anything about it) is aware, not the whole of the CRT organisation.

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.