After 4 Years Of Fighting - C&RT Settle Out Of Court

[Alan de Enfield]

From NarrowBoatWorld :

 

 

An Out of Court settlement has been agreed by the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) regarding my boat hanging-up on the chamber wall and sinking in Bank Newton Lock (40), Leeds & Liverpool Canal, near Gargrave, on 10th August 2012.

 

After four years of litigation I am now free to describe how our boat hung-up and sank in less than two minutes and warn boaters of the hidden protrusions below water level which remain today. The Canal & River Trust have not carried out any Lock 40 remedial work.

 

Rest of the story :

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9417-boat-hung

 

It is a frightening story of C&RT ignoring H&S inspectors, and not repairing a knowingly dangerous lock that had suffered a number of boat hang-up on a chamber-wall protrusion.

 

Well worth reading.

[Guest]

From NarrowBoatWorld :

 

 

An Out of Court settlement has been agreed by the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) regarding my boat hanging-up on the chamber wall and sinking in Bank Newton Lock (40), Leeds & Liverpool Canal, near Gargrave, on 10th August 2012.

 

After four years of litigation I am now free to describe how our boat hung-up and sank in less than two minutes and warn boaters of the hidden protrusions below water level which remain today. The Canal & River Trust have not carried out any Lock 40 remedial work.

 

Rest of the story :

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9417-boat-hung

 

It is a frightening story of C&RT ignoring H&S inspectors, and not repairing a knowingly dangerous lock that had suffered a number of boat hang-up on a chamber-wall protrusion.

 

Well worth reading.

Not the only one on the L&L. Double up with the greatest of care.

[Guest]

It strikes me that for whatever the reason CRT seem unable to provide a safe passage of boats at a number of locations.

 

As much as its right that the owners of this boat are recompensed such cases seriously call into question how long some waterways can remain open.

 

As I've said before this puts the very quiet Nothern Waterways into the spotlight as prime locations that could readily be closed.

[Guest]

It strikes me that for whatever the reason CRT seem unable to provide a safe passage of boats at a number of locations.

 

As much as its right that the owners of this boat are recompensed such cases seriously call into question how long some waterways can remain open.

 

As I've said before this puts the very quiet Nothern Waterways into the spotlight as prime locations that could readily be closed.

Looking at the state of some locks near our mooring, you could well be right. Some of the worst we have used on the system (so far.)

[Guest]

Looking at the state of some locks near our mooring, you could well be right. Some of the worst we have used on the system (so far.)

 

If I was a hard nosed Director of Finance at CRT (which of course I am not) it would be a complete no brainer. You could still exploit the waterways for walkers, cyclists and anglers by keeping the tow paths passable which must cost a hell of a lot less than maintaining the waterways for boat passage.

[Guest]

If I was a hard nosed Director of Finance at CRT (which of course I am not) it would be a complete no brainer. You could still exploit the waterways for walkers, cyclists and anglers by keeping the tow paths passable which must cost a hell of a lot less than maintaining the waterways for boat passage.

Not impossible. I think we will be moving our boat in time to come, and heading for the more used canals around Cheshire etc.

[Alan de Enfield]

If I was a hard nosed Director of Finance at CRT (which of course I am not) it would be a complete no brainer. You could still exploit the waterways for walkers, cyclists and anglers by keeping the tow paths passable which must cost a hell of a lot less than maintaining the waterways for boat passage.

 

Fair point, but, replacing a 'sticking out brick' would be a lot cheaper than 4 years of legal costs and then paying compensation and costs to the boat owner.

 

Something C&RT consistently fail to appreciate.

[Guest]

Fair point, but, replacing a 'sticking out brick' would be a lot cheaper than 4 years of legal costs and then paying compensation and costs to the boat owner.

 

Something C&RT consistently fail to appreciate.

Therein lies a problem though.....

 

You dismiss it as a 'sticking out brick' but absolutely fail to grasp what the actual costs behind replacing it actually could be.

 

Otherwise wouldn't they just have replaced it?

 

I don't know the defence CRT offered but I suspect it was something along the lines of 'this is a pretty ancient transport system, people need to take great care when traversing it'. If correct then this type of judgement just makes it easier to say 'stuff it lets close it"

Edited November 22, 2016 by MJG

[Horace42]

I do not need to know details, but what is in the public domain about the damages and costs awarded and does it really compensate you for all the hassle to the extent that it will make CRT buck their ideas up and a shot across the bows of the

BTBPJ's you have had to deal with - (Box Ticking Busk Passing Jobsworths).

[Alan de Enfield]

............. If correct then this type of judgement just makes it to say 'stuff it lets close it"

 

My understanding (and I know no more than the article posted) was that there was no 'judgment' C&RT backed down before it got to court.

 

The article makes grim reading of a catalogue of failures at various levels within C&RT, and after a number of boats were 'hung up' and the staff on the ground muttering 'not another one', C&RT management failing to implement the H&S inspectors recommendation , and so on and so on it is little wonder that it was settled out of court.

[Guest]

My understanding (and I know no more than the article posted) was that there was no 'judgment' C&RT backed down before it got to court.

 

The article makes grim reading of a catalogue of failures at various levels within C&RT, and after a number of boats were 'hung up' and the staff on the ground muttering 'not another one', C&RT management failing to implement the H&S inspectors recommendation , and so on and so on it is little wonder that it was settled out of court.

Sorry yes, this decision not judgement.

[MtB]

Surely the decision to close this waterway depends on its status. 'Cruiseway' waterways cannot be closed. 'Remainder' waterways can, IIRC.

[Guest]

Surely the decision to close this waterway depends on its status. 'Cruiseway' waterways cannot be closed. 'Remainder' waterways can, IIRC.

That may well be correct.

 

But that pre supposes CRT has unlimited resources to either be able to fight continuous compensation battles in court or maintain a 100% safe system.

 

What happens when they run out of money?

[Captain Pegg]

It strikes me that for whatever the reason CRT seem unable to provide a safe passage of boats at a number of locations.

As much as its right that the owners of this boat are recompensed such cases seriously call into question how long some waterways can remain open.

As I've said before this puts the very quiet Nothern Waterways into the spotlight as prime locations that could readily be closed.

I have often wondered what the precise terms of CRTs licence to operate the network actually requires them to do in terms of outputs for the system. I suspect they don't have the ability to unilaterally close a waterway as that would require an Act of Parliament. Government are unlikely to be interested. Too much fallout for too small a cost saving come the crunch.

 

Like railways there always seems to be a suspicion that the powers that be have an agenda for closure despite a quarter of a century where the evidence is pretty much solely one of expansion.

 

JP

[Markinaboat]

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread as jet-lagged so apologies in advance if someone else has stated this.

 

It's all well and good to get CRT to 'do their job' but if we make too much noise for the myriad of what could be described as waterways/sections of being unfit for purpose, they could be closed to navigation in the interests of H&S thus, shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot?

[Texasboater]

Privatization on the cards. Ala Bridgewater? They can charge what they like.

[Naughty Cal]

Have there been any other incidents in the lock in the four years since this boat got hung up?

[starman]

From NarrowBoatWorld :

 

 

An Out of Court settlement has been agreed by the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) regarding my boat hanging-up on the chamber wall and sinking in Bank Newton Lock (40), Leeds & Liverpool Canal, near Gargrave, on 10th August 2012.

 

After four years of litigation I am now free to describe how our boat hung-up and sank in less than two minutes and warn boaters of the hidden protrusions below water level which remain today. The Canal & River Trust have not carried out any Lock 40 remedial work.

 

Rest of the story :

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/9417-boat-hung

 

It is a frightening story of C&RT ignoring H&S inspectors, and not repairing a knowingly dangerous lock that had suffered a number of boat hang-up on a chamber-wall protrusion.

 

Well worth reading.

 

The incident is remarkably similar to what happened to us at Field Locks on the L&L, though fortunately with less disastrous results.

See blog post here

Edited November 22, 2016 by starman

[Alan de Enfield]

I have often wondered what the precise terms of CRTs licence to operate the network actually requires them to do in terms of outputs for the system. I suspect they don't have the ability to unilaterally close a waterway as that would require an Act of Parliament. Government are unlikely to be interested. Too much fallout for too small a cost saving come the crunch.

 

Like railways there always seems to be a suspicion that the powers that be have an agenda for closure despite a quarter of a century where the evidence is pretty much solely one of expansion.

 

JP

 

I do not know what would be involved in 'officially closing' a waterway, but, Nigel Moore has, on a number of occasions, stated that in the transfer from BW to C&RT the obligation to 'maintain' the waterways was removed.

 

If correct, then C&RT have no legal requirement to undertake any maintenance work, and the canals could just be allowed to 'close themselves'.

 

The trust state their objectives as :

 

2. Objects

The Trust’s objects are:

2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:

2.1.1 for navigation;

2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and

2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;

 

 

Maybe if Nigel reads this thread he could comment ?

Edited November 22, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Dave_P]

Surely the decision to close this waterway depends on its status. 'Cruiseway' waterways cannot be closed. 'Remainder' waterways can, IIRC.

From the 1968 Act, section on cruising waterways:

 

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal from Old Road Bridge, Aintree, to Leeds, including the branches to Tarleton and Leigh.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I do not know what would be involved in 'officially closing' a waterway, but, Nigel Moore has, on a number of occasions, stated that in the transfer from BW to C&RT the obligation to 'maintain' the waterways was removed.

 

If correct, then C&RT have no legal requirement to undertake any maintenance work, and the canals could just be allowed to 'close themselves'.

 

Maybe if Nigel reads this thread he could comment ?

What would probably happen is that just that part of a canal that became unsafe would be closed to navigation until such time as the Trust had the resources to repair it.

 

This can be said with some certainty because it is exactly what was proposed by CaRT a couple of years ago on the Mon & Brec.

[Dave_P]

It's certainly a cause for worry. A choice between dangerous locks and closed canals isn't much of a choice.

[sirweste]

How or why this hasn't / wasn't properly investigated bewilders me. Has anything been done about it now - can't read the article as works internet has identified it as "a compromised website"

 

Be interesting to read discussion on this rather than getting side tracked into pages and pages of legal discussion that Martin started with provoking comments about closing the north,

[Alan de Enfield]

Before we all get carried away about C&RT planning to close the L&L, the action proposed by C&RTs own Head of H&S and the External HSE was to put up 'warning signs'.

 

It appears that CaRT have failed to implement their Minimum Safety Standards by not displaying warning signs as recommended after a Lock 40 site visit by Anthony Stammers, CaRT Head of Health & Safety, June 2013. Also as recommended by Health & Safety Executive (HSE) Mr Whittaker,October 2015.

 

I reported the accident to HSE and they asked CaRT to investigate and prepare a report. The outcome was that the HSE recommended to CaRT that as a minimum they should put up warning signs to alert boaters to the risk of boats hanging-up. (HSE Documents available on request.) This signage has not yet been erected and the wording that CaRT suggest will not alert boaters to the risks that exist.

[Bee]

CRT were in the wrong. They were on a loser. They settled out of court. End of. But they would have known that they have a duty of care and that is what they chose to ignore, that they were happier to risk lives, damage to other peoples homes and property and expensive court cases and payments is very poor. There was a known issue with this lock and they still risked it instead of either fixing it or even putting up a sign or painting a load of black and yellow stripes on the wall and coping stones. Danger, projecting masonry or something like that, less than a days work. Somebody needs to take their responsibilities more seriously. Edit, crossed with Alan de Enfields post

Edited November 22, 2016 by Bee