Narrow boat sinks

[Dave Payne]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I've just emailed CRT about you. Let us know what happens next!

Your wasting your time, i suspect they will ignore it.

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Anyway how do you KNOW she does not have the correct licence, boat safety and insurance? What evidence do you have? If she hasn't actually rented it out, her current licence etc are fine.

Just looked back for the post where i said any of that, or pointed the finger at her...

 

Cant find it, can you point me to it please?

[MtB]

On 21/07/2017 at 11:18, Dave Payne said:

Your wasting your time, i suspect they will ignore it.

Just looked back for the post where i said any of that, or pointed the finger at her...

 

Cant find it, can you point me to it please?

 

So there is no evidence. So therefore the report you suggested sending to CRT is simply that she 'might' be breaking the law. This is why I suggested your report might be ignored.

[Dave Payne]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So there is no evidence. So therefore the report you suggested sending to CRT is simply that she 'might' be breaking the law. This is why I suggested your report might be ignored.

Again, which post did i suggest reporting to CRT.

I questioned why you suspected they would ignore such a report.

 

 

[MtB]

On 21/07/2017 at 11:28, Dave Payne said:

Again, which post did i suggest reporting to CRT.

I questioned why you suspected they would ignore such a report.

 

Yawn. Bored today, are you? 

 

[alan_fincher]

8 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Anyway how do you KNOW she does not have the correct licence, boat safety and insurance? What evidence do you have? If she hasn't actually rented it out, her current licence etc are fine.

 

For clarity, this is my former boat, which obviously I know well(!)  It is still in the neighbourhoods in which we used to use it regularly, and we have passed it several times and moored near it.

Because I was keen to meet its new owner, who I have exchanged various communications with about her not appearing to understand some of the things on board, I have had several conversations with various people on board, always different, and never the owner.

I have no doubt it is being "let out" to other people, but whether the ones I have met have paid to do so, or just been friends and acquaintances of the owner I can't say.

However it is obvious from her Facebook page that she is trying to let it out for money, so clearly its licensing, BSS and insurance status should reflect that.  I can't say for certain that she has not upgraded things, but it is hard to see CRT would agree to static letting of the boat when it has no home mooring, and hence no formal place for hand overs.

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

............it is hard to see CRT would agree to static letting of the boat when it has no home mooring.

Indeed - the 1st & 2nd conditions of granting a licence

17.  Static Letting (SL) 
17.1      We do not grant business licences for long term letting to boats which are licensed on a continuous cruising basis.  
17.2      You must have a Home Mooring for the Boat on an existing mooring site, recognised by the Trust and with appropriate facilities.

 

And, even if it should be claimed to be a SDHH then the 1st condition on that licence is:

15. Self-Drive Holiday Hire (SDHH)

15.1    You must have a Home Mooring for the Boat, unless it is kept out of the water when  not on hire. 

 

Or maybe they would claim it is only let out by the 'day' rather than 'long term'. However the 'definition of SDDH' may exclude that:

SDDH - Any boat without overnight accommodation let out without a crew or skipper for periods of up to 12 hours
 

16 Self-Drive Day Hire (SDDH) 
16.1 The operation of SDDH boats is subject to the same terms and conditions as for SDHH under clause 15, save that restrictions on the area in which you may operate your Self-Drive Day Hire boat business may apply. Any such restrictions will be communicated to you in writing.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Iain_S]

14 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

I wonder if a certain boat owner is now googling terms like 'gas safety certificate' and 'hire boat licence'........................

And coming up with this thread ... 

[Sir Nibble]

This is getting a bit too vigilante for me, but if I made a point of decrying the thread then how would I feel if a cowboy hire resulted in a serious accident, injury or even death. Don't like this situation at all and thought I hate to say it it needs the owner of the sunken boat to have the entire library of books thrown at her together with the hirer claiming for their losses.

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Dave Payne said:

Again, which post did i suggest reporting to CRT.

I questioned why you suspected they would ignore such a report.

 

 

I did, it was that of we go and lynch her

[Dave Payne]

22 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I did, it was that of we go and lynch her

yes i know, it was just the boiler man being silly.

[IanD]

On 7/18/2017 at 20:17, Chewbacka said:

Update from http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/15418817.Narrowboat_recovered_by_canal_and_river_trust/

Includes some comments from CRT on the status of the boat......

For those who can't/don't want to follow the link, the quote from CRT includes this:

"The owner only had insurance and a boating licence to cover private use of her boat. As soon as she decided to rent out her boat, this became a commercial operation requiring a different level of insurance and a business boating licence.”

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Anyway how do you KNOW she does not have the correct licence, boat safety and insurance? What evidence do you have? If she hasn't actually rented it out, her current licence etc are fine.

It was reported 'days go' that C&RT were aware - but here it is again.

For those who can't/don't want to follow the link, the quote from CRT includes this:

"The owner only had insurance and a boating licence to cover private use of her boat. As soon as she decided to rent out her boat, this became a commercial operation requiring a different level of insurance and a business boating licence.”

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Gordias]

I don't like the idea of crowdfunding being used as "after the fact" insurance.  It's like the "moral hazard" problem of economics: people accept higher risks when they know someone else will pay for any negative consequences.

A quote from wikipedia about moral hazard and the practices that led to the 2008 financial meltdown:

Quote

 

Economist Paul Krugman described moral hazard as "any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly." Financial bailouts of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of potential losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the highest return.

Taxpayers, depositors, and other creditors often have to shoulder at least part of the burden of risky financial decisions made by lending institutions.

 

Of course this case isn't fully comparable to 2008, because crowdfunding is voluntary, but it's hardly a fair way to apportion resources: the people who are best at "spin" get all the cash.

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, Gordias said:

I don't like the idea of crowdfunding being used as "after the fact" insurance.  It's like the "moral hazard" problem of economics: people accept higher risks when they know someone else will pay for any negative consequences.

A quote from wikipedia about moral hazard and the practices that led to the 2008 financial meltdown:

Of course this case isn't fully comparable to 2008, because crowdfunding is voluntary, but it's hardly a fair way to apportion resources: the people who are best at "spin" get all the cash.

I recall watching a documentary about Lloyds of London where investors were told very clearly that the returns were potentially excellent but the losses could be total. So were they absolutely sure they wanted to risk their money. 

In the insurance crash of 89/90 the novelist Jilly Cooper amongst others was bleating "But now I'm broke. This isn't fair. I've lost everything."  I don't believe she received a lot of sympathy. 

[AMModels]

I think the boat has now been raised by RCR, just seen on facebook

[Gordias]

33 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I recall watching a documentary about Lloyds of London where investors were told very clearly that the returns were potentially excellent but the losses could be total. So were they absolutely sure they wanted to risk their money. 

In the insurance crash of 89/90 the novelist Jilly Cooper amongst others was bleating "But now I'm broke. This isn't fair. I've lost everything."  I don't believe she received a lot of sympathy. 

Indeed.  Though FWIW I don't have the same problem with Lloyd's "names", since they have to pay up if it all goes bad.

This boatlord isn't quite as bad as the bankers (by 2006/7 they knew they were cheating the people the composite securities were being sold to).  But the attitude is similar: take the risk, bank the excess profits, but if the negative outcome (that balances the risk and the excess profits) happens, suddenly it's "someone else's problem".

[Sir Nibble]

The members of this forum are boaters, at sea we would be "salty" on canals maybe weedy? Shitty? Anyway, to grasp desperately for the point I was going to make.

I shudder to think of a nice, trusting smiling waggy tail couple with precious children having their safety in the hands of chancers after a fast buck who avoid sensible rules for public safety in the interests of profit.

Hippy be f**ked, a breadhead worse than the council owners of Grenfell tower.

[Rose Narrowboats]

20 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

The members of this forum are boaters, at sea we would be "salty" on canals maybe weedy? Shitty? Anyway, to grasp desperately for the point I was going to make.

I shudder to think of a nice, trusting smiling waggy tail couple with precious children having their safety in the hands of chancers after a fast buck who avoid sensible rules for public safety in the interests of profit.

Hippy be f**ked, a breadhead worse than the council owners of Grenfell tower.

In the current climate, those operating under the radar will thrive. I frequently answer hire enquiries only to be told that they can hire a boat on ebay/airbnb etc for less than half of what I've just quoted and I must be the bad guy because I'm the expensive one.

Trying to explain just sounds like sour grapes, so I've given up.

[RLWP]

44 minutes ago, Rose Narrowboats said:

In the current climate, those operating under the radar will thrive. I frequently answer hire enquiries only to be told that they can hire a boat on ebay/airbnb etc for less than half of what I've just quoted and I must be the bad guy because I'm the expensive one.

Trying to explain just sounds like sour grapes, so I've given up.

I'd say that climate was changing. Because of the situation on London, CRT are having to act

Richard

[Wanderer Vagabond]

7 hours ago, Gordias said:

I don't like the idea of crowdfunding being used as "after the fact" insurance.  It's like the "moral hazard" problem of economics: people accept higher risks when they know someone else will pay for any negative consequences.

A quote from wikipedia about moral hazard and the practices that led to the 2008 financial meltdown:

Of course this case isn't fully comparable to 2008, because crowdfunding is voluntary, but it's hardly a fair way to apportion resources: the people who are best at "spin" get all the cash.

I'm in full agreement with you here, my view is along the lines of 'you took the risks, you can take the consequences'. If for instance I decided that, despite no insurer willing to cover me for it, I was going to sail my narrow-boat across the channel so that I could travel the canals of Europe and the boat was then sadly lost due to my stupidity, is it reasonable to ask crowdfunding sources to reimburse me for my loss? (so that I can do it all over again).

 

[Sea Dog]

50 minutes ago, RLWP said:

I'd say that climate was changing. Because of the situation on London, CRT are having to act

Richard

And so they should in my view - or else be seeking the involvement of other relevant authorities. These requirements aren't just red tape, they're part of a duty of care for the tenant for those choosing to hire or rent out a boat, static or otherwise. There have been far too many deaths in the much less risky domain of land based holiday accommodation due to similar cavalier behaviour for this to be subject to a Nelsonian eye by the relevant authorities. That's before we account for the effects of such black market operations on legitimate businesses such as Rose Narrowboats (as highlighted earlier) or whether the income is being declared. If we think the lack of insurance is small beer, how about if the sinking had resulted in serious injury to the hirers or other third parties? In this case, her personal risk is one thing; the risk she exposed others to is quite another. 

Will I be contributing to the crowd funding? Err, no. That would feel like sponsoring, or at least condoning, wreckless endangerment or even potentially criminal activity to me.

[Athy]

19 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed - the 1st & 2nd conditions of granting a licence

17.  Static Letting (SL) 
17.1      We do not grant business licences for long term letting to boats which are licensed on a continuous cruising basis.  
 

 

 

A peculiar statement: have we not been told many times that there is no such thing as a continuous cruising licence?

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Athy said:

A peculiar statement: have we not been told many times that there is no such thing as a continuous cruising licence?

Agreed - but its become accepted 'terminology' much as 'Hoover' has replaced 'vacuum'.

I suggest that in fact 'clause 1' is just a reinforcement of 'clause 2'

"Repetition adds emphasis" my old English teacher used to say.

17.1      We do not grant business licences for long term letting to boats which are licensed on a continuous cruising not having a home mooring basis.  
17.2      You must have a Home Mooring for the Boat on an existing mooring site, recognised by the Trust and with appropriate facilities.

[furnessvale]

4 hours ago, Athy said:

A peculiar statement: have we not been told many times that there is no such thing as a continuous cruising licence?

I see no problem with that.

To me the wording says that they have issued you with a licence on the basis that both parties have agreed you are a bone fide continuous cruiser.  It does not say "continuous cruiser licence".

George

ps I have no intention of entering a debate on what is a bone fide continuous cruiser.

Edited July 22, 2017 by furnessvale

[MtB]

On 22/07/2017 at 07:19, Athy said:

A peculiar statement: have we not been told many times that there is no such thing as a continuous cruising licence?

 

Its just clumsy drafting. (Or is it draughting?)

I've adjusted it:

      We do not grant business licences for long term letting to boats without a home mooring.