|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 2, 2020 9:33:18 GMT
"Do you know of any other forum/board etc. that feels the need to have a special section for discussing another forum?" Do all forums have to follow the same format? Are we sheep or innovators? You have to be a special kind of thick to not understand why CWDF is not occasionally discussed here. Is this some weird 'Gollum like' conversation with yourself ? Rog We had an artist (Peter Green) live with us for 2 years when I was about 9 years old, and this was his imagined impression of Gollum:
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Feb 2, 2020 9:56:45 GMT
However that all changed when they realised they are responsible Are they responsible? The direction the insurance claims take will establish this. CRT moved the vessel (with agreement) and it is their responsibility to move it to a fit location and adequately secure it. As the navigation authority they can not claim to not understand the river conditions and how to secure the vessel. Ultimately I do not see upon what grounds they can claim to avoid responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 2, 2020 10:02:17 GMT
Are they responsible? The direction the insurance claims take will establish this. CRT moved the vessel (with agreement) and it is their responsibility to move it to a fit location and adequately secure it. As the navigation authority they can not claim to not understand the river conditions and how to secure the vessel. Ultimately I do not see upon what grounds they can claim to avoid responsibility. Yes - but they returned the boat 6 years ago, allegedly. If you had a blooming great hunk o'steel barge on a big, wide, dangerous river liable to flooding, and someone 'borrowed' it, would you not, during six years, think to go and check on it now and then? I feel Stabby is right on this - that claims will be first directed at the owner of the boat. Perhaps the blame will be apportioned 50/50 (CRT for being the people to last tie the boat up / TD for not bothering to check it during the past 6 years (allegedly) ). Will we be kept informed of the outcome? Or will this all be, as usual, swept under the carpet, as with the Whaley Bridge dam and the Middlewich Branch breach?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 2, 2020 10:28:40 GMT
What was Stuart Garner's involvement in the movement of the boat? Could he have been in charge of the crew who moved it? I see he has got involved afterwards, disseminating falsehoods about emails. Chancer!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 10:33:42 GMT
. . . . . . . . . What was the 'sweetener'? It was - to quote from the post you're quoting from - " a sweetener in the shape of a suggested compromise over their unreasonable, and unlawful, insistence that my out of commission pleasure boat must be subject to a full BSC examination." Which bit of that can't you understand ? Have you completely forgotten everything about the "Rivers Only Licence" thread ? I was mildly curious as to just exactly what the offer you referred to in your latest posts was. But I can see you are still your own sweet self.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Feb 2, 2020 10:38:03 GMT
Foxy, you seem confused. It's simple - Crt moved the boat away from it's regular mooring. The boat then escaped. The time lapse is irrelevant, it was moored where CRT move it to by CRT who didn't look after it.
Maybe someone with a grudge against Tony helped it on it's way. If so they shot themselves in the foot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 10:42:18 GMT
Are they responsible?Β The direction the insurance claims take will establish this. CRT moved the vessel (with agreement) and it is their responsibility to move it to a fit location and adequately secure it. Β As the navigation authority they can not claim to not understand the river conditions and how to secure the vessel. Β Ultimately I do not see upon what grounds they can claim to avoid responsibility. See vicarious liability ππ»
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 10:44:16 GMT
Maybe someone with a grudge against Tony helped it on it's way. If so they shot themselves in the foot. Or someone with a grudge against CRT... It's a bit naff in a way that the costs will be borne by boaters who pay to keep their boats afloat.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 2, 2020 10:46:13 GMT
Are they responsible? The direction the insurance claims take will establish this. CRT moved the vessel (with agreement) and it is their responsibility to move it to a fit location and adequately secure it. As the navigation authority they can not claim to not understand the river conditions and how to secure the vessel. Ultimately I do not see upon what grounds they can claim to avoid responsibility. Ironically, were C&RT to attempt to excuse their demonstrable negligence by claiming not to understand the river conditions it would be one of the rare instances when they've ever been honest and truthful about anything !
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Feb 2, 2020 10:47:43 GMT
CRT moved the vessel (with agreement) and it is their responsibility to move it to a fit location and adequately secure it. As the navigation authority they can not claim to not understand the river conditions and how to secure the vessel. Ultimately I do not see upon what grounds they can claim to avoid responsibility. See vicarious liability ππ» I doubt that applies in this case seeing as he did not ask or pay for CRT to move the boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 10:52:35 GMT
I would have thought it would be pretty obvious to send the owner of the boat a message via email or text or both requesting that they check their boat is moored in the way they would prefer it to be moored.
I hate other people mooring my boats and would always check asap if it ever happened. Some people really don't know how to tie up boats properly.
ETA whether you can actually transfer liability by requesting owner's attendance I don't know but it would seem a prudent thing to do as a backup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 11:04:41 GMT
Maybe someone with a grudge against Tony helped it on it's way. If so they shot themselves in the foot. It's a bit naff in a way that the costs will be borne by boaters who pay to keep their boats afloat. CRT have rescued many boats over the years. Many are just accidents. Some I'm sure are due to boat owners who push the limits of the system (or are just pissed). Were most of these rescues (e.g lock cill sinkings) carried out at no cost to the owner? Maybe we should all bear the cost as it could happen to us one day. Bit like insurance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 11:14:46 GMT
Your post doesn't make sense. It's not "like insurance" it is effectively an alternative to insurance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 11:36:53 GMT
Your post doesn't make sense. It's not "like insurance" it is effectively an alternative to insurance. You were implying that all of us boat owners bear the cost of any accidents or 'incidents' such as Tony's. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm saying that (most of us) on CRT waters pay a licence fee which some funds presumably are used to cover such accidents or 'incidents' (where CRT infrastructure or personal may be liable). I don't really know but maybe that part of the fund does go to a third party insurance company. Anyone know? I gave up making sense out of the CRT accounts years ago....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 11:41:32 GMT
It's interesting if that is the case as it would potentially encourage boat owners to opt out of the requirement to have 3rd party insurance. For the record I am the no.1 insurance hater Obviously you can just bullshit about insurance on license application the admin would be too much to check it all. It's a good idea to have insurance as part of the license fee I would like that a lot. ETA I think I have probably misunderstood you as you are commenting on CRT insurance not "pooled" insurance for boat owners.
|
|