Cliveshep
Well-Known Member
This is a bit of a lengthy thread but if any legal eagles out there can offer any other avenues of advice to bring pressure on the National Trust River Wey and Godalming Navigations to be a bit more accommodating and reasonable I'd be very grateful as they have put me in a bit of a predicament.
The issue concerns my mooring at Addlestone. The old mooring trot, admittedly past it's "sell-by" date, was recently ripped out and re-built in timber posts with a nice chinese-made perforated resin walkway 600mm wide. The posts on the river side stick up about 900mm and the Trust's idea is we all tie off to those. Insofar as it goes it is a very good and safe mooring, and access to boats has improved dramatically. However, because much of the mooring trot is shallow I asked for my bit to be dredged (as the previous owner of the moorings used to do for me before he retired and the lease reverted back to the Trust who then doubled the prices) because otherwise my keel, even though it is a minimum of 5'6" from the mooring edge is still in a furrow it has created in the silt and stony bottom, and passing narrow boats throw up a further silt bank that lies against the river side of the keel and traps me in or if I do get out makes it very difficult to get back alongside later. The foreman wasn't too keen on dredging, they only drag the silt back into the channel anyway due to landfill regulations which prevent them carting it away, so he placed my boat further down and told me that it was the deepest bit and that is where I would stay permanently.
Because of the ease with which local yobs could just slip the ropes up and off the posts and set Adventurer adrift (she has been untied several times in the past), and because with passing boat's wash the surging against the landing causes the ropes to first slacken, so that they slide down the posts where friction keeps them, they can became dangerously tight and strain the deck fittings and even impose a bit of a list. I asked the Trust's foreman for permission to drill and through-bolt stainless steel rings (at my expense) through the tops of 3 of the posts, bow, stern and 'midships, to stop easy untying or slippage and facilitate the fitting of fore and aft breasts and springs laid as permanent "dock-lines".
He gave permission for this, and later I asked him to come and inspect the results and pronounce if the work was acceptable - which he said it was. I accordingly made up cut and spliced permanent dock-lines and the boat now lies perfectly, not even the fastest and most wash-producing narrow boat passing close aboard causes any problems.
Since then the Trust have written asking me to move the boat back to the original (pre-rip-out) position, and remove the bolted rings, making good the holes in the posts, and not to fit any more rings, relying instead on the posts. I have protested at this, explaining that my free-board is around 4ft (more at the bow of course) whereas their landing is only around 1 ft above the water, and also explaining that there were previously rings fitted when the mooring was private (we all got "adopted" when the Trust re-possessed after 30 odd years) and that casting off a boat was not so easy then, plus we didn't have to tie up with massive amounts of slack (in my case) to allow the ropes to slide down the posts but not wind up too tight for safety when they did slip.
They have refuse to see the point or assist with the problem they have created. They do admit that their agent (the foreman) gave assent and fixed the position of the boat, and apologise for the inconvenience caused by this. Their latest missive (from the account’s manager for God's Sake), actually says that my boat, whilst able to access the mooring, is too big, wide and high for the navigation and thus unsuitable for the navigation. Bear in mind that the National Trust have a Statutory duty to maintain the navigation as a Navigation under Acts of Parliament dating back via the National Trust Acts (various acts) and the original Navigation Acts of 1670 and 1760, and then look at their own access figures - maximum length 71'6", max beam 14', max draft 3', max headroom 7' you'll see what degree of sophistry this presents. As an add-on, they actually had the cheek to enclose a sketch indicating how to lay out breasts and fore and aft springs! Whilst I need all of the draft and headroom theoretically available, in practice only the headroom can get a bit tight on some of the bridges, and we regularly go up to Guildford and beyond as the depth averages out as minimum 1.5m on my sounder.
I feel that the Trust's newly imposed conditions now contrary to their own official agent's instructions, impose an onerous burden upon me by preventing me securely yet safely mooring my boat, even though I have thoroughly explained the situation and sent sketches. In fact, as their own Agent (the foreman) himself personally placed the boat on the present mooring location, stated it would remain there, gave permission for rings, inspected and approved the installation, in my opinion I believe they are now acting contrary to Statutory Instrument 1999 no. 2083 being "The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Conditions Regulations 1999, cl 4, 5 (1), (2). (3), Cl 6 (2) a & b, Cl 7 (1) (2), Cl 8 (1) (2), and a whole rake of indicative unfair terms quoted in the legislative document.
What do you highly intelligent and educated chaps feel about this? I'd really appreciate some input here (meaning ammunition!).
The issue concerns my mooring at Addlestone. The old mooring trot, admittedly past it's "sell-by" date, was recently ripped out and re-built in timber posts with a nice chinese-made perforated resin walkway 600mm wide. The posts on the river side stick up about 900mm and the Trust's idea is we all tie off to those. Insofar as it goes it is a very good and safe mooring, and access to boats has improved dramatically. However, because much of the mooring trot is shallow I asked for my bit to be dredged (as the previous owner of the moorings used to do for me before he retired and the lease reverted back to the Trust who then doubled the prices) because otherwise my keel, even though it is a minimum of 5'6" from the mooring edge is still in a furrow it has created in the silt and stony bottom, and passing narrow boats throw up a further silt bank that lies against the river side of the keel and traps me in or if I do get out makes it very difficult to get back alongside later. The foreman wasn't too keen on dredging, they only drag the silt back into the channel anyway due to landfill regulations which prevent them carting it away, so he placed my boat further down and told me that it was the deepest bit and that is where I would stay permanently.
Because of the ease with which local yobs could just slip the ropes up and off the posts and set Adventurer adrift (she has been untied several times in the past), and because with passing boat's wash the surging against the landing causes the ropes to first slacken, so that they slide down the posts where friction keeps them, they can became dangerously tight and strain the deck fittings and even impose a bit of a list. I asked the Trust's foreman for permission to drill and through-bolt stainless steel rings (at my expense) through the tops of 3 of the posts, bow, stern and 'midships, to stop easy untying or slippage and facilitate the fitting of fore and aft breasts and springs laid as permanent "dock-lines".
He gave permission for this, and later I asked him to come and inspect the results and pronounce if the work was acceptable - which he said it was. I accordingly made up cut and spliced permanent dock-lines and the boat now lies perfectly, not even the fastest and most wash-producing narrow boat passing close aboard causes any problems.
Since then the Trust have written asking me to move the boat back to the original (pre-rip-out) position, and remove the bolted rings, making good the holes in the posts, and not to fit any more rings, relying instead on the posts. I have protested at this, explaining that my free-board is around 4ft (more at the bow of course) whereas their landing is only around 1 ft above the water, and also explaining that there were previously rings fitted when the mooring was private (we all got "adopted" when the Trust re-possessed after 30 odd years) and that casting off a boat was not so easy then, plus we didn't have to tie up with massive amounts of slack (in my case) to allow the ropes to slide down the posts but not wind up too tight for safety when they did slip.
They have refuse to see the point or assist with the problem they have created. They do admit that their agent (the foreman) gave assent and fixed the position of the boat, and apologise for the inconvenience caused by this. Their latest missive (from the account’s manager for God's Sake), actually says that my boat, whilst able to access the mooring, is too big, wide and high for the navigation and thus unsuitable for the navigation. Bear in mind that the National Trust have a Statutory duty to maintain the navigation as a Navigation under Acts of Parliament dating back via the National Trust Acts (various acts) and the original Navigation Acts of 1670 and 1760, and then look at their own access figures - maximum length 71'6", max beam 14', max draft 3', max headroom 7' you'll see what degree of sophistry this presents. As an add-on, they actually had the cheek to enclose a sketch indicating how to lay out breasts and fore and aft springs! Whilst I need all of the draft and headroom theoretically available, in practice only the headroom can get a bit tight on some of the bridges, and we regularly go up to Guildford and beyond as the depth averages out as minimum 1.5m on my sounder.
I feel that the Trust's newly imposed conditions now contrary to their own official agent's instructions, impose an onerous burden upon me by preventing me securely yet safely mooring my boat, even though I have thoroughly explained the situation and sent sketches. In fact, as their own Agent (the foreman) himself personally placed the boat on the present mooring location, stated it would remain there, gave permission for rings, inspected and approved the installation, in my opinion I believe they are now acting contrary to Statutory Instrument 1999 no. 2083 being "The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Conditions Regulations 1999, cl 4, 5 (1), (2). (3), Cl 6 (2) a & b, Cl 7 (1) (2), Cl 8 (1) (2), and a whole rake of indicative unfair terms quoted in the legislative document.
What do you highly intelligent and educated chaps feel about this? I'd really appreciate some input here (meaning ammunition!).
