Sinking/sunk boat St Lawrence bay River Blackwater

[Daydream believer]

So why do you expect the RNLI to do so?

They have the funds & admin to deal with such matters. Volunteer committee members of a Fairway committee with nothing to do with the matter do not. If the RNLI want to salvage a vessel then there are laws dealing with such matters & they should follow the correct route. If they want to salvage a vessel then they cannot just dump it on someone else. Storage etc is part of their salvage claim.

 

[Plum]

They have the funds & admin to deal with such matters. Volunteer committee members of a Fairway committee with nothing to do with the matter do not. If the RNLI want to salvage a vessel then there are laws dealing with such matters & they should follow the correct route. If they want to salvage a vessel then they cannot just dump it on someone else. Storage etc is part of their salvage claim.

I do not agree with you. The RNLI do an outstanding job, their funds should be for search and rescue only and they should continue with their policy of not claiming salvage. We are extremely lucky to have them. I am surprised that ayone would be critical of the RNLI

 

[Juan Twothree]

They have the funds & admin to deal with such matters. Volunteer committee members of a Fairway committee with nothing to do with the matter do not. If the RNLI want to salvage a vessel then there are laws dealing with such matters & they should follow the correct route. If they want to salvage a vessel then they cannot just dump it on someone else. Storage etc is part of their salvage claim.

The RNLI doesn't "want" to salvage a vessel, it gets tasked to do so, and putting said vessel on an empty mooring was probably the CG's suggestion.
And neither would the RNLI put in a salvage claim. Apart from anything else, it would deter those in danger from requesting assistance for fear of getting a large bill.

I find it hard to believe that you're seriously suggesting that the RNLI should keep a mooring in every port "just in case". They may have plenty of money on paper, but most of their apparent wealth is in expensive fixed assets, not really accessible unless they start selling off boathouses and lifeboats.

I appreciate that the boat shouldn't be your problem, but neither should it be the RNLI's.
.

 

[Daydream believer]

I do not agree with you. The RNLI do an outstanding job, their funds should be for search and rescue only and they should continue with their policy of not claiming salvage. We are extremely lucky to have them. I am surprised that ayone would be critical of the RNLI

OK, what do you think they should have done with the drifting vessel?
When asked to recover it, should they have declined?
Were they right to put a vessel, in danger of sinking,( it had already sunk once & a storm was on its way) on a totally independent persons mooring & leaving them with a problem?
Should they have recovered it, looked after it themselves. Perhaps beached it on a spring tide behind Mersea Island & supplied an anchor on temporary basis. Not a big investment. Then after investigation returned to the rightful owner without involving others

 

[Daydream believer]

They may have plenty of money on paper, but most of their apparent wealth is in expensive fixed assets, not really accessible unless they start selling off boathouses and lifeboats.

Do they actually NEED them.?How many are now closed?

 

[Juan Twothree]

Do they actually NEED them.?How many are now closed?

On the rare occasions a station is closed, the boathouse will be sold off if it could be of use to anyone else.

But I can only think of a couple that have closed in the last few years. Teesmouth in 2005, and St. Abbs in 2015.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that lots have been closed?

 

[Daydream believer]

On the rare occasions a station is closed, the boathouse will be sold off if it could be of use to anyone else.

But I can only think of a couple that have closed in the last few years. Teesmouth in 2005, and St. Abbs in 2015.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that lots have been closed?

Did I say that? I asked a question, I did not make any assumptions. You did.

 

[Pye_End]

It seems reasonable for the RNLI to be tasked to a boat adrift. Unless the CG know the history, there could be someone in a diabetic coma or similar on board.

The decision to put the boat on to a local mooring. As irritating as it is, I can understand it. This decision would have been done in conjunction with the CG at the time. I would expect the CG too follow this up with the owner of the mooring, or with the River Baliff.

Now as far the OP fashionable rant is concerned, we seem to know nothing about what happened next. Who has been talking to whom? It is not unreasonable to try and get the owner to sort the issue out, but if not then the CG and Council need to take action. It is not the RNLI's responsibility, and neither should it be so.

Would it have been too much to expect somebody to keep this boat afloat to save the cost of recovery? Doesn't sound like a quick sinking from the description.

Abandoned boats are a problem to authorities generally, but we are not aware that this one is abandoned so costs should come down to the current owner and their insurance (if they have it).

 

[davidej]

Inevitably we are heading for compulsory registration and compulsory third party and salvage insurance, due to the acts - or more often inaction - of an irresponsible minority of boat owners.

I don't know how that could ever be enforced.

 

[Daydream believer]

It seems reasonable for the RNLI to be tasked to a boat adrift. Unless the CG know the history, there could be someone in a diabetic coma or similar on board.

The decision to put the boat on to a local mooring. As irritating as it is, I can understand it. This decision would have been done in conjunction with the CG at the time. I would expect the CG too follow this up with the owner of the mooring, or with the River Baliff.

Now as far the OP fashionable rant is concerned, we seem to know nothing about what happened next. Who has been talking to whom? It is not unreasonable to try and get the owner to sort the issue out, but if not then the CG and Council need to take action. It is not the RNLI's responsibility, and neither should it be so.

Would it have been too much to expect somebody to keep this boat afloat to save the cost of recovery? Doesn't sound like a quick sinking from the description.

Abandoned boats are a problem to authorities generally, but we are not aware that this one is abandoned so costs should come down to the current owner and their insurance (if they have it).

The river baliff has no jurisdiction over fairway mooring sites. I would expect him not to bother, if it was not in his authoritive area. In some cases he may have input as to who the owner was (HM already knows & has been in contact) if indeed the owner did actually pay for a mooring from Maldon. I am not sure what pressure he can bring to bear on an errant owner anyway.These things can be difficult as I know from experience myself.
Thus it ends up with a mooring owner having the issue, due to the inconsiderate actions of the RNLI

It all boils down to the fact that the RNLI had no right whatsoever to place a stray vessel on a private mooring without the owners permission.

 

[Snowgoose-1]

I think I would have been grateful to the RNLI if it was my boat that broke free. Would be then happy to cough up whatever to the mooring body.

Agree that this current issue is not as straight forward. We don't want to discourage the RNLI though to stop dealing with breakaways.

It will take time for this current situation to be sorted out .

 

[Daydream believer]

I think I would have been grateful to the RNLI if it was my boat that broke free. Would be then happy to cough up whatever to the mooring body.

It depends on the condition of your boat. Would some owners now rather see the back of one?
I cannot possibly comment in this case. Nor, am I aware of insurance status to cover costs . I assume that you, being responsible, will be insured & thus able to finance such costs incurred

 

[Pye_End]

The river baliff has no jurisdiction over fairway mooring sites. I would expect him not to bother, if it was not in his authoritive area. In some cases he may have input as to who the owner was (HM already knows & has been in contact) if indeed the owner did actually pay for a mooring from Maldon. I am not sure what pressure he can bring to bear on an errant owner anyway.These things can be difficult as I know from experience myself.
Thus it ends up with a mooring owner having the issue, due to the inconsiderate actions of the RNLI

It all boils down to the fact that the RNLI had no right whatsoever to place a stray vessel on a private mooring without the owners permission.

Somebody, somewhere, will be responsible for the safe navigation of the Blackwater, and a sinking or sunken vessel surely will fall to a remit. If the HM has been involved then it sounds as though the relevant authorities are trying to resolve this?

The decisions made on the day largely fall to the CG not the RNLI, as does the follow-up.

This rant is devoid of relevant information and practicality, and the only alternatives put forward so far, lets just say, also have their difficulties.

Perhaps you can come back to us with what communications the club or the owner have had over this matter?

 

[Daydream believer]

Nothing to do with the sailing club. The fairway committee is an independent body. It only rents sites. If a holder of a mooring tenancy happens to be a club member then that is the only connection. Nothing else.

The Clerk to the committee (Who we call our HM for convenience as he organises servicing, site layout etc as well as committee admin) could walk away as it is not his issue. It is between boat owner & RNLI & mooring holder. For obvious reasons I am sure that the HM will do his best to liaise with all parties as he is best able to do so. He will do his best to mediate to an amicable conclusion & avoid confrontation. But it is not his job description- It was not in mine.

 

[Plum]

OK, what do you think they should have done with the drifting vessel?
When asked to recover it, should they have declined?
Were they right to put a vessel, in danger of sinking,( it had already sunk once & a storm was on its way) on a totally independent persons mooring & leaving them with a problem?
Should they have recovered it, looked after it themselves. Perhaps beached it on a spring tide behind Mersea Island & supplied an anchor on temporary basis. Not a big investment. Then after investigation returned to the rightful owner without involving others

From what has been said of this incident I believe the RNLI did the right thing.

 

[Daydream believer]

From what has been said of this incident I believe the RNLI did the right thing.

What? lumber some poor mooring holder with a problem?
What if a car broke down outside your house. the driver called the AA who could not repair it. They did not have get you home insurance so pushed the car off the road for safety reasons into your drive.
You came home at night & cannot get into your garage & cannot park in your drive.
The car owner has b..gered off. When contacted gives loads of excuses why he cannot move it & threatens you if you damage it. You cannot stick it in the road for safety reasons.
Police will not want to know
(There has been instances of people dumping cars in peoples drives & going on holiday so the example is not so daft)
How would you feel about this situation? It i s not really so different is it?
But you will back the AA- no different to the RNLI if you think about it.

 

[Plum]

What? lumber some poor mooring holder with a problem?
What if a car broke down outside your house. the driver called the AA who could not repair it. They did not have get you home insurance so pushed the car off the road for safety reasons into your drive.
You came home at night & cannot get into your garage & cannot park in your drive.
The car owner has b..gered off. When contacted gives loads of excuses why he cannot move it & threatens you if you damage it. You cannot stick it in the road for safety reasons.
Police will not want to know
(There has been instances of people dumping cars in peoples drives & going on holiday so the example is not so daft)
How would you feel about this situation? It i s not really so different is it?
But you will back the AA- no different to the RNLI if you think about it.

Ok, so you disagree with me.

 

[oldgit]

Do recall an incident in a long established boat club where the boat owners laid their own ground tackle and risers.
One long neglected boat in imminent danger of foundering, mysteriously managed to break free of its mooring and end up ashore in a nearbye little creek, this all curiously happened on a decent spring tide on a dark evening.
When driving across a nearbye bridge ,it was possible over the next 3 decades to watch the marsh slowly absorbing it's victim.
The wood is long gone but it's pair of Thornycrofts , probably the subject of a distant future Time Time dig.

 

[Daydream believer]

Ok, so you disagree with me.

It is not a case of disagreement. You made a mistake. I have corrected you. Simple really.

 

[Plum]

It is not a case of disagreement. You made a mistake. I have corrected you. Simple really.

Please do not accuse me of making a mistake, I just said something you disagreed with.