>AIUI, it was cases like this that have caused BW to confirm that, from
>now on, the mooring tenancy is a contract between BW and the tenant
>(i.e. is not related to the boat which may be using the mooring at any
>time), and is not transferable to a new tenant. Also, the tenant is
>not allowed to sublet the mooring. Meaning, that if you have a BW
>mooring, and sell your boat, you can't "sell" the mooring with it any
>more.
>
>Apparently, there were some situations (almost all in London, I think)
>where the moorer had previously been told by BW staff that he *could*
>"sell" the mooring with the boat, and some moorings had indeed been
>"sold" on (for a hefty premium in some cases) by the tenant. BW
>decided to deal with these cases as exceptions, and work them out
>one-by-one with the individuals concerned.
>
>This is part of a bigger picture, in that BW recently admitted that it
>has had trouble getting national decisions and policy implemented
>consistently (or even at all in some cases) locally. It says it is
>now getting serious about overcoming this. I do hope so.
>
>Adrian
>
So giving each area autonomy hasn't worked and Watford want overall controll
again!
There are boaters in other parts of the country with BW agreements to be able
to sell their boats with the mooring. There was also someone on the GU who sold
his boat with mooring, he had a winter mooring!
Sue nb Nackered Navvy
