----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Millin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:33 PM Subject: [canals-list] Re: mooring tendering
> Adrian wrote: > > > As it turns out, that presumption seems to be incorrect. > > > > > > I was strongly in favour of a usage element in navigation charges, > > > based on it. However, BW did some research, and came to the > > > conclusion that the marginal cost to it of a vessel navigating is > so > > > small that it can be ignored. > > And Will replied: > > > I don't believe that. I understand that a significant part of > > BW's maintenance bill is due to user damage to locks, eroded > > banks and other assets. That is to poor boat handling. To me that > > means more boat movement equates to more damage and general wear > > and tear. > > Will, although I wholeheartedly agree with your right to challenge > Adrian's argument ;-) aren't you in danger of publicly supporting a > move by BW to put the *blame* for system damage firmly onto the > boater thus giving them justification for the massive licence rises > over the next three years. > Also, it is highly likely even though Eugene has gone, that someone > from BW is monitoring this group. If they see us supporting a stance > that they themselves want to use I suspect that it will gladden their > heart and that the argument will eventually be thrown back in our > faces. > Roger To pick up on just one point here: Adrian mentions *user damage to locks*. Has anyone ever heard of BW pursuing an insurance claim against a boat or hire fleet owner for damage? I wonder at times why BW insist on us having 3rd party indemnity if they never pursue any claims. Maybe somebody knows something different? Phil
