We have had a reply from B.W. at Wigan to say they are looking into our 
original message......we await the reply with interest.
 
The story we heard  from the Rufford branch was that some lady had moved into a 
house over looking the 24 hr vis mooring at Rufford and then started ringing up 
B.W. when anyone over stayed by a hour....To give B.W. credit it is now a 7 day 
mooring:-)
 
We are following the postings on the forum that Martin posted to with smiles.
 
For any one who is in Radio Lancs area, they are sending a reporter out to see 
us on Friday morning about our selling of wool from the boat....its tempting to 
raise this matter as well, but I think the lock cottage owner will get the 
message soon enough.....
 
Colin and Carole
nb Patty Ann
--- On Tue, 29/9/09, Family <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Family <[email protected]>
Subject: [canals-list] Re: Problem with lock cottage owner at Greenberfield
To: "Canal-List" <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, 29 September, 2009, 11:01 PM


  



Jannock got a BW nastygram whilst moored very legitimately on the Rufford
Arm last year.

We were not on the 48 hour moorings. Jannock had only been on the 14 day
rule for 5 days.

The reason for the nastygram... .. we had "been on the Rufford Arm for too
long". Well that was a new one on us as we are unaware that there is a limit
on the time one may spend on that waterway.

We phoned BW to protest, as it was their representative who had posted said
nastygram, they said not to take any notice. They obviously took no
responsibility for the cavalier way the rules were applied.

The locals told us that we were actually moored at the bottom of the garden
of a woman who preferred an uninterrupted view of the fields beyond. It was
her habit to phone a friend and get a notice to bu$&er off posted on the
boats which offend her eye.

So who makes the rules? BW seem to take the side of anyone who isn't
actually their customer in such cases.

Megapixie.

NB Scilly-buoy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

















      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to