Damned if it does...
But here Pam Pickett tells of the removal of the wooden boat, that she asks—A triumph for the Trust, or a major dent in its finances?
Removed
I refer to the narrowboat Pearl, recently removed by CaRT from its mooring at Northwich, and for some reason known only to the Trust then transported 125 miles to Gloucester.
This although the judgement handed down by His Honour Judge Halbert in the Chester County Court specified the boat be removed from Cart waters, it now resides on waters listed by the court as waters it is banned from—CaRT waters.
The cost
However, whilst CaRT is no doubt congratulating itself on having removed liveaboard Pearl, and in so doing having sent out a message to the rest of us, the bottom line here is that unless the trust now reapplies to the court it is to be left with no alternative other than to bear not only the costs of the court case, but given the plight of the boat owner, probably also the costs related to the removal, transportation and storage of his boat. A good few donations I think!
A breakdown of the costs incurred in moving Pearl are as follows:
Crane Hire and Transportation £7814.00
Survey fee 200.00
First 6 weeks storage @ £72 p.w 432.00
VAT @ 20% 1689.20
Overall cost (Inc. VAT) 10,135.20
Better spent
In a letter received from CaRT's Wigan office by Pearl's owner however, mathematics it seems are not quite the thing for CaRT that then refers to the overall amount of £10,135.20 as being exclusive of VAT. Regardless, I would suggest monies would be better spent on some of the desperately needed repairs on our system.
Still with cost in mind I have to ask the Trust what it has actually achieved? The possession of a boat that if it is to be sold is highly unlikely to equate in any way to the costs incurred by the Trust?
Vulnerable man
In addition an extremely vulnerable man made homeless and forced to seek refuge for himself, and for his only companion, his cat, in a caravan. Having trawled through all aspects of this case at length, regardless of any rights and wrongs, what we again do not have as in the case of 'Maggie' is a single mention of any welfare organisation being brought in to help this boater, although it seems to me personally that His Honour Judge Halbert did his absolute best to do so.
Whilst it now only remains for me to congratulate the Trust on its 'victory' in removing liveaboard Pearl, I do have to ask if the true cost of the removal of this boat by this so 'charitable' trust is only to relate to its loss of money? Time alone will tell.