A sorry tale...

EARLY this year Patrick and Elaine Cordan escalated a complaint to CaRT with regard to what they felt to be unfair enforcement action having been taken against them, having received a pre CC1, a CC1 and a CC2, (enforcement notices) this during one of the wettest winters on record, writes Pam Pickett.

Patrick and Elaine Cordan are members of the Boaters Christian Fellowship. Their boat is (was) Pilgrims Progress.

Diagnosed with pneumonia

Patrick Cordan at the time of receipt of the first enforcement notice had been diagnosed with pneumonia. Sadly this was later confirmed to be Pleural cancer, (Mesothelioma) in short Patrick was a very sick man. Despite his condition, and for fear of losing his boat, Patrick managed to keep moving the boat between Farndon and Newark whilst his wife was employed in looking after her mother, the only reason for their having been on the Trent. Elaine's mother having fallen and damaged her spine.

Tick-box enforcement

Following their complaint not having been upheld by CaRT, Paul Griffin, Manager of the Enforcement team having dealt with the matter, I was given Elaine and Patrick's proxy to investigate further. I now find those enforcement notices to have been 'correctly' issued. However given CaRT's 'tick box' method of enforcement in the hands of non-boaters without knowledge of rivers pressurising boaters into moving in conditions they would normally avoid, I have to ask whether in inclement conditions CaRT is really in a position to issue enforcement notices on a river?

Looking at its instructions to boater Mick Fitzgibbons during inclement weather to moor in front of its office in Leeds, on another river that subsequently flooded whilst his request to moor below a flood lock had been refused, surely brings into question CaRT's understanding of our rivers?

CaRT 'was a little rigid'

I also have to question as to whether CaRT has the necessary people skills to recognise the difference between honest boaters fighting both illness and the elements, and any actually 'taking the Michael'? In CaRT's findings on Patrick and Elaine's complaint, the nearest thing to an apology to this couple was an agreement that CaRT may have been a 'little rigid' in applying its enforcement.

However, Paul Griffin also pointed out that as this couple travelled the Trent 'year on year' he would have expected that there would be an 'increased understanding' of the river and a 'subsequent increase in the couple's navigational competency'.

The jury is out

Patrick and Elaine Cordan had in the actuality been boating for four years, with the majority of their time spent on the canals. However the jury has to be out as to whether usually previously brief yearly visits to the Trent to visit family would have equipped a sick leisure boater to cope with the fluctuating conditions on the Trent, particularly so during the dreadfully wet winter of 2012/2013.

In the days of commercial boating the taking off of the flood gate at Mill Bridge was seen as the navigation being open and it being safe to go. Today however given possibly inexperienced crews those flood gates at Mill Bridge being open does not necessarily mean it is safe to go, as Patrick and Elaine found to their cost. The level at Mill Bridge does not represent the levels on other stretches of the Trent. The levels at the dyke being virtually 2.3 times higher than at Mill Bridge and this week alone, considerably higher still at Shardlow. It is however not just the levels to be taken into account by boaters on the Trent, not only can the current be increased during a lower flow, the wind can also be a major force to be reckoned with.

Left to their own devices

In the case of Patrick and Elaine they were pushed by wind and flow onto rocks at the mouth of Farndson Marina, causing damage to their propeller. Secondly, having received a CC2, and now in real fear of losing their boat, they felt pressurised into moving from Newark to Farndon. With the wind hitting their port side and the boat listing badly they then found themselves being blown towards Averham weir, a more than frightening experience for Elaine.

Then Patrick and Elaine again headed up river only to find themselves in another panic situation. Their engine overheated and then cut out close to a gas main. They drifted into trees, throwing out the anchor once they were clear of the gas main. Again terrified Elaine rang the Newark office to ask for assistance, only to be told there was no-one to help.

Not to be pressurised

Whilst a thorough check of the levels on the river between the Mill Bridge floodgates and Farndon has been carried out and a significant increase in the water levels has not been found, given the wind and fast running current those boaters more used to the Trent would I'm sure have advised Patrick and Elaine not to be pressurised into moving in such conditions.

Regardless, in the days of British Waterways 'proper' a terrified lady and her sick skipper would not have been left to extricate themselves as best they could when in a situation such as this, as this couple were. Then again in the days of British Waterways 'proper' there was more than one boat available, unlike now. (Before CaRT responds I am aware there are actually two boats—but only one crew, so same difference?)

Looking back I well recollect boaters stuck in floods at Leicester, when Simon Salem pulled out all of the stops for those boaters, as did British Waterways for boaters frozen in for weeks on the Shroppie, they weren't disbelieved and as is the way today, accused by CaRT enforcement of 'only being there to take advantage of overstaying'.

To re-iterate

To re-iterate, Patrick Corden was a very sick man. CaRT had been made aware of this. The winter was dreadful, Elaine's mother had fallen and required care, hence an envisaged slightly longer stay on the Trent than usual, and if I have it right, hence the reason for having used the boat, rather than coming by car. The couple had suffered damage to the propeller plus an engine breakdown that necessitated the fitting of a new short engine. They were stuck on a pontoon at Farndon without power, unable to enter Farndon Marina that houses cruisers, because of smoke from their fire, and let's face it, CaRT's enforcement certainly didn't appear to go out of its way to enable a mechanic charged with fitting the engine to reach the boat, though it seems its enforcement officer found it easy to do so.

Has the Trust people or navigational skills?

The argument here therefore has nothing to do with whether those enforcement notices issued to Patrick and Elaine were correctly issued, but quite frankly, whether those enforcement notices should ever have been issued at all? ​ Likewise as to whether the Trust has the necessary skills, either people or navigational, to deal with issues such as this?

It now remains for me to wish you all a very Happy Christmas, and for CaRT—a kindlier New Year, with I hope those so badly required 'people skills' coming to the fore!