Why the Roving Permit

[RLWP]

Nope sorry I don't get it. I'm new to the waterways and so could you please explain this to a dummy. I have a CRT licence which allows me to stay anywhere for up to 14 days apart from designated places which from what little I've seen so far seem to limit you to 48 hours. So why do I need to pay to stay somewhere for 14 days when my licence allows me to anyway?

I did read the OP carefully but suspect this is an old chestnut that everyone understands but me!!

 

The thing is, 'place' isn't defined, nor is the distance you have to move. The intention appears to be to allow someone to make a cruise around the system without having to pay for a mooring they are not using.

 

Some folk do this.

 

In the absence of definitions, it can be argued that you can stay in one place for fourteen days, then move 100 yards up the cut and stay another fourteen days. At the end of that you move back 100 yards and so on.

 

In addition, there are some folk who don't even do this, creating an informal permanent mooring

 

If BW had applied themselves to a consistent policy around how they policed this, the roving permit would probably not be necessary. As it is, because of lenient policing a situation has been created where some folk have arranged their lives around these informal arrangements. Applying the rules as is would seriously effect their lives (hospitals, schools, jobs), there are no moorings or marina berths available. So, moving them on has unacceptable consequences arising from a situation that has been allowed to happen by both the boaters and BW.

 

A complicated situation requires pragmatic solutions

 

Does that help?

 

Richard

[larryjc]

Yup, many thanks. We intend to move properly and regularly and if we leave the boat we will pay to keep it in a marina so I'm guessing this won't apply to us.

[jenlyn]

Yup, many thanks. We intend to move properly and regularly and if we leave the boat we will pay to keep it in a marina so I'm guessing this won't apply to us.

 

with those intentions, it wont apply to you at all.

Grab a burger for me from capn jaspers next time your in Plymouth!

[ChimneyChain]

So , as we've been paying full BW, now CRT mooring fees for the last 15 years in said area, are we eligible to transfer to the new, cheaper, alternative?

 

Darren

[jenlyn]

So , as we've been paying full BW, now CRT mooring fees for the last 15 years in said area, are we eligible to transfer to the new, cheaper, alternative?

 

Darren

lol, no, but you knew that.

[Naughty Cal]

So howdo you or CRT expect people who can't adhere to the existing CRT requirements to adhere to the new roving permit requirements?

 

All thesis doing is wasting a shit load

[Jerra]

So howdo you or CRT expect people who can't adhere to the existing CRT requirements to adhere to the new roving permit requirements?

 

All thesis doing is wasting a shit load

Surely the point is they have been following what will be the RP requirements and all it is doing is "legalising" the situation for them and preventing others following in their footsteps.

[jenlyn]

So howdo you or CRT expect people who can't adhere to the existing CRT requirements to adhere to the new roving permit requirements?

 

All thesis doing is wasting a shit load

 

has someone nicked phylis's profile?

[Naughty Cal]

Surely the point is they have been following what will be the RP requirements and all it is doing is "legalising" the situation for them and preventing others following in their footsteps.

If they can't stick to one set if rules why will they stick to another?

[Jerra]

If they can't stick to one set if rules why will they stick to another?

They have been "bridge hopping" this allows bridge hopping for those who have been doing it for a certain length of time. At least that is how I understand it.

[jenlyn]

If they can't stick to one set if rules why will they stick to another?

 

CRT have upped their game on enforcement, this has already made a difference in the area's down here.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I need to point out that there are not hundreds of boats seeking to take up the roving permit.

 

 

us

What are the numbers? Edited May 19, 2013 by Goliath

[RLWP]

They are used to indicate separate items in his list of facts

 

Oh, the number of permits...

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

[ChimneyChain]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. If the situation arose where we could no longer afford the mooring fees in our area, and we were prepared to move around a little when required, why couldn't we transfer to the new arrangement? Isn't this new scheme designed for those who can't afford the mooring fees in a particular area, but need to stay in said area?

 

 

Darren

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

They are used to indicate separate items in his list of facts

 

Oh, the number of permits...

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry,

The number of potential applicants for permits.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Goliath

[RLWP]

Sorry,

The number of potential applicants for permits.

 

I did understand, I couldn't resist going off at a tangent

 

Richard

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

I did understand, I couldn't resist going off at a tangent

 

Richard

I see that,

Catch you next weekend.

 

 

Glenn

[RLWP]

I see that,

Catch you next weekend.

 

 

Glenn

 

On topic, I'm not sure who will have the answer.

 

I was going to say CRT won't know, because they don't have any figures on the £25 overstaying fee. But in this case they really ought to know as it shouldn't be hard to establish

 

Having said that, it may not be in anyone's interest to declare how many people are involved. I'm thinking letters from mad, swivel-eyed loons* addressed to CRT

 

Richard

 

*what a gift that phrase is

Edited May 19, 2013 by RLWP

[Jerra]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. If the situation arose where we could no longer afford the mooring fees in our area, and we were prepared to move around a little when required, why couldn't we transfer to the new arrangement? Isn't this new scheme designed for those who can't afford the mooring fees in a particular area, but need to stay in said area?

 

 

Darren

As I understand it no. This is aimed at those who have been there for a number of years being allowed to "get away with it" and is a way of slowly reducing the number who are in that position while enforcing the rules for new people.

[jenlyn]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be funny. If the situation arose where we could no longer afford the mooring fees in our area, and we were prepared to move around a little when required, why couldn't we transfer to the new arrangement? Isn't this new scheme designed for those who can't afford the mooring fees in a particular area, but need to stay in said area?

 

 

Darren

one of the factors of this was that boaters had been told by enforcement over the years, that moving between 3 boroughs was sufficient. People built their lives around this and acquired ties to the area. It was not totally fair to suddenly say, we have changed our minds, now begger off. In fact, I think like us, CRT realised there was a possibility they might fall foul of a court at some stage. I don't believe this would have been good for any of us. There has to be a cut off point for joining, otherwise the flood gates would open and we would be back to where we started. If mooring fees started to go through the roof, I would quite happily spearhead a campaign against that, especially if it meant boaters being forced into a cc lifestyle they did not want.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

one of the factors of this was that boaters had been told by enforcement over the years, that moving between 3 boroughs was sufficient. People built their lives around this and acquired ties to the area. It was not totally fair to suddenly say, we have changed our minds, now begger off. In fact, I think like us, CRT realised there was a possibility they might fall foul of a court at some stage. I don't believe this would have been good for any of us. There has to be a cut off point for joining, otherwise the flood gates would open and we would be back to where we started. If mooring fees started to go through the roof, I would quite happily spearhead a campaign against that, especially if it meant boaters being forced into a cc lifestyle they did not want.

So, do I understand correctly, they ( the boaters in question) haven't necessarily been acting illegally, but are now being asked to sign up and pay for a permit that will hold them to a stricter guideline?

 

And with a 5 mile stretch, C&Rt begin to define place to place.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Goliath

[RLWP]

So, do I understand correctly, they ( the boaters in question) haven't necessarily been acting illegally, but are now being asked to sign up and pay for a permit that will hold them to a stricter guideline?

 

And with a 5 mile stretch, C&Rt begin to define place to place.

 

Yes, or No, depending. If they have moved at all, they may have complied within the letter of the byelaw, if not the spirit. If they haven't moved at all but have been permitted (by omission) not to, they have been allowed to 'break' the byelaw.

 

So they may have been acting 'illegally'.

 

In spite of all that, your observation about bringing them into the fold of compliance is correct

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

So, do I understand correctly, they ( the boaters in question) haven't necessarily been acting illegally, but are now being asked to sign up and pay for a permit that will hold them to a stricter guideline?

And with a 5 mile stretch, C&Rt begin to define place to place.

In answer to your first question, yes, that is one option for them.

 

Your 5 mile stretch statement, is explained in my first post.

 

 

Yes, or No, depending. If they have moved at all, they may have complied within the letter of the byelaw, if not the spirit. If they haven't moved at all but have been permitted (by omission) not to, they have been allowed to 'break' the byelaw.

 

So they may have been acting 'illegally'.

 

In spite of all that, your observation about bringing them into the fold of compliance is correct

 

Richard

A much better answer.

[RLWP]

In answer to your first question, yes, that is one option for them.

 

Your 5 mile stretch statement, is explained in my first post.

 

It seems to me that 'place' in this case is not relevant. This is a special agreement between CRT and a specified group of boat owners covering a five mile section. This is not an interpretation of the Continuous Cruising conditions

 

Have I got that right?

 

Richard

[rgreg]

 

one of the factors of this was that boaters had been told by enforcement over the years, that moving between 3 boroughs was sufficient. People built their lives around this and acquired ties to the area. It was not totally fair to suddenly say, we have changed our minds, now begger off. In fact, I think like us, CRT realised there was a possibility they might fall foul of a court at some stage.

Do CRT acknowledge that their enforcement people told boaters that this cruising pattern was acceptable?