C & RT South East Region Visitor Moorings Review Consultation

[Tim Lewis]

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2549.pdf

 

Tim

[Rebotco]

http://canalrivertru...ibrary/2549.pdf

 

Tim

 

 

Seems a reasonable proposal to me for the Summer months.

[GoodGurl]

i agree there should be a limit on populated visitor moorings, How many times have you wanted to shop or use a pub and there are no spaces to do so? i know of a few places where there is no room to moor to do shopping and its really annoying when you know they are over stayers moored there that have no intention of moving.

[Mike Tee]

I've only had a brief look at the email, and will read it in detail later, but the system of putting a £25 fine 'on your account' to be paid presumably with the next license renewal is totally wrong.

They want to fine me, then send a letter and if I want to dispute it, that is my right. If its just stuck on the end of your license, that gives them the option of, when you pay the license, but withhold the fine, they can say 'sorry, fine gets priority, you can't have a license'.

All that will do is encourage more people to not bother with a license, and play the boat transfer into another name game.

I believe this is totally wrong, and gives CRT rights they should never have - guilty until proven innocent.

[Rebotco]

I've only had a brief look at the email, and will read it in detail later, but the system of putting a £25 fine 'on your account' to be paid presumably with the next license renewal is totally wrong.

They want to fine me, then send a letter and if I want to dispute it, that is my right. If its just stuck on the end of your license, that gives them the option of, when you pay the license, but withhold the fine, they can say 'sorry, fine gets priority, you can't have a license'.

All that will do is encourage more people to not bother with a license, and play the boat transfer into another name game.

I believe this is totally wrong, and gives CRT rights they should never have - guilty until proven innocent.

 

 

Have to disagree with you. CRT don't want to "fine" you - they want you to not overstay. So its up to you, not them.

If you want to dispute their extra charge, you can do so without putting your licence at risk.

[Keeping Up]

I've only had a brief look at the email, and will read it in detail later, but the system of putting a £25 fine 'on your account' to be paid presumably with the next license renewal is totally wrong.

They want to fine me, then send a letter and if I want to dispute it, that is my right. If its just stuck on the end of your license, that gives them the option of, when you pay the license, but withhold the fine, they can say 'sorry, fine gets priority, you can't have a license'.

All that will do is encourage more people to not bother with a license, and play the boat transfer into another name game.

I believe this is totally wrong, and gives CRT rights they should never have - guilty until proven innocent.

 

That is what BW always did, when there was money owing for any reason.

 

I'm not sure how to interpret your last two sentences. If you are saying that it is totally wrong either to not bother with a licence or to try to evade one by transferring into another name, then I totally agree with the sentiment..

Edited January 24, 2013 by Keeping Up

[Paul C]

I don't know the area, are there any hire firms that operate within a reachable distance?

 

The document freely refers to boat, boater, boat licence holder almost interchangeably, which is fine for a private boat owned by 1 person and used by that person. But any shared ownership; or hire boats, are going to be constantly tripping over the rules (potentially) in the busier places. Will the hire firm keep track of where their previous hirers have been, and inform subsequent hirers of "no go" (more accurately, "no stop") areas? Clearly thats impractical...... So the only alternatives would be a rethink of the entire idea; hire firms accepting any paying a more money to C&RT (unfair on them); or an exemption to these rules (unfair on everyone else!)

[alan_fincher]

I don't know the area, are there any hire firms that operate within a reachable distance?

Yes, if you include all the locations covered, quite a few, obviously, as, in addition to the GU, it includes the Southern and Northern Oxford (for example) easily reached by hire firms in the Braunston-ish kind of area. Certainly includes Diamond Resorts, Alvechurch, Black Prince, Kate Boats, Calcutt, Napton and Union Canal Carriers Fleets, as well as smaller businesses like the on recently relocated to Hillmorton. (Plus whatever Canaltime boats latest fleet name is, and some others I'm sure I've omitted!).

 

Further down the GU, we really only have one in the whole stretch between Gayton to London, namely Wyvern Shipping at Leighton Buzzard, although they operate around 35 boats, many of which wish to moor at the same time at the same popular sites, like the Globe Inn. They carry a lot of influence with BW/CRT, and are undoubtedly one of the reasons they believe thy have to justify changing current arrangements.

 

In relatively recent years Black Prince hire boats have also started operating from a base on the Paddington arm, although I think they are the only hire fleet now anywhere that can be considered in vaguely the London area, the one on the River Lee having packed up shop.

 

Oh and there are day boats operating from (a least) Blisworth, Stoke Bruerne, Cosgrove, Pitstone and Denham, who presumably often tie up at the same popular moorings, possibly as often s daily, or even multiple times a day.

 

The SE Group User meeting I attended indicated hire boats would likely be exempted from any arrangements about "no return within" on "only xx days in y calendar months" arrangements.

[Paul C]

The SE Group User meeting I attended indicated hire boats would likely be exempted from any arrangements about "no return within" on "only xx days in y calendar months" arrangements.

 

The actual proposal doesn't exempt hire boats though - it doesn't even mention them at all. If they were to be exempt, one could say that the proposal becomes a very different one to the original. Since I don't believe there's a mechanism for re-consulting, there's a very good chance C&RT will push it through with an exemption for hire boats etc.

[alan_fincher]

That is what BW always did, when there was money owing for any reason.

According to Jeff Whyatt in the South East User Group meeting, they have never levied overstaying charges in this way, ever, on his patch at least.

 

I thought it was already now fully accepted by CRT that they do not have the powers to withhold a licence for non payment of another charge. The need to go after the other charge as a separate debt.

 

I have yet to study the new document in detail, but if that is what it says, it seems heavily at variance with what I thought they had already conceded was the case, so I'm surprised they are trying to propose it again.

 

Perhaps I should have a good old read before commenting further!

[jenlyn]

I've only had a brief look at the email, and will read it in detail later, but the system of putting a £25 fine 'on your account' to be paid presumably with the next license renewal is totally wrong.

They want to fine me, then send a letter and if I want to dispute it, that is my right. If its just stuck on the end of your license, that gives them the option of, when you pay the license, but withhold the fine, they can say 'sorry, fine gets priority, you can't have a license'.

All that will do is encourage more people to not bother with a license, and play the boat transfer into another name game.

I believe this is totally wrong, and gives CRT rights they should never have - guilty until proven innocent.

They cannot refuse you a license through charges incurred from elsewhere. A judge has already stated that at one of their cases. I believe he even stated it would be treated as a seperate issue because its not covered as a criminal offence. Why CRT have put this into the document astounds me.

[LoneWolf]

I've only had a brief look at the email, and will read it in detail later, but the system of putting a £25 fine 'on your account' to be paid presumably with the next license renewal is totally wrong.

They want to fine me, then send a letter and if I want to dispute it, that is my right. If its just stuck on the end of your license, that gives them the option of, when you pay the license, but withhold the fine, they can say 'sorry, fine gets priority, you can't have a license'.

All that will do is encourage more people to not bother with a license, and play the boat transfer into another name game.

I believe this is totally wrong, and gives CRT rights they should never have - guilty until proven innocent.

 

You should really read the consultation docs before you get in a tizzy

 

They will invoice you monthly and use 'the usual' debt collection methods which may include CCJ

It wont be a surprise as they will also come round & give you leaflets explaining the local limits & the £25 daily 'charge' when you arrive, when you're on your last day & when you have overstayed

[Keeping Up]

About 5 years ago some friends of mine were refused a licence because there was money owing, and the first part of the money that they had paid for a licence was instead taken against that debt.. They simply accepted BW's position, and spent the next 2 years without a licence.

[jenlyn]

About 5 years ago some friends of mine were refused a licence because there was money owing, and the first part of the money that they had paid for a licence was instead taken against that debt.. They simply accepted BW's position, and spent the next 2 years without a licence.

Yet CRT have stated at various meetings that its never been done.

[Rebotco]

I don't know the area, are there any hire firms that operate within a reachable distance?

 

The document freely refers to boat, boater, boat licence holder almost interchangeably, which is fine for a private boat owned by 1 person and used by that person. But any shared ownership; or hire boats, are going to be constantly tripping over the rules (potentially) in the busier places. Will the hire firm keep track of where their previous hirers have been, and inform subsequent hirers of "no go" (more accurately, "no stop") areas? Clearly thats impractical...... So the only alternatives would be a rethink of the entire idea; hire firms accepting any paying a more money to C&RT (unfair on them); or an exemption to these rules (unfair on everyone else!)

 

 

Thats a good point, but I suspect not too much of a problem.

In my experience, the vast majority of holiday hirers rarely stay on the same mooring for more than one night, as they want to get in as much cruising as they can in their week/fortnight.

I really don't think they individually contribute to much of the "honeypot" sites congestion, and it is sensible for hiring companies to have a special arrangement with CRT. Otherwise the experiment would become almost unworkable.

As long as hirers and everyone else abides by the notices shown at each mooring and individually accept the consequences if they do not, it should eliminate the selfish few from long-term hogging the most popular spots for themselves. And I think that is exactly why this initiative has become necessary.

[alan_fincher]

I've only had a brief look at the email, and will read it in detail later, but the system of putting a £25 fine 'on your account' to be paid presumably with the next license renewal is totally wrong.

They want to fine me, then send a letter and if I want to dispute it, that is my right. If its just stuck on the end of your license, that gives them the option of, when you pay the license, but withhold the fine, they can say 'sorry, fine gets priority, you can't have a license'.

All that will do is encourage more people to not bother with a license, and play the boat transfer into another name game.

I believe this is totally wrong, and gives CRT rights they should never have - guilty until proven innocent.

You presume wrongly.....

 

Read the actual document, which says....

 

Extended stay charges will be invoiced monthly and recorded on your boat licence account. Your account must be paid in full within 28 days. Debts will be recovered through our normal processes which may include obtaining a County Court judgement.

 

About 5 years ago some friends of mine were refused a licence because there was money owing, and the first part of the money that they had paid for a licence was instead taken against that debt.. They simply accepted BW's position, and spent the next 2 years without a licence.

 

 

Yet CRT have stated at various meetings that its never been done.

What "monies were owing", please, Allan?

 

Are we talking about an actual overstay charge, or something different, please?

 

However, having now read it, that is not what is being proposed here, I think - people are jumping to conclusions, without reading what it actually says.

 

Why CRT have put this into the document astounds me.

They haven't, I think - unless you can find what I haven't (so far).

[DeanS]

I don't know the area, are there any hire firms that operate within a reachable distance?

 

 

My understanding of hirers is that they have minimal time to do a ring journey or a there and back trip, and wouldnt park on 1 set of moorings for more than a day anyway. I could be wrong.

 

 

eta - someone said this already

Edited January 24, 2013 by DeanS

[LoneWolf]

You should really read the consultation docs before you get in a tizzy

 

They will invoice you monthly and use 'the usual' debt collection methods which may include CCJ

It wont be a surprise as they will also come round & give you leaflets explaining the local limits & the £25 daily 'charge' when you arrive, when you're on your last day & when you have overstayed

 

 

You presume wrongly.....

 

Read the actual document, which says....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, having now read it, that is not what is being proposed here, I think - people are jumping to conclusions, without reading what it actually says.

 

hurrah! someone's caught up

[jenlyn]

You presume wrongly.....

 

Read the actual document, which says....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What "monies were owing", please, Allan?

 

Are we talking about an actual overstay charge, or something different, please?

 

However, having now read it, that is not what is being proposed here, I think - people are jumping to conclusions, without reading what it actually says.

 

 

They haven't, I think - unless you can find what I haven't (so far).

Maybe I am confusing it, the bit where it states the charges incurred will be" recorded on your liicense account"

I think I get what your saying now, god I wish they had the capability to word things more clearly.

Edited January 24, 2013 by jenlyn

[alan_fincher]

Maybe I am confusing it, the bit where it states the charges incurred will be" recorded on your liicense account"

I think I get what your saying now, god I wish they had the capability to word things more clearly.

Peter MacDonald has fallen into the same trap on Facebook!

 

I agree - by mentioning Licence Account they have set themselves up a bit for people to misread it.

 

If they had just said "recorded against your boat index number" or something like that, it would have been better.

[GUMPY]

Looks fine to me, they have missed a few though

[LoneWolf]

The principle of having an overall 14 day zone and shorter limits nearer the shops/pubs etc is a good one

 

i think the £25 per day 'extended stay charge' is too much.

 

In exceptional circumstances (and in accordance with Schedule 2 of the licence terms and conditions), we may give permission for a boat to stay in the visitor moorings area longer than the time allowed. You must contact either the ranger or the local Boating Co-Ordinator to apply for authorisation from the local Enforcement Officer. Extended stay charges may still apply.

 

This is a bit worrying as well. They seem to be changing 'reasonable circumstances' to 'exceptional circumstances (and only because we have to)' and they 'may' still charge you

[alan_fincher]

There is definitely a potential issue with hire boaters if CRT don't make any exemption.

 

The proposed one day moorings at the popular Globe Inn, near Leighton Buzzard on the Grand Union are a natural last night stop for a huge percentage of the Wyvern Shipping Company's hirers, and in many cases may get used by the same boat on both an outward trip.

 

Most Wyvern boats seem to go out mainly on half week trips, and usually North, past the Globe, so the same boat could theoretically travel past the Globe as many as 20 times in a busy month (10 times outward, 10 times return).

 

It could easily moor there 10 or more nights in a chosen month.

 

But the "maximum stay in area" column says "1 day in any one visit; 4 days in any one month".

 

I can't see that the hire firm will want to pay a £25 charge for each night that a particular boat can be found there after its fourth in any one month! They have about 35 boats, and it could cost a lot of money!

 

I have emailed CRT to ask them why hire boats have not been considered, and how they plan to get around this potential complication.

 

hurrah! someone's caught up

I'm trying to do similar debates in Facebook, in tandem, whilst composing emails to CRT about questions already raised.....

 

(And of course I'm not the quickest of people at the best of times! .....)

 

As long as hirers and everyone else abides by the notices shown at each mooring and individually accept the consequences if they do not, it should eliminate the selfish few from long-term hogging the most popular spots for themselves. And I think that is exactly why this initiative has become necessary.

How does a hirer that turns up at a VM that is clearly signed "Maximum stay 1 day in any one visit, no more than 4 visits in a month" know whether that boat has yet visited four times or more already in that month?

 

The hire fleet I'm thinking of, it may well have done!

Edited January 24, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Paul C]

Its not so much whether hire boats will be a particular issue in these proposed set of changes; but whether a blanket exemption is granted to them without wider consultation or analysis; and the potential for this to set a precedent in other areas where C&RT wish to tighten regulations.

[Keeping Up]

What "monies were owing", please, Allan?

 

Are we talking about an actual overstay charge, or something different, please?

 

I've dredged back through my memory, and reassembled the pieces until I recalled that their debt was not for overstaying but was in fact for a shortfall in their previous licence payment (caused by BW's own error in under-collecting a direct debit); possibly there is no inconsistency here.