NAA Split from: UPDATE ON LICENSING PROCESS FOR BOATS WITHOUT HOME MOORINGS

[Higgs]

CRT will issue licences to boaters without a home mooring who "satisfy the Board...". Boaters who do not respond to comminications from CRT may find it rather difficult to "satisfy the Board".

 

They will issue you with a licence for staying stationary on 'their' waterway. The laws of satisfying the board are overlooked on 'their' waterway, not even the 14 day rule applies on this of 'their' waterway. As CRT consider a marina as part of their waterway, why is it that the 14 day rule doesn't apply. Isn't the law the law.

 

You don't pay CRT a mooring fee in a marina. The only other people who moor on CRT waterways without paying a mooring fee to CRT are CC'ers, and they have to satisfy the board.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

 

....... As CRT consider a marina as part of their waterway, why is it that the 14 day rule doesn't apply. Isn't the law the law.

 

There are quite a number of Marinas who do not require the berth holder to have a C&RT licence.

 

The requirement that marinas with an NAA to ensure that their berth holders have a C&RT licence is a commercial decision that the Marina management must make - do they agree to the terms of the contract or not ? - similarly, as we all do in our 'private lives',almost every time we agree to anything we are making a similar decision to 'accept' or not 'accept' the rules that come with that decisions.

Whether we are buying an airline ticket, driving our car, or paying for a mooring we agree to, and accept, certain conditions regarding the action we are undertaking.

 

You do not have to boat on C&RT waters.

You do not have to use a marina that has a requirement for you to have a C&RT licence

 

If you struggle to accept the conditions of owning and operating a boat, then maybe you would be happier with a caravan.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

 

There are quite a number of Marinas who do not require the berth holder to have a C&RT licence.

 

The requirement that marinas with an NAA to ensure that their berth holders have a C&RT licence is a commercial decision that the Marina management must make - do they agree to the terms of the contract or not ? - similarly, as we all do in our 'private lives',almost every time we agree to anything we are making a similar decision to 'accept' or not 'accept' the rules that come with that decsions.

Whether we are buying an airline ticket, driving our car, or paying for a mooring we agree to, and accept, certain conditions regarding the action we are undertaking.

 

 

Would you/can you provide a list of those marinas?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Would you/can you provide a list of those marinas?

 

I know about half a dozen, but everytime the subject is raised some body posts 'and this one' - maybe start a thread asking for everyone to post the ones they know - here are a couple to get you started :

 

Shobnal Marina at Burton on Trent

Whilton Marina at Daventry

[Higgs]

 

I know about half a dozen, but everytime the subject is raised some body posts 'and this one' - maybe start a thread asking for everyone to post the ones they know - here are a couple to get you started :

 

Shobnal Marina at Burton on Trent

Whilton Marina at Daventry

 

 

I think it would be a good idea to start a list. Someone has already asked CRT, through a FOI. Guess what, their lips are sealed.

 

 

Shobnal Marina at Burton on Trent

Whilton Marina at Daventry

Shardlow Marina, Derbyshire

Edited March 10, 2016 by Higgs

[MtB]

 

 

I think it would be a good idea to start a list. Someone has already asked CRT, through a FOI. Guess what, their lips are sealed.

 

 

Shobnal Marina at Burton on Trent

Whilton Marina at Daventry

Shardlow Marina, Derbyshire

 

 

Shobnal Marina at Burton on Trent

Whilton Marina at Daventry

Shardlow Marina, Derbyshire

Ashwood Marina, Staffs & Worcs (or is it the Shroppie?)

[matty40s]

 

 

Shobnal Marina at Burton on Trent

Whilton Marina at Daventry

Shardlow Marina, Derbyshire

Ashwood Marina, Staffs & Worcs (or is it the Shroppie?)

you were right first time.

Crockers Farm at Shardlow - now called summat more posh though.

Harefied Marina?????

[Arthur Marshall]

 

 

I think it would be a good idea to start a list. Someone has already asked CRT, through a FOI. Guess what, their lips are sealed.

 

Yeah, well, you wouldn't expect them too, would you? If someone rings me up for a gig, I don't say, hey, yes we'll do it for you for £300, but there's a guy down the road, hang on a minute, I'll give you his number, he'll do it for £50, and he's just as good as me.

[Higgs]

Yeah, well, you wouldn't expect them too, would you? If someone rings me up for a gig, I don't say, hey, yes we'll do it for you for £300, but there's a guy down the road, hang on a minute, I'll give you his number, he'll do it for £50, and he's just as good as me.

 

 

Fair enough, but I'll support the customers' right to have the information to pick. If it's good enough for the power companies to be seen to be more transparent in their' charges, I'm sure CRT could do the same. It is part of consumer rights. Customers must be given information by which they could use to make choices, when there are other choices.

 

CRT say that the reason is commercially sensitive and has nothing to do with the laws that they use to govern. Apparently, questions relating to the enabling acts, the questions they find pertinent, are the questions they may choose to answer. But don't forget, they use an enabling act to back their application of the NAA. They charge on the back of the provisions of Section 43, Transport Act 1962.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Higgs

[b0atman]

Meadow Farm Marina if not on the river moorings.Frouds Bridge on K&A

I believe there is a marina that is exempt but when adding a new pond that had NAA

.

[Arthur Marshall]

Can't you work it out backwards? Get a list of all the marinas, then get the list of those tied in with CRT and the nonfeepaying ones are the ones left over. Presumably CRT will supply a list of those who pay their fees. There was a fairly comprehensive list of marinas in a Waterways World a year or two back.

Edited for spellign.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Higgs]

Can't you work it out backwards? Get a list of all the marinas, then get the list of those tied in with CRT and the nonfeepaying ones are the ones left over. Presumably CRT will supply a list of those who pay their fees. There was a fairly comprehensive list of marinas in a Waterways World a year or two back.

Edited for spellign.

 

 

I've got a list of all marinas, that's the easy bit.

 

Question to CRT ( not mine)

 

"please send me a list of marina's, boatyards and moorings that are

physically connected to the Canal and River trust's waterways but

where a boat licence from CaRT is not required in order to keep a

boat on the water."

 

Their answer

 

The information you request is exempt from disclosure under the provisions

of s.43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which provides that "

Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would,

or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person

(including the public authority holding it)"

 

 

If CRT are going to hide behind the FOI act, do you think CRT will just volunteer the information. Your presumption is optimistic. If the information is in the public domain, I've yet to come by it. It's possible to go onto the internet and find any number of price comparison sites. It's not at all that unusual for people to want comparisons. Businesses will also shop around for better deals between suppliers.

 

As far as CRT's fake protection of other people's business is concerned, here is another quote :-

 

"We will not be concerned with the viability of the proposal, the impact of the proposal on the existing supply of moorings in the area or whether there will be sufficient customer demand to support all operators"

 

CRT do not come across as sincere, in my view. Marina operators are also being used as third party enforcement agencies. Yet another quote :- CRT: Subcontracting enforcement to a third party - "There are no plans to use a third party agency for routine enforcement purposes."

 

 

You can make your own mind up of the efficacy of CRT, my view is obvious.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Higgs

[Paul C]

Price comparison sites take a slice of the insurance/whatever is sold by them.

 

FOI Act obligations cost money and only covers certain areas (this is not one of them).

[cuthound]

If you are really bothered, then get a list of marinas from one of the waterways magazines (they publish them annually) and spend a day on the phone to find out which dont pay the NAA.

 

Dont expect those marinas who dont pay NAA to charge less though - free markets don't always work like that.

[Tam & Di]

 

 

But don't forget, they use an enabling act to back their application of the NAA. They charge on the back of the provisions of Section 43, Transport Act 1962.

 

I'm sorry, it may not affect the main thrust of your argument but this is simply not correct. The term "enabling acts" in the canal context refers to those "Enabling Acts" which were Acts of Parliament authorising the various private companies to compulsorily purchase land on which to dig their various individual canals. These Acts all give savings or benefits to the landowners whose land was then beside the canal, and generally included rights to make places for boats to moor or lie.

 

With nationalisation these individual canals all fetched up under the jurisdiction of BWB and then C&RT, but those original "Enabling Acts" have not been repealed so the various "savings" are still applicable. However these will not be identical for each of what was originally an individual privately owned canal, and you need to refer to each original Enabling Act to see what it says. Some marina operators exercise their rights under these Acts and others do not, and others again simply do not have such rights.

 

The various subsequent Acts which set our what C&RT can and can't do are not Enabling Acts.

 

Tam

 

slight edit for clarity

Edited March 11, 2016 by Tam & Di

[Mike Todd]

 

 

Fair enough, but I'll support the customers' right to have the information to pick. If it's good enough for the power companies to be seen to be more transparent in their' charges, I'm sure CRT could do the same. It is part of consumer rights. Customers must be given information by which they could use to make choices, when there are other choices.

 

CRT say that the reason is commercially sensitive and has nothing to do with the laws that they use to govern. Apparently, questions relating to the enabling acts, the questions they find pertinent, are the questions they may choose to answer. But don't forget, they use an enabling act to back their application of the NAA. They charge on the back of the provisions of Section 43, Transport Act 1962.

No - the customer's right is to know the price, not the costs. Ever tried asking your favourite price comparison site for the costs of how your electricity is generated in addition to what they will charge you for the privilege. Much of that info is properly commercially confidential.

[David Mack]

No - the customer's right is to know the price, not the costs. Ever tried asking your favourite price comparison site for the costs of how your electricity is generated in addition to what they will charge you for the privilege. Much of that info is properly commercially confidential.

 

Or try asking your local new supermarket development what was the value of the Section 106 payment they had to pay to the local authority as a condition of planning consent. Charges like this affect the viability of a scheme, and may influence whether or not it goes ahead, and ultimately have to be recovered from the price paid by customers, but you won't find out.

[Higgs]

Price comparison sites take a slice of the insurance/whatever is sold by them.

 

FOI Act obligations cost money and only covers certain areas (this is not one of them).

 

 

I wasn't suggesting such a site was intended for marina pricing comparison, it was simply to point out that price comparisons are relatively commonplace and I see no reasonable argument of objection for a list of NAA and non-NAA marinas to be handy if anyone should wish to know. It is not a price comparison that is of particular interest. There are quite a few conditions that will effect the pricing, but people are also limited by the area that they are interested in or they have other reasons that makes a particular area important.

 

 

FOI. I understand what you say, but I fail, for reasons above, to accept that that condition was reasonable in not answering the question put to CRT.

[Higgs]

If you are really bothered, then get a list of marinas from one of the waterways magazines (they publish them annually) and spend a day on the phone to find out which dont pay the NAA.

 

Dont expect those marinas who dont pay NAA to charge less though - free markets don't always work like that.

 

 

I have a full list of marinas. Finding out which are NAA or not, by any means I can, is well up the list of things to do. This thread happened accidentally. I hadn't intended to start a thread, but here it is, if anyone wishes to add to the list, feel free.

 

This isn't about charges, as I have mentioned in a previous post.

[Paul C]

 

 

I wasn't suggesting such a site was intended for marina pricing comparison, it was simply to point out that price comparisons are relatively commonplace and I see no reasonable argument of objection for a list of NAA and non-NAA marinas to be handy if anyone should wish to know. It is not a price comparison that is of particular interest. There are quite a few conditions that will effect the pricing, but people are also limited by the area that they are interested in or they have other reasons that makes a particular area important.

 

 

FOI. I understand what you say, but I fail, for reasons above, to accept that that condition was reasonable in not answering the question put to CRT.

The more precise you restrict the area you're interested in, the less marinas there are to choose from - that should be blindingly obvious.

 

Given that fact, it also makes your own personal compilation of licence-free marinas in your local area a smaller/easier task.

 

To extend it nationally isn't that onerous a task, its just a bit of admin. You could do it.

[Higgs]

 

I'm sorry, it may not affect the main thrust of your argument but this is simply not correct. The term "enabling acts" in the canal context refers to those "Enabling Acts" which were Acts of Parliament authorising the various private companies to compulsorily purchase land on which to dig their various individual canals. These Acts all give savings or benefits to the landowners whose land was then beside the canal, and generally included rights to make places for boats to moor or lie.

 

With nationalisation these individual canals all fetched up under the jurisdiction of BWB and then C&RT, but those original "Enabling Acts" have not been repealed so the various "savings" are still applicable. However these will not be identical for each of what was originally an individual privately owned canal, and you need to refer to each original Enabling Act to see what it says. Some marina operators exercise their rights under these Acts and others do not, and others again simply do not have such rights.

 

The various subsequent Acts which set our what C&RT can and can't do are not Enabling Acts.

 

Tam

 

slight edit for clarity

 

 

I will take on board what you have said. I refer to the statutory powers that CRT have.

[Higgs]

The more precise you restrict the area you're interested in, the less marinas there are to choose from - that should be blindingly obvious.

 

Given that fact, it also makes your own personal compilation of licence-free marinas in your local area a smaller/easier task.

 

To extend it nationally isn't that onerous a task, its just a bit of admin. You could do it.

 

 

It is blindingly obvious. So obvious in fact, I didn't think it would be necessary to point that out.

 

I'm not interested in just local information. Yes, I dare say I could do it. But, I have already stated, this thread was not part of a plan I had to get the info; I was very reserved about doing just that. It just happened.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Higgs

[Higgs]

No - the customer's right is to know the price, not the costs. Ever tried asking your favourite price comparison site for the costs of how your electricity is generated in addition to what they will charge you for the privilege. Much of that info is properly commercially confidential.

 

 

I will reiterate. Cost information is not the primary goal.

 

During the time on here, discussing the NAA, people have often offered the suggestion that one should go to a non-NAA marina, as they exist. That's a fact. I hope it is easier to see now just how unavailable that information is, and CRT do not want you to have that information. Even if there were sufficient options available, a customer should have the information to make a decision.

 

What's the big deal if someone is looking for a particular kind of marina. Even if someone has to ring every damned marina to find out. I'm just trying to be more customer friendly and have an index. Businesses are selling, customers are buying. How does anyone choose where and on what they spend their money - usually by weighing up the pros and cons.

[Paul C]

 

 

I will reiterate. Cost information is not the primary goal.

 

During the time on here, discussing the NAA, people have often offered the suggestion that one should go to a non-NAA marina, as they exist. That's a fact. I hope it is easier to see now just how unavailable that information is, and CRT do not want you to have that information. Even if there were sufficient options available, a customer should have the information to make a decision.

 

What's the big deal if someone is looking for a particular kind of marina. Even if someone has to ring every damned marina to find out. I'm just trying to be more customer friendly and have an index. Businesses are selling, customers are buying. How does anyone choose where and on what they spend their money - usually by weighing up the pros and cons.

 

One reason a list doesn't exist, might be that 99% of boaters don't care whether the marina they moor in has an NAA, because they're planning on using the boat for boating anyway, so they're getting a 12 month licence, so the cost-saving in not getting that licence isn't there. With such a small audience for the information, there is no incentive to compile it. I'm happy to be corrected on the numbers, and if this thread shows a big demand for it, and someone wants to do it and share the info, a place can be found on this website for it. I do also appreciate there may be a demand for those only interested in cruising for half the year, ie 6 month licence, 6 months laid up.

[Jerra]

 

CRT do not want you to have that information. Even if there were sufficient options available, a customer should have the information to make a decision.

As has been pointed out CRT would not be wanting to give out such information. Somebody earlier in the thread (you perhaps) mentioned that utility companies have to tell you about the best deal (or words to that effect). This is true but they don't have to tell you about the oppositions better deals.

 

Part of the problem is also you are wanting information nobody (other than perhaps other forumites) will necessarily want to give you as in many cases it will be to their detriment. If they pay under an NAA agreement they have no reason to tell you in case you don't use their services and if they don't need a "licence" they have no reason to tell you in case you start asking why their moorings aren't 9% cheaper thean X marina who do pay an NAA.