Alan de Enfield

agreed.

An interesting suggestion - at odds with the Judge in the Davies case .................... Nigel Moore : I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating. On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

But they could be. Folks pay £2000+ per month for a tiny flat in London., C&RT charge around £1000 per year for a licence to allow boaters to live and moor in London. If C&RT upped the cost of a "London licence' to (say) £1000 per month that would give them an additional 5000** x £11,000 per annum, by my reckoning that's an additional £55,000,000 per annum, and it costs them nothing to implement it. The Cash Cow's come home to roost ! ** the number of boats based in London without home moorings (C&RT survey)

and the other 5000 are NBTA members so don't count ?

what he said !

And neither do static caravan parks where people buy and site their own 'homes'. The park has to have residential planning permission and council tax is payable on each unit. Parks with planning permission for leisure use are limited by the PP to a certain number of days per annum they can be 'open' with the water and 'leccy turned off during the 'closed' period. Leisure untits are not charged council tax.

Yes there are a number of overplated boats 'out there' but have they been overplated with thicker steel than 4mm ? has the erosion / corrosion on them led to them being below 4mm ? You might enjoy picking fault with others posts but do you know the answer ? Consider the OP, looking to spend her / his / their hard earned pennies on their 1st boat and asks a question for reassurance they are not buying 'trouble'. They get a response with two unquestionable facts : 1) the boat has many 'thickness measurements' below 4mm. 2) insurers will not provide fully-comp cover for boats with thinner than 4mm readings. Now the OP is advised to consider if he / she / they want to go ahead with the boat on the basis that they will only be able to get 3rd party cover, and it is pointed out that this is sufficient cover to get a licence. That is not scaremongering.

when a boat is doubled, it is only the outer 'skin' that is measured / included - no one can tell the state of the original steel - it could even be perforated. The original steel will continue to corrode beneath the new steel - here is an example of a piece of overplating removed showing the condition of the original ............... Photograph 4 shows the faying surface of the doubling plate that was removed and which can be clearly seen to be corroding from the inside outward. It can also be seen in this photograph the doubling plate had been welded to the harpin in places making the doubling plates seam weld porous to water to entering between the doubling plate via the gaps created when the D sections harpins were originally stitch welded in manufacture. The fault would have been compounded by crevice corrosion and a poor maintenance programme though out the vessel’s life.

If you intend to insure this 'fully comprehensive' then you will not be able to do so without more welding work - it seems the minimum thickness insurers will cover is 4mm and you have most of the thickness readings at below 4mm. You can of course insure it 3rd party only but that means if the boat is damaged or 'lost' then you have no insurance and you 'lose' your money. 3rd party insurance effectively means that your boat is not insured, but, if you damage any other boat they will get paid out. 3rd party insurance is sufficient to be able to licence the boat. It is that cheap for a reason - "to thin to insure". Its up to you, but I'd walk away and save up more money and buy a boat that you can insure.

Not a problem talking about toilets the problem is where are uou going to store your waste fr 2-3 years whilst it composts, or are you planning to put the partly dried stuff in the garbage Bins ?

OOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo he said it !

Simple - fit a tracker, make the licence fee £5000 and credit them with (say) £2 for every mile travelled.

Can you show me the difference in the licence fee in London, Nottingham, Leeds and Manchester? or, are they all the same price (for the same sized boat). But yes - they have introduced differential charging by length, by 'beam' and by 'mooring' (home mooring or not), by age, by propulsion so why not by region ? No, They have the right to make any licence charges they wish in any area they wish, as long as they retain the differential for the 'Rivers only' registration.

And what are those constraints ? Apart from lack of willingness and worrying about 'upsetting' some part of society. One example of where I believe they got it wrong .................... British Waterways Act 1983 .....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment of such charges as they may from time to time determine: Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act. In discussions with Nigel Moore he wrote : I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

And what are those constraints ? Apart from lack of willingness and worrying about 'upsetting' some part of society.