Alan de Enfield

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.

I say again - go away and read what powers C&RT actually have - then come back and explain why they cannot issue fines for 'everyday rule breaking'. The EA seem to have no problem in enforcing By-laws and getting rule breakers fined.

Yes I have. O' yes there are, maybe you should try reading some of the Acts before making such statements. The fact that C&RT, and BW before them, have decided not to take action does not mean that they do not have the powers to do so. One should also realise that once found guilty the offence is 're-commited' every day that the offence is not 'corrected' so the Bye-law fine increases by £100 per day, it doesn't take long for it to become a substantial sum. Something written by Nigel Moore (RIP) In response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws : It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :- “Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine. I think it has now reached the sum of £50. If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways. I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy. Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement. No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.” He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all. He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action. If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

C&RT already have the legal power to charge differentiated pricing of the licences - it is specifically listed in the 1983 Act (they also have the powers to charge for anything outside of 'navigation' - including 'improved moorings' (rings, armco, bollards, grass cut along the edge etc etc), waste bins, toilets, & water But C&RT has said that 16 miles on the G&S is not sufficient and the decision was upheld by the Ombudsman on appeal. Maybe if C&RT actually used the powers they already have, (Various Acts of Parliament and the Bye Laws) the situation could be very different to where they find themselves today.

There are some 10x as many leisure boats that do not require a BSS than there are those that do - I wonder how they survive without bursting into flames or sinking ?