Leaderboard

One of our local canal societies had folk given Community Service orders working with them regularly maintaining their boats and the yard. Some of the community order folk went on working with them when their order expired and joined the canal society and are still there several years on, doing a useful job

Just a note. You wouldn't be paying a farmer £1000 a year, you'd be paying a lot more than that, and who says a farm isn't a "proper" mooring? But as a genuine cruiser, you wouldn't have to. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that CCing will cease, or that everyone will be forced to have a home mooring. That, after all, was why the ability to CC was included in the act in the first place - because some, like yourself, honestly wanted to cruise the system and had no need for a mooring. There are several on here do the same. But it wasn't included so people could hover round a tiny area, or circle permanently within a bus ride of a town, and unfortunately so many people are now claiming the "right" to do exactly that, that CRT is going, almost certainly, to want to treat them as if they are using CRTs towpath as a de facto permanent mooring, and are going to charge them accordingly, ultimately, I imagine, the same as they charge us farm moorers - which is almost as much again as the licence costs. Don't blame us home moorers for the fact that you, and the few like you, get caught in the same trap. Blame those who have finagled the system, bleating that "it's within the letter of the law" and then, rather than keeping schtum and thanking their gods they were being ignored, started shouting the odds. It's not fair, and it's a shame, but it's what happens when, frankly, too many people take the piss.

If you ever decide to sell could you send me an encrypted message?

Yes, they should be deployed across the system. This one was doing a sterling job at the Port.

The Dutch already have the Opduwer... Could the Star class Ricky "Electra" be ringing that bell?

Its Saturday night Mr M, so I've a had few beers- and I'm guessing you've had a few too, which is why you're in a mood to treat CCers so harshly. You already know - as someone who knows more about the canals than I ever will- that limiting all moorings to 2 days will effectively prevent anyone from CCing. Well, all bar a tiny handful of hard core boaters. I reckon it would drive away about 90% of all CCers, which is what - about 8,000 boats? That's a huge license fee loss to CRT, which would have to be recouped by asking for more money from the remaining boaters. But more significantly, it would effectively make CCing impossible. You were a CCer yourself for many years, and you travelled the system extensively. Do you not think its a bit unfair that you should now advocate to take that same CCing lifestyle away from other people who want to enjoy it in the future? Dont get me wrong. I don't like seeing boats moored three deep all the way through London, or selfish b*****ds overstaying for months on a 48 hour mooring. But I dont think a 48 mooring limit is the right solution.

I am just making my way down the canal. I wanted to go down towards London (but not into the city itself.) I was hoping to venture down the Aylesbury & Wendover arms and then head back up past Northampton and down to Oxford. As I live and work in/ near MK I can get to the boat easily in my spare time by bus, train, bicycle or (if I am really pressed for time, like this afternoon) by car. The Arriva Orbit ticket covers the area from Northampton down towards Watford (somewhere) and I buy this ticket to get to work, so it is not costing me any more. I can't get much further than the 3 locks at Soulbury as the canal is closed at the next bridge south of the locks. I purchased the boat near Nantwich, so I have already been up North, following the West Coast Mainline. If I still have the boat, then maybe I will take it back up towards Wales. I do not intend to go up and down the same stretch of canal over and over again.

Wouldn't paying to have it done via a crane minimise the risk of carnage ?

Nobody told me I couldn't... Alec

But as I never tire of pointing out, liveaboard CCers are not the problem. It's the liveaboard CMers that are causing all this trouble around here. Yes there are a few dumpers but most of those actually dump compliantly.

Sadly we are a nation in economic decline and its going to continue. Leisure boat ownership is expensive so will decline. Liveaboard boating is increasing (for better or worse) and CRT need to find a way to manage this and make more money out if it, not kill it off. For those who don't understand, liveaboard boating and CC'ing is very different to full time leisure boating, we don't want to do 20 lock miles each and every day and then have dinner at the pub. Its all about a quiet gentle slower way of life (sometimes) and a huge sense of freedom. If CRT take this away then CCing, and quite a lot of leisure boating, will just go away.

It'd be daft, which is why it won't happen. Cruising or just on holiday, sometimes you want to stop and look around for a bit, or simply have a break. The 14 day rule is fine, if it's combined with a genuine cruise and proper policing. Most liveaboard CCers I know don't particularly want to stay in the same place that long more than occasionally. It's mostly the dumpers who do.

In truth I think its almost impossible to draw an entirely fair and equitable set of pricing structures and movement rules that will treat all the different types of boaters fairly. For example, you have some boaters who cruise for only half the year. So to be really fair, I should pay twice as much as they do for the service of rubbish disposal (I suspect the water and elsan costs will be negligible, but the principle is what I'm talking about really). However, if a portion of the license reflects the use of infrastructure and a boat's impact upon it (like locks and lift bridges etc), then those boaters probably use the same number of locks as I do over a year (and in many cases they do more locks in their 6 months of cruising than I do in a year, so it could be argued that they put more strain on the lock gates and paddles etc, and that they use more water). So that aspect of the license fee should be roughly equal, at least in my view. After all, am I causing a significant cost or impact to CRT's infrastructure if I am moored on armco at Whixall Moss for 2 weeks in January, or for the next week moored near Ellesmere? Someone who comes out for the summer and does the Cheshire ring is putting more pressure on the infrastructure than I normally am. But what I think is fair might be viewed by others as outrageous. And whatever the rules are, they must prohibit CCers from occupying visitor moorings in hot spots for the while summer. And I'm not suggesting that should be permitted. But all that said, I do feel there is a principle at play in terms of the pricing of a CC license compared to a marina mooring. For me, the CC license cannot be anywhere near the cost of a marina mooring, given how many more amenities and comforts you have right next to your boat on a marina pontoon, compared to when you are out cruising in the mud and the rain. And if CRT even threaten to charge a CCing surcharge such that the CC license costs more than 50% of the price of a typical marina mooring fee (in the north), I will be out of here faster than you can say 'section 8'. And so will thousands of others. And I dont think people here are giving enough thought to how much a sudden flood of boats up for sale might affect them, or the canal business they use.

Where do you draw the limit, 14 days, 21 day, 3 months ? A boater with a home mooring is required by C&RT to comply with the 14-day rule the same as CCers - a HMer cannot just cruise off to Llangollen for a holiday and spends 6 months there. I'm sure there are retired HMer boaters who would love to go to a popular tourist spot and spend the Summer there with no accommodation costs.

I agree with the principle of enforcing movement if thats what people signed up for, but I think 48 hours is simply unworkable. There are dozens of reason why, but here is just one example that for me personally would make it just too much hassle to carry on CCing with an move every 48 hours: If I order an item from ebay click and collect it sometimes takes a week or more to arrive (and I've had to leave some items uncollected because I had to move on from the area and couldnt be bothered trying to travel back by bus or whatever). You can try to time the item's delivery date for when you will arrive at the target town, but its not always possible to get it right, and they are often way later than they suggest they will be. Or, sometimes you need to go on a short trip or visit people, which can take a few days. I think the current rule of 2 weeks allows most people to conduct something like a normal life and still go CCing, and to be honest I dont think its the 14 days that is the problem CRT are trying to address. The problem (in their eyes) is that after the 14 days, people only move about a mile.

I am interested in the term 'dumper' being applied here. There are two distinct categories here, just as there are for liveaboard continuous cruisers. Continuous cruisers who move every 14 days (or more frequently if the restrictions require) are compliant with the current rules; those who moor for as long as they can get away with at a single point before having their boat seized clearly aren't (those loosely termed 'Continuous Moorers'). These two groups appear to be being merged in people's minds. In similar fashion, those who leave their boat unattended on the towpath for a period, returning to move it within the required time, now appear to be being merged with those who leave it on the towpath indefinitely, well beyond the maximum time allowed. Both groups now appear to be being referred to as 'dumpers'. This concerns me. @Sean Austin has not indicated that his pattern of movement is anything other than compliant with the rules, and yet the tone of replies seems to suggest that it is somehow 'wrong'. On a practical level, my wife and I both work full time. We could not live aboard and could not truly 'continuously cruise'. However, as per @Sean Austin's point, unless shuffling your boat from point to point at weekends is allowed, your cruising range is limited to only a few miles. This year, we are planning to go to Ellesmere Port, the BCLM Tug Gathering and the Kelvin rally at Langley Mill. Between these and heading back to our mooring is a minimum of nine weeks. There is absolutely no way that either of us could take nine weeks off work and two legs of the journey (BCLM to Langley Mill, Langley Mill to Market Drayton) are too long to undertake in a weekend. Not only that, with my wife being a teacher and the children at school, we are restricted to school holidays for longer trips. It is therefore inevitable that we will need to take both of the longer legs in stages, mooring on the towpath between weekends. Does that make me a 'dumper' who should be vilified? Should I not go to such events? Should I, in fact, not have a boat unless I can comply with what people would like the rules to be, rather than what they actually are? Alec

It's the "when conditions allow" that is interesting. What does that mean? You move the boat every single week except when there are stoppages both sides of you (unlikely) or you're iced in (rare). Or do you mean just when it's not raining? And you move it at least ten miles each time so you're well into another "place" after two weeks (to keep within the letter, if not the spirit) of the law? The CC thing was invented to allow genuine cruises to take place without the owners needing a home mooring. The fact that it's now prevalent for people to use the concession just to avoid mooring fees, or the incredible inconvenience of having to open a bridge to leave a marina, is why first, there's the surcharge, secondly, more enforcement coming and finally a major shakeup of the rules. You aren't stuck at all. You don't cruise, so under the rules you need a mooring, which you can obviously afford. You don't follow them from choice, which is fair enough, but don't pretend it's anyone's responsibility but your own. The fact that MK is a notorious spot for nonmovers is no excuse for joining their ranks. I think this is what annoys me most about the dumpers, overstayers and nonmovers. That it's always someone else's fault that they break the rules. I have no particular respect for the law as such, and most of us break laws all the time (let's just say speed limits before the self righteous chip in), but at least one should have the decency to take the responsibility for one's own decisions and actions.

Worth bearing in mind how wood actually 'works' as it explains what is happening when you bend it. It's not a bad way to think of wood structure as a whole bunch of drinking straws, 'glued' together. The straws are slightly flexible so it can bend a bit, but if you bend it too far you start to either kink the straws or snap them. What steaming does is to melt the glue (literally in this case, as the glue is lignin, the 'straws' are cellulose tubes). Once the glue has softened, the straws will slide over one another as a bend is formed and then the lignin cools and it sets back in place. All wood has the same basic composition, but varies in how long the individual fibres are. Woods like ash have particularly long fibres so they are shock resistant. Oak has fairly long, very dense fibres and also contains tannins so it is hard, fairly strong, has reasonable shock resistance and is also resistant to rot. Woods like iroko and teak have very few holes in the sides of the 'straws' and contain silica and oils, so are very durable. Beyond that, it's a choice of colour, price and cachet. Alec

My understanding (from Nigel Moore) is that as the laws currently stand C&RT are unable to fine boaters outwith of the Bye laws, and even then they cannot add the two 'items' (licence + fine) and then apportion them in the order you suggest. If the four requirements, required under the 1995 act are met then C&RT must issue a licence irrespective of any other outstanding payments. For - example, even when a boat is siezed and sold off the law states that the income from the sale cannot be used to pay of any amounts owing EXCEPT for those costs accrued during the removal, storage and sale of the boat. Payment of overdue licence fees etc is specifically excluded. What you are suggesting would require the repeal of pretty much all of the existing waterways acts particulary the 1962, 1971, 1983 and 1995 acts but maybe other as well, and a new 'catch all' Act being enacted.

It was discussed at some length on here at the time. The crux of it is a licence is a legal right once the conditions are fulfilled. And CRT were found to have no right to use money paid to them for purpose A (buy the licence) to offset a debt outstanding for purpose B <anything else e.g. overstay charges>. As I already explained earlier in the thread.

Personally I would use a Q-max Cutter. Requires a 8mm hole drilling but after that it's simple. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/115952414219?

And that's rather the point. Having spent a little while sleeping in bus shelters and on park benches when younger, I rather empathise. You can either supply the housing people need or put up with the solutions they find for themselves. As the current government has no more intention than the last few of doing so, and the housebuilders certainly haven't, I can't see the problem going away.

Boat sinks. What to use for hole? Sorry to hear your boat sinks. Is this just occasionally, or is it a regular feature? I wouldn't use anything for a hole because you have most likely got one already. They are definitely bad news in a narrowboat anyway. I suggest you get rid of it pdq - a dirty great cork may well do the trick. 🙄

For a minute there I thought you'd sank your boat!

So when a boater pays his £xxxx to renew his licence, why don't CRT simply write back saying "Thank you for paying your £yyy overstaying charge. We are unable to renew your boat licence as we have only received £(xxxx-yyy) towards the cost. Please pay the outstanding £yyy by [date1]. Please also note that if payment is not received in full by [date2] a late payment charge will be incurred."

Converted Clayton tar boat Ribble had a CE fitted when it was used by a school in Brum , late 60s. Marine version, ran very nice. There was a Manchester Collieries box boat got an industrial CE codged into it with a chain drive,radiator cooled, that was rubbish*. We have another CE here destined for a narrow gauge loco, was original fitment when Pontius was a pilot. * the engine was ok , the installation was not.

Clearly, a minority group of boaters who are continuous moorers, are starting to mount an effective publicity campaign to bring their demands to the attention of a wider audience, with the aim to impede any effective change to the legislation, which would impact on their chosen way of life. This is likely to get stronger, as the day gets nearer, aided by a sympathetic media, with the hope of making their lifestyle appear reasonable, and gain an influence beyond their numbers. CART, needs to engage with their argument in order to show how unreasonable their behaviour is, how they spoil it for other compliant boaters, and the canal environment, and that they do not follow their licence terms. They attempt to create a residence in one place, without paying for a mooring, and that the law needs to be made clear, and easier to apply, without incurring crippling costs. They also need an effective PR campaign, to promote the benefits and good living to be had on the canals, and the different options available that boaters have to enjoy them.

Bumped into what may be a similar group a couple of times last Summer around the Newlay, Forge and Kirkstall locks on the L&L canal. The group was young offenders doing their community service. Speaking to the guys who were in charge, it was nothing to do with CaRT and the offenders all enjoyed getting out and doing their community service work. They helped me with the locks and the tow path where they were cutting heading towards Leeds was well cut and tidy. So IMO they were doing a good service in the upkeep of the Towpath. Nothing to complain about especially knowing how CaRT waste money.

Precisely. CRT ought to discriminate between liveaboard boaters who cruise, and liveaboard boaters who don't want to but haven't got a mooring, and find a way (as they're not going to go away, because largely there's nowhere for them to go) to monetise the latter properly and let the former enjoy the lifestyle. Lumping both into the same, er, boat, might be simpler but certainly isn't fair. I suspect the non liveaboard "CCers" will get lumped in with the non-movers, as that's what they largely are - they're really leisure boaters without a mooring, for which there's no current category. Whatever happens, someone's going to get upset.

They've got 6 months to come up with a set of rules that they believe will effectively stop the London boating lifestyle from being possible. I believe that is their goal. So the new rules wont just require a bigger annual movement range, because canny boaters will simply take a week off work and cover the 100 miles (or whatever) that is required. Then they'll return to London and carry on as before. I believe the new rules will prohibit boaters moving back into an area/zone for at least 6 months, so that genuine continuous cruising is needed in order to comply. And CRT will want to make it watertight. So they'll be trying to consider all the possible loopholes that people might employ to get around the rules. Some boaters might register as traders, for example, in the hope of being allowed less strict movement rules. Some will cite a disability or medical reason why they cant follow the rules. Every possible reason that human ingenuity can devise will be raised, in order that boaters should allowed to continue with their lifestyle. And to be honest, I sympathise with them. OK, it does mean London is a pain to cruise in for a visitor, but let's have it right- these are not bad people. They are just trying to hold down a local job and not have to pay £700 per month for a tiny room in a shared house. They just want to live a life that brings them some happiness and independence, and that is affordable given their sometimes limited salaries, and the ruinous cost of accommodation in London. Let's maybe retain a bit of compassion for the people who will be affected by the new rules. I hope that CRT will consider a form of limited movement license, that allows some people to carry on as they are with a limited range. Or that they will soften the blow by phasing the new rules in over a number of years. But either way, I suspect that CRT are going to succeed in getting some new laws enacted via parliament, and that in about 3 years time, there will only be some visiting leisure boats moored in London, and an entire community will have vanished.

@Tony1 I am not advocating this outcome. I just think it is quite likely. I also don't agree that it would cause a significant financial negative to the CRT. I think the Boats would be purchased by others, perhaps at a good discount, and used for pleasure. Be careful with the idea a canal Boat other than a really nice one can go up in value. I don't want to deny anyone any particular lifestyle. I have zero influence due to being an inconsequential nobody. It just seems to me that a problem has been identified around the use of canals and associated land owned by the CRT and changes are being considered. I would not be surprised if the changes end up being a hard shift towards predominantly leisure use of waterways. Yes this would cause negative outcomes for some but that is how it goes.

Yes, but that's exactly the situation I was describing upthread, and it certainly used to be more the boats with moorings who liked to spend a month moored outside the pubs. Another common one is certain festivals and gatherings where certain boaters cheerfully admit to deliberately mooring up three or four weeks before the event to get a good spot - there's a few threads on here about it!

So where does the money come from to pay the costs if installation and maintenance of all those boater 'facilities' ? A ; the licence fee. Boaters without a home mooring make more use of the facilities than a boater with a home mooring.

There does need to be clarification of the official banding of Boater type. From the bottom up. Worthless slubbderdegullions Unlincensed Pisstakers NBTA Dumpers CMers NABO CCers Genuine CCers RBOA Home moorers Shiny Boaters IWA Jesus I know which I am !

So there ex cons and you gave them a hard time. Thought you might of learnt from the last time you gave someone a hard time

Don't bother, just put a candle in a flowerpot, that should heat the whole boat

There is legislation in place which is more than adequate to enforce the laws as they stand - but - C&RT, and BW before them, have made a decsion not to use them. The fines maybe 'derisory' but the potential of 'having a criminal record' which will affect the rest of your life (jobs, insurance, loans etc etc) should not be taken lightly. Nigel Moore 8/2/20 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. The EA make good use of bye laws on their waterways so, it can be done. The existing laws allow C&RT to 'split' the categories of boats in any way they so wish and to charge 'any' sum they wish for each category, again they are not using this to its full extent. I discussed this in some length with Nigel Moore and this was one of his replies : Nigel Moore 6/1/18 The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel. 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. 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. Where the existing legislation is weak (or non existent) is in the subject of charging for moorings - they can charge for mooring on the bankside where improvements have been implemented (dredging / Armco / rings etc) but there appears to be no mechanism to implement and recover an 'ovenight' mooring charge for un-improved banks which are obviously the vast majority. This is where I'd be briefing the commission to focus.

Tricky to "boil it in white vinegar" as I suggested if you do that....

Nail on the head there. I wouldn't try to paint a boat in January at all! In fact on reflection, I wouldn't try to paint a boat at all.... I dunno why people think painting is easy, it strikes me as one of the most difficult of all the trades to learn properly.

Or worse, actually living on the bus while she tries to use it for what it was intended.

You have got to love an Opduwer.

This topic is getting to a wider audience now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmkn0wkg1o "Boat-dwellers fear review could end lifestyle" Someone on the FB LB group posted that was needed was mass disobedience and to bankrupt the CRT. These people don't care about the canal its just politics. If the CRT can lose these idiots then things can improve.