Tacet

The maths simply doesn't work. Next year the CC surcharge is 10% of the HM charge rising to 25% in a bit. Taking a starting point of, say, £1000 pa this equates to £100 rising to £250. Offering berths at under £250 for berths that might usually be, say, £2000 is not good business. The existing customers might want to join the scheme. Even if you offer moorings on some sort of dodgy nod-and-a-wink that they are not used means you have to let 10 in order to have around the same income as a bona-fide letting of one. If someone has a significant number of vacant berths consistently, they need either to cut the fees a bit or improve their facilities until they attract more customers.

It's private land and calling it a public car park only signifies that it is made available to Joe Public on payment. Whilst it is both private land and not (usually) part of the highway, it would be a contravention of the Road Traffic Act not to have third party insurance. In practice this means no under age driving lessons.

I recall being taken to the municipal slipper baths on a couple of occasions while boating. No recollection of where - and they all seem to have closed now.

It is 10% for next year - which was your parameter when additional costs of a CC licence were introduced into this thread.

A Cc licence will cost 10% more than a home mooring licence. That ratio is fixed - assuming the same boat. Different boats will have different starting points - principally relating to size. It has always been this according to length,; more recently width is a factor too. These are separate issues.

Aren't you, in the second part, comparing prices for different width boats? If so, you could equally claim narrowboat licence charges will be less next year (when compared to a wide beam). Or in 2026 shorter boats will pay 50% less (than long boats). The bottom line is the same size boat (even a widebeam) will pay 10% more for the cc option than with a home mooring. In this context, anything else is obfuscation by selectively comparing apples and oranges.

That will end all arguments on the issue. Not.

So, doesn't this mean a boat with a cc licence will pay (only) 10% more than the same boat with a home mooring? Whether that is a lot more depends on the cost of the home mooring licence and one's view of what amounts to lot more.

Looks to be best practice rather than water regulations https://www.hdcymru.co.uk/content/dam/stw/businesses/plumbers/marine-water-facilities-inland-and-coastal-industry-best-practice-guidance.pdf

If it helps, I can find a couple of occasions where you were wrong - but did not explicitly admit it.

I can't locate the section that contains the BSS requirement for bilge blowers on inboard petrol engines boats. Where is it please? https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/requirements-examinations-certification/private-boat-requirements/

Alan's told us for years that either the 2025 legislation is in place or will be soon. Only a few months remain now so it must be imminent if it is not already law.

I think the first question would be whether the "other place" is one where the vessel can reasonably be kept. We could all say that the vessel could be lifted out and carted away to almost anywhere - but how realistic (or reasonable) is my cousin's hill farm in this context?

Said by who? I can't find that quote in the judgement. Davies was a County Court case - which means it is a Civil matter and therefore difficult to see how it could result in a criminal conviction.

BW v Davies did not decide that living aboard and CC are mutually exclusive. See para 14 of the transcript: https://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/bw-v-davies-sealed-judgement/. "It seems to me that use of a boat as a home does not necessarily exclude a coexistent use for navigation. Indeed a person who continually cruises the waterways in the manner envisaged by the Board might well be living on his boat and have no other home" What was decided is that Davies was not bona fide continually cruising. That raised the question as to what he was doing - the answer to which was living on his boat and navigating very little.

But it's not the usual disclaimer, is it? Can anyone produce a direct scan of a survey which excluded opening cupboards? If so, they should not have accepted such a condition, which is your own point really. If the state of the boat surveying profession is as dismal as you believe, there is a great business opportunity for the keyboard surveyors on CWDF to clean up.

The lesson is therefore to ensure your agreement does not exclude all liability - rather than not to have a survey.

Fair enough - and very reasonable too. The bit about being eligible for one internal and external leak is quite curious; one wonders how many people request the leak to which they are entitled.

Firstly, you're assuming that a survey will be materially wrong; this is possible but less than likely. Secondly, if the surveyor is negligent in performing its duties, there is, of course, a come back. On the other hand, if the surveyor does not do something it was not asked to do or does not identify an issue that the hypothetically reasonably competent surveyor would identify, then you will probably not. A survey is just that; it is not an immediate or perpetual guarantee that the boat is 100%. There is a tendency for buyers not to read survey reports carefully - just breathe a sigh of comfort that a survey has been undertaken without reflecting on its findings.

To remake the immersion heater joint, it needs to be removed from its boss. The boss remains joined to the cylinder It's unusual for this joint to start leaking if it has been dry for a good while. If it looks to have started to leak only recently, I suggest a careful examination to make quite sure where the trouble lies before fiddling further.

Do you mean the water supply company or the waste treatment company? I can't see the water (supply) company crediting a consumer for metered water because the consumer hasn't fixed a leak.

Isn't data from office to laptop more likely to be download?

It's never going to be as simple as three dimensions unless understated to be on the safe side. As someone recently proved, some boats in some locks can pass forward in one direction but not the other. And a boat shorter than the maximum dimensions can be a bit wider than otherwise and so on.

Fair point. But I also recall a poster on here warning of the imminent collapse of the Nantwich Aqueduct which has not transpired in maybe 5 years. Should that have been investigated (at a cost) or a bloke in a van asked to go do some maintenance without proper instructions? Clearly there is a sweet spot to be sought between the costs of frequent, professional surveys, routine maintenance and fixing catastrophes.

Quite possibly expenditure on the three sites you mention could have the averted greater costs of fixing them when they failed. The difficulty is that one would have to incur increased expenditure on numerous other sites to both investigate deterioration (probably by the management or consultants) and then addressing any issues and undertaking maintenance. In any ideal, cost-is-no-object, world we would all like to see this. But where cost is an issue, what makes you so sure that more on maintenance would overall (not just your hand-picked examples) save at least the same on repair? Clearly there is a sweet spot somewhere but it takes managers and consultants to find it - not just boots on the ground. And that's before one takes account of long & short term popularity and the chances of squeezing some money from the government or public when there is a significant failure; not much chance of that for repointing a load of lock wing walls which are ostensibly fine.