Paul C

How many documented cases are there of narrowboats in tidal or wide-ranging berths? Given that the "normal" of a non-tidal river is normally the lowest it would be, it would be very unlikely you'd want to "go lower" than what you cruised to, moored up at, then would rise again then depart. For example, think of a flood-safe river mooring. You may well want/need to moor to it in flood, but you'll also want to be floating and depart from it later. Hence why they are purpose-designed to go up and down and allow mooring/unmooring in all conditions. And.....a narrowboat simply isn't designed for waters in the same way as a sea-going boat (some of which ARE designed to work well in tidal moorings). Its inlets/outlets are the lowest of any boat, I'd not want to be taking chances. Having said all that, the mud will definitely loosen up once the dried-out mooring is flooded again, so its unlikely to hold with much force over the boat's buoyancy, so I'll put it down as "myth" too!

I meant geographic areas I know - as in, been there, multiple times, in a canal boat. Hence why I don't get much involved with "London" and "K&A" matters. Canals, more than most things, aren't something you can encapsulate very well into an online experience - its about being there, dealing with the challenges it throws at you, soaking up the unique atmosphere it creates. Have you heard of the expression "stay in your lane"?

Having driven a 58' narrowboat between all 6 permutations (the 3 combinations of route in both directions), it is difficult/impossible to do it any other way than the shortest/most direct route. It is similar to mini roundabouts with a 30' rigid truck - if the roundabout is impossible to negotiate due to the size of the vehicle, you can ignore the painted central area and drive over it. (Highway Code Rule 188) (except it can be interpreted as, with a large boat at Old Turn, you can go the "wrong" way round if you need to).

I restrict my comments to the areas I know.

You're exactly right, its not fraud in itself but it is commonly used as an evasion tactic.

Different waterways are different though. For example on a river, there's long stretches of unmoorable bank then a visitor mooring. Canal is VERY different in nature. The evidence needs to be obtained, to start with. This is a huge cost in itself. And if the boat has no index, you can't progress..... So the law on display of indexes needs to be amended for a start. A good parallel is the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.

I know, but what you've said is irrelevant, because its NOT about byelaws, its about having new civil/criminal laws which are effective.

That's why they're doing the CRT Commission. To explore areas where enforcement isn't (cost) effective, to turn it into something cost effective. And if it has the benefit of dissuading people to do so, all the better. For example, the rules surrounding not displaying licence/boat number are incredibly weak. Tighten it up so the penalty is able to reflect the fraud it is, rather than the miniscule byelaw amount which is not worth enforcing, and things will change.

There is definitely a "problem" outside of London and the K&A, relating to the abuse of visitor moorings. Rather than put an exact number of boats on it, I'd suggest a better way of expressing it is to express the % of space on a visitor mooring taken up by overstayers. What typically happens is there is a proportion of overstayers, a proportion of boats within the (restricted) time and a proportion of free spaces. Over a given timeframe, a handful of overstayers will eventually move on but many more short term stayers will move on too, some of these 'fluid' spaces are taken up by other short-term stayers and some are taken up by overstayers (and a few may remain free). Eventually, the rate of incoming overstayers exceeds the rate of leavers, thus the visitor mooring becomes more and more full, resulting in fewer opportunities for short term stayers. First, the free spaces will go and then it becomes "one out one in" and these will be gradually taken by overstayers. The existing overstayers will notice the pattern of behaviour and "stay put" (after all, if they've overstayed 3 weeks, or 6 weeks, what's the difference?) In due course, enforcement action might occur (and a big proportion of overstayers will leave.....), or it might not occur and eventually the VM is full and ceases to function as a short term mooring spot. This means the genuine CCers and those cruising, probably time-limited, for a short break (ie home moorers on a holiday/cruise, or hire boaters) unable to use the mooring and have to go elsewhere. Is this fair?

All the reasons you've given why it can't happen, aren't reasons it can't happen. However I do agree in the short term (say, 5 years), it will be "optional" to leave and they'll ramp up the costs of staying.

Screwfix don't do many lines of building/DIY materials such as 6mm plywood. So if you want high street/shopping centre convenience and opening hours etc, it would need to be B&Q or Wickes. A builder's merchant or timber merchant would be better though, as already stated.

Yes

You'd have to be a weapons-grade idiot to try and avoid enforcement action by changing ownership, and overlook the fact that the ownership change needs to be notified to CRT.

There is a danger that the couple who do this "stunt" could well find themselves up for fraud charges, or possibly perverting the course of justice, which carry a higher penalty than the original. Of course, someone would have to bring those charges to court etc (private prosecution by CRT?) It happens all the time with speeding offences (which can be minor), when people start being clever and trying to play games to get off it, or transfer the points to eg a partner. All the way up to perjury and jail time.

Yes, they will enforce planning laws, they have done it plenty of times before. It is not "the local council" it is one department vs another department. Do you think these departments talk to each other? In any case 1) its a boat, its not technically "a home" - if someone is living on it, they may already have another 'home'/address; or they may already technically be homeless. 2) its a boat, they can just go somewhere else on the boat*.... * For example, they could comply by obeying the rules of the mooring provider which might have already thought of this, by only staying overnight, on the mooring, x nights per week. If its (for example) 4, they could go away for Fri-Sat-Sun night half a mile down the canal or something like that.

Its a terrible spot anyway, too close to the A51, too noisy and there is The Stupid Ledge too.

If it may be residential CRT may be breaking the law by "just designating it and renting it out".

Would be interested to see this quantified - as in, with 2.5mm2 runs, what would be the voltage drop vs 8.5mm2 runs. Of course, for that we would need to know the actual typical current draw and other factors (such as duty cycle) to estimate the longevity of the motor in each comparative scenario. Remember, the pump won't be running at "full" pressure with the tap open or the shower in use, it will simply pump at its flowrate at a much lower pressure drop. Having said that, I suspect the pump wiring is sized for caravan or motorhome installation, which tend not to be so long a wiring run as a narrowboat one. So I accept some merit in thicker/longer wire runs. Its just 8.5mm2 to 1.5mm2 doesn't sound right.

The CCing legislation is vague, deliberately, to cater for a variety of scenarios which were such an edge case in 1995 and before, that not much thought was put into how it would be effectively enforced. CRT's problem is that the law is vague, and there are no measures to make it easier to enforce, so its very costly. Hence their businesslike approach is "no action" in the vast majority of cases. I suspect we're past the point now where they can simply strike out CCing (as is the case on other waters - where it is not possible to obtain a licence without a mooring). So there will be some kind of broad redefinition and some kind of extra measures to make enforcement much easier. With the power to make new legislation - if that's the eventual outcome - certain sections of the boating community (a nice way to say, the piss-takers) will be almost completely eliminated in due course.

Surely with the length of time that has now passed, this is done and dusted; and the insurance has paid out?

So you’d happily install a run of 8.5mm2 cable then connect it to 2.5mm2 tails on a narrowboat?

I think what's happened is the OP has arbitrarily chosen a "desired" voltage drop - which is admirable - but has resulted in a recommendation of 8.5mm2 cable for a device with 1.5mm2 tails (for the water pump). (And similar disparity for the LED lights). Personally I'd look at the relative cost of 33m of 8.5mm2 cable and then run the "calculation" in reverse to see what the voltage drop would be with (say) 2.5mm2 cable, and decide if its acceptable in the face of the cost saving. Many devices are quite tolerant of a bit of voltage drop, eg water pumps, lights, USB charge points - and some, not so much eg fridge.