5 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Are there any documented cases of this actually happening? I can imagine if there was some mud suction and the engine vents were low then possibly water could start to enter before the boat had a chance to refloat. However, in most cases the pull of the mud will never be greater than the buoyancy force lifting the boat.

 

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!

5 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

Which apparently is CRT politics and classic car tax.

 

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).

31 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

Do you follow your own advice for the whole 2000 mile CRT network?

 

I restrict my comments to the areas I know.

4 minutes ago, Momac said:

 

Enforcement from an overstaying perspective  is simply not cost effective. C&RT do not recover any fees of fines from boats that overstay.

Enforcement from a licensing perspective hopefully is cost effective although I have no doubt in some individual cases there is a great deal of expenditure for little or no recovery.

 

As for not displaying of licenses C&RT at one point said it was not necessary (in the same way that displaying a tax disc on a car is no longer necessary). They even stopped the supply of those license holder that stick on the inside of a window.  C&RT  now correctly state it is a legal requirement to display a license . But I don't expect there is any penalty for  not displaying.  Not displaying a license is not fraud. Not having paid for a valid license could be considered fraud.

 

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.

41 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 It does not require a Transport and Works Act Order to change byelaws and CRT hold a draft of beefed up byelaws inherited from BW.  

 

 

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

6 hours ago, Momac said:

 

I agree it would cost C&RT more to properly enforce a shorter than 14 days maximum stay. 

It's not like C&RT make any money out of enforcement. More frequent inspections and  more letters /emails for over staying isn't going to earn C&RT a bean. 

I don't agree at all with overstaying. However altering the period of time people can stay isn't going to be any benefit to C&RT.  

 

I also think there should be no added complications like allowing people who work to stay longer. C&RT have already added complexity to the licensing system which is creating obvious divisions between different groups of boaters. The added licensing complexity already in place is already costing C&RT time and therefore money. C&RT are not equipped to validate whether people are working or have children living on a boat. But even any such validation was possible it would just cost C&RT time/money for nothing in return.

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

Outside of London or beyond 10 miles of Dundas on the K&A, how big is this problem? 100 boats or 1000 or 10000? And how many of those have any current license? 

 

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?

5 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Not going to happen. There aren't enough home moorings available for that to work. I know it's what many on here wish for but I think that is without thinking the logistics through.

 

This all boils down to the K&A and London, so home moorings up north aren't an option (i.e. telling someone in London they have to moor their boat in Staffordshire is the same as telling them to sell up, lovely as Staffordshire is😅) .

 

CRT can't create marinas,  and if private companies could in these areas, they would have, as they would fill up immediately, forced home moorings or not.

 

Creating miles of towpath moorings in these two areas would 1) remove moorings for visiting boats and 2) simply legitimise what's already the case and what is seen as the "problem" with miles of towpath permanently occupied by boats that never move! And this annoys the sort of boaters that can't stand to be in tickover for any length of time😅

 

So that would leave selling up as the only option if home moorings were forcedon everyone? which would not be pretty....

 

A mass eviction of hundreds of people and scrapping of hundreds of old boats, and hundreds of decent boats suddenly on the market can't be an outcome anyone really thinks is a good one? As much as they might not like "alternative lifestyles". It would get national media attention, the amount of ill feeling on the cut (and likely actual boater vandalism) would be unpleasant, the effect on the boat market would impact all boat owners...

 

If CRT do actually want to get rid of continuous cruising (I don't think they do) they'll do it slowly, by gradual increasing the cost of it, which won't cause any sudden shock and gets far less sympathy from the general public. 

 

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.

I was right the first time! Will edit again. Its a bit weird how they determine the dates. But since the car's 39 years old, what's another year and 3 months....

 

Apologies, updated with correct date - I think you'll be eligible from April 2025 on. When does the tax run out on it?

Even if it were provable, you'd not get it anyway. Its not "40 years" its "40 years from April". So you'll need to wait until April 2025.

 

Once you have a car old enough, its simply a case of going to a Post Office with the relevant documents - V5C and V112 form. https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles/apply-for-vehicle-tax-exemption

 

Beware that not all >40 year old cars are exempt from MoT, it needs to be not "substantially changed" - details are on the V112 form.

Just now, Tonka said:

Yes I know that, but do you qualify for the reduced CRT licence as you have a home mooring

 

Yes

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Being a boat owner with a licence I'm sure you are aware that the C&RT T&Cs say that if you do not notify C&RT of the change of ownership then you remain legally liable until the new owner notified them (if ever) of the purchase.

 

 

 

 

It it the same with car V5s.

 

 

 

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. 

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like I said, it could well be a myth. However the tale was pretty detailed, and IIRC the legal side of it looked plausible -- if CART bring a case against the boat owner to remove the boat but when they turn up are shown documents showing that they're (apparently) no longer the legal owner of the boat but somebody else not named in the court order is, what do you think they could do? They can't sue a boat, only a person... 😞 

 

 

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.

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Do you really think any local council is going to make hundreds of people homeless when they have to pick up the tab?

 

 

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.

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Which of course was not my point and has nothing to do with it.

As far as CRT is concerned, planning permission for mooring should be irrelevant. They just designate a chunk of towpath as available and rent it out. As a mooring for a boat. Not leisure, not residential, just a mooring.

As far as liveaboard boaters are concerned, it isn't relevant either, because many hundreds, possibly thousands,  of them are already resident without it.

The only people who care about it are the developers who make money out if it, the planners, the council and the government, so it's their job to sort it out, as whatever the current rules are, they obviously aren't working. Laws that are broken with impunity are bad laws, especially when enforcing them in any meaningful way would be disastrous and lead to results nobody wants.

 

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

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Read my first answer in this topic for the answer. What I am not happy about is people seemingly advising actions that might (not will) lead to a burned out motor.

 

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?

15 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I would question that as far as water pumps are concerned, I know they will still run at low voltage, but you have to remember that the slower the motor runs, the higher the current it demands. This means that if the pump has to run longer, or against a higher pressure than normal, there is a real risk of the motor burning out. I don't think I would be happy with any more than half a volt of volt drop over the whole circuit, and would prefer less.

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.