Lady M

Most home moorers do pay more to CRT. Their mooring fees would be lower if this did not happen.

Unfortunately, instead of discontinuing the scheme, the government decided that charging the extra duty on boat propulsion was a green initiative.

The underlying issue is that the intentions of a poorly worded law are being misused on a scale that adversely impacts home moorers and is increasing. Surcharging may make some think twice. This is the same approach as charging extra for widebeam boat licences.

It wasn't great when CRT took over.

Not all boats can be date identified.

The problem with this approach and the current surcharging arrangement, as I see it, is that it doesn't take any account of CCers and others who use a winter mooring for several months of the year.

What, including bona fide home moorers? I wonder how much it would cost CRT to collect and process all those £20 payments. Doesn't adding a surcharge to the licence achieve a similar, if smaller, outcome? Perhaps all the boaters would move onto a different navigation authority's water.

Yes, but when they move water is consumed and sometimes the infrastructure is broken. It is a really difficult situation based on a bad law.

Why can't they see the difference between 'I have to move after 14 days' and 'I can stay here for up to 14 days if I so wish'.

Licensing of boats on the canals is a relatively recent arrangement. Olive at The Anchor on the Shropshire Union Canal used to say that her old boat did not need to have a licence or pay for its mooring alongside the towpath. Perhaps this boat has been there so long that it pre-dates the licence system.

The maximum number of people you can take on a moving boat is 12 plus one or two crew.

Unless you can get HVO, it will be better to buy little and often in future.

Perhaps the unfair aspect of the new charging regime is the requirement to take a home mooring for a minimum of six months to change from CC-er to home moorer - and pay a fee to make each change. I would prefer it to be based on each full calendar month of paid mooring fees but even a minimum of three consecutive months would be much fairer and reflect what many boaters do in the winter. The scheme as currently set up discourages CC-ers from taking their boat off the system when they can't or don't wish to travel.

The actual wording can be found in Excise Notice 554. Paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 are relevant. Here they are: 5.7 If you’re a residential boat owner and only move your boat short distances occasionally We recognise that there are boat owners whose primary, or only residence is their boat. Some of these will be at fixed moorings or move just a very short distance along the tow path from permanent moorings. If you live aboard your craft permanently and hold certain documentation, such as a Houseboat Licence, Residential Mooring Licence, Council Tax bill in respect of the mooring, or other documentation, such as invoices or bills which provide proof of permanent residency, you may purchase all your fuel at the rebated rate (as if you owned a commercial vessel). You are not required to make a declaration. However, it will be your responsibility to make sure that you hold the requisite documentation should we wish to check this at a future date. 5.8 If you’re a continuous cruiser If you’re a ‘continuous cruiser’ you may not claim all of your fuel for non-propulsion purposes under the arrangements for residential boat owners. Even if you reside permanently on your craft, you must declare your actual intended usage for propulsion.

Alan is absolutely correct. You have the option to purchase elsewhere or adjust your declaration next time. Only boats on official residential moorings are supposed to be allowed to declare 0% propulsion.