Lady M

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.

I don't actually agree with the CC surcharge approach but, as a home moorer, I know I pay a lot more to CRT than any CC-er. Therefore I am offended by the behaviour of CM-ers, especially when it affects other waterway users. Having, on holiday, followed a group of 3 CC-ing boats round the Four Counties ring and sometimes found my preferred stopping place full, sometimes I get annoyed by CC-ers too. On one occasion, they told me they had decided to stay on a 48 hour mooring for a third night because they liked it there.

What Arthur is saying is that 'end of garden' mooring fees did not exist then. Nor had the new marina percentage fees been introduced. However, mooring sites leased from BW certainly paid them rent money.

In response to your final point, not necessarily. The aspect that is being missed here is that CRT gain some extra income from the majority of home moorers, many of whom are also keeping their boats out of the way off the cruising waterways when out of use. Additionally, CRT report some or all of this income as being part of their investment portfolio and do not identify it as coming from boaters. They also seem to overlook the potential effect on this investment income from closed or inactive canals. All those waterside businesses ceasing to pay rent could make a big difference.

As it is coming up, Crick sounds like a good suggestion to me. A lot of the boat exhibits will not be for sale but there will be plenty of opportunity to talk about boats and layouts, meet builders and boaters. Spending another day or two in the area will allow for visits to a number of nearby second hand boat brokerages.

Isn't there a stoppage on the Stourbridge?

They certainly added to the mayhem at Cavalcade.

Thanks cheesegas, this is an significant improvement since we last went that way.

The ones based in the Paddington Arm have a small light on top of a tall stick like mast. It's still very difficult to see them in a tunnel if they get too close to you because they are so low on the water.

Quite dangerous in Maida Hill tunnel.

We did.

In my experience, they do if so requested.

CRT are able to check with at least some mooring providers the boats on their site. This happened at my boat club and we discovered a member who was in process of changing her boat on the mooring had licensed both against the one berth. There were also a couple of boats that had moved on still showing the club as their mooring place.