Bargebuilder
-
Posts
886 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Bargebuilder
-
-
22 minutes ago, Jon57 said:
They need to use AI to keep a check on every boat without a name registration. Pull it out and wait for the claimant to come forward to start legal proceedings against them ( not many would I presume) then put in a counter claim
Great suggestion.
-
On 25/06/2023 at 17:17, booke23 said:
You could be right, I can't quite tell.
And for the avoidance of doubt for anyone reading, when I refer to CMers in my earlier post, I was referring to the K & A variety who actually properly CM, for months at a time on the towpath or even on 48hr visitor moorings.Are they licensed?
-
2 hours ago, M_JG said:
How do the DVLA do it?? Do they worry about contacting owners before seizing and removing unattended/abandoned/untaxed vehicles?
Isn't the DVLA a government organisation and having cars taxed and insured a legal requirement? Presumably the ability to remove a car that doesn't comply is enshrined in law. The C&RT would, I suppose, have to go to court before removing a boat to avoid being accused of theft!
If the C&RT know that they are never going to get any money out of a boats owner, then it's cheaper for them to just forget that it's there and do nothing. It also will look better for them to not record its presence, if that's what they do.
-
2 minutes ago, M_JG said:
Well if they don't enforce the requirement to display a valid licence or at the very least a registration number they should expect that some people will abuse it.
At least if the reg. number was on display it's licence status can easily be checked.
How could they enforce a requirement to display a licence or reg no? The only penalty could be removal of such a vessel without contacting it's unknown owner first.
-
If even the CRT's possibly conservative estimate of over 2,000 known unlicensed boats only resulted in 100 removals in a year, at what point are they going to go after totally anonymous vessels with no known owner to contact?
-
2 minutes ago, IanD said:
How? Here's a moored boat with no registration number or name or visible license, and no owner to ask -- how do CRT staff know if it's licensed or not?
In that case, even CRT staff won't know, but what percentage of such unnamed boats showing no license or number are likely to actually be licensed?
-
4 minutes ago, IanD said:
I really don't understand why CART dropped the requirement to display the registration number and license, after all there's no ANPR on the canals -- or license plates to recognise, any more...
Is it possible that the CRT would rather those who pay their license fee not know just how many people don't do so? Now, only CRT staff know for sure.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
15 minutes ago, wandering snail said:Can you provide roughly when this came on please.
It was roughly when I was eating my crunchy nut cornflakes this morning.
-
1
-
4
-
6 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Is there any suggestion of canals being filled and the land used for other purposes?
History suggests that this might very well happen.
Marinas could be turned into house boat estates and canals into liveaboard streets, but I hope not.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, magnetman said:
Why would towpaths be "lost" if canals were closed?
That's partly my point: why would the non boat owning population think spending taxpayer's money on keeping waterways navigable be more important than paying nurses a bit more, when their own enjoyment of the towpath may not be affected either way.
-
2
-
-
The funding issue has just featured on BBC Breakfast news: they show video of the canals to accompany the news feature, but it's locks and narrowboats that they concentrate on, not walkers, cyclists and fisherfolk. Viewers are likely to be thinking, why should taxpayers subsidise the tiny minority who can afford to buy and run a boat, not, what a loss towpaths would be to walkers. The government say that the CRT must look for alternative sources of funding and I suspect that the majority of the population are likely to agree.
Would any political party be forgiven by the majority of people for allocating millions to keeping canals dredged and locks operational whilst so many other demands exist for the limited funds available, not least the current huge wage demands?
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
But it does not say that all abandoned boats were removed. I've seen plenty still there.
I don't think that is a claim that they would dare make.
-
12 minutes ago, kris88 said:
Playing the man again?
But their boats don’t leave.
But the used price of widebeams will plummet as the cost of owning them rises. Owning one will, however, appeal greatly to people who have no intention of licensing it.
-
11 minutes ago, kris88 said:
The only people forced off the cut will be the law abiding middle income boaters especially leasure boaters. So I’d be careful what you wish for. A large liscence fee increase isn’t going to effect the lawless or benefit funded.
Agree, but add to the group forced off widebeam owners, apart from the very well heeled ones: do I hear cheers?
-
Is charging widebeams extra, designed to reflect an extra cost to the CRT or just to discourage their ownership?
-
14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
How many of the unlicensed boars are ones that have been abandoned in the canal and not yet been removed? Unless causing an obstruction, they generally seem to be left. Even then it takes some time to go through the necessary procedures.
The CRT website says: "In 2021-22, 100 boats were removed from our navigations as they were unlicensed, despite the Boat Licence Customer Support team’s best efforts to resolve matters; many were abandoned boats." That's less than 5% of the non-payers according to the CRT's own estimation. This figure possibly includes sunken wrecks.
-
5 minutes ago, MtB said:
Highly unlikely given CRT do not acknowledge they even exist. Let alone publish statistics on them.
Or do they?
Your implication being that what the CRT describe as a "national boat count" doesn't include boats without names or other identification.
Without every mile of waterway being physically walked on the same day, the figure they use for boats that aren't registered with them must be little more than an educated guess. It's in their interest to underestimate this figure if their aim is to make it look as if nearly all boats pay the licence fee. Of course, that may not be their aim.
-
12 minutes ago, MtB said:
I think your "something not right here" is the increasing number of stealth boats. The arithmetic of stating the proportion of licenced boats instead of unlicenced, allows them to ignore the rise in number of apparently unregistered 'stealth' boats on the system.
Wouldn't the 'stealth' boats be included in the total number of boats figure from which the percentage of licenced boats is calculated?
The CRT can only be sure of two figures, the number of licenses they sell and the total number of boats on their waterway (assuming they bother to count them and quite how they could do that I'm not sure)
Assuming that the figure that the CRT uses for the total number of boats is an estimate - and I can't see how it can't be - the lower the estimated figure they use, the higher the percentage figure for licensed boats appears to be.
-
11 minutes ago, magnetman said:
I wonder what one has to do to get into this bracket and be allowed to remain on the water.
Perhaps lifting an boat out of the water complete with its liveaboard occupants has legal ramifications.
-
6 minutes ago, magnetman said:
Dodgy situation here. This could snowball and become a significant problem.
Why did they say a drop in licensed boats rather than an increase in unlicensed boats?
I don't think they said a drop in licensed boats, I think they said a drop in the percentage of licenced boats.
There could be more licensed boats but a lot more unlicensed boats.
-
2 minutes ago, magnetman said:
"slight drop in the percentage of licensed boats, down from 96.5% in 2019 to 94.1% this year,"
Is that in excess of 2,000 unlicensed boats?
Or how much lost income?
-
6 minutes ago, Goliath said:
Is a decrease in licensed boats an increase in unlicensed boats?
or is a decrease in licensed boats just simply less boats?
Have a read:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/national-boat-count-2022
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:
How do you know there are that many unlicensed boats?
I read from the C&RT website. They quote nearly a 6% non-compliance for 2022
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/national-boat-count-2022
-
2 minutes ago, MtB said:
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the point I was making in my post you quoted!
You mentioned the probable lack of BSS compliance.
The C&RT's own 2022 survey concluded that nearly 6% of boats are not correctly licensed. It's not a stretch to suggest that a fair proportion of these are neither insured or have a BSS certificate.
Playground for the Rich
in General Boating
Posted
BSS inspectors have to visit the boat to do their inspection, so they could hand over a 'passed' disc there and then; no need for a printer, a postal address or a visit to a high street printer. Make the displaying of this disc mandatory and remove vessels not displaying one.