Ray

Has it got a BSS?

I'm not sure that a blind will prevent condensation, more likely it will just stop you noticing it and you'll end up having the blind to replace/clean as well. In my opinion which probably doesn't account for much, I'd be looking to try to make more of a seal over the opening. A piece of clear upvc shaped to be a reasonably tight fit in the opening to form something like secondary glazing, should do. We have this on our narrowboat, albeit that the upvc has a wood surround, It is held in place with a couple of lengths of 6mm metal studding with 6mm nts on each end. I offer the studding up (to support the upvc) and then tighten the nuts against the side of the opening. I can then remove the upvc (and frame) if wish to open the hatch by removing the studding. I have found that the studding is prone to temperature variations and occasionally drops to the floor so I plan to investigate other options for holding the upvc in place at some time but we've had what we have for over two years now and the studding doesn't drop that often.

I was referring to the phrase in the website quote that Dancers originally posted. I also recognise that some people may have a mooring in one place and then spend a long time cruising well away from that mooring. However, I would respectfully suggest that it is a trifle unusual to continually cruise in a confined area well remote from your mooring. Consequently, for the occasional person who does it, I could understand why CRT might start asking questions. If everything is above board then I presume nobody has anything to fear. However, if the quoted mooring isn't bona fide and is used to circumvent the CC guidelines I think CRT have the right to check it out.

I suppose it also depends on CRT's definition of "distant from your mooring". If you only cruise local to your nominated mooring then again I dont think you have a problem. However, if you have a mooring in (say) Oxford and spend all year on the towpath in (say) Leeds they may possibly be justified in thinking they can smell a rat

I presume that many of the so called paper moorings are effectively water space somewhere in the marina (or even less). As long as you can take your boat back to the marina and physically moor it where you and/or the marina owner agree your allocated mooring spot is then I don't see that you have a problem. I might be tempted from time to time to just pop back to the marina for an hour or so just to make sure the marina owner isn't getting two lots of income for one mooring space. That is presuming that (and I doubt this is the case) you don't have some kind of concession arrangement with the marina owner to give you a discount for not using the space too often if at all. I don't see how you can rock any boat (pun not intended) if you contact CRT and explain your position. On the other hand, as CRT haven't actually contacted you they may well have spoken to the marina operator, confirmed you have a mooring and are not concerned.

I asked for a copy of their authority to charge on their company's headed paper. I'm still waiting nearly two years later but, to be fair, I have moved since then.

Hopefully not for more than 48 hours.

On the basis that the security staff who attempted to charge us £3 per night to moor at Granary Wharf a couple of years ago - we didn't use the electric - couldn't provide me with anything on headed paper I declined to pay and managed to escape early enough on my day of departure, before too many people were around. We stayed for 36 hours and made sure that we didn't walk past their office door when walking to or from the boat! Others have suggested that their attempts at charging are not necessarily legal. My guess is that they keep the "charge" low in the hope that people will simply pay up without question. Presumably, if you don't speak to them whilst you're there (because you leave the boat unattended) and they don't see you going, there's no way that they can collect what they say you owe because any paperwork they produce has no indication of the company name or address. My guess is that you may need to pay if you wish to use the electric. On the other hand, £3 per night to have someone keep an eye on your unattended boat possibly isn't that bad and is probably a lot less than what you'd pay to leave it in a marina.

Don't forget that the "logger" simply keys what they see into their handheld device, If the program & database or whatever at the other end then detects a problem it appears that it initiates the issuing of the notice. The latest "logger" may not be the one that patrols the stretch all the time and they do see a lot of boats in the course of their travels. It matters not whether it is a paid member of staff, a contractor or a volunteer. they can only use the tools that they have. As humans they're not imune from making the occasional error and a different logger may have keyed in a wrong digit or similar - effectively meaning you get a icket that you shouldn't. It may just be that their patrol area sequencing is such that the system is issuing a notice for what it sees as overstaying somewhere else (or the information keyed into the system by a logger may be incorrect). Of course, none of the above (that I've posted) may be true!

I wonder if the proposals are CRT's attempt to avoid the need to admit that they have not been administering/monitoring the existing restrictions correctly. They possibly expected the objections and can now reply to the original complainants indicating that they have had a quantifiable number of objections to their proposals and plan to re-think their solution options (and hope the problem goes away in the interim).

The more that I think about it the more I'm concerned by these proposals. Inevitably the rangers/wardens will differ from day to day and their visit times vary. I can arrive at a mooring around midday (or even later) on day 1. there's time left to do some fairly local sightseeing. I stay overnight and spend the whole day roaming further afield. I stay overnight again, pop to the shops or local market for some fresh produce and cast off by, say, 11am on day 3. I have complied with the 48 hour condition but the ranger came at 4pm on day 1, 1pm on day 2 and 10am on day 3. Unknowlingly I am guilty of overstaying. Had the ranger's visits been at 10am, 1pm and 4pm I may not have been there even one night in their eyes! Fiction, no, I did exactly that in Leicester last year on the existing 48 hour mooring - the only recommended stop in the city centre. What about the other boats that were there? One arrived just before us and was weekending their boat so disappeared home on the train shortly after we arrived with the intention of returning the following weekend. Another was there when we arrived and still there when we left but I think were planning to move. The third looked as though it hadn't seen a person on it for a long while and the forth seemed to have set up home there. A couple of other boats passed whilst we were there seemingly intent on stopping but there was no space to do so. Had the existing limitations been enforced the situation would probably have been different for them. I do sometimes wonder how much credance some towns and cities give the canal for delivering business to their area.

Dave I take your point and I probably have gone way off topic. Notwithstanding that, from the information that the OP is initially posting there is evidence to suggest that there may be some things that haven't fully been worked through - and please note that I haven't said they haven't been worked through, it is just the evidence that I believe that I've seen from the posts suggests otherwise to me hence my posts and, possibly, my poor use of English has been the cause of some of the comebacks. There's no malice intended but I have seen a number of boats with families living on them, probably for very good reasons, where the living situation is far from ideal for the kids (and probably wouldn't be tolerated on dry land) - children barely clothed, cruisers no more than twenty foot long with three kids on to name but a few. I'm not suggesting that this will happen with the OP (in fact I'm reasonably certain that it won't) but by passing on our respective knowledge and experience, much of which may be known by the OP but we haven't been told as much, we hope we will prevent her heading in the wrong direction. I can talk to two forum members and get completely opposite views from them both and the same can happen when talking to boaters. As far as I can see the various threads on here are all looking the same way. My posts at least are made with the best intention. I'm not the world's fastest typist (or the most accurate) so I'm not writing these posts for any other reason than to try to help the OP make the right decision. I don't want to know the OPs personal situation, that's her business. I don't necessarily want answers to my questions, I just hope she has asked herself those questions. I shall post no more on this matter (other than to correct typos which I think I have now done).

I've no wish to fill this page with multi-quotes of other posts. I may have posed a few questions in my earlier posts. Neither I nor many of the others on here want the answers, we're just hoping that you have asked yourself the questions we've raised. Please remember that you are only drip feeding us with information in response to posts that we make. You'd not, for example, previously told us that you've seen other boats, planned to see other boats or been trawling the broker sites. In the absence of that information we highlighted things that we thought you'd need to consider. If you've already done so then there's no problem, you can tick that off the list that we're hoping you are building up from our comments. I may love a specific make of car. People may suggest that it is costly on fuel but I may have factored that in. However, I may not have factored in that (say) a replacement catalytic converter cost several thousand pounds and that they need changing every three years. If only someone had pointed that out I wouldn't have bought the car! I hope your kids get on, I don't need to know, but I would suggest that you need to factor that in. If you have then fair enough, if you haven't we've made our point and moved on. We don't know whether there is a practical alternative to boating for you and we don't need to know. What we would really hope is that you have explored all the alternatives with as much vigour as you seem to be persuing the idea of a boat based life and compared your current situation with all the options. Again, we don't need to know the answer, we are just expressing a point that may be a little cloudy to see in the distance with the wrong shade of glasses on. I worked out the other day that I reckon my boat costs me about £5000 per annum (or about £100 per week) without actually moving it or living on it so there's nowhere near the wear and tear of a liveaboard. I'm factoring in engine servicing, mooring charges, licences, insurance, new batteries every few years, saftey certification, hull blacking and a repaint every now and again in an attempt to stave off the rapid speed of depreciation. You've probably considered all those things but if you haven't its food for thought. Please be aware that I fitted my own boat out so I am reasonably sure that most of the other maintenance and repairs are within my capabilities and won't cost me anything other than replacement parts. I could unscrew everything on my boat if I had to for that purpose but I know of many boats where everything is glued together and won't come apart. I know that I have no joins in the electrical cables that I can't access. You may be very DIY orientated or a quick learner - I don't need to know - but you do need to be alert to the need to factor these things in as well. Just in case you're not aware, you can't call the gas board in to fix an LPG stove for example and the electricity board will laugh at you if you ask them to come and find a short circuit on your lighting.

With due respect, may I point out that I said that I thought several (people) could be aghast at the thought. I did not say that is what you had or were doing, nor did I mention your children in that respect. We've all been there and done that with regard to rose coloured glasses. Heaven knows, some of us probably wouldn't have a boat now if we didn't. It doesn't mean that because we bought a boat that we'd still have bought a boat if we'd viewed certain elements differently - i.e. knew what we know now. We know we won't dissuade someone who may be determined - and I'm not saying that you are - to move onto a boat. We're simply trying to be realistic and in our own individual ways point out everything that we think you should be aware of/investigate. We're not giving you any more or any less advice that we would or have done for others. What we'd all hate is for you to think we didn't care and didn't give you enough information to make an informed decision on what will be a huge step for you and the kids. I don't recall it being mentioned here or elsewhere but have you done a fairly detailed analysis of the costs of owning and running a boat? You would for example need to factor in the cost of bus fares for the kids if you move out of the catchment area for their school. That could also apply if you move house but things like that are often overlooked. Please remember that boats deteriorate far fastet than property normally appreciates and you have no guarantee that should you need to sell the boat even soon after you buy it that you will get anywhere near what you pay for it. Feel free to ask as many questions as you wish but please don't mistake the knowledge and experience that we're trying to impart as anything as other than constructive comment. Please remember that some people can express themselves in words much better than others.

I doubt anyone on here has anything other than the best interests of you and your children at heart. The comments they make are heartfelt and in the most based on experience and knowledge. It is only right that people express their concerns if they fear that you may be heading in the wrong direction. I suspect several could be aghast at the thought of someone who has little knowledge of our inland waterways and their craft going to look at just a couple of boats and using that as a trigger or otherwise with regard to a possible future life on the canals. I would hope that I am supported by others in suggesting that you should be looking at a larger number of boats or, at least, the various broker based Internet sites to get some idea of what is on offer. Ignore prices, look at shapes and features. Think of the practicalities of kitchen designs and bedroom layouts. For instance, you'll need to have at least two and probably three bedrooms - that's about 20 feet. The loo/shower will need anothher 6 feet, the kitchen a similar amount. That's 32 feet without living space. The engine room/stern deck is probably another 10 feet and the bow at least 6 feet. The minimum length without a living room is thus 48 feet and that excludes wardrobes and assumes all storage is under beds. Can the three of you spend a fair proportion of your lives in what cannot readily exceed 22 feet and is liable to be nearer 15ft or less unless you buy a full length boat. What will the kids do on the boat during the holidays. Will they always be able to get on? I know of people who have had to wait several years for a residential mooring so please don't assume that they appear that regularly in the area that you desire (unless you have evidence to the contrary) and posts elsewhere seem to indicate a clampdown on people living (what amounts to) illegally on boats on leisure moorings. The longest narrowboat is 70 feet in length and a shade under 7 feet wide. That probably equates to the size of two average(?) house rooms although because of the low roofs in boats the cubic capacity is probably significantly less than that in two house rooms. Could the three of you manage in that space, let alone anything smaller? Finally, whilst I recognise that selling up may be something that you have little control over please remember that living full time on a boat doesn't necessarily work out any cheaper than living ashore but once you're off the land you may have a major problem returning thereto if the boat life doesn't work out. If after all these posts you still think that the boaty life is for you and the kids, take them on a boat holiday over the upcoming school holidays and see how you all get on. Don't forget that they (no doubt like you) have numerous friends, will a boat life cut them off from those friends? And finally, if you still feel this is the way to go you'll find canal boaters in general a friendly and helpful bunch who won't treat you any different to the way they treat anyone else.

I do wonder of the OP is slightly confused over terminology and may even be comparing the status to that applicable to caravans. A leisure mooring is one that has no official residential accreditation. Some may not even allow people to stay on the boat over one night, let alone several. The landlord of others may, for one reason or another, turn a blind eye to people who stay on their boat on consecutive days (and/or any number of consecutive days). There is alas always the risk that this latter arrangement may be terminated with little or no notice because it is not official. Remember also that you may not be able to move your boat if the canal is frozen or there are stoppages where you normally cruise when you leave your mooring. I'm not sure whether moving your boat away from your leisure mooring for one or more consecutive nights would get around any residential restrictions on a mooring because it could still be proved that you were living on your boat (assuming that you were) although, technically you are not doing so on your mooring. Boats are checked on moorings, be they towpath or marina, by CRT staff but only for confirmation of whether the boat is licenced or otherwise. Time limits for mooring apply to on-line moorings - like the oft mentioned Visitor Moorings. There is nothing to stop you living full time on your boat and using visitor moorings for the maximum period allowed at that mooring. However, this will probably entail moving the boat every 14 days (or thereabouts) and cruising a reasonable distance before mooring again - please, no discussion here on how far that distance is. These on-line moorings visitor moorings (and the general towpath moorings) are liable to be checked far more often for overstayers and for those boats without licences. I have no wish to dissuade you from buying and living on a boat but if it is to be your sole place to live I would strongly advise against doing so unless you have a bona fide residential mooring or a fall back place to live on land if your "unofficial" residential mooring ceases to be available. Do also consider your chosen means (and place(s)) of living at all times of the year. You cannot move your boat if there's no water in the canal - caused by winter or other stoppages - or if there's flooding or if the canal is frozen. However, life has to go on during these periods. Is your chosen mooring or are your plans for living still practical under these circumstances?

My problem with all of this is that it appears someone, somewhere (or more than one) have complained about visitor moorings being continually blocked by the same people. Instead of checking that what is alleged is actually happening (and causing a problem), CRT appear to have come up with an idea that does seem not to have been fully thought out with regard to the practicalities of its implementation. I boat in the area concerned and several of the affected areas are places that I may reasonably wish to visit more than once per month. Under the current proposals I could lose that ability. Yes, I could move elsewhere but if I have friends with me and like a specific pub or other attraction in an area, I may be faced with an excessive trek from the alternative mooring or having to extend or curtail my cruising to ensure that I can my boat if I wish to. Equally, at least as far as Marsworth is concerned (and I know this also applies to Alan) I could quite legitimately cruise to the VM there, visit the Anglers Retreat and return to my home mooring for the night. I may wish to do the same on the next two (or more) days. If I happen to be moored there when the site is visited by the ranger each day I will be judged to have stayed overnight and, by the third day face a £25 overstay charge when I've done no such thing. It is almost certain that an individual site will not be visited by the same ranger every day, so mooring someone different within the VM area each day would not allow me to escape incorrect detection. I was seen on a specific VM on a number of consecutive days so I must have stayed overnight there. I believe that CRT need to first enforce the current restrictions (whatever they should be) - something that should be easy if they have a ranger in the area each day. They can also use these daily visits to ascertain the extent of the problem. If they then find that there is still a problem, based on their own evidence, rather than heresay from someone, then by all means publish the evidence and proposals to reduce or even eliminate the actual problem they found, not a problem that someone else implied existed. I have cruised that particular stretch of canal more than 2000 times in the last 25 years, often on several consecutive days. I know it like the back of my hand. Yes, there have been problems with overstayers, but there have also been problems with overstayers over a far larger area within the vicinity of Marsworth so why is nothing being proposed to address that. Notwithstanding that, I may well have been guilty in the past of a perception of an overstayer problem when I cruised the area a little less frequently than every day. I'm also aware of a very close friend who will say there is no space on a VM (or wherever) of they have to moor within 20 yards of another boat when they arrive. It appears that the majority of people on this forum that are participating in these discussions are concerned that proposals are being made based on perception and without CRT producing factual evidence to support their proposals or, indeed, being able to confirm that a problem actually exists. Equally CRT are proposing a scheme that imposes a considerable burden on them (by way of providing daily inspections) when they apparently can't even carry out the necessary inspections that would allow them to enforce the existing restrictions. I wonder if anyone has worked out the logistics of the staffing levels required to implement the proposals, even recognising that the rangers may all be volunteers. There are 22 site, mostly far enough aprat to require their own distinct (set of) rangers. They will need a base of between three and four rangers per site each and every day to cover sickness, holidays and other commitments if the daily visits are to be maintained. They only need to occasionally fail to make the daily visit (even in the depth of winter - and what volunteer is going to work on Christmas Day) for the system to become a joke and then be abused like the current system is perceived to be.

Is the fact that he is on the tideway and therefore more in an area controlled by the PLA than the Eenvironment Agency that makes the difference. Does the ruling effectively mean that that stretch of water isn't CRT "property"?

It isn't clear whether there was any cranage charge involved or whether the marina is the seller or the owner and seller of the boat - have they bought it from the original owner? I would expect to pay for taking the boat out of water for survey (and putting it back again) either by crane or via a slipway if I was buying a boat. I can see both sides of the argument relating to an additional cost of taking the boat to and from the place where the survey is to be done. The owner of a boat is usually a private individual and I've not heard of them charging to move their boat - they're usually only too pleased to help if a sale results. However, where a company owns the boat I can understand why it might incur costs that it has to pass on (and this is where the cranage charge comes in). If there was no additional cranage charge then I think £60 + VAT each way to the crane is good value (slippage is usually a lot more than that and hiring a crane in specially probably even more). As the signature of one of this forum's posters (roughly) says (or said) "What you think I said is not necessatily what I actually said". We all do it; take a verbal statement as fact and then object when what we expected wasn't what happened later. It always pays to get costs in writing and to confirm exactly what the money is paying for. We can all mis-hear what is said so it pays to get quotes on paper (or in an email) if you wish to be sure of what you've agreed. I have no connection with either seller, broker or (propspective) buyer, I'm just posting my opinion.