Unicorn Stampede

I guess it's not essential, but its become a bit of the norm for those who do it.

Due to my partner working in Manchester (even with me WFH) we are continuous cruisers who do the northern circuit (or whatever it's called) each year without issue of water or moving the car around. Just means you occasionally have longer days. To clarify northern circuit, Rochdale > Leeds and Liverpool > Calder & Hebble (or the opposite way if feeling fruity) We aren't anything special in what we do, so can't see why others couldn't do it.

In terms of moving, they'd likely just shift every other weekend? That fixes the water issue as well.

My employers (I'm full time WFH on a boat) have always just accepted whatever address I gave them. They didn't even question whose home it was, despite knowing I'm a continuous cruiser with 'no fixed abode'. I've used friends and family addresses in the past with no issue.

Did you finish up at SPBC? We've just Moore's opposite the club and I'm sure I saw a boat called Midnight. Wondered if I put 2 and 2 together correctly.

Maritime law, in the respect of free men, is what they use/justify not paying. I know it makes no sense - it's an unfortunate part of me having had to deal with their members in a past life Your standard maritime law? Crack on, no issue with that.

There's nothing valid about 'Freemen of the Land'. They're a blight and a scam, so providing them with a platform isn't a wise idea. Also no idea what you mean @Alan de Enfield about me not wanting to discuss boating (or knowing what I signed up for??)

I absolutely don't want to see a thread about common law/freemen of the land/maritime law, or anything similar to that kind of nonsense

I posted it, because the NABO reported it after holding a meeting with one of the CRT directors. I wouldn't have if I felt it was pure guess work, but it felt like it came from a reasonable source. I guess it's fair though that nothing has been officially confirmed by CRT so perhaps it wasn't worth mentioning.

Information from NABO says that surcharge will be an increasing 5% charge after inflation is applied each year, to a maximum of 25% in 5 years. Guess we can wait for the confirmation, but seems reliable.

I'd likely be more concerned if it was the council chasing me. Bizarrely, of all 'groups' interested in going about things the way the law dictates, they are the real sticklers for chasing and following up with actions (well, and HMRC). CRTs track record doesnt provide as much concern in my eyes. Like MartynG said, it relies more on honesty than say risk of actual enforcement. I pay because I like to think maybe two or three quid of my license goes into the system. When we start up our canal business, I'll pay for the same reason (I say this now... guess it depends how broke it'll make me...) Personally it becomes a tough pill to swallow when you're asked to pay more and don't feel like what you're putting in, is being used effectively. It's the same nonsense as paying for council tax and wondering why things are in such a shit state. I only mention this third idea of staying but not paying because I don't believe it's been raised as an action some genuine CC boaters might take (or maybe lots if the NBTA/NABO go through with a potential proposal). Also worth noting that the chasing of CRT etc only really works if you even kept all your boat details up to date and allowed CRT to pester you. If you simply went (ironic to say) off grid with your contact details, it becomes I think an absolute impossibility to track based on CRTs current systems.

Oh I agree, there's nothing stopping them doing it. I assume that once they've gone through all the process of getting all the documents etc in line they could do something... Could being the operative word. It would require them lining up the right team and the right people, in the right place, at the right time. Just a pondering thought I had spurred from all this nonsense. With how unorganized everything else done by CRT, I'm not convinced they would take action. It seems like it took them a whole heap of time and manpower to sort out Mr Ward, that it would just be some lingering threat.

I notice that people are assuming that CCers will either (a) pay the new costs or (b) move off the cut. For me, there's absolutely a third option (there's also a fourth and fifth but that's not relevant to this post!) I'm not entirely sure what CRT actually does if a genuine CCer (I know there's a bunch of comments about genuine, but I use the term in the notion of someone that always moves on) decides to not pay. As I mentioned before, there's a whole heap of ways to simply avoid paying costs via the dodgy online account system, however my understanding is so far only CMers have been properly targeted for not being licensed. They're the easy ones to target right? We know where they are. We can arrange someone to come and grab the boat etc etc. On our sightings report, there are multiple months where we have disappeared from spotters (and the record logs they keep for manned locks aren't updated with those sightings). If we just decided to not pay and continue to move as we were, apart from a host of emails telling us there would be consequences, I'm not entirely sure I believe CRT would follow up... it would so much more work and manpower than say the George Ward (was that his name?) situation. I raise this because there could be a window where people who do CC properly just don't pay, regardless of the moral reasonings, that's just lost CRT money. The NBTA (or the NABO, I forget which) is currently querying members on an appropriate response. One of them is that all their members stop paying their license. That makes my above query even harder to handle. Suddenly it's not the odd moving non payer. It's potentially a whole heap of 'em. How does CRT go about chasing all those CCers. I'd imagine the answer is, they don't...

I assume you mean water from water points. Unless CRT have massively bungled up their agreements with the water companies, then fresh water costs will be substantially cheaper per litre than a household. I say that from my experience in the water industry. Now, their leaking water points don't help towards their total water costs...

Seems that would be the case. Unless there was some kind of automation built in to catch it. But then it seems like it was legal to receive all those payments.