Allan(nb Albert)

I should perhaps have added that I commented on a document "GUIDE TO BOAT LICENSING, 2008 DRAFT DATE: 17 March 08" which I believe forms the basis of BW's new terms and conditions. I restricted my comments to a small part of that document (the parts that refer to shared ownership) and the document will,no doubt,have changed. However, in the absence of BW publishing new licencing conditions, I am happy to post both the document and my comments.

Hi Haggis I think you are getting confused between discussions that BW have been having with BWAF (regarding licencing conditions for implementation in the future) and new licencing conditions for implementation within the next few weeks (which BW have introduced via a press release (but do not appear on waterscape.com)). I am suprised that Howard (as NABO's shared ownership representative) is not aware of the changes to licencing conditions that British Waterways is introducing. Regards Allan

They are hanging on the back of the clubhouse door at the Black Buoy Cruising Club at Knowle on the Grand Union. I saw them last night. Why British Waterways should choose to publish them in such a manner is something of a mystery! I suggest anyone who wants to see them should join the club as an associate member. You will then be issued with a key to the clubs security gate and clubhouse. Seriously, I am told by the Waterways Ombudsman that revised terms and conditions may not be published until October and that they will be published on waterscape.com. I suspect that BW is having some problems introducing this document and what I have seen is what they did intend to publish but for some reason have not. Regards Allan ps From past experience I can state categorically that BW has a history of not properly publishing its licencing conditions. pps It is pleasing to note that BW now accept that that they can not introduce changes to terms and conditions retrospectively.

Yes I have copies of both letters provided otherwise I would not quote them. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that BW have used letters from individual APCO members in an attempt to charge private boaters more. They did the same thing a while back with regard to shared craft. On the positive side, the noises now coming out of BW indicate that they may use the powers that they already have to charge for temporary mooring to tackle the CM problem. In other words, anyone overstaying will be liable to a hefty daily charge. Great in principal, but you wonder if it will simply encorage CM's not to licence and we will suffer from the introduction creeping visitor mooring charges by reduction of time limits.

I am rather suprised that nobody has suggested:- National Community Boat Association website If your friend and his son live in the Tamworth area, I suggest you contact the Warwickshire Association of Youth Clubs who run nb Dreamcatcher:- WAYC - Dreamcatcher This boat was specifically built to give disadvantaged youngsters a "canal experience" and some of the skippers, myself included, have experience of working with younsters with "learning disabilities" including autism. If I can help in any way, please fell free to PM me. Allan

I would suggest that it is not APCO but BW misrepresenting APCO's concerns:- The day before the O/P Nigel Hamilton APCO's vice chairman wote the following to Sally Ash (BW's head of boating development):- Some APCO members have started to circulate a petition asking BW to be more effective in targeting the considerable number of unlicensed boats and those subverting the continuous cruising rules. This has wide spread support within the trade and will be discussed at our next national committee meeting with a view to officially endorsing the thrust of the petition. As far as I am aware APCO's position is unchanged. However, at the British Waterways board meeting in January it was not APCO's viewpoint that was presented to the board by Simon Salem (Sally Ash's boss) but a letter from a single APCO company (Wyvern Shipping) which suggests that for the sake of tourism and revenue British Waterways should ensure that all "continual cruisers" (as Wyvern calls them) pay for permanent moorings. If anyone wants a copy of the letters, they should be available from BW under the FOI act - - letter from Wyvern Shipping to Simon Salem dated 3rd January 2008. - letter from APCO to Sally Ash dated 10th January 2008. Allan

Perhaps British Waterways would like everyone to think this! However, the truth of the matter is quite different as this extract from a letter dated one day before the post (10th January 2008) from Nidel Hamilton (APCO vice chairman) to Sally Ash (BW's head of boating development) makes clear:- Some APCO members have started to circulate a petition asking BW to be more effective in targeting the considerable number of unlicensed boats and those subverting the continuous cruising rules. This has wide spread support within the trade and will be discussed at our next national committee meeting with a view to officially endorsing the thrust of the petition. Where did the rumour come from Jo? Allan

Back in 1944, Clifford Ashley produced the Ashley Book of Knots - A4 size, about 600 pages describing almost 4000 knots bends hitches etc. Whilst the book does not describe knots modern knots (i.e. those "invented" to cater for the properties of man made ropes) it is still considered to be the definative publication on knotting. Indeed it is known as the knotters bible and those with an interest in knotting will quote ABK and a number when refering to some obscure knot. Ashley has a whole chapter devoted to "Hitches to Stake & Post, Pile & Bollard" but nowhere within the publication is a lightermans, tugmans or boatmans hitch. I suspect the reason why people differ in how this hitch is tied is that Ashley can not be used to settle any arguments. The nearest hitch described in Ashley is the pile hitch which is quick tie/quick release hitch but tied "in the bight" (i.e. in a loop). I am sure that this hitch has been in use for over 100 years but somehow Ashley missed it! Last year I was involved in the 21st World Scout Jamboree (also the 100th aniversary of scouting). Somehow, I managed to find myself running a project whereby 100 scouts from 100 countries would produce a knot which I would then turn into the worlds largest knotting board. One of the outcomes of this project was that I found out that in some countries a clove hitch was called a boatmans hitch! So my recommendation is that everyone ties a boatmans hitch - that way it does not matter if you tie a clove hitch or a lightermans hitch you will always be right! Regards Allan ps I would recommend a satellite hitch to prevent boat movement if you watch sky TV - for some reason Ashley again fails to mention it.

OwnerShips have been fitting Crystop Autosat systems with twin LNB's for several years and they work well. Experience has shown that with manual systems some owners can set the system up easily and others can not. A Camos system was tried before Crystop but was found to be oversensitive to boat movement. It was also not liked because it resembled the Millenium Dome! Later or different Camos systems may be ok. The Crystops are fitted with a lockdown switch at the helmsmans position to ensure that people inside the boat do not attempt to see if a signal can be obtained in the Harecastle Tunnel. Automatic systems are very expensive compared to manual systems. They are also difficult to retrofit due to the wiring needed for the control motors. Allan

Perhaps you would also like to ask him why BW in March 2007 published new fees and conditions backdated to 1st April 2006....... and why those conditions reversed action BW had taken in complying with a ruling made by a previous Ombudsman in relation to the way in which some private boaters were being licenced. The email address is:- Simon.Salem@britishwaterways.co.uk

Sorry, thats not the way it works! What you do is agree to licence conditions you don't see! How many applicants knew when they signed an application last year that they were signing on the basis that "Private licences are strictly for boats kept for personal use by the licenceholder". The following was sent to me by a British Waterways director, Simon Salem, in response to a query about licencing conditions. It has never been made available on either of BW's websites. CHANGE TO LICENCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FROM JANUARY 2007 This change follows recent public consultation "Fee structure for boat licences in England & Wales" June 2005. Private licences are strictly for boats kept for personal use by the licenceholder. A private licence will however be issued for a boat owned collectively by a group of private individuals, providing that all of the following conditions are met: 1.The licenceholder(the boat'slawful keeper)is defined as up to two of the shared owners, nominated by all other share owners to be responsible for meeting BW's licence terms and conditions,including insurance and boat safety requirements. 2.The licenceholder is the person (orpeople) named as the insured on the boat's insurance certificate 3.The licenceholder, in consultation only with othershareowners,is responsible for all decisions relating to control and administration of the boat throughout the year. This includes determining where the boat is berthed and who uses it when. 4.The boat's livery does not display an association with any company engaged in the boat share business. 5.None of the share owners has any interest in the boat other than for personal,pleasure use. If any of these conditons is not met, a business licence will be required. I should add, that I asked Mr Salem if the above was still in force this year and he declined to answer.

Well perhaps the 4000 would like to consider "I have read and accept the conditions of the licence" which is what you agree when you make an application. Its a bit difficult when BW simply don't publish the conditions.

Its policy which was the outcome from its last but one licence consultation - the one based on the Oxera Report (remember that) rather than the more recent one designed to raise licence fees above inflation. See 2005/6 Consultation and briefings relating to the licensing of shared ownership boats http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/accounta...on_reports.html

British Waterways have now published its 2008 Fees and Conditions on waterscape.com (click on "boat licencing" then "Pleasure boat (England & Wales) fees & conditions 2008"). If you click on the link you will find that BW have only publish the part of the document that covers its fees rather than the full document which gives conditions as well (for what the full document should look like have a look at the 2007 version). This may be a genuine mistake on BW's part. On the other hand it may be an attempt to avoid a commitment made by British Waterways to change its licence conditions to reflect its policy. Regards Allan

The reseach I carried out last year into managed schemes (in relation to a complaint about BW's last consultation) would certainly support the view that schemes do differ in many areas. As with unmanaged schemes (which again differ in the way they operate) its a case of an owner picking what is right for them.

The 1/1/2007 T's & C's say up to two names but the application form has never been amended for two owners/aplicants/register keepers or whatever BW is currently calling them.

What they mean is that if you are a sole owner then its ok for you to licence the boat as private. If the boat is owned by more than one person then a private licence then extra conditions apply. For example, if you are a sole owner they are not bothered what name you have on the insurance certificate. If the boat is jointly owned then you have to have the name of the licence applicant.

Well actually no - but that is what is was designed to do. However of an estimated 300 shared boats in 2007, only 30 converted to business licences. Twenty seven of those are Challenger who have just gone belly up. BW's Sally Ash has posted on Emergency Challenger Wesite details of how those 27 boats can be converted back to private licences. What I would like to know is has anyone ever seen the Terms & Conditions that BW added in January 2007. My guess is very few. I would have thought that anyone signing a licence application or renewal form has a right to know what they are accepting?

I'm obviously overinsured then - do you think my insurance company will give me a discount? Under BW licencing conditions am I allowed to take my family with me? Is my wife allowed to use the boat or does she need her own licence?

Hands up who has licenced a boat in the last year. When you signed as having "read and accepted" the terms and conditions did you read the new conditions introduced in January 2007. Are you happy that BW now considers that "Private licences are strictly for boats kept for personal use by the licence holder"? Thought not!

If it transpires that Challenger has gone into liquidation, I would suggest that Philip is one of the small handfull that can offer meaninfull advice regarding future boat management. Allan

I would suggest the best course of action is as follows:- Do not pay any outstanding amounts of money that Challenger is requesting until you find out the status of the company. Find out if the company is still trading or has gone into receivership. If the company has gone into receivership you will be informed but this can take some time. I suggest you write to the company at its registered address and also monitor the information held on Companies House website. If the company has gone into receivership then to a large extent your are in the receivers hands. However, you may have some say in the matter as a creditor. The two main options are that the company is sold as a going concern or it is liquidated. If it is liquidated then the receiver will dispose of any assets the company has (including any shares in boats) to pay creditors. How the boat is subsequently run is up to its owners. It is possible that parts of any agreement or contract you have signed will still be in force or that the agreement/contract will stipulate what happens if the company is disolved. One thing you will need to do quickly is to check the status of your insurance as this may lapse. You may need to get legal advice. In the longer term if you are not tied into Challenger's sucessor on your existing contract you would need to decide if you want to manage the boat yourselves or place it within another managed scheme. As far as I am aware, if you want to place the boat within another scheme your choice is limited to OwnerShips ( JD and Carefree only operate boats they have built themselves). Having said that, there are a number of individuals who have the experience to set up a company to manage your boat. Regards Allan ps I hope this helps. If Challenger has gone into liquidation, I would ask others to contribute so that Challenger owners benefit from collective experience.

Over the years, Challenger have always maintained that they do not have shares in boats. They may well say that but if you start with 100% pf something and sell 12 X8% parts, you are left with 4% no matter how you look at it. Certainly, the reason that Challenger boats now have a business licence (which is 2.47 a private licence) has nothing to do with the retention of a 4% share Perhaps the fact that all their boats carry advertising also has somthing to do with it :-) That can't be the reason as boats managed by another company also carry advertising. I am aware that British Waterways did attempt to justify business licences on this basis but by that time it had changed its policy so that all "managed" craft would have to be licenced as private anyway. When I reviewed the shared ownership marketplace a couple of months back it became apparent that British Waterways had treated Challenger differently to other companies. They told Challenger that they would change terms and conditions as from 1/1/2007 to ensure that all "managed" shared ownerships boats would be licenced as business. Based on this, Challenger has simply been applying for business licences on behalf of its owners. It was not until I spoke to Challenger a little while back that they realised that all other boats, both "managed" and "private" were licencing as private and that British Waterways had been giving advice to other companies as to how this could best be achieved! As far as I understand, BW made an automatic refund of the difference between business and private licences to ALL shared boats after the Dec 04 Ombudsmans ruling. But as the Chalenger boats all carry the name of Challenger blazoned across the side, i don't see how they could qualify for a private licence. they are after all adverstising a company. ..... so how do Carefree boats qualify? They advertise and retain shares. If, as has been suggested earlier in this thread, Challenger are going into voluntary liquidation then I am sure that part of the reason is that they feel they are unable to compete unless British Waterways provides them with a level playing field. But surely, it is the owners who ulitimately pay the licence fee. Quite right - owners ultimately pay! ...... and Challenger has to tell prospective and current owners that they must pay £100 more per year than another company in same position. Allan

Over the years, Challenger have always maintained that they do not have shares in boats. Certainly, the reason that Challenger boats now have a business licence (which is 2.47 a private licence) has nothing to do with the retention of a 4% share. When I reviewed the shared ownership marketplace a couple of months back it became apparent that British Waterways had treated Challenger differently to other companies. They told Challenger that they would change terms and conditions as from 1/1/2007 to ensure that all "managed" shared ownerships boats would be licenced as business. Based on this, Challenger has simply been applying for business licences on behalf of its owners. It was not until I spoke to Challenger a little while back that they realised that all other boats, both "managed" and "private" were licencing as private and that British Waterways had been giving advice to other companies as to how this could best be achieved! Needless to say, they were not amused that British Waterways had misled them and I understand that they were considering making a formal complaint. Also, they were unaware that British Waterways retrospectively changed its policy regarding shared ownership later in 2007 and reverted to a former policy that had already been heavily criticised by the Waterways Ombubsman. If, as has been suggested earlier in this thread, Challenger are going into voluntary liquidation then I am sure that part of the reason is that they feel they are unable to compete unless British Waterways provides them with a level playing field. Allan

Hi Dave & Carol I carried out a survey of the shared ownership market a few months back in aid of a complaint I had made concerning British Waterways last licencing consultation. Carefree, were the only one of the four shared ownership companies currently active in the market place who would not speak to me. However, some of the owners did and the comments were quite enlightening! In 2007 there were about 300 shared ownership boats "on the water". About half those boats are "managed". The four shared ownership companies are OwnerShips, Challenger Syndicateships, Carefree Cruising and JD Boat Services. Shared ownership has taken a knock in recent years due to British Waterways attitude on licencing. However, that now seems to have changed with BW actually promoting this form of boating to a limited extent. If you want my view of the marketplace feel free to pm me. Allan