Continuous cruiser

86 signatures so far - please keep signing and telling your friends - the petition is still live!

I have started a petition on the Number 10 website against the proposed increases in boat licence fees. It's here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Boat-licence-fee/ The petition reads: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop British Waterways from charging Continuous Cruisers and Wide Beam boats any surcharges on top of the standard boat licence fee and to stop British Waterways from introducing a Roving Mooring Permit. More details from petition creator: To justify these proposals BW states that most continuous cruisers are using their boat as their home, do not have any other accommodation costs and consequently have a higher willingness to pay. When the consequence of not paying the boat licence fee is having one’s boat destroyed and thus losing one’s home, this amounts to extortion." Please sign it!

Yes it was me - I will put it up as a new topic - please sign it!

BW have now informally extended the "consultation" until 20th November.

Only 2 more days left to object - "consultation" closes this Friday, 7 November. I've complained about the consultation period being shorter than the Code of Practice says...

Now, if you were a theoretical reader of this theoretical news site, what topics would you like to see covered in addition to BW, stolen boats, stoppages and general news? Proposed Sections Maintenance and Upkeep: Leckky bits, Painting, Regular Maint, DIY Improvements British Waterways Watch Stolen Boat Alerts Stoppages Information Other suggestions welcome. Legal information and updates relevant to boaters on UK Inland Waterways

It says in the consultation document (if I understood it right) that BW have ruled out increasing the rivers-only licence fee because this would need legislation, which would be expensive, and they prefer to defer thinking about it until they are clearer on the other changes they propose. They state that they would be unlikely to pursue it in the face of broad opposition. That's why I haven't focused on it in my response to them - but that doesn't mean nobody else can! I suggest you drum up some "broad opposition"!

Thanks, will set it up soonish.

Roving Mooring Permit. All boats already have the right to do what a roving mooring permit would allow. The 1995 British Waterways Act does not prohibit a boat from remaining within a defined length of waterway. The Act states that a boat must be genuinely used for navigation throughout the period of the licence and must not remain in the same place for more than 14 days. There is no specific definition of “place” in the Act that prevents a boat from remaining in a defined length of waterway as long as it moves to a different place after 14 days. The Act does not specify that navigation must consist of a “progressive journey”. To insist that a journey must be “progressive” is prescriptive and an interference with freedom of movement to an extent that is not compatible with Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights which confers the right to respect for one’s private life. This is an extract from my post called "BW trying to hide this - respond by 7th Nov", see it below

What kind of petition did you mean? Is there a way to set up a petition on this discussion list?

Good idea, ta I'll do that

BW have a "consultation" document out that proposes charging continuous cruisers £150 more and widebeams at least £50 more - I found out about it by accident, as it hasn't been publicised much and I certainly haven't been sent a copy, and nor have any other continuous cruisers or widebeam owners that I know of. I'm sure they're hoping we haven't discovered it and can then claim nobody objected to the proposals. I've made a complaint that the consultation hasn't been done according to their own code of practice. It looks like you can't respond unless you're a member of a boating organisation, but that's not so - any individual can respond. I'm posting my response in the hope that other boaters will put their objections-but there's only a week left - it closes on 7th November! The consultation document is on BW's web site, under "listening to you". I'm sending them a hearing aid as well... To: consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk Response to British Waterways consultation paper on Boat Licence Fees, 5 September 2008 1. Failure to consult properly This consultation is invalid because British Waterways (BW) has not followed its own procedures for direct consultation with stakeholders. BW states that these procedures follow the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation issued by the Better Regulation Executive in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Section 2.1 of this Code of Practice states that “Under normal circumstances, consultations should last for a minimum of 12 weeks”. This paper was released on September 5 2008 with a deadline for responses of 7 November 2008. This is a consultation period of only 9 weeks, which is below the minimum period in the Code of Practice. Section 4.1 of the Code of Practice states that “It is essential that interested parties are identified early in the process so that consultation exercises can be designed and targeted accordingly. When consultation exercises need to reach a diverse audience, several approaches may be required. In the consultation document it should be stated what ways are available for people to participate, how exactly to get involved, and why any supplementary channels have been chosen. Over-reliance on standard lists of consultees to disseminate consultation papers can mean that key groups are excluded and others receive consultation documents that are not relevant to them”. British Waterways has failed to target this consultation document at the two main groups affected by the proposals, Continuous Cruisers and owners of Wide Beam craft. BW has provided no evidence that the consultation has been targeted at these two groups of boaters. I am a continuous cruiser and so are many other boaters that I know, yet none of us has received a copy of the document or even been informed about it by BW. No widebeam owners that I know have received notification of this either. On the contrary, the document states that it is “For information and comment on by Waterway User Groups” and assumes that “boaters will in the main, direct their comments through their chosen membership organisation.” Not all boaters belong to a membership organisation, and this is common knowledge. Many of the individual boaters who don’t belong to a membership organisation found out about the consultation by chance. To restrict the consultation to membership organisations, and to release it only to the waterways press and on the BW web site, amounts to over-reliance on a standard list of consultees and excludes these key groups who are most affected by the proposals, contrary to the Code of Practice on Consultation. Stating in the document itself that “We welcome views from everyone of course” does not amount to proper targeting in line with the Code of Practice. Limiting the release of the document to the BW website and the waterways press means that it is inaccessible to many continuous cruisers, who by nature of their preferred lifestyle, do not have regular or timely access to the internet or to the waterways press or any other newspapers. Most rely on radio for news and current affairs coverage. As far as I am aware, BW took no special measures to ensure that those most affected by the proposals are included in this consultation. There have been no leaflets, notices in popular locations or local “town hall” style meetings to raise awareness of these proposals. Since BW admits that “some of the options are radical”, it is completely inconsistent with the Code of Practice on Consultation to fail to consult with those most affected by what BW admits to be radical proposals. It is not enough to say that since “The options BWAF developed all derive from customer responses to BW’s 2007 public consultation on licence fees, so we do not believe that a further formal consultation would be widely welcomed”. The public consultation on licence fees in 2007 did not provide for a formal consultation and public opportunity to comment on the customer responses received by that consultation. These specific proposals are new, they have not been subject to formal public consultation and the groups most affected should have a proper opportunity to comment in line with the Code of Practice on Consultation followed by BW. 2. Lack of Transparency The proposals in this consultation document appear to originate from members of the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators (APCO), via the British Waterways Advisory Forum (BWAF). APCO members make a profit out of the waterways. These proposals appear to have been made as the result of complaints to APCO members from their hire boat customers. It is in APCO members’ interests to rectify complaints from their customers. The BWAF appears to be strongly influenced by APCO members, but continuous cruisers are not represented on BWAF. BW should not consider such proposals from a body whose membership is so skewed as to be unrepresentative of the boaters the proposals would hit hardest, especially since continuous cruisers have not been properly consulted. BW has not stated the origin of these proposals in its consultation document. In the interests of transparency it should have done so. I believe that BW has been unduly influenced by APCO in making these proposals. 3. Collective punishment. In Section 3 (6)b, BW states that “a £150 supplement for boats without a verified permanent mooring would improve fairness and help us to reduce the problem of ‘continuous moorers’.” To impose an additional charge of £150 on all continuous cruisers because some of them are perceived not to be complying with the law as interpreted by BW amounts to collective punishment. This would contravene Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. Therefore it would also contravene Article 14 of the Convention which prohibits “discrimination on any ground such as sex, race…or other status”, eg. the status of continuous cruiser. 4. Scapegoating I object to the adoption by BW of the term “continuous moorers”. This amounts to the scapegoating of a specific group of people. As a public body, BW undoubtedly has an equal opportunities policy, and this ought to apply to its customers as well as its employees. Section 1(4) of BW’s Customer Service Standards states that BW people “will politely acknowledge customers at every opportunity”. Labelling a specific group of people “continuous moorers” in a public document is not consistent with these standards. 5. The Mooring Guidance does not have the force of law. The argument against “continuous mooring” rests largely on the fact that BW believes that a number of boaters do not travel according to the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers. The Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers does not have the force of law. Section 17 (3)c of the British Waterways Act 1995 states that a boat must be genuinely used for navigation throughout the period of the licence and must not remain in the same place for more than 14 days. Most boats that BW has decided to scapegoat as “continuous moorers” are complying with the 1995 British Waterways Act. 6. Roving Mooring Permit. All boats already have the right to do what a roving mooring permit would allow. The 1995 British Waterways Act does not prohibit a boat from remaining within a defined length of waterway. The Act states that a boat must be genuinely used for navigation throughout the period of the licence and must not remain in the same place for more than 14 days. There is no specific definition of “place” in the Act that prevents a boat from remaining in a defined length of waterway as long as it moves to a different place after 14 days. The Act does not specify that navigation must consist of a “progressive journey”. To insist that a journey must be “progressive” is prescriptive and an interference with freedom of movement to an extent that is not compatible with Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights which confers the right to respect for one’s private life. 7. Lack of supporting evidence. On the one hand, in Section 3 (6), BW proposes a surcharge of £150 for boats without a verified permanent mooring to “help us reduce the problem of ‘continuous moorers’”. On the other hand, in Section 3 (6)a, BW states that boats licensed as continuous cruisers generally use the network more intensively than those licensed with a home mooring which “creates additional cost as a consequence of: increased lockage (and the consequent greater use of water); greater use of generally available boater facilities such as water points etc; greater use of areas available for casual or visitor moorings; and greater contribution to the wear and tear generally created by boat traffic.” BW cannot have it both ways. If boats are continuously moored and not moving, then they are not using the network more intensively and are not causing greater wear and tear than boats on permanent moorings. If they are moving around and using the network more intensively, then they are not continuously mooring. BW has not provided any evidence to show that boats licensed as continuously cruising are using the system more intensively than other users. In fact, there are no statistics put forward in this paper to prove either the existence of a significant number of boats mooring continuously, or to prove that continuous cruisers travel longer distances and make more use of the system than boats with a home mooring, hire boats, or commercial boats. BW has provided no data on usage of the network by different types of boaters. Nor has it provided any data on the actual cost of navigating the waterways as opposed to remaining static. Any licensing system based on usage would be unfair unless usage can be measured. In addition, when boats with permanent moorings cruise, they are sharing the same set of moorings that continuous cruisers are likely to want. Therefore they are taking mooring space away from continuous cruisers, so why should continuous cruisers pay an extra £150? 8. Willingness to pay. To justify the proposals BW states that most continuous cruisers are using their boat as their home, do not have any other accommodation costs and consequently have a higher willingness to pay. I find this claim quite reprehensible. When the consequence of not paying the boat licence fee is having one’s boat destroyed and thus losing one’s home, this amounts to extortion. This would not amount to an overall increase in consumer welfare but on the contrary, would create dissatisfaction amongst a specific group of customers. BW has put forward no evidence to support its claim of greater willingness to pay. As a continuous cruiser myself, I am in a position to provide anecdotal evidence that many continuous cruisers are on very low incomes, far below £15,000 per annum. For example, my income is around £4,500 per annum. An extra £150 per annum means £150 less to spend on boat maintenance (as I am not prepared to eat less or cut down on my already frugal use of heating), with the potential result of the boat breaking down and becoming “continuously moored” against my wishes. I cannot see how charging continuous cruisers a £150 surcharge would improve “fairness”. Boaters who pay for a permanent mooring receive specific benefits and services in return for their mooring fee which continuous cruisers do not receive. To charge £150 extra without a consequent increase in benefits and services provided is unfair. 9. Limitations on BW’s discretion in the setting of prices. The note from BW’s Legal Director, Nigel Johnson, states the limitations on BW’s discretion in the setting of prices for the use of the waterways it manages. BW would not be acting in compliance with competition law in imposing an additional £150 charge on continuous cruisers. This would be an abuse of dominance, because BW is the only body with the power to issue licences to boats using the waterways it manages. These limitations also include the general public administrative law duty placed on all public bodies to exercise any power reasonably in all the circumstances. Imposing a £150 surcharge on one group of people because of the perceived actions of a minority of them, in response to a proposal which originates from a body (APCO) in which BW has considerable vested interests because of the income it receives from its members, is not a reasonable exercise of power. Notwithstanding Section 43 (3) of the Transport Act 1962, Section 10 of the British Waterways Act 1971 does not permit BW to charge more for sub-divisions of pleasure boat licences (such as continuous cruisers or wide beam boats). 10. Conclusion BW has not provided any evidence to support the changes it proposes, and would face a number of legal obstacles if it tried to implement the proposals. Therefore the proposals should be withdrawn. Since BW’s own consultation process has not been followed properly, the consultation is invalid and this is an additional reason why the proposals should be dropped.