novascotianboy

Done - thanks for the survey John, Steve, and Lucy. How long will the survey run for (apologies if you've said this elsewhere!)

Sent you a Direct Message ...!

What sorts of materials came with the course (i.e. did you get any paper, books, to take away?) I paid for one of their courses a few years back about how to service your boat where they come and show you how to service it - but the problem was that while I felt confident at the time, when time came for the next service, I'd forgotten a few bits and bobs (and had a very irritating few hours trying to work out why, despite priming my engine, etc, it wouldn't start - I'd left one of the two little o-rings that come with the fuel filter on the engine) PS - replies telling me I'm a moron for making such a simple mistake not required - I know already!

Since I've got nothing really of value on our boat (though we are liveaboards - I'm just poor!) I don't have contents insurance - but have you tried looking for a standalone contents policy with another provider? A little Google-ing and I found this company: http://www.merciamarine.co.uk/boat_contents-insurance.aspx

I don't know what others think, but whenever we leave our boat unattended on the towpath, we leave it near other boats where possible - and make sure it looks lived in but lived in by someone poor! Nothing of value left on display, but some of the detritus of every day life left in view (we have windows on our doors) - newspaper out, a coffee cup left out, etc.

No, boats with a home mooring can also get patrol notices if they overstay on Visitor Moorings.

We've had to call them out a few times over the past few years - as we're inept! They often came within a few hours and sorted us out without much fuss. We have bronze membership. One of the complaints I've heard about them is quibbles about what's covered as replacement parts - but the primary reason we have them is so we're never "stuck" - and because of them we never have been!

Lots of the posts on this thread seem to be "there is a problem/there is not a problem", etc. Part of the reason why the IWA approach irritates and concerns me is that an accurate picture of the extent of overstaying by both boats with and without a home mooring is not going to be had by relying on the photographs and scribblings of a bunch of IWA busy-bodies. When the CRT say they are trying to improve their boat monitoring and enforcement, I believe them. They clearly haven't kept on top of this for a number of years, and to get an accurate picture they are going to have to collect data for many weeks - months - probably for a year or two. They seem to be trying to do this. I also have a problem with the IWA approach as a matter of principle. The CRT is the navigation authority - not the IWA. If the IWA want to complain that the CRT are not doing their job properly - go right ahead - but no one has asked the IWA to take on the role of "Enforcement Officer of the Waterways". The bottom line is that true extent of overstaying will only be determined by the analysis of data systematically collected - not by random photographs and bits of tittle-tattle submitted by IWA members.

While I don't know if anything can be done about this - my concern is that if random IWA folk are collecting "data" and then presenting it to CRT as evidence of an overstayer problem - how does anyone know that their data is correct? Given the cosy relationship the IWA seems to enjoy with the CRT, I'd be very concerned indeed if the CRT decide to change their enforcement priorities based on IWA "data". If someone came along and wrote down my licence details and was clearly not a member of CRT staff, I'd be very tempted to follow them along the towpath - and follow them home, writing down their address when I got there.

quick question, are cart answerable to any kind of ombudsman? Yes - Waterways Ombudsman

I didn't say it was right, Sue - just why I thought they would propose it (i.e. easier to manage)

You've actually reminded me that I haven't checked the seals on my weedhatch in a bit...!

Absolutely - and that it's not unreasonable to have to sometimes not moor up exactly where you had planned to or had hoped to.

I suspect that the "2 per year" is easier to manage which is why they've proposed it - i.e. a boat checker sees you once - puts your number in - sees you again a few months later - puts your number in - sees you a third time - puts your number in and a penalty notice comes up! Doing it by days (i.e. 14 days per year) means that, unless they are checking a particular stretch every day, they can't keep track of how many days a boat has been on a given mooring (a problem we once had when accused of overstaying on a VM when we had in fact gone to a terminus, winded, and stopped at the same place on the way back). Not saying the "2 per year" system is right - but just that I can see why they prefer it.

I think the point about consultation with leisure boaters is a valid one - particularly as the "2 visits per year" would presumably affect them as well. "2 visits per year" probably wouldn't be too difficult for me as I might only visit London once per year - if at all - but for someone with a mooring somewhere near London who might want to cruise into the city more than once in a year, it could prove problematic. I'd also be interested to hear from leisure boaters themselves what they perceive the problem to be - is it access at VMs? Is it that it seems to always be the same boats on VMs, etc?

Oh - I see. I read it differently but I can see how it can be read the way you suggest. The proposal says: .."a self-financing permit scheme to identify those people who have permission to keep a boat without a home mooring in the London area , or those who need to spend considerable time moored in the area." I suppose it depends on what is considered "considerable" time - particularly as the "area" - if it includes Marsworth and Bishop's Stortford - is quite large!

It doesn't make me wonder - it makes me suspicious. When reading some of the suggestions, some of them do make sense - but the incredibly cosy relationship between the CRT and the IWA does sometimes leave a bad taste in my mouth - the IWA "Call for Action", the CRT respond with some proposals/ideas, the IWA notes the CRT's "concern" and produces proposals/ideas that pretty much mirror what the CRT has said. The report says "Produced by London Region of the IWA. Dec 2012. Contact Paul Strudwick paul.strudwick@waterways.org.uk" ... I just presumed that Paul was the contact for people with questions about it/media, etc.

It would be helpful to know exactly who authored this report and if they consulted anyone outside the IWA's membership in preparing it. I also find it interesting - ok, not interesting - hilarious - that the IWA's London includes Marsworth and Bishop's Stortford. The idea that someone should need a permit to cruise "London" waters is also, I think, a non-starter. ...oh, and £25 overstaying charge is plenty. I also find it interesting that these proposals are very - in fact, spookily, similar to CRT's proposals as regards "non compliant continuous cruisers". I would suggest that, if the validity of these proposals are to be considered by the Council, (particularly the specific places identified as community moorings, time frames around moorings, "no return within", etc, that those Council members with a conflict of interest (i.e. IWA Membership) would absent themselves from the discussion - but then I suppose we wouldn't have many Boater Council members at the table....

Could be someone who nicked it just because they could and thought they might try to flog it? Hope you reported it to the police - even if they don't follow it up, it helps to give an accurate picture of crime in the area.

Sorry if I've missed it elsewhere on this thread, but has anyone a figure for what the CRT make from their winter moorings? I checked last year's accounts, but all I could find under revenue was "moorings" - (i.e. all moorings - leisure, residential, etc) and no breakdown for winter moorings.

OH - and I reserve my right to change my mind about my ideas above if I see someone else posts something else that makes more sense!

I don't take up a winter mooring for two reasons - firstly because I think that, for what they are, they are too expensive - I couldn't really afford one even if I wanted one - and secondly, because I probably wouldn't choose to stay on the same mooring for 5 months regardless of the time of year. What I would like to be able to do in the winter, though, is to cover less miles (and not worry that my "journey" has been too short between 14 day moorings) and, from time to time, stay longer than 14 days on one place. Any solution that offers this at a reasonable cost would get my vote. I would be very happy to pay a reasonable fee to make my CC Declaration if that meant that during the winter I could use vacant winter moorings (i.e. when approaching a village with winter moorings, if I see an empty one I can moor up) and that, when on those winter moorings, I can stay for, say, up to 28 days. A very radical solution would be for the CRT to decide that all non designated moorings in effect become winter moorings over the winter months, auctioning/selling the "best" as they currently do. This could be taken even further by, say, offering CC'ers the opportunity to pay a further fee to, in effect, create their own winter mooring (i.e moor up somewhere in the sticks and stay all winter) - one of the issues I have is that, even if I were to choose to stay in one place for 5 months - none of the places where winter moorings are sold appeal to me - I'd probably choose somewhere in the back of beyond! As regards enforcement, etc - I would suggest that on each set of winter moorings, the CRT offer someone a discount to act as mooring warden during the winter. If they've in effect doubled the amount of time a CC'er can stay in one "place" to 28 days, the CRT should then be able to do half as much enforcement on the rest of the network (i.e. reduce the frequency of their patrols by half) which would bring a cost saving. If someone buys a winter mooring having already paid the fee for their CC Declaration they get that money refunded off the cost of their winter mooring. If someone with a home mooring decides they want to buy a specific winter mooring, they do (as, indeed, they already could choose to do if I understand it correctly)- and if they decide they want to make the CC declaration they pay the fee but then need to move their boat every 28 days unless they've paid for a specific winter mooring. So, what I'd suggest is 1) A fee for making the CC declaration - not a different class of licence. This avoids creating two classes of licence and, for the record, I don't think that CC'ers should pay more for their licence - but by paying the CC declaration fee you are paying for something specific - the ability to moor outside of the constrictions of the licence terms for the winter. 2) The chance to make a flat payment to moor on any bit of undesignated/unsigned bit of towpath for the winter months if this takes your fancy. What I see as the major flaw in this proposal - and the ones I've seen so far (unless I've missed something on this thread) is what about people who don't want to/can't pay extra? If this fee is mandatory, some people are certain to complain or say "I never want to stay more than 14 days..." etc. Not sure what the solution is about this problem... Just my two penneth...! I'm sure there are many who think this wouldn't work and is bonkers - but I reckon if we keep throwing ideas out there on this thread perhaps we'll get there in the end!

I tweeted a link to this using #boatsthattweet and it's been retweeted a few times - hopefully it helps to spread the word.

From what I can see, yes, the only way that that inverter works is by plugging in directly to it. As regards your batteries and their charge - do you have a voltometer? Sorry if this sounds condescending - but look for a meter/readout that should be showing something around 12.5 or slightly above. Don't make the same mistake I made as a newbie - we had a meter that showed from 1 - 14.(something) volts. We thought that meant that 6.5 v was 50% charged, etc - it's not! Others who know better will probably contradict me - but we don't let our batteries get below 12v - as below that you're starting to get below 40-50% charged.

Hi all, In case anyone's interested, notes from the meeting on 28 November in Milton Keynes between a group of boaters, John Dodwell, Sally Ash, Damien Kemp, Denise Yelland, and others are now online. I'm sorry that these have taken so long to be made available - but here they are. I'd like to say thanks to those who travelled to the meeting and who helped organise it - particularly Jenlyn - and thanks to those from the Trust who agreed to meet with us and made space available. Link to the notes is below. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4iIQ_cU71HfbFRsYmNVMmpRbXc