Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

NEW: Following member feedback, we now have a Mooring & Marina Review forum. Post your review here.

Ray T

National Boat Count 2019

Featured Posts

PRESS RELEASE

 

2 May 2019  

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST: NATIONAL BOAT COUNT NUMBERS

 

The Canal & River Trust’s annual national boat count shows that licence compliance on its waterways remains high with 96.5% of boaters holding a valid licence (2018: 96.9%).  This is the tenth year licence compliance has remained above 95%.

 

The national boat count also shows how rates differ across the country, as well as changes in boat numbers.  The boat count identified a 2.3% increase in boat numbers, with all regions except the North West seeing small increases in boat numbers.  London & South East was the only region where licence compliance was under 95% (at 94.1%).

 

Jon Horsfall, head of customer service support at Canal & River Trust, said: “I’d like to thank all those boaters who pay their licence on time.  It’s important that boats are licensed correctly.  Not only does this mean they’re insured and hold a boat safety certificate, but it means they’re playing their part in contributing to the huge task of keeping our canals and rivers open.  Boat licences contribute around 10% of our total income so it’s important that everyone who keeps a boat on our waterways pays their fair share.

 

“Our Boat Licence Customer Support team is out every day helping boaters who might be struggling with their licence requirements.  We always urge boaters to talk to us, as in the vast majority of cases we’re able to find a way to keep people on the water. 

 

“However on occasion we do have to take robust action to remove boats.  In 2018/19 106 boats were removed from our canals and rivers as they were unlicensed or in breach of our terms and conditions despite the best efforts of our Boat Licence Customer Support team.

 

The survey, completed in March, records boats on waterways across England and Wales and provides a comprehensive snap-shot of licence evasion.  The information is used to support the day-to-day work carried out by the Trust.

 

-ends-

 

For further media requests please contact:

Fran Read, Canal & River Trust

m 07796 610 427 e [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now they know there are some 300 un-licenced boats in London / SE what do they plan to do about it ?

 

That's a loss of income of some £180,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What CRT seem to miss is the lost revenue through failing to deal with mooring abusers.

The designated winter mooring site in Nantwich remained empty all winter, yet several boats just shuffled around the visitor mooring all winter.  Some will probably be there all summer too.

 I don’t think Nantwich is untypical either; there are plenty of other places where bridgehoppers stick two or more fingers u to CRT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dor said:

What CRT seem to miss is the lost revenue through failing to deal with mooring abusers.

The designated winter mooring site in Nantwich remained empty all winter, yet several boats just shuffled around the visitor mooring all winter.  Some will probably be there all summer too.

 I don’t think Nantwich is untypical either; there are plenty of other places where bridgehoppers stick two or more fingers u to CRT.

It is very difficult getting past the do-gooders and diversity specialists in their own offices. Having to enforce when every step or letter sent is analysed by senior managers before it is allowed to progress must be a soul destroying job when some of these boaters really are taking the pi€€.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dor said:

What CRT seem to miss is the lost revenue through failing to deal with mooring abusers.

The designated winter mooring site in Nantwich remained empty all winter, yet several boats just shuffled around the visitor mooring all winter.  Some will probably be there all summer too.

 I don’t think Nantwich is untypical either; there are plenty of other places where bridgehoppers stick two or more fingers u to CRT.

Try London. After 15 years or so I moved from the southern Grand Union ( marina based) because it became impossible to moor for a day or so anywhere near my home mooring. Considered returning last year but was advised to stay away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fossdyke is just as bad. We fully expect to see the same scrap boats in the same places when NC is relaunched in the next couple of weeks even though we have had over four months off the water ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's got to be expensive to remove boats, so what happens to them? Do they go for scrap, or get resold? Hope somehow a level of expense can be retrieved.

 

(I can see a possible lucrative business thriving on refurb boats and scrap metals)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ray T said:

London & South East was the only region where licence compliance was under 95% (at 94.1%).

 

Or put another way, one in every 17 boats in London is not licenced.

 

Rather more shocking when put that way, isn't it?

 

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Or put another way, one in every 17 boats in London is not licenced.

 

Rather more shocking when put that way, isn't it?

 

You could look at it that way, but it's surely a glass-half-empty view. Put positively, 16 out of every 17 boats in London therefore ARE licensed, which is a Good Thing.

I wonder how much pressure the 16 put on the one, along the lines of "We've paid our fees, why should you get free boating?" to shame the culprits into licensing their craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Athy said:

You could look at it that way, but it's surely a glass-half-empty view. Put positively, 16 out of every 17 boats in London therefore ARE licensed, which is a Good Thing.

I wonder how much pressure the 16 put on the one, along the lines of "We've paid our fees, why should you get free boating?" to shame the culprits into licensing their craft.

 

So you find this an acceptable rate of evasion it appears, given how positive it looks to you.

 

What rate of evasion would you find unacceptable? One in ten? One in five? All of us? 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
spellin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simple. No mooring equals no long term licence. No licence go away. It works on the Wey and Basingstoke. Genuine CCers would just need to find a cheap base somewhere and it would be relatively fair as they are using the system so much more. Anything else and we are heading to total gridlock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

It is simple. No mooring equals no long term licence. No licence go away. It works on the Wey and Basingstoke. Genuine CCers would just need to find a cheap base somewhere and it would be relatively fair as they are using the system so much more. Anything else and we are heading to total gridlock.

 

Totally agree that gridlock is where we are heading, given it is so very much in CRT's interest to have ever more boats pouring on the system (provided they actually pay their licence).

 

I forecast no action will be taken until long after gridlock is reached. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So you find this an acceptable rate of evasion it appears, given how positive it looks to you.

 

What rate of evasion would you find unacceptable? One in ten? One in five? All of us? 

 

 

 

:D

In an ideal world, anything over 0% of course.

But if 16 out of 17 cars always observed the speed limit in 30 areas, many people would see that as a very pleasing (not to say incredible) proportion. 

Edited by Athy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Athy said:

I wonder how much pressure the 16 put on the one, along the lines of "We've paid our fees, why should you get free boating?" to shame the culprits into licensing their craft.

1) It is not the place for people/boaters to put "pressure" on other boaters pay their licence - that's a form of vigilantism which in this era of Social Media "outrage" has come to the point where it can be very dangerous, and yes you can say well I just meant a little nudge in the right direction but in this day and age little nudges can very quickly turn into something very out of control. The onus responsibility to deal with non- licensed boats should ALWAYS be with CRT, if someone believes a boat is un licensed then they should report it to CRT, with as much detail as possible, and let them deal with it not try and deal with it them selves. 

 

2) Shaming people (any people) is more likely to make them angry, evasive, and see the person/institute doing the shaming in a them and us light; causing more problems than it solves. We might think that we get short term results from shaming people but the long term detrimental results can far out strip any short term results we think we got. Not to mention there is a monumental difference between guilt and shame. 

 

Guilt = I did a bad thing and I'm sorry

Shame = I am a bad thing and I can't be any different. 

 

And no that's not my opinion that is the opinion of the universities teaching hospitals who train the Psychiatrist and Psychologist who practice in our hospitals. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Athy said:

An interesting point of view.

There is also no perfect way of telling who currently is licenced or not, or what special dispensation a non moving boat may have with CRT.

Can you honestly see the owners of the 16 boats checking all the other boats moored around them every 14 days on the CRT licence checker to find out if one is the 17th offending boat? 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Can you honestly see the owners of the 16 boats checking all the other boats moored around them every 14 days on the CRT licence checker to find out if one is the 17th offending boat? 

But if the boat is the '17th' it wouldn't need to bother checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

But if the boat is the '17th' it wouldn't need to bother checking.

 

This is like that thing where 1 in 3 people in the world are Chinese.

 

Now I'm not Chinese, and nor is Rusty69, so YOU must be!

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Now I'm not Chinese, and nor is Rusty69, so YOU must be!

@rusty69

 

How do you know ?

You cannot see the size of her feet in that rubber-suit !

When I saw them they were both encased in a big GRP 'boot'.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

It is simple. No mooring equals no long term licence. No licence go away. It works on the Wey and Basingstoke. Genuine CCers would just need to find a cheap base somewhere and it would be relatively fair as they are using the system so much more. Anything else and we are heading to total gridlock.

 

Unfortuneately This option is not available to CRT because of the legislation they have to comply with. It also penalises the many genuine CCers who are an asset to all canal users.

 

Ideally the legislation will be amended at some point in the future so the CRT have some real teeth with which to bite serial offenders and those who choose not to licence their boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that it was not economical  to get the percentage of unlicensed boats under 3% due to the extra staffing levels involved. Within this 3% are people who forget and then pay, waiting for BSS, direct debit rejected due to change in bank details etc.

 

In London and the SE one of the steps CRT could take is stronger action against boats that do not display either boat name or index number which seems to be an increasing trend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuscan said:

I was told that it was not economical  to get the percentage of unlicensed boats under 3% due to the extra staffing levels involved. Within this 3% are people who forget and then pay, waiting for BSS, direct debit rejected due to change in bank details etc.

 

In London and the SE one of the steps CRT could take is stronger action against boats that do not display either boat name or index number which seems to be an increasing trend. 

 

Not only in London. I live in the Midlands and the number of boats without a visible name or registration number passing my mooring  increases every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuscan said:

In London and the SE one of the steps CRT could take is stronger action against boats that do not display either boat name or index number which seems to be an increasing trend. 

Again, that becomes an issue of economics.

The items you mention are a contravention of the By-Laws and the fine is a 'pittance' and costs more to enforce than would be gained - UNLESS - failure to comply can be classed as a new offence on a daily basis (as some of the By-Laws are regarding the Council's moorings, see attached Pdf - sections 4 & 5)

 

Paying £2 per day to moor is not really much of a deterrent.

 

An extract of a post in 2017 By Nigel Moore

 

The curious oversight by BW is that when increasing the fine, both in 1972 and in 1976, only the fine upon summary conviction was addressed, not the daily fine for so long as the offence continued past conviction; that remains at 40 shillings [or modern equivalent]. Silly, because the daily fine for so as the convicted offence continues is a valuable tool to encourage swift compliance. As it is, some might consider the daily fine these days to be a reasonable charge to meet, for example if moored where forbidden. Of course, I suppose that the option exists for CaRT to claim Contempt of Court, but that might depend upon the terms of any Judgment.

 

I think this is the answer to the "Why?"; according to the arguments reiterated in the Ravenscroft hearing, regular enforcement of byelaws is just too much trouble for insufficient penalisation of the boater.

Mind you, the primary reason given to Leigh's Judge by Mr Stoner for CaRT's failure to enforce byelaws, is that as a benign Charity, they want to avoid criminalising their clients. There's nice now.

 

Byelaws related to mooring Richmond Council.pdf

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CRT Census is limited to the CRT. Why they are not 100 % compliant may be an issue, but how many places can a boat hide when it does not need to display a CRT license, I wonder. On a related subject there are all the other waterways to consider a census for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think you will ever get 100% compliance, even someone buying a  boat on Friday 14 orf the month and sending the money off straight away it wont be licenced on the 15 or 16 th. there will always be people who forget and do it late, a much better indicator would be the number of boats recorded that have not been licenced for 31 days or more IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.