private mooring fees?

[Sir Nibble]

There is another way of looking at it. If 50% of a mooring charge is the water holding the boat up, how can the other half be justified by two rings taking up less space than an angler and his gear when access to the towpath is free? It's like the accused thinking that arguing that the law is unreasonable is a valid defence.

[Captain Pegg]

11 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

There is another way of looking at it. If 50% of a mooring charge is the water holding the boat up, how can the other half be justified by two rings taking up less space than an angler and his gear when access to the towpath is free? It's like the accused thinking that arguing that the law is unreasonable is a valid defence.

Are there many permanently moored anglers? Anyway such issues relate to the offside in general and while access to the towpath is free it’s also permissive and not a right. You can’t take up residence on it for free.

 

JP

Edited March 8, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Higgs]

13 hours ago, Alastair said:

I don't think there will be many places where the actual canal bank is privately owned; hence this situation will rarely arise on a canal.

 

There must be miles of farmland/private land bordering the canal. Try and get CRT to accept liability for the banks. It has been discussed on here. CRT's domain is apparently restricted to a navigable canal, and banks aren't part of it.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[koukouvagia]

12 hours ago, fluffflinger said:

Allan are you saying they doubled their fee with no justification or reasoning?

 

That is scary stuff.

Swingeing and unexpected increases  happened to us.  The justification? Market rates.  BW, as it was then,  raised our central London mooring by 300%.  The only concession extracted was for the increase to be staged over three years. We bowed to the inevitable and moved the boat out of London.

 

Our situation was not quite the same because we we on a mooring leased to a private company.  When BW took the lease back they could charge whatever they wanted. 

Edited March 8, 2020 by koukouvagia

[Chewbacka]

21 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

There is another way of looking at it. If 50% of a mooring charge is the water holding the boat up, how can the other half be justified by two rings taking up less space than an angler and his gear when access to the towpath is free? It's like the accused thinking that arguing that the law is unreasonable is a valid defence.

If you owned a field you would let people camp in it for free? 
CRT need money to maintain the canals, so why would they let people moor for free when they can charge them??  You licence fee includes an element for mooring against the tow path (subject to their T&Cs) but if you want the ‘privilege’ of a fixed space reserved only for you, then it should cost more.

[Chewbacka]

3 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

This is certainly what happened to us.  BW, as it was then,  raised our central London mooring by 300%.  The only concession extracted was for the increase to be staged over three years. We bowed to the inevitable and moved the boat out of London.

I seem to remember that they did justify at the time the increase - the argument being that the CRT charges were well below market rate for the area.  If the increase was unreasonable high and beyond the market rate, then the mooring would now be empty, I bet it is occupied by a boater prepared to pay the market rate.  Unfortunately for you many people wish to moor in central London and the ‘law’ of supply and demand dictates that the rich boater will be prepared to pay more than you.  Before you say this is unfair, it is exactly the same with house prices, cars and even food etc, where the rich person has better stuff than you and me.

[Higgs]

14 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

CRT need money to maintain the canals, so why would they let people moor for free when they can charge them??  

 

I think the above statement is beside the point. We all need money for something. How we get it is subject to the right.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

OP has been a member for a few years Arthur. Not a troll, just someone that can’t get their head around how the world works, or at least refuses to do so when it’s not the way they want it to. No shortage of such folk on the canal.

 

JP

Thanks - I apologise to the OP. What interests me a bit, though not enough to bother to do anything about it, is how CRT set their rate. My EOG fee is about £600, while what I actually pay the farmer for my mooring is £400. So shouldn't my EOG be £200? I presume they are taking half what they charge for their own online moorings, which have facilities we don't.

Whinging about what you get charged is fine, stopping boating, assuming you still like it, because you're picking a fight seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face. Looks like an excuse to me.

I just regarded the imposition of mooring fees as a sneaky way to put the licence money up while pretending they weren't - bit like the government claiming to reduce income tax while raising NI contributions!

[Chewbacka]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I think the above statement is beside the point. We all need money for something. How we get it is subject to the right.

 

 

Completely agree.  It is their canal so their right to charge you to use it.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Chewbacka said:

Completely agree.  It is their canal so their right to charge you to use it.

 

Only if is supported in law, within the powers granted to CRT.

 

 

[BEngo]

The Treasury view, back in BW days, was that the cost of mooring and licence should be in the same ball park as belonging to a fairly smart golf club. This yardstick drove grant negotiations at DEFRA and any annual cost increase for boaters.

N

[Arthur Marshall]

54 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The only sense that occurs to me is that you are allowed to remain in one place on the canal and avoid being hassled over the 14 day rule, if you have a legitimate place or piece of land by the canal to tie up to, at the cost of a reduced mooring fee to CRT.

 

 

I think that nails it. Your licence allows you to wander about and stop here and there for 14 days. It doesn't allow you to hog a bit of canal bank for most of the year so you can have a fortnight's holiday in the summer. You're paying for the right to stay put, which, I think, is where the legal quibblers rest their case as that right may not actually exist in law. Could be a bit self defeating challenging it as we might all either have to go CC or park in offline marinas. That would clear a few thousand boats off the system....

[Bee]

Had enough of BWB years ago before it became CRT. Decided it was a ripoff and that we were paying a hell of a lot of money for very little. Its not really the fault of CRT, its how the whole thing is funded, the most expensive canals in Europe, the most expensive railways and so on. As they say, you can always leave. We did. Don't particularly want to get into the politics of the whole thing but we get a lot more value for money across the channel and we are not being constantly watched  and bullied by the authorities.

[tats]

I live my life on the basis of knowing right from wrong. I just don't like being involved with what feels like a cheat; I don't do it and so I expect the same. This has a great affect on me because my principles matter. If CRT want the mooring money from me then simply put the cost onto the licence I pay to be on the water, at least be honest about it. The fact that they try to fiddle the money this way must mean that if it was all on the licence then it would be obviously overpriced and people would start thinking in different ways and people would leave the canal. So much in life is done this sneaky way and has to be forced to stand by unreasonable stern harsh measures because there isn't a reasonable arguement.

 

For me, the future of the canal is not good. It will become too gentrified and 'sterile'. The life blood will move away to new pastures, then the others will lose interest. I believe that there is a certain limit to how much can be charged, and this is dependent on what ordinary people can afford and feel is reasonable. Also, the authority overseeing its running should be human. Personally, I love boating, but I don't need it and can have a better time elsewhere if I want. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me, pricewise and the sneakiness of it. It makes me think. I'm falling out of love. CRT is not the person I thought she was. Not my type of person. Better to just move on. Leave it as friends and move on.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, tats said:

If CRT want the mooring money from me then simply put the cost onto the licence I pay to be on the water

If that policy was introduced I think you'd be VERY unpopular with some 5000+ boaters who don't have, or want, a mooring - this is why the options in the 1995 Waterways Act were introduced.

 

1) Same licence.

2) If you don't want a mooring you don't pay for one.

3) If you want a mooring you pay for one.

 

Simples !

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Bee said:

Had enough of BWB years ago before it became CRT. Decided it was a ripoff and that we were paying a hell of a lot of money for very little. Its not really the fault of CRT, its how the whole thing is funded, the most expensive canals in Europe, the most expensive railways and so on. As they say, you can always leave. We did. Don't particularly want to get into the politics of the whole thing but we get a lot more value for money across the channel and we are not being constantly watched  and bullied by the authorities.

 

This characteristic is defended by many whose morals are simply expressed by use of the defence of the system as their only logic, regardless of the questionable ethics and practices employed by CRT.

 

 

[Chewbacka]

3 minutes ago, tats said:

I live my life on the basis of knowing right from wrong. I just don't like being involved with what feels like a cheat; I don't do it and so I expect the same. This has a great affect on me because my principles matter. If CRT want the mooring money from me then simply put the cost onto the licence I pay to be on the water, at least be honest about it. The fact that they try to fiddle the money this way must mean that if it was all on the licence then it would be obviously overpriced and people would start thinking in different ways and people would leave the canal. So much in life is done this sneaky way and has to be forced to stand by unreasonable stern harsh measures because there isn't a reasonable arguement.

 

For me, the future of the canal is not good. It will become too gentrified and 'sterile'. The life blood will move away to new pastures, then the others will lose interest. I believe that there is a certain limit to how much can be charged, and this is dependent on what ordinary people can afford and feel is reasonable. Also, the authority overseeing its running should be human. Personally, I love boating, but I don't need it and can have a better time elsewhere if I want. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me, pricewise and the sneakiness of it. It makes me think. I'm falling out of love. CRT is not the person I thought she was. Not my type of person. Better to just move on. Leave it as friends and move on.

 

But if you double the licence cost to include mooring then this will drive all the continuous cruisers off the canals as they can not afford the cost, this will greatly increase the ‘gentrification’ of the canals which is the opposite of what you want.

[Higgs]

11 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

But if you double the licence cost to include mooring then this will drive all the continuous cruisers off the canals as they can not afford the cost, this will greatly increase the ‘gentrification’ of the canals which is the opposite of what you want.

 

My mooring fee is three times my licence fee. I tend to agree with the view that, adding the mooring fee in on top of the licence would be very counterproductive as a general practice and cause the OP more grief in turn.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[Chewbacka]

Forgot to say that if you base the licence increase on the average canal side mooring cost then boaters in the South will be happy but all the rest will see a big increase.  Again driving away the poor boaters.

 

These things are never as simple as they first appear.....

[Momac]

I think the license  fees are already high in the sense of not being good value considering what little and poor quality facilities are provided in return  . eg sometimes no or insufficient waste disposals bins and toilet facilities that might have been acceptable 50 years ago but should have been replaced or substantially refitted more than once over the last several decades . 

 

Yet the boats  still come in numbers that don't seem to be diminishing.

 

 

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Forgot to say that if you base the licence increase on the average canal side mooring cost then boaters in the South will be happy but all the rest will see a big increase.  Again driving away the poor boaters.

 

These things are never as simple as they first appear.....

 

The idea was raised, but remains academic.

 

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Are CRT moorings really the equivalent price to a marina mooring in some parts of the country?

 

Yes. 

 

The marinas in and around Newbury charge £3,500 for a full length boat. My 68ft CRT on-line mooring is £3,400 in the same area. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

If I were to move from my (essentially offline) CRT mooring to the local marina a mile up the road my mooring fee would double.

 

This is in Droitwich?

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

55 minutes ago, tats said:

For me, the future of the canal is not good. It will become too gentrified and 'sterile'. The life blood will move away to new pastures, then the others will lose interest. I believe that there is a certain limit to how much can be charged, and this is dependent on what ordinary people can afford and feel is reasonable. Also, the authority overseeing its running should be human. Personally, I love boating, but I don't need it and can have a better time elsewhere if I want. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me, pricewise and the sneakiness of it. It makes me think. I'm falling out of love. CRT is not the person I thought she was. Not my type of person. Better to just move on. Leave it as friends and move on.

 

Market forces - if people pay, then it aint overpriced, sorry.  If it's too expensive for you, do something cheaper. buying a smaller boat is always an option.

I'm always interested in the concept of "ordinary people".  These are so very rarely the same kind of people as the people using the term... and the authority is not human.  It's a charitable business, not a person.  Plus, publishing the costs of stuff isn't particularly sneaky.

Not needing something you love doing is a bit odd too - usually, we want to do stuff we love doing rather than walk away because someone is asking for money to pay for it.  But it all comes down to what you want to spend your money on - me, I'll keep the boat on the water for as long as I can, which may not be much longer anyway, but I don't give a toss about CRT, or the legality of charging me mooring fees, or whether CRT can charge me to moor for a couple of days somewhere.  Sitting in the middle of nowhere, miles from traffic, towns and people, perched on the back of the tub reading a book in the sun listening to the birds sing is worth a couple of grand a year.  You won't find that anywhere else in this country without having to climb a mountain.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You won't find that anywhere else in this country without having to climb a mountain.

 

And although the climbing/walking  part is free, you need to licence your car to be able to get there, and then pay the car park fee whilst you go climbing / walking.

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes. 

 

The marinas in and around Newbury charge £3,500 for a full length boat. My 68ft CRT on-line mooring is £3,400 in the same area. 

 

 

 

This is in Droitwich?

 

 

 

Yes. I just checked what happens elsewhere and it does seem that the moorings in Droitwich are cheap. They have very few facilities but are secure. Ideal for me because I live five minutes away. I’m not sure I wouldn’t up sticks to the marina if the prices were the same though. Of course there’s hardly any towpath mooring on the Droitwich.

 

JP