private mooring fees?

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

 

 

I would tend to treat that as a figure of speech.

 

 

I hope they were doing likewise.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Agreed, like 'our marina' or 'my mooring'.

 

Yes, that's all I think it is worth, or, amounts to.

 

 

[Jim Riley]

Re the eog fee being 50% of the nearest online mooring, the mooring office do need watching.

I received a letter 2 years ago saying my mooring was going up, to half the rate charged in the centre of Hebden Bridge. I'm moored just below the summit pound, 10 miles away. There are several online boats moored between me and Hebden. I wrote a swift letter. Of course the chap with the shiny chair in Leeds office never actually gets out and about. He should, life's better by water. He might learn something about the asset he's paid to manage. 

 

[cuthound]

5 hours 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.

 

 

 

But if CRT need more money to maintain the canals and cannot charge for EoG moorings, the only option would be an increase in licence fees.

 

Would you prefer that?

 

By the way I have an EoG mooring have have come to terms with paying for the exclusive right to moor my boat there. It is around 20% of the costs of mooring at the local marina.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

So, now we may have established, CRT do not own water, but have a responsibility to manage it.

 

 

I haven't said that, which why my sentence started with AND!
However that doesn't fit in with your agenda.

 

And perhaps I'd better tell Severn Trent that they don't own the water they provide me and that I'm not going to pay for it any more.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Graham Davis

[RufusR]

We pay about the same for our privately owned online mooring as we paid in the local marine , compared to that we are now off grid and have few of the facilities the Marina had and thus Cost of living here is quite a bit more BUT I would not change it for the world . No boats  either side crowding you. Our own bit of garden , very peaceful , lovely views . It was a nice 

marina but you can’t get away from the feeling you are living in a car park . 

 

At the end of the day you pays your money you takes your choice ...if you don’t like the heat get out of the kitchen. 

[Higgs]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

But if CRT need more money to maintain the canals and cannot charge for EoG moorings, the only option would be an increase in licence fees.

 

I didn't suggest that EoG mooring fees shouldn't be charged. I said/meant, whatever the charge, it has to be supported in law, within the powers granted to CRT. It is not good enough in itself to need money.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[cuthound]

27 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I didn't suggest that EoG mooring fees shouldn't be charged. I said/meant, whatever the charge, it has to be supported in law, within the powers granted to CRT. It is not good enough in itself to need money.

 

 

 

But CRT took an EoG non-payer to court and won, so the charge is supported in law, until such time that someone else refuses to pay, gets taken to court, loses, appeals and wins the appeal.

[ditchcrawler]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

But CRT took an EoG non-payer to court and won, so the charge is supported in law, until such time that someone else refuses to pay, gets taken to court, loses, appeals and wins the appeal.

I also remember them piling across the entrance to a basin on the GU

[Higgs]

8 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

But CRT took an EoG non-payer to court and won, so the charge is supported in law, until such time that someone else refuses to pay, gets taken to court, loses, appeals and wins the appeal.

 

I didn't comment on the right or wrong of EoG fees, but that fees need justification that isn't based on the need for money as the driving principle. The principle must stand that CRT is authorised, and CRT can only be authorised where they have authority to operate.

 

  

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Higgs

[cuthound]

14 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I also remember them piling across the entrance to a basin on the GU

 

Yes, i remember that. The then marina owner/developer bought a title (lord of the manor or something similar) and claimed it gave him rights to do whstever he wanted regarding his land. He didnt appeal though.

Edited March 8, 2020 by cuthound
Spillung

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

Re the eog fee being 50% of the nearest online mooring, the mooring office do need watching.

I received a letter 2 years ago saying my mooring was going up, to half the rate charged in the centre of Hebden Bridge. I'm moored just below the summit pound, 10 miles away. There are several online boats moored between me and Hebden. I wrote a swift letter. Of course the chap with the shiny chair in Leeds office never actually gets out and about. He should, life's better by water. He might learn something about the asset he's paid to manage. 

 

Did you get anywhere?

[Jim Riley]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Did you get anywhere?

Yes, it's half the price of a boat on the Pickering and Arnold Moorings, below lock 15. That's about 6 miles away, but is the next online mooring. So nothing changed. 

Many years ago, perhaps 2007, I found a Waterways mag with comparative mooring prices, the Moorings next to the Summit pound on the Rochdale were the cheapest anywhere. But they are at the top of the hill, a flight of locks whichever way you go. But it's beautiful and only 1.5 miles from my house. 

Note to envious southerners, there are wolves, fierce, with sharp teeth. Broad locks needing northern brawn! 

[Mike Todd]

On 07/03/2020 at 23:03, Arthur Marshall said:

Back when I started this lark there was no CRT (or BW) mooring fee, we just paid the farmer his whack. There was much discontent when mooring fees came in, and many attempts to wriggle out of paying them. None worked. There are still those who say the charges have no legal validity but who have never had the nerve to try it in court. Most of those you will find on the other boating forum, still fulminating.

The thing is, the law appears to be the law, at least judges say it is, so whether you think it's fair or not is irrelevant.

I also suspect, as this subject has been done to death, and this is someone's first post (at least under this name), it's a deliberate attempt at trolling!

In any event, I thought that it was the landowner not the moorer who paid the EOG charge to CaRT? (what the landowner, farmer or not) then charges the moorer is a quite separate matter and may have little relationship with EOG, should the market justify. (Of course, landowner and moorer may be the same) I also thought that CaRT were increasingly reluctant to grant EOG status, but maybe that had changed.

[cuthound]

20 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I also thought that CaRT were increasingly reluctant to grant EOG status, but maybe that had changed.

 

When I applied for my EoG mooring six and a half years ago, the then moorings manager said permission is not generally refused providing the mooring passes the environmental and location assessments.

 

More info here, including a downloadable application form which details the requirements.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/moorings/mooring-faqs

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

In any event, I thought that it was the landowner not the moorer who paid the EOG charge to CaRT? (what the landowner, farmer or not) then charges the moorer is a quite separate matter and may have little relationship with EOG, should the market justify. (Of course, landowner and moorer may be the same) I also thought that CaRT were increasingly reluctant to grant EOG status, but maybe that had changed.

 

Ah now this is something a friend of mine had direct experience of. 

 

They rented an offside space from some geezer who seemed to have control over the plot of land, cash in hand and all that. CRT wrote to them (somehow) and demanded they either pay their 50% EOG fee or dob in the LL in by giving them name and contact deets etc. 

 

Oddly, they elected to just pay CRT the EOG fee as they really REALLY liked the mooring and felt they would get slung off if the LL ever received an EOG demand from CRT. 

 

I saw the letters from CRT setting out what seemed to me to be a rather shaky legal case for demanding the fee directly from the boater, but they were adamant they would just pay up rather than risk losing the mooring. This resulted in them paying a total of about £4k a year for the mooring. 

 

I'm still not sure why CRT didn't just look up the owner in the LR, but they didn't. Maybe the LR doesn't list industrial wasteland.

 

 

 

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'm still not sure why CRT didn't just look up the owner in the LR, but they didn't. Maybe the LR doesn't list industrial wasteland.

Because its quicker and easier for them to go after the boat owner, who will probably, as in your example, just cough up. The landowner is under no obligation to give CRT the time of day.  I suspect that in most case writing to the landowner would just get no response.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I suspect that in most case writing to the landowner would just get no response.

 

Interesting point, the complexity of establishing exactly who is liable to pay the EOG fee, when the freeholder has leased it out to some other person. Long leases need registering at the LR but short leases (less than 7 years) don't, IIRC. 

[Mike Todd]

38 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Interesting point, the complexity of establishing exactly who is liable to pay the EOG fee, when the freeholder has leased it out to some other person. Long leases need registering at the LR but short leases (less than 7 years) don't, IIRC. 

Looking at the CaRT website, there are some interesting points regarding the last few posts:

 

1. Only allowed against a residential property. How many farmers would like their fields to be assessed as residential - council tax, planning, insurance etc etc

 

2. Permits will only be granted annually to a non landowner after submitting written consent from the landowner so there is no option for not informing on the landowner

 

3. It is the boater's responsibility to get such consent not CaRT's.

 

4. Any staging requires planning permission.

 

5. No new EOG at all on K&A

 

It would seem that any 'under the radar' deals, or those directly with a boater and not having reference to the landowner, are not compliant with CaRT's stated rules.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Looking at the CaRT website, there are some interesting points regarding the last few posts:

 

1. Only allowed against a residential property. How many farmers would like their fields to be assessed as residential - council tax, planning, insurance etc etc

 

2. Permits will only be granted annually to a non landowner after submitting written consent from the landowner so there is no option for not informing on the landowner

 

3. It is the boater's responsibility to get such consent not CaRT's.

 

4. Any staging requires planning permission.

 

5. No new EOG at all on K&A

 

It would seem that any 'under the radar' deals, or those directly with a boater and not having reference to the landowner, are not compliant with CaRT's stated rules.

 

 

I believe there is a difference between EoG moorings where the land owner is the only person who can use the mooring, and, the mooring is 'attached' to a residential dwelling.

 

And

 

A 'farmers field' mooring(s) where a number of moorings have been granted and they are 'let' to non-land owners.

[David Mack]

Maybe, but the EOG stuff on the CRT website does acknowledge the possibility of subletting a EOG mooring (at a residential property).

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

In any event, I thought that it was the landowner not the moorer who paid the EOG charge to CaRT? (what the landowner, farmer or not) then charges the moorer is a quite separate matter and may have little relationship with EOG, should the market justify. (Of course, landowner and moorer may be the same) I also thought that CaRT were increasingly reluctant to grant EOG status, but maybe that had changed.

I gather it can be either. At every farm I've moored at. I've always paid the EOG fee, and then the farmer seperately. Other online just pay the site owner.

[Keeping Up]

CRT say they don't care whether it is paid by the land owner or the moorer as long as it gets paid somehow, but ultimately it is the land owner's responsibility. If the moorer usually pays but then misses a payment, it is the land owner whom CRT will chase for payment.

[mayalld]

19 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I didn't comment on the right or wrong of EoG fees, but that fees need justification that isn't based on the need for money as the driving principle. The principle must stand that CRT is authorised, and CRT can only be authorised where they have authority to operate.

 

  

 

 

It has been established via Court proceedings that CRT are acting legally in charging EOG fees.

 

So, the only remaining avenue is to suggest that it is somehow morally wrong that they charge them. The argument there must (of necessity) rely upon the consequences of abolishing them because they are somehow "wrong" or "unfair". For the sake of argument, let us assume that all the charges that people argue against are abolished, so Network Access Charges go, and requirements to licence in Marinas goes.

 

Having done away with all these charges, CRT will replace the lost income by hiking licence fees for all.

 

Initially;

CCers will lose big time. They will see no benefit from this, and their fees will increase a LOT

Marina moorers will lose a bit. Their licence costs will probably increase more than the reduction in mooring costs (assuming operators pass on the reduction)

On-line moorers will win a bit. Their mooring costs will reduce by more than the licence increase

Those who never move will win a lot.

 

Over time though people will be prepared to pay more for on-line moorings, so almost everybody will be back where they started, except CCers, who will have lost a lot.

[cuthound]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ah now this is something a friend of mine had direct experience of. 

 

They rented an offside space from some geezer who seemed to have control over the plot of land, cash in hand and all that. CRT wrote to them (somehow) and demanded they either pay their 50% EOG fee or dob in the LL in by giving them name and contact deets etc. 

 

Oddly, they elected to just pay CRT the EOG fee as they really REALLY liked the mooring and felt they would get slung off if the LL ever received an EOG demand from CRT. 

 

I saw the letters from CRT setting out what seemed to me to be a rather shaky legal case for demanding the fee directly from the boater, but they were adamant they would just pay up rather than risk losing the mooring. This resulted in them paying a total of about £4k a year for the mooring. 

 

I'm still not sure why CRT didn't just look up the owner in the LR, but they didn't. Maybe the LR doesn't list industrial wasteland.

 

 

 

 

Interesting, when I was trying to buy my current house I approached CRT to ask if they would grant me permission to develop a mooring, as the house was useless to me if I couldn't moor a boat there.

 

They insisted that they could only deal with the owner of the land, which the then owner didn't want the hassle of.

 

I only got the matter resolved by escalating it to a director, and getting him to agree that I could apply,  providing I had a covering letter from the owner, giving me permission to apply on his behalf.

Edited March 9, 2020 by cuthound