private mooring fees?

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Keeping Up said:

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.

 

But does CRT have any legal basis to charge the landowner, who has not himself moored a boat on the canal against the land in question? Far easier to go after the boat owner who is already in a contractual relationship with CRT. If the boatowner doesn't pay the mooring quickly becomes unacceptable to CRT as a home mooring, and the boat can't stay there more than 14 days. etc.etc.

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

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

 

The T&C's of my EoG mooring expressly forbid subletting.

 

However they do change over time. They used to allow you to moor a boat longer than the canal frontage of your property (there are a few like this close to where I live), but now expressly forbid the boat to overhang  the property boundaries.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by cuthound
Missing letters

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

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

 

I don't disagree with your overall argument, but I don't think the above is strictly true.  One court case several years ago found in favour of BW, and BW/CRT have charged EoG fees ever since. But it has been said that the court decision did not create a legal precedent and is not actually binding on other courts. So in theory it would be possible for someone to take the whole issue through the courts again, its just that given the costs and risks, nobody has felt it worthwhile to try.

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

The T&C's of my EoG mooring expressly forbid subletting.

 

However they do change over time. They used to allow you to moor a boat longer than the canal frontage of your property (there are a few like thi lose to where I live), but now expressly forbid the boat to overhang  the property boundaries.

 

 

 

From https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/631-end-of-garden-eog-application-jan-17.pdf

 

If you believe that your request meets our criteria please submit the following information along with the completed application form:
.
.

5) Evidence of your ownership of the land against which you propose to moor the boat: the Land Registry Title Number and a complete photocopy of the relevant section of the property title deed.
6) If you are not the person named in the evidence supplied under 5) above, a letter(s) from the landowner(s) confirming their permission for you to moor at the site for the duration of the mooring permit, should your application be successful. Please note that this confirmation will be required annually at the time of your mooring permit renewal.
 

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, David Mack said:

From https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/631-end-of-garden-eog-application-jan-17.pdf

That link is only for developing a mooring against 'residential property'.

 

As mentioned earlier there is a totally different arrangement for moorings 'against a farmers field'.

[GUMPY]

3 hours ago, mayalld said:

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

 

Whilst BW won the EOG/farmers field Court proceedings the waterway around which the case was made  was not a typical canal, I can't remember which waterway it was but it was obscure. This has left open the fact that if another case was bought, say on the GU, there is no guarantee that it would go in CaRTs favour. I did a lot of research on this some 20 years ago but I had to much to lose if the case had gone against me plus the solicitor that specialised in this passed away

Having said that there used to be one scam that was available to reduce the cost and that was:

Pay the landowner his rent.

Pay BW a full years Farmers field mooring in October

come the following March apply for a 6 months refund and go cruising for the summer.

I did this for several years around late 1990's early 2000's.

BW told me on more than one occasion another boat would take my mooring but of course since I was paying the land owner that wasn't going to happen.

Soon after that BW did a lease deal with the landowner so he collected the FF charge

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Loddon

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

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.

And that is now in the stated procedure - see #94 above.

[cuthound]

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

And that is now in the stated procedure - see #94 above.

 

Or even my post #90 ?

[cuthound]

Duplicate post removed.

Edited March 9, 2020 by cuthound

[BilgePump]

On 08/03/2020 at 09:13, Arthur Marshall said:

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!

CaRT charge about £32/ft/pa on our Macc towpath moorings. No special facilities, just the water point and bin nearby for all boaters. A basic private field mooring on the other side is less than that whereas Lyme View marina charges £41/ft/pa with decent secure facilities and pleasant grounds.

 

In this instance, say a farmer is happy to get £10+/ft/pa clear, CaRT will still want say £16/ft/pa. Not only will they get that but it keeps the field mooring's overall cost closer to those for a no frills CaRT mooring. Thus CaRT can satisfy the requirement to be in line with local prices if their moorings are reasonably priced between field and marina. If they only charged the marina connection charge of 9% (?) to field/EOG moorings then obviously income from them would plummet but they may also be obliged to lower their own towpath mooring charges to avoid an exodus, but this could then risk the charge of undercutting the local marinas by too great a margin. What I suspect would really happen is that prices would remain similar overall, just that the landowners would be quids in.

 

I do understand those who just want to have their own private boat at the bottom of their garden in a perfectly safe location and feel a little aggrieved at having to jump through hoops and pay a significant sum to CaRT to moor outside their own property when they pay a licence..  But, if it wasn't a pain and expense, soon every canal side property in a decent location would have an under the radar sublet or AirBnB boat on it.

 

Like you, I'm not on the canal for confrontations with bureaucracy. Field, towpath, marina - for those of us who aren't cc'ing we need a mooring somewhere. It's a cost to factor in and always has been. For me it's worth it.  Just like a trail boat or a caravan. If you can't store it on land at home then someone will want paying to store it,when not in use, be that a marina or boat club hardstanding or caravan site / storage yard, My journey to the boat and back takes me past a golf club advertising membership for about a grand a year, a bit more than I pay for a mooring nearby. Each unto their own. 

[Mike Todd]

30 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

CaRT charge about £32/ft/pa on our Macc towpath moorings. No special facilities, just the water point and bin nearby for all boaters. A basic private field mooring on the other side is less than that whereas Lyme View marina charges £41/ft/pa with decent secure facilities and pleasant grounds.

 

In this instance, say a farmer is happy to get £10+/ft/pa clear, CaRT will still want say £16/ft/pa. Not only will they get that but it keeps the field mooring's overall cost closer to those for a no frills CaRT mooring. Thus CaRT can satisfy the requirement to be in line with local prices if their moorings are reasonably priced between field and marina. If they only charged the marina connection charge of 9% (?) to field/EOG moorings then obviously income from them would plummet but they may also be obliged to lower their own towpath mooring charges to avoid an exodus, but this could then risk the charge of undercutting the local marinas by too great a margin. What I suspect would really happen is that prices would remain similar overall, just that the landowners would be quids in.

 

I do understand those who just want to have their own private boat at the bottom of their garden in a perfectly safe location and feel a little aggrieved at having to jump through hoops and pay a significant sum to CaRT to moor outside their own property when they pay a licence..  But, if it wasn't a pain and expense, soon every canal side property in a decent location would have an under the radar sublet or AirBnB boat on it.

 

Like you, I'm not on the canal for confrontations with bureaucracy. Field, towpath, marina - for those of us who aren't cc'ing we need a mooring somewhere. It's a cost to factor in and always has been. For me it's worth it.  Just like a trail boat or a caravan. If you can't store it on land at home then someone will want paying to store it,when not in use, be that a marina or boat club hardstanding or caravan site / storage yard, My journey to the boat and back takes me past a golf club advertising membership for about a grand a year, a bit more than I pay for a mooring nearby. Each unto their own. 

Always worth remembering that if you don't want to pay EOG to CaRT, then you can always lift your boat out of the water onto your own land. There is no requirement o to pay EOG unless you use it. But then you might just find it a little cheaper to pay EOG!

 

[Higgs]

49 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

CaRT charge about £32/ft/pa on our Macc towpath moorings. No special facilities, just the water point and bin nearby for all boaters. A basic private field mooring on the other side is less than that whereas Lyme View marina charges £41/ft/pa with decent secure facilities and pleasant grounds.

 

In this instance, say a farmer is happy to get £10+/ft/pa clear, CaRT will still want say £16/ft/pa. Not only will they get that but it keeps the field mooring's overall cost closer to those for a no frills CaRT mooring. Thus CaRT can satisfy the requirement to be in line with local prices if their moorings are reasonably priced between field and marina. If they only charged the marina connection charge of 9% (?) to field/EOG moorings then obviously income from them would plummet but they may also be obliged to lower their own towpath mooring charges to avoid an exodus, but this could then risk the charge of undercutting the local marinas by too great a margin. What I suspect would really happen is that prices would remain similar overall, just that the landowners would be quids in.

 

I do understand those who just want to have their own private boat at the bottom of their garden in a perfectly safe location and feel a little aggrieved at having to jump through hoops and pay a significant sum to CaRT to moor outside their own property when they pay a licence..  But, if it wasn't a pain and expense, soon every canal side property in a decent location would have an under the radar sublet or AirBnB boat on it.

 

Like you, I'm not on the canal for confrontations with bureaucracy. Field, towpath, marina - for those of us who aren't cc'ing we need a mooring somewhere. It's a cost to factor in and always has been. For me it's worth it.  Just like a trail boat or a caravan. If you can't store it on land at home then someone will want paying to store it,when not in use, be that a marina or boat club hardstanding or caravan site / storage yard, My journey to the boat and back takes me past a golf club advertising membership for about a grand a year, a bit more than I pay for a mooring nearby. Each unto their own. 

 

Yes, a marina has a 9% mooring surcharge on its mooring rates, for 'connection'. For the marina owner, this cost is always paid on an estimated full marina. It is , nevertheless, also contractual.  Even for an empty marina, this 9% is payable to CRT. One way or another, CRT's income of the 9% is fixed. That's a pretty good business deal.

 

 Just to add more cream to the business deal, CRT force the marina business to oblige the moorers to purchase a licence, inside this private area. An area , in which, CRT have no jurisdiction. So, the concept of connection needs exploring.

 

Now, a marina does in effect store a boat, and the moorer pays for that privilege. Store a boat for 12 months, 9% connection fee included. But, until a boat passes the entrance of the marina and into the canal, the boat remains on private property. In a place that CRT are not authorised to apply its statutory powers. A place in which a CRT licence has no relevance.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Higgs

[Mike Todd]

48 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes, a marina has a 9% mooring surcharge on its mooring rates, for 'connection'. For the marina owner, this cost is always paid on an estimated full marina. It is , nevertheless, also contractual.  Even for an empty marina, this 9% is payable to CRT. One way or another, CRT's income of the 9% is fixed. That's a pretty good business deal.

 

 Just to add more cream to the business deal, CRT force the marina business to oblige the moorers to purchase a licence, inside this private area. An area , in which, CRT have no jurisdiction. So, the concept of connection needs exploring.

 

Now, a marina does in effect store a boat, and the moorer pays for that privilege. Store a boat for 12 months, 9% connection fee included. But, until a boat passes the entrance of the marina and into the canal, the boat remains on private property. In a place that CRT are not authorised to apply its statutory powers. A place in which a CRT licence has no relevance.

 

 

Lest anyone reading your final para has not seen discussion going back some time, they should be aware that your statement is both partial and potentially misleading. CaRT do not, I believe, claim that the licence inside the marina is a statutory power but a contractual one, to which the marina owner is free to sign or not as they wish, so long as they have a market for moorings not connected to the canal network. It is widely accepted (seemingly even by Pillings, if not by you) that CaRT have the legal right to agree a connection contract in exchange for a fee which they are entitled to set. 

[Higgs]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Lest anyone reading your final para has not seen discussion going back some time, they should be aware that your statement is both partial and potentially misleading. CaRT do not, I believe, claim that the licence inside the marina is a statutory power but a contractual one, to which the marina owner is free to sign or not as they wish, so long as they have a market for moorings not connected to the canal network. It is widely accepted (seemingly even by Pillings, if not by you) that CaRT have the legal right to agree a connection contract in exchange for a fee which they are entitled to set. 

 

Yes, it is contractual. The marina is contracted to force a purchase on people. The actual licence is not needed inside the marina, not even by law. If it was a licence required by law, it wouldn't be written into a contract to make it obligatory. The licence is for CRT waterway's. It has the law to substantiate that. It should be taken as read, that it is necessary where CRT have authority.

 

No need for a contract to force the issue. CRT simply do not have authority in the marina. CRT require the permission of the marina, and what CRT cannot enforce, it has to set in a contract - to force permission it doesn't naturally have.

 

 

 

 

[mayalld]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes, it is contractual. The marina is contracted to force a purchase on people. The actual licence is not needed inside the marina, not even by law. If it was a licence required by law, it wouldn't be written into a contract to make it obligatory. The licence is for CRT waterway's. It has the law to substantiate that. It should be taken as read, that it is necessary where CRT have authority.

 

No need for a contract to force the issue. CRT simply do not have authority in the marina. CRT require the permission of the marina, and what CRT cannot enforce, it has to set in a contract - to force permission it doesn't naturally have.

 

 

 

 

Of course they can enforce.

 

They do so by permission of the Marina Owner, as part of the business relationship between them.

 

The method of enforcement is different, in that they don't directly enforce against the owner. They simply say "that boat has no licence, get rid or you are in breach, and we will terminate your connection"

[john6767]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes, a marina has a 9% mooring surcharge on its mooring rates, for 'connection'. For the marina owner, this cost is always paid on an estimated full marina. It is , nevertheless, also contractual.  Even for an empty marina, this 9% is payable to CRT. One way or another, CRT's income of the 9% is fixed. That's a pretty good business deal.

 

 Just to add more cream to the business deal, CRT force the marina business to oblige the moorers to purchase a licence, inside this private area. An area , in which, CRT have no jurisdiction. So, the concept of connection needs exploring.

 

Now, a marina does in effect store a boat, and the moorer pays for that privilege. Store a boat for 12 months, 9% connection fee included. But, until a boat passes the entrance of the marina and into the canal, the boat remains on private property. In a place that CRT are not authorised to apply its statutory powers. A place in which a CRT licence has no relevance.

 

 

The CRT licence is relevant because the marina will require you to have one before allowing you to moor there, even for a short term visitor mooring, much the same as requiring you to have a BSC and insurance.  

Also the CRY licence checkers do go round the marinas checking boats and based on the number of times I have seen them checking ours,  I would say that check is quite regular.

[Higgs]

17 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Of course they can enforce.

 

They do so by permission of the Marina Owner, as part of the business relationship between them.

 

The method of enforcement is different, in that they don't directly enforce against the owner. They simply say "that boat has no licence, get rid or you are in breach, and we will terminate your connection"

 

They don't directly enforce, because they can't. The licence does not carry its legal status, inside a marina. CRT do not have their statutory power, inside a marina. There is no law that states a boat requires a licence to moor in a marina. It doesn't exist. If it did, there would be no need of explicitly requiring it in a contract between CRT and the marina. In a way, trying to pre-empt the notion of a dishonestly practicing marina.

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

26 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Also the CRY licence checkers do go round the marinas checking boats and based on the number of times I have seen them checking ours,  I would say that check is quite regular.

 

CRT licence checkers may indeed visit the marina. This practice is to check up on the marina's adherence to the contract. For the most part.

 

 

 

[Jim Riley]

15 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT licence checkers may indeed visit the marina. This practice is to check up on the marina's adherence to the contract. For the most part.

 

 

 

What do you hope to gain by going on about this as you do? We either agree, or not, that CRT have pulled a fast one. It is legal in contractual terms, no matter whether we approve or not. 

I suppose, these days, we should look after bees, especially in bonnets. 

[Mike Todd]

22 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They don't directly enforce, because they can't. The licence does not carry its legal status, inside a marina. CRT do not have their statutory power, inside a marina. There is no law that states a boat requires a licence to moor in a marina. It doesn't exist. If it did, there would be no need of explicitly requiring it in a contract between CRT and the marina. In a way, trying to pre-empt the notion of a dishonestly practicing marina.

 

 

 

 

No-one is suggesting that it does. The requirement for a licence within a marina is not based on statute. Still enforceable, however. 

 

Encouraging anyone to believe that they do not need a licence within a marina (or at least throe with a modern connection contract) does no favours only likely to cause grief. At least it will make a change from the popular defence in court of "A bloke in  the pub told me . . . " to "Higgs told me . . . "

[mayalld]

34 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They don't directly enforce, because they can't. The licence does not carry its legal status, inside a marina. CRT do not have their statutory power, inside a marina. There is no law that states a boat requires a licence to moor in a marina. It doesn't exist. If it did, there would be no need of explicitly requiring it in a contract between CRT and the marina. In a way, trying to pre-empt the notion of a dishonestly practicing marina.

 

The trouble with this argument is that the only response that I can give is "So what?"

 

Whilst it may be of academic interest that the method by which licences are required is different, the practical effect is not substantially different.

 

[Higgs]

13 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

What do you hope to gain by going on about this as you do? . 

 

More power to the boaters' elbow.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

No-one is suggesting that it does. The requirement for a licence within a marina is not based on statute. Still enforceable, however. 

 

It's about as enforceable as someone pushing your SORN car onto the public highway, and claiming you're breaking the law.

 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

It's about as enforceable as someone pushing your SORN car onto the public highway, and claiming you're breaking the law.

You would be.

 

The registered keeper is the one responsible for the vehicle, so if it's on a public highway while it's SORNed then it doesn't matter how it got there.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

You would be.

 

The registered keeper is the one responsible for the vehicle, so if it's on a public highway while it's SORNed then it doesn't matter how it got there.

 

If I could prove you did it, I think you could expect some problems.

 

 

 

[Higgs]

20 minutes ago, mayalld said:

The trouble with this argument is that the only response that I can give is "So what?"

 

Whilst it may be of academic interest that the method by which licences are required is different, the practical effect is not substantially different.

 

 

You're willing to accept that a marina has to expel a boat from a marina, before having no licence becomes an issue in law. ??

 

 

[David Mack]

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You're willing to accept that a marina has to expel a boat from a marina, before having no licence becomes an issue in law. ??

 

 

While the boat is in the marina, it is a matter of contract law (between the boatowner and marina, and between the marina and CRT). Once outside the marina it becomes a matter of statute law.  Different branches of the law, that's all.