Jump to content

Reduction in River licence


christophert

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

I am interesting in dealing with something that doesn't require having a boat as necessary to the argument. I do not make any open friends on here, talking about it, but I take that for granted. The flak is fine by me.

Hope you don't think I'm giving you flak, it's a friendly disagreement :)

 

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

We have licences. Why should we have to pay access.

So if I understand this correctly, the marina pays for access to the canal (in most cases) and they pass this cost directly on to the moorers in the marina. This doesn't sound like "access" in the sense of "a right to go boating"on the waterway, but rather the right to have a cut leading to the CaRT's waterway - is that corect?

 

Paying for access to the main waterway seems to me like a running cost of owning a marina. I imagine that if I started a marina and arranged a cut to a CaRT canal to fill my marina with water and allow access to my tenants, then I understand a need to negotiate an ongoing fee payable to CaRT. I'm not sure exactly what the rationale is behind passing the cost on to the moorers in such a direct way, though. That seems like charging a 2% grass cutting fee or a 1% fencing fee.

 

Would it be better for you if the marina raised your mooring fee by 9% and silently paid it?

 

25 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Private marinas are not Trust's waterways.

No, but they are filled with Trust's water, right? And they have a cut to the Trust's waterways?

 

Would it be allowed to have an unlicensed boat in the marina? And if not, would it be disallowed by the marina or by CaRT? If the former, then that's just their policy which they have the right to specify as a private business (probably so they don't have trouble telling people to leave via CaRT's waterways if they don't follow the marina rules). If the latter, I agree with you - CaRT should not be able to mandate licenses for people on private property.

 

2 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

CRT have just announce that all boat licences have been extended for one month

I also just got this email. I can't say I'm ever unhappy to get a 8.3% discount! But I think they are being overly charitable - I think their leniency is part of the reason people have developed such a feeling of entitlement to the waterways.

Edited by ivan&alice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Would it be allowed to have an unlicensed boat in the marina? 

Yes . In some marinas that is permitted  and  legal.

Edited by MartynG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Yes . In some marinas that is permitted  and  legal.

How about a hypothetical situation where a person digs an artificial pond, filled with rain or municipal water, located near but not actually connected to a CaRT canal. The owner of the pond sets up a marina in the pond (boats needing to be craned in and out) and requires moorers to have a CaRT license.

 

In this case the boaters would have paid for "access" to CaRT waterways in theory, but in practice they don't have access from their marina - they would need to crane their boats into CaRT waters - which would be allowed since they possess a CaRT license.

 

If they were to club together and cut a link to their "marina", then they would now have a different kind of access for which they would need to pay CaRT for the right to have.

 

I think that illustrates that the "access to the waterways" granted by one's license and the "access" that the marinas pay to have are different things?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

... the "access to the waterways" granted by one's license and the "access" that the marinas pay to have are different things

That's correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

Hope you don't think I'm giving you flak, it's a friendly disagreement :)

 

No. I don't really see it as that bad. The subject gets peoples' backs up, I understand. 

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

So if I understand this correctly, the marina pays for access to the canal (in most cases) and they pass this cost directly on to the moorers in the marina. This doesn't sound like "access" in the sense of "a right to go boating"on the waterway, but rather the right to have a cut leading to the CaRT's waterway - is that corect?

 

I live in a marina. I pay for the amenity and staff and ground-keeping, the refuse collection and general maintenance. This is the marina business and what I'm there for. This is independent of any need I may have of the canal. For that, I buy a licence. And for that licence, I pay for the use of and all services on the canal for which the licence is needed, inclusive of the right to use the canal. What the marina does, by the extra 9% - they pay this to CRT, moorers have a licence and have already paid the dues to CRT

 

The transfer of the 9% to CRT is CRT profit, over and above what other licence holders pay. Marina moorers are, in effect, being taxed for the privileged the marina has of having a business, by consent of CRT. Moorers have paid CRT (the licence fee), moorers have also paid the marina for its services. The 9% is 9% more on our licence fee. 

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

No, but they are filled with Trust's water, right? And they have a cut to the Trust's waterways?

 

Would it be allowed to have an unlicensed boat in the marina? And if not, would it be disallowed by the marina or by CaRT? If the former, then that's just their policy which they have the right to specify as a private business (probably so they don't have trouble telling people to leave via CaRT's waterways if they don't follow the marina rules). If the latter, I agree with you - CaRT should not be able to mandate licenses for people on private property.

 

 

Water is not owned, in principle, it is managed. The area from the entrance of the marina into the marina is private property. If a special channel was cut into the land, it is from the private land up to what is the canal. It doesn't stop being a private area because it now carries water onto that private land. The land and the water are part of the private area and are not part of what can be considered CRT domain. 

 

An unlicensed boat could remain in a marina unlicensed, and break no statutory laws. Unlicensed boats cannot break those laws, because they sit above private land, where no statutory law applies that govern CRT, and in turn, do not apply to the boat. 

 

This is where the NAA comes in. The boater in now excluded. It is a business contract, between the marina and CRT. CRT is the dominant party, they can exert pressure, by dint of the natural monopoly they have. It is by this contract that, if the marina wants a business, the business is forced to force the boaters to license the boat. If you want a business, you play ball with CRT. The options are set by CRT. This doesn't mean to say that the marina couldn't of its own will make it a requirement in its T&Cs that a licence is needed. It won't be a legal requirement. However, that choice is removed by the contract (NAA). And by that contract, removes any choice the boater has. CRT place the stipulation in the contract, because they can't force it on the boaters through statutory power. The licence is a statutory device. 

 

By the contract obligations on the marina, the marina is pressurised to pressurise the boater, the marina moorer. The pressure a marina applies on the boater is - the implicit threat of eviction onto the territory of CRT, In which case, an unlicensed boat would then be breaking the law. 

 

 

 

In a marina, payment of the access fee has some meaning, paying the licence fee has no meaning, in any legal sense. CRT secure the payment of a license fee, by simply being dominant, in charge of a natural monopoly. They have no legal right to that licence fee from moorers in a private marina, unless the boater wishes to take the boat onto the canal.  

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The transfer of the 9% to CRT is CRT profit, over and above what other licence holders pay. Marina moorers are, in effect, being taxed for the privileged the marina has of having a business, by consent of CRT. Moorers have paid CRT (the licence fee), moorers have also paid the marina for its services. The 9% is 9% more on our licence fee. 

You seem to be forgetting that BW / C&RT have an agreement to reduce their own moorings by 10% of whatever number a new marina provides, hence losing income, had you not had 'your' marina (or any marina) you would have been paying C&RT directly at whatever price they charged and for whatever facilities they offered, AND, you would still need a licence.

 

If there is a need for moorings in an area, C&RT are losing money by giving permission for marinas to be developed. C&RT are now only getting 9% (NAA Agreement) of mooring income where, otherwise, they would have received 100% of mooring income.

 

C&RT's Mooring Policy document - see Items 3 & 4.

 

 

 

Screenshot (145).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Higgs said:

In a marina, payment of the access fee has some meaning, paying the licence fee hasn't any meaning. CRT secure the payment of a license fee, by simply being dominant, in charge of a natural monopoly. They have no legal right to that licence fee, from moorers in a private marina, unless the boater wishes to take the boat onto the canal.  

I would fully agree with this.

 

A marina should not be compelled by CaRT to force its tenants to have a CaRT license. If someone was to store their boat 100% of a given year in the marina, by rights no license fee should be demanded by CaRT. If the marina elected to make this a condition of tenancy then that should be entirely their choice.

 

I could understand the sentiment though that most people have boats to go boating so it would be an unusual situation if the person with a boat in the marina never left it. I can imagine this raises the suspicion of CaRT even though there are legitimate reasons why you would not need to be licensed.

 

It is similar to if you bought a digital TV to use as a computer monitor, but never watched TV (this happened to me). Most people watch TV at least sometimes, so it is understandable for the TV licensing folk to want to charge everyone in possession of a TV for a license, even though there are legitimate reasons to own a TV that never involve watching the content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You seem to be forgetting that BW / C&RT have an agreement to reduce their own moorings by 10% of whatever number a new marina provides, hence losing income, had you not had 'your' marina (or any marina) you would have been paying C&RT directly at whatever price they charged and for whatever facilities they offered, AND, you would still need a licence.

 

If there is a need for moorings in an area, C&RT are losing money by giving permission for marinas to be developed. C&RT are now only getting 9% (NAA Agreement) of mooring income where, otherwise, they would have received 100% of mooring income.

 

C&RT's Mooring Policy document - see Items 3 & 4.

 

I am aware of the reduction of online moorings agreement. How does that make a licence a legal device, in a marina, and on private property?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The transfer of the 9% to CRT is CRT profit, over and above what other licence holders pay. Marina moorers are, in effect, being taxed for the privileged the marina has of having a business, by consent of CRT. Moorers have paid CRT (the licence fee), moorers have also paid the marina for its services. The 9% is 9% more on our licence fee. 

The 9% is compensation to CRT for the removal of CRT online moorings that were closed when the marina was built.

Nothing to do with licence fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I am aware of the reduction of online moorings agreement. How does that make a licence a legal device, in a marina, and on private property?

 

 

 

I refer you to your own post (to which I was answering)

 

 

51 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The transfer of the 9% to CRT is CRT profit, over and above what other licence holders pay. Marina moorers are, in effect, being taxed for the privileged the marina has of having a business, by consent of CRT. Moorers have paid CRT (the licence fee), moorers have also paid the marina for its services. The 9% is 9% more on our licence fee. 

 

53 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I live in a marina. I pay for the amenity and staff and ground-keeping, the refuse collection and general maintenance. This is the marina business and what I'm there for. This is independent of any need I may have of the canal. For that, I buy a licence. And for that licence, I pay for the use of and all services on the canal for which the licence is needed, inclusive of the right to use the canal. What the marina does, by the extra 9% - they pay this to CRT, moorers have a licence and have already paid the dues to CRT

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

I would fully agree with this.

 

A marina should not be compelled by CaRT to force its tenants to have a CaRT license. If someone was to store their boat 100% of a given year in the marina, by rights no license fee should be demanded by CaRT. If the marina elected to make this a condition of tenancy then that should be entirely their choice.

 

I could understand the sentiment though that most people have boats to go boating so it would be an unusual situation if the person with a boat in the marina never left it. I can imagine this raises the suspicion of CaRT even though there are legitimate reasons why you would not need to be licensed.

 

It is similar to if you bought a digital TV to use as a computer monitor, but never watched TV (this happened to me). Most people watch TV at least sometimes, so it is understandable for the TV licensing folk to want to charge everyone in possession of a TV for a license, even though there are legitimate reasons to own a TV that never involve watching the content.

 

In the bold. This would be entirely up to the marina. But, the opportunity would be there for marinas to compete, for business. Or, moorers might get to 'SORN' their' boats. One of the objectives is to force CRT to listen to boaters. By removing the automatic right they have given themselves, to something they have no legal right to, they would be forced to apply more thought to the boater, to keep up standards. To attract boaters onto the canal, and thus, pay for a licence.  

 

I think it would lead to a better system. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I refer you to your own post (to which I was answering)

 

The agreement isn't with the boater. It is a business transaction that, in general, leaves the boater out. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

In this case the boaters would have paid for "access" to CaRT waterways in theory, but in practice they don't have access from their marina - they would need to crane their boats into CaRT waters - which would be allowed since they possess a CaRT license.

There is a sort of comparison to vehicles.

 

Your road fund licence allows you to drive, park and use the roads, it does not allow you to cross a footway and park in your garden / drive.

You cannot just 'dig out the kerb' and make your own access to the road across the pathway.

 

You need to apply to the council for permission to 'drop the kerb' and cross the councils land. Typical cost of this is around £1000

 

Substitute garden / drive with Marina

Substitute 'Council' with C&RT

33 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

A marina should not be compelled by CaRT to force its tenants to have a CaRT license. If someone was to store their boat 100% of a given year in the marina, by rights no license fee should be demanded by CaRT. If the marina elected to make this a condition of tenancy then that should be entirely their choice.

 

The boat licence allows you to 'float' on C&RT managed waters.

Where does the water come from in the marina ? (clue - it is generally filled from the canal)

 

If C&RT ceased to manage the water, or dredge the canal what would happen - would the marina dry-up ? would the entrance become silted up ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The agreement isn't with the boater. It is a business transaction that, in general, leaves the boater out. 

So, how does the marina pay the charge without the boater paying it ?

 

You are saying that the boater should not pay the access charge and that the marina should pay it, but the marina's only source of income is from its boaters, and the access charge is simply one of the overheads that the marina has to pay, of which you have said you are happy to pay towards, except for the access agreement - why ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is a sort of comparison to vehicles.

 

Your road fund licence allows you to drive, park and use the roads, it does not allow you to cross a footway and park in your garden / drive.

You cannot just 'dig out the kerb' and make your own access to the road across the pathway.

 

There is no pavement to be dug up. The marina is private property. Comparable to a private driveway. The SORN allows a vehicle to be kept on private property, without the need for VED. There is nothing in the canal world, to compare with a licence to drive. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So, how does the marina pay the charge without the boater paying it ?

 

You are saying that the boater should not pay the access charge and that the marina should pay it, but the marina's only source of income is from its boaters, and the access charge is simply one of the overheads that the marina has to pay, of which you have said you are happy to pay towards, except for the access agreement - why ?

 

I think I have already stated - the access fee, to me at least, would be an acceptable consideration. 

 

The access fee, the marina may be liable for, but you can either have the licence fee or charge an access fee - you can't have both. The access fee makes some sense. The licence has no legal status, in a marina. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

There is no pavement to be dug up. The marina is private property. Comparable to a private driveway. The SORN allows a vehicle to be kept on private property, without the need for VED. There is nothing in the canal world, to compare with a licence to drive. 

You are losing the plot - we are talking about the access fee, not the need for a licence, that is a different discussion.

 

The marina needs to dig out C&RTs bank to get access to the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If C&RT ceased to manage the water, or dredge the canal what would happen - would the marina dry-up ? would the entrance become silted up ?

 

The licence is what is levied for the canal. CRT accept no liability for the maintenance of the marina. The marina are responsible for everything up to the entrance of the marina. And you try and get CRT to accept responsibility for the banks. They deal with the navigation. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are losing the plot - we are talking about the access fee, not the need for a licence, that is a different discussion.

 

The marina needs to dig out C&RTs bank to get access to the water.

 

Yes, I know the licence fee is different. 

 

As I've said - you try and get CRT to accept liability for the banks. And, if the water erodes a farmer's field, is CRT going to build up the banks? Doubt it. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

17 hours ago, Higgs said:

It all boils down to the abuse of power. It is abuse, no two ways about it. 

I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean by this.

 

Are you saying that the CaRT is abusing their power by compelling marinas to include in their T's and C's that tenants must have a valid CaRT license?

 

Or are you saying that marinas are abusing their power by passing on the access fee they are charged by CaRT to their moorers?

 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

boat licence allows you to 'float' on C&RT managed waters.

Where does the water come from in the marina ? (clue - it is generally filled from the canal)

 

If C&RT ceased to manage the water, or dredge the canal what would happen - would the marina dry-up ? would the entrance become silted up ?

Sure, I guess this could be an argument for requiring a CaRT license in a marina. But I feel like if the marina is paying for access then they've already paid to fill their pound with CaRT water. Yes if the CaRT ceased to manage the water the marina would suffer, which is why the marina ought to - and does - pay for access. But it seems debatable that just because the water comes from CaRT that you need a CaRT boating license to float on it. You're on private property and the access to the water has been paid for.

 

I think a far more compelling reason for marinas to require CaRT licenses doesn't even involve the CaRT. In order to get a boat license, you have to keep your boat BSS compliant and insured, so having a license is evidence that your boat is waterworthy. And if they ever needed to evict you from the marina, it's much easier for them to tell you to sail off into the canal than for you to need craning out and transport to God knows where. Also I presume that from the marina's perspective, they would ideally like you gallavanting around CaRT waters as much as possible: when you're not in the marina, you're not using their resources and contributing to the crowdedness, yet you're still paying rent.

 

If I owned a marina, I reckon I'd require CaRT boating licenses of my tenants regardless of "compulsion" by the CaRT (what form would that even take?)

 

 

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

There is no pavement to be dug up.

There's a towpath (which might now require a bridge) and a bank (which is holding in the CaRT's water) though. Cutting into that is a much larger operation than dropping a kerb, one with ongoing implications unlike a driveway, with a lot more potential for things to go wrong for the authority. Imagine if you mismanaged your driveway that the tar could run off the road and it becomes a fairer analogy!

 

 

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

try and get CRT to accept liability for the banks. And, if the water erodes a farmer's field, is CRT going to build up the banks? Doubt it. 

AFAIK the CaRT is liable for the banks? And if the water erodes non-CaRT property then yes they must build up the banks - not just for the third party but also to maintain the integrity of the canal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

  I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean by this.

 

Are you saying that the CaRT is abusing their power by compelling marinas to include in their T's and C's that tenants must have a valid CaRT license?

 

Or are you saying that marinas are abusing their power by passing on the access fee they are charged by CaRT to their moorers?

 

There is no valid licence, on private property. The T&Cs of the marina do not make it valid, either. The only place that validates the use of the licence is on CRT's waterways, and only on those waterways.

2 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

There's a towpath (which might now require a bridge) and a bank (which is holding in the CaRT's water) though. Cutting into that is a much larger operation than dropping a kerb, one with ongoing implications unlike a driveway, with a lot more potential for things to go wrong for the authority. Imagine if you mismanaged your driveway that the tar could run off the road and it becomes a fairer analogy!

 

A bridge over the entrance does not mean the marina hasn't paid for it, or that it doesn't maintain it. In fact, I know of at least one marina that does service those bridges. I helped service it for that particular marina. 

 

 

Regardless, beyond the entrance, CRT have neither jurisdiction or accept responsibility to maintain. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

A bridge over the entrance does not mean the marina hasn't paid for it, or that it doesn't maintains it. In fact, I know of at least one marina that does service those bridges. I helped service it for that particular marina. 

 

I also know a marina that maintains the bridge, (probably because they are a pre-NAA marina).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I also know a marina that maintains the bridge, (probably because they are a pre-NAA marina).

 

And post NAA, does that preclude the marina from having responsibility. Regardless, beyond the entrance, CRT have neither jurisdiction or accept responsibility to maintain. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

There is no valid licence, on private property.

 

 

 

 

 

The water in the marina is owned and supplied by CaRT, it's their water.  If your boat is floating on this water it's therefore on CaRT's property not the marinas. Which bit don't you understand ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

 

The water in the marina is owned and supplied by CaRT, it's their water.  If your boat is floating on this water it's therefore on CaRT's property not the marinas. Which bit don't you understand ?

 

It isn't, and, not necessarily. 

 

And, I'm not going over all the reasons again. 

 

 "Under English Common law, any rights asserted to 'moveable and wandering' water must be based upon rights to the 'permanent and immovable' land below."

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Higgs said:

There is no valid licence, on private property. The T&Cs of the marina do not make it valid, either. The only place that validates the use of the licence is on CRT's waterways, and only on those waterways.

But you can have a license and not be on the waterway - let me rephrase because I still really don't understand what the problem is.

 

Are you saying that the CaRT is abusing their power by compelling marinas to include in their T's and C's that tenants must have a valid CaRT license to be CaRT waterways, even though the boater is not currently on the waterway?

 

Or are you saying that marinas are abusing their power by passing on the access fee they are charged by CaRT to their moorers?

 

18 minutes ago, Higgs said:

A bridge over the entrance does not mean the marina hasn't paid for it, or that it doesn't maintain it. In fact, I know of at least one marina that does service those bridges. I helped service it for that particular marina. 

 

Regardless, beyond the entrance, CRT have neither jurisdiction or accept responsibility to maintain. 

 

Indeed, I'd expect that the marina would have to pay for bridge if they cut through the towpath. Perhaps it could be included in the "access fee" but that seems a bit unfair to those marinas whose entrance is on the offside.

 

31 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

The water in the marina is owned and supplied by CaRT, it's their water.  If your boat is floating on this water it's therefore on CaRT's property not the marinas. Which bit don't you understand ?

Is this an official position or the logical position? If it's the official reason then I can't argue. But logically I'm not sure I'd agree that floating on a couple of feet of water (already paid for through the access fee) above private land makes you on CaRT property and therefore subject to their license.

 

That said, an official position from CaRT declaring that in order to be granted water access all boats floating on said water must be in posession of a license would be their perogative when negotiating whether to grant a marina access. I wonder if this is what @Higgs means when he says this is an abuse of power?

 

---

 

I'm fairly sure (can't find where) that someone said some marinas don't require that you have a CaRT license. If that's the case, and it's on a per-marina basis, then rather than blame CaRT (that old hobby-horse scape-goat) either lobby the marina to change their rules or find a marina that is more amenable to your preferences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

Is this an official position or the logical position? If it's the official reason then I can't argue. 

 

 

 

 

It's what I was told over 10 years ago by a BW person.  Seemed very logical to me so have no reason to think anything has changed. There are some marinas where you don't have to have a licence, I don't know why that is but suspect it's some sort of grandfathers rights that go way back.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
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.