Canal & River Trust seeks boaters' views on licence T&Cs

[Richard Fairhurst]

Not going to get into the whole CCing thing here, but the dimensions proposals are seriously problematic.

 

The CRT dimensions document starts with "This is a rough guide only". I've seen probably a dozen iterations of that document in the last 20+ years and they have always been very approximate. (There was a decent one co-ordinated by Paul Wagstaffe circa 2000, I think, but it somehow got lost and replaced with a less useful one.)

 

You can't incorporate something that calls itself "a rough guide only" into T&Cs. You certainly can't do that and then give yourself the right to change it at a whim at any point in the year. And if you want to enshrine the South Stratford being unreservedly 7ft wide into a contractual document, well, good luck with that one.

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, Jerra said:

If you look at what I said dispassionately you will see I have never said you left because of T&Cs.

 

Did you not say :

 

 

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

You have after all done what I suggested for those who don't like the T&Cs.

 

The implication being  ????????????????????//

[Jerra]

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Did you not say :

 

 

 

The implication being  ????????????????????//

The implication being you have left the CRT waters for somewhere else because there is something you don't like about CRT waters.   I mentioned T&Cs as I had made the suggestion back up the thread not because I was suggesting you had left because of T&Cs.  You had clearly explained it was because of "dereliction".

 

You have yet to explain why you work so hard trying to influence others on waters which you aren't on and are unlikely to return to.   At every opportunity you trot out reasons why boaters don't need to conform to what CRT wants.   Why when it doesn't influence your life in anyway.

 

Possibly because you have a down on CRT for some undisclosed reason?

[doratheexplorer]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Could you please explain how a navigation authority asking/expecting boaters to actually boat is persecution?

How is that relevant at all?  CRT aren't asking or expecting anyone to go boating.  They are perfectly happy to let boats rot in marinas.  But when someone chooses to go boating, they are demanding that boaters adhere to one narrow version of boating, despite primary legislation that clearly does not ask for that.  So in setting their own agenda, they are giving themselves powers which are not ascribed to them and trampling over primary legislation which was drafted well after the powers for them to set terms and conditions were given.  You have to ask why the 1995 Waterways Act even exists if we are now to accept that the 1962 Transport Act gives CRT supreme power to make up any rules they fancy.  The answer is it doesn't.  CRT are chancing their arm yet again, even though they've been burned before.  They don't seem to learn.  They do seem to be adept at the 'divide and rule' approach though, and it's still serving them well it seems.

 

How about you explain what harm is done to you by the current arrangements?

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

How is that relevant at all?  

You said they were persecuting boaters, I assume from your answer you can't explain how it is persecution.

3 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

How about you explain what harm is done to you by the current arrangements?

I explained further up the thread but here goes again.

 

Boaters are continually whining about CRT not taking steps until something is a problem/breaks.   CRT clearly foresee/feel ghost mooring is/will be a problem so they take trivial steps to prevent it becoming one and suddenly many boaters do a complete screeching U turn and don't want potential problems nipped in the bud.

 

IMO (other opinions are available) that is hypocrisy of a high degree.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I doubt if the views of boaters will matter much, if at all. 

CRT will do as they please. 

It’ll be box ticking to say “well we did ask”. 

as we know, when owt gets to a consultation decisions have already been made

 

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

You said they were persecuting boaters, I assume from your answer you can't explain how it is persecution.

I explained further up the thread but here goes again.

 

Boaters are continually whining about CRT not taking steps until something is a problem/breaks.   CRT clearly foresee/feel ghost mooring is/will be a problem so they take trivial steps to prevent it becoming one and suddenly many boaters do a complete screeching U turn and don't want potential problems nipped in the bud.

 

IMO (other opinions are available) that is hypocrisy of a high degree.

The answer I gave explains it well enough.  Threatening enforcement action on boaters who are behaving within the law IS persecution IMO.

 

You have a strange view on what hypocrisy entails.  It is perfectly possible (and not hypocritical) to hold the view that preventative action, for example to prevent a stoppage, is a good thing; whilst also holding the view that statutory bodies should be held to the highest possible standards when it comes to their legal duties.  Hoping CRT will take preventative action over one matter does not mean wanting CRT to take preventative action on an entirely different matter.  Surely you can see this?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

So if you were CRT and you saw a problem and hadn't a cat in hell's chance of another act how would you solve the problem?

That of course presupposes there is a real problem of people with home moorings shuffling about short bits of the waterways for a start.

 

But lets assume there is.

 

The reason this stratergy is flawed is because it actually is highly unlikely to solve it in any real meaningful way. The simple fact is the boaters who do it that purposefully will know that if push came to shove and it was challenged in a court CRT would lose. So they carry on. 

 

The simple truth is without legislation to back it up they are on a hiding to nothing, so my answer is I wouldnt do anything, because I wouldnt want to look silly after getting a thumping by a judge.

 

Meanwhile all that is created is potential climate of fear amongst a whole new set of boaters who now start to worry about if they are moving enough.

[doratheexplorer]

6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

That of course presupposes there is a real problem of people with home moorings shuffling about short bits of the waterways for a start.

 

But lets assume there is.

 

The reason this stratergy is flawed is because it actually is highly unlikely to solve it in any real meaningful way. The simple fact is the boaters who do it that purposefully will know that if push came to shove and it was challenged in a court CRT would lose. So they carry on. 

 

The simple truth is without legislation to back it up they are on a hiding to nothing, so my answer is I wouldnt do anything, because I wouldnt want to look silly after getting a thumping by a judge.

 

Meanwhile all that is created is potential climate of fear amongst a whole new set of boaters who now start to worry about if they are moving enough.

Spot on!

[Chewbacka]

2 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

Not going to get into the whole CCing thing here, but the dimensions proposals are seriously problematic.

 

The CRT dimensions document starts with "This is a rough guide only". I've seen probably a dozen iterations of that document in the last 20+ years and they have always been very approximate. (There was a decent one co-ordinated by Paul Wagstaffe circa 2000, I think, but it somehow got lost and replaced with a less useful one.)

 

You can't incorporate something that calls itself "a rough guide only" into T&Cs. You certainly can't do that and then give yourself the right to change it at a whim at any point in the year. And if you want to enshrine the South Stratford being unreservedly 7ft wide into a contractual document, well, good luck with that one.

If the canal were to be designated as a narrow canal then CRT could as part of bridge repairs at both ends of the canal sink a couple of steel posts 7’6” apart to ‘help’ boaters line up so as not to hit the bridge.  This would also prevent wide boats from entering.

 

Fairly low cost and very effective.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Chewbacka

[Jerra]

17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

That of course presupposes there is a real problem of people with home moorings shuffling about short bits of the waterways for a start.

You will notice (I hope) that all along I have been careful to say words to the effect "CRT see as a problem".   It doesn't matter whether there is in our eyes or not it matters what CRT believe.

17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

But lets assume there is.

 

The reason this stratergy is flawed is because it actually is highly unlikely to solve it in any real meaningful way. The simple fact is the boaters who do it that purposefully will know that if push came to shove and it was challenged in a court CRT would lose. So they carry on. 

 

The simple truth is without legislation to back it up they are on a hiding to nothing, so my answer is I wouldnt do anything, because I wouldnt want to look silly after getting a thumping by a judge.

 

17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Meanwhile all that is created is potential climate of fear amongst a whole new set of boaters who now start to worry about if they are moving enough.

What is there to fear if you aren't a ghost moorer?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

You will notice (I hope) that all along I have been careful to say words to the effect "CRT see as a problem".   It doesn't matter whether there is in our eyes or not it matters what CRT believe.

 

What is there to fear if you aren't a ghost moorer?

OK baby steps..

 

The          fear          that            you            might          be          branded           as         one         when            in            fact            you        are         not.

 

 

 

And actually it does matter if they see it as a problem when there in fact there might not be, whats the point of wasting money, time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesnt actually exist?

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

OK baby steps..

 

The          fear          that            you            might          be          branded           as         one         when            in            fact            you        are         not.

 

 

 

And actually it does matter if they see it as a problem when there in fact there might not be, whats the point of wasting money, time and resources trying to solve a problem that doesnt actually exist?

Firstly you don't know if it is a problem or not you just suspect it isn't.  Secondly it is up to CRT to run the waterways as they feel best for everybody and they clearly feel this is best.

 

Being pragmatic which CRT will have to do, they probably won't be doing any more than they do now.   They will be looking (as they do) at boats which don't appear to be conforming with CCing "rules".   They in all probability will then run the numbers through the database seeing where /if they have a home mooring.   Those claiming a mooring along way away would then get greater scrutiny.

 

The above may not be how they would do things but it is an easy cost effective way to do it which I am sure they would have thought of.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

You will notice (I hope) that all along I have been careful to say words to the effect "CRT see as a problem".   It doesn't matter whether there is in our eyes or not it matters what CRT believe.

 

What is there to fear if you aren't a ghost moorer?

C&RT went thru a similar exercise in 2017 but it quickly backpeddled when challenged - they sent out letters to boaters threatening to change their status to 'CCers' because they hadn't been seen on their moorings 'recently'. I never 'signed up' to having to spend X number of days in the marina, I signed up to having, and paying for, a mooring that I could return to after I had been cruising, be it after one day or 6 months.

 

C&RT have previously described a "Ghost mooring' as one which is let out to multiple boats simultaneously, or a narrow mooring being let out to a Widebeam". The fact that the vast majority are actually in 'existence' and can be used by the boat if it requires it does not make them "Ghost moorings"

 

Ghost Moorings do not exist.

 

In the pilot with a dozen mooring operators C&RT visited the marinas and club moorings then sent to operators lists of boats recorded as having a mooring at the site but not seen, and boats seen moored at the site but not being recorded as having a mooring there.

 

An example of the letter sent as the boat had not been 'logged' within the marina it was 'registered' as being based in.

 

 

 

From Licence Support Advisor, Patricia Fox:

 

“We are carrying out a routine check of boat licensing records and find that we have a query in respect of the above boat, for which you are shown as the registered keeper. We’d be most grateful if you could help us update or validate our information.

“First, if you have sold the boat, or it is no longer on our waters, please inform us. If you are still responsible for this boat, please would you confirm its home mooring location or, if there is no home mooring, whether it cruises continuously.

“To do this, you can register on our online licensing site, [C&RT licencing website] and update your mooring status or inform us of the status of your boat there.

“If we do not hear from you within the next 28 days, we will change your mooring status to Continuous Cruiser, in line with our Terms and Conditions:

“2.2 We only issue a licence if we are satisfied that you either have a Home Mooring for the Boat or you will use the Boat as a Continuous Cruiser and we may seek to verify with third parties any information you provide to us. We will treat you as a Continuous Cruiser if you do not declare a Home Mooring for the Boat or if you decide to no longer have a

Home Mooring.”

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Firstly you don't know if it is a problem or not you just suspect it isn't.  Secondly it is up to CRT to run the waterways as they feel best for everybody and they clearly feel this is best.

 

Being pragmatic which CRT will have to do, they probably won't be doing any more than they do now.   They will be looking (as they do) at boats which don't appear to be conforming with CCing "rules".   They in all probability will then run the numbers through the database seeing where /if they have a home mooring.   Those claiming a mooring along way away would then get greater scrutiny.

 

The above may not be how they would do things but it is an easy cost effective way to do it which I am sure they would have thought of.

I think this is the bit where we say "ok we'll agree to disagree then".

[doratheexplorer]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Firstly you don't know if it is a problem or not you just suspect it isn't.  Secondly it is up to CRT to run the waterways as they feel best for everybody and they clearly feel this is best.

 

Being pragmatic which CRT will have to do, they probably won't be doing any more than they do now.   They will be looking (as they do) at boats which don't appear to be conforming with CCing "rules".   They in all probability will then run the numbers through the database seeing where /if they have a home mooring.   Those claiming a mooring along way away would then get greater scrutiny.

 

The above may not be how they would do things but it is an easy cost effective way to do it which I am sure they would have thought of.

 

These 'probablys' and 'probabilities' are problematic.  You're just guessing.  It's not unreasonable to be concerned when statutory body awards itself powers beyond those which the courts have deemed reasonable.  It's not unreasonable to wonder what powers they might choose to award themselves next.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I think this is the bit where we say "ok we'll agree to disagree then".

Fair enough.   An interesting debate never the less.

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

 

These 'probablys' and 'probabilities' are problematic.  You're just guessing.  It's not unreasonable to be concerned when statutory body awards itself powers beyond those which the courts have deemed reasonable.  It's not unreasonable to wonder what powers they might choose to award themselves next.

So go on explain how within their powers CRt can deal with all the problems which are.may arise.   London being one example where people seem to be desperate to not boat but want to moor everywhere.

 

How do you propose CRt can cope with things before they get out of hand.  I accept some are already passed the point of no return, London probably is. 

[doratheexplorer]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Fair enough.   An interesting debate never the less.

So go on explain how within their powers CRt can deal with all the problems which are.may arise.   London being one example where people seem to be desperate to not boat but want to moor everywhere.

 

How do you propose CRt can cope with things before they get out of hand.  I accept some are already passed the point of no return, London probably is. 

What problems exactly?  I asked earlier what harm you have suffered.  You didn't answer.  CRT, as I said earlier, already have sufficient powers to deal with overstaying.  To deal with the 'problem' of overcrowding boats in London they ought to buy an old Delorean and fit it with a flux capacitor, since the 'problems' (if you want to call them that) began 20+ years ago.  I do know that overstaying is far less of a problem now than it was under BW because CRT's enforcement approach is stricter and more consistent.  As to solving the overcrowding in London then you'd have to start with fixing the broken housing market and levelling-up the north-south divide.  Neither of these things are CRT's problem.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

What problems exactly?  I asked earlier what harm you have suffered.  

To take just one example, you think it will be fine for all towns/cities to have boates more or less permanently moored often breasted up?

 

If housing continues as it is and the media keep pushing the idea of living on a boat things will increase and increase.   it is no use waiting too long to address the problem or it will be impossible to deal with.

 

So for the sake of discussion, what is to prevent a town being taken over by people with cheap home moorings a couple of hundred miles away.   They then don't have to move far every 14 days so in effect are permanent fixtures. 

 

How would you deal with that problem within CRTs current powers.

 

Incidentally I have never said I have suffered harm.   It is too late when people start suffering harm.   That is a bit like saying there is no need to fix that leaking lock people are still managing to use it.

[Mike Adams]

Here’s my solution to most of the issues raised in the consultation

Cruising away from your home mooring

1. Make most locations 48hr max mooring. This is done on the Wey and Basingstoke Canal for example. But give all boaters say a pack of 4 scratch off stickers allowing an extended stay of up to 14 days at any one place. Further tickets could be purchased say up to 6 more each year. I think this could be done without changing the act of Parliament.

2/3.    Insurance and Boat Safety False Declarations

This is just a resourcing issue and has always been a minor problem. Some people are never going to comply or will try to subvert the system. I can’t see that changing the terms and conditions are going to have any effect. They could always set up something similar to the Motor Vehicle insurance database and they have the BSS database already.

4. Boat dimensions

This is just a local problem unless someone can tell me otherwise. A couple of piles at the start of the Northern Oxford and new notices and an electronic warning system on Braunston and Blisworth should do the trick. Wide boats using that section could be given a transponder which could trigger signals at the tunnel. They do this sort of thing all the time in France.

5/6/7. Licence termination/Obligations and Refunds/Behaviour towards Trust Colleagues

I don’t have a problem with any of these changes.

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

To take just one example, you think it will be fine for all towns/cities to have boates more or less permanently moored often breasted up?

 

If housing continues as it is and the media keep pushing the idea of living on a boat things will increase and increase.   it is no use waiting too long to address the problem or it will be impossible to deal with.

 

So for the sake of discussion, what is to prevent a town being taken over by people with cheap home moorings a couple of hundred miles away.   They then don't have to move far every 14 days so in effect are permanent fixtures. 

 

How would you deal with that problem within CRTs current powers.

 

Incidentally I have never said I have suffered harm.   It is too late when people start suffering harm.   That is a bit like saying there is no need to fix that leaking lock people are still managing to use it.

It's an interesting scenario but pretty implausible as it would require a limitless supply of 'cheap' moorings up-country.  I've seen no evidence that this is becoming a problem.  The problem with too many boats in certain small geographic area relates to boats without a home mooring.  CRT can already deal with that.  It's interesting that you refer to people suffering harm.  Some people are already suffering harm - the ones who are surviving on low wages in London, can't afford rent and are talked into buying a cheap, substandard boat without understanding what they're getting into.  That's where my sympathies lie.

8 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

Here’s my solution to most of the issues raised in the consultation

 

Cruising away from your home mooring

 

1. Make most locations 48hr max mooring. This is done on the Wey and Basingstoke Canal for example. But give all boaters say a pack of 4 scratch off stickers allowing an extended stay of up to 14 days at any one place. Further tickets could be purchased say up to 6 more each year. I think this could be done without changing the act of Parliament.

 

Thank God you're not in charge.  I cruise for around 9 months a year, moving on every week or so.  Never had an enforcement notice.  Never overstay.  Never cause any problems to anyone.  Your idea would ruin my lifestyle.  Why?  If CRT are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, your idea would be akin to using a nuclear weapon to remove a pimple.

 

And you would enjoy how quick the infrastructure would crumble with all those boats charging around the country too...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by doratheexplorer

[Jerra]

7 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

Here’s my solution to most of the issues raised in the consultation

 

Cruising away from your home mooring

 

1. Make most locations 48hr max mooring.

 

I don’t have a problem with any of these changes.

Would that include all towpath moorings as well?

 

I have no problems with the changes either.

[enigmatic]

35 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

Here’s my solution to most of the issues raised in the consultation

 

Cruising away from your home mooring

 

1. Make most locations 48hr max mooring. This is done on the Wey and Basingstoke Canal for example. But give all boaters say a pack of 4 scratch off stickers allowing an extended stay of up to 14 days at any one place. Further tickets could be purchased say up to 6 more each year. I think this could be done without changing the act of Parliament.

 

Making everyone move every couple of days unless they're on their home mooring sounds like a much more drastic approach to alleged issues with 'ghost moorings' than simply not considering a cheap home mooring on a farmer's field in Cheshire to be a legitimate reason to always be occupying the same two spots in London

 

[Mike Adams]

59 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Thank God you're not in charge.  I cruise for around 9 months a year, moving on every week or so.  Never had an enforcement notice.  Never overstay.  Never cause any problems to anyone.  Your idea would ruin my lifestyle.  Why?  If CRT are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, your idea would be akin to using a nuclear weapon to remove a pimple.

If I was in charge we wouldn't be in this mess! I suppose there is always some collateral damage when you have to row back from an unsustainable position. I am sure you could work around it as not all sites would be 48hour or you could pop into a marina or use you tickets. If you are boating on the sea or abroad say in France, Holland or Germany you often have to pay to stay overnight but usually get something in return.

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

These 'probablys' and 'probabilities' are problematic.  You're just guessing.  It's not unreasonable to be concerned when statutory body awards itself powers beyond those which the courts have deemed reasonable.  It's not unreasonable to wonder what powers they might choose to award themselves next.

Exactly this^^^^^^^^ they manage the waterways for us the end user, so why do they want even more power? T & Cs in reality are not enforceable the 1995 waterways act is and its enough for me. One day a rich boater is going to make CRTs life miserable in court, cant come quick enough for me