30 days explorer licence for rivers only

[Momac]

I have been considering the 30 day explorer license as it may suit my needs . The explorer license may be economical compared to a 6 month river license which I  usually buy. 

 

There doesn't seem to be  a 'rivers only' version of the explorer  license. Is that correct? Other licenses are cheaper for 'rivers only' but apparently not the explorer license .  Is there a justification for the absence of  a rivers only discount with the explorer license ?

 

I have written to C&RT on the subject but might get a faster feedback   on here .

 

[Scholar Gypsy]

I've never been clear on the reason for a discount for rivers only.  I know it's required in the legislation, but that's a different point!  Also, the admin cost of issuing a licence is a fixed cost.

 

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

I've never been clear on the reason for a discount for rivers only.  I know it's required in the legislation, but that's a different point!  Also, the admin cost of issuing a licence is a fixed cost.

 

It's an automated on line purchase and not the cheapest license by a long way.

And yes I believe the reduction for rivers only is a legal requirement.

 

A quote from another forum (which may be out of date)  reads as follows  .......

 

''''the British Waterways Act 1983 Section 4(1). It states: “. . . the Board may register pleasure boats and houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment of such charges as they may from time to time determine: Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 ''

 

 

[matty40s]

42 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

I've never been clear on the reason for a discount for rivers only.  I know it's required in the legislation, but that's a different point!  Also, the admin cost of issuing a licence is a fixed cost.

 

There is a right of navigation on navigable rivers which just requires registration,  not a licence.

EA and CRT both call it a licence, but cant get away with charging the same amount as for the canals.

[Ally]

I was thinking about an explorer license for our tiny boat. We have a fully licensed home boat (perhaps I should say registered) but not looked into it yet. We won't go out on her often as she is primarily a studio space, but will want to at times. It hadn't occurred to me there wouldn't be a river only version,  as we are river based. Interesting. 

[TheBiscuits]

54 minutes ago, Ally said:

I was thinking about an explorer license for our tiny boat. 

 

Just be aware that you can't keep the boat on CRT water on an Explorer licence. 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Just be aware that you can't keep the boat on CRT water on an Explorer licence. 

 

Not even on the river with the landowners permission ?

[Ally]

8 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Just be aware that you can't keep the boat on CRT water on an Explorer licence. 

Mine isn't kept on CRT waters

[magpie patrick]

12 hours ago, MartynG said:

There doesn't seem to be  a 'rivers only' version of the explorer  license. Is that correct? Other licenses are cheaper for 'rivers only' but apparently not the explorer license .  Is there a justification for the absence of  a rivers only discount with the explorer license ?

 

I suspect the answer is because they don't have to - the explorer license is not one they are obliged to offer at all, it's a concession for portable boats.

 

River Registration is something CRT are obliged to offer because of the right of navigation on rivers, they can't demand a boat based on a river has a canal licence, or more to the point, they can't demand a boat based on a river navigation as defined in the 1968 Transport Act (iirc) has a canal licence. A portable boat isn't based anywhere, so the explorer licence doesn't have a river registration version.

[Momac]

10 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Just be aware that you can't keep the boat on CRT water on an Explorer licence. 

I understand that .

My boat is off water when its in the marina (in my case). 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I understand that .

My boat is off water when its in the marina (in my case). 

 

That's one of the benefits of a River-Marina. You don't need a C&RT licence, and C&RT cannot invoke the NAA conditions either.

[Momac]

37 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

A portable boat isn't based anywhere, so the explorer licence doesn't have a river registration version.

C&RT do ask where the boat is kept  on the online application form.

The explorer charges also variable depending on boat length, as per other licenses ,and go up to large boats so I don't think such boats  can be defined as portable.

 

 

[Momac]

12 hours ago, matty40s said:

..........cant get away with charging the same amount as for the canals.

 The C&RT fee is the same regardless of whether ''canal and river'' or ''river only'' are selected on the online application form.

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, Ally said:

Mine isn't kept on CRT waters

Are you the only boat officially moored on the Wreake??

 

CRT have probably lost quite a lot of revenue in getting rid of the day and weekend tickets.

River users will not pay for a month or more just for an occasional weekend, know that CRT dont check licences on some of the rivers, so just potter out and back in again before Monday morning.

Edited December 16, 2020 by matty40s

[Steilsteven]

12 hours ago, Ally said:

I was thinking about an explorer license for our tiny boat. We have a fully licensed home boat (perhaps I should say registered) but not looked into it yet. We won't go out on her often as she is primarily a studio space, but will want to at times. It hadn't occurred to me there wouldn't be a river only version,  as we are river based. Interesting. 

You could add your tiny boat as a tender at no extra charge provided it is no more than ten feet long.

Strictly speaking, it should remain in sight of the main vessel.

 

Keith

 

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, matty40s said:

 

 

CRT have probably lost quite a lot of revenue in getting rid of the day and weekend tickets.

River users will not pay for a month or more just for an occasional weekend, know that CRT dont check licences on some of the rivers, so just potter out and back in again before Monday morning.

I agree .

 

Some people were in the habit of  buying day tickets on a pay as you go basis  which in fact lasted two days as the day pass  started on one day and finished on the next day . C&RT have effectively lost that income. 

 

The one week ticket isn't a bad price but many people are not going to be happy about paying for a week and use  for  that for a day out (even though they can afford it). I did  buy a one week pass earlier in the year and didn't get to use it more than a day on the boat  nor did anyone ask me if I had a license , but the license  was for peace of mind. I think if something happened at C&RT fault and the boat was not licensed it would not be possible to make  a claim against C&RT  if the boat was unlicensed . 

 

C&RT, by being greedy and increasing fees extra over inflation , have almost certainly  reduced their income from boats kept in marinas that are off water.

 

 

 

[GUMPY]

I believe that explorer licences are not available to those who keep their boats in marinas  that are attached to cart waterways, for example Harefield Marina on the GU and Frouds Bridge on the K&A neither of which need you to have a licence to keep your boat there.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, matty40s said:

EA and CRT both call it a licence, but cant get away with charging the same amount as for the canals.

EA are usually very careful to call it a registration on the forms, boaters on the other hand...........

[Momac]

1 minute ago, Loddon said:

I believe that explorer licences are not available to those who keep their boats in marinas  that are attached to cart waterways, for example Harefield Marina on the GU and Frouds Bridge on the K&A neither of which need you to have a licence to keep your boat there.

Perhaps that was the intention at one time  but the C&RT system does not presently appear to prohibit  the  explorer license being purchased .

 

 

[Ally]

2 hours ago, matty40s said:

Are you the only boat officially moored on the Wreake??

 

 

We are on the soar, just, by about 2 metres, but that's our main boat, tiny boat, which is bigger than a tender can be, is on private water off the Soar.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Ally

[Richard T]

We have a river only licence for our boat - although our current mooring is off line so technically we don't need one. We then buy an Explorer licence for when we venture onto the canals. Typically south of Leicester, west of Shardlow or the Erewash. The other year we used our river licence on the Severn. As we hold a river licence we get a 50% discount on the Explorer one. We find this a very cost effective way of boating. We keep a log of when we use the Explorer licence.

[Momac]

C&RT just got back to me as follows

''there isn't a separate River Only Explorer licence because it would be impossible for us to monitor the use with this type of licence. Therefore, the Explorer licence is valid for both canals and rivers and isn't available as a separate River Only licence''

 

Any thoughts ?

.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

Any thoughts ?

 

 

It would appear that there is only a 'combined' (river & canal) licence available.

 

Presumably C&RT have apportioned the VAT correctly as VAT is chargable on a 'licence' (ie the Canal portion) but VAT is not chargeable on a 'registration' (the River portion)

Edited December 22, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It would appear that there is only a 'combined' (river & canal) licence available.

Yes

But I don't think  the reason given is logical.

Other ''river only'' licenses are available . Not sure why this one should be different.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

But I don't think  the reason given is logical.

Grasshopper, you have a lot to learn.

 

(BTW I agree with you)

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

Yes

But I don't think  the reason given is logical.

Other ''river only'' licenses are available . Not sure why this one should be different.

 

Since it is a combined licence covering the two navigation authorities, any scheme for a combined licence has to be agreed by both. What makes you think it is CaRT that is driving this?