Jump to content

New T&C's - merged thread


Featured Posts

11 minutes ago, dmr said:

If the extra charge for CCing reflects the cost of a mooring charge do you base that on the Midland, the North, or London prices?

 

The proposed cost increase was not to be based on the cost of a mooring but on the cost of a licence for a 'standard' NB

 

The cost of a licence is 'fixed' (and common across the country) where as, (you correctly point out), there is a huge difference in the charges for a Farmers field near Blackburn, and a all-services marina in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dmr said:

CRT will not significantly change the licence cost structure because as soon as they try there will be protests and they will back down, like they always do.

 

The extra premium for CCers has been debated extensively on this forum in the past. There are too many problems. Some CCers make a very small demand on CRT facilities. What about shared ownership boats? Some informally shared boats (family and friends) are out every weekend, should they pay more? and how? A very big stress on the system is that most marina boats all go out together in August....how about a congestion charge?

If the extra charge for CCing reflects the cost of a mooring charge do you base that on the Midland, the North, or London prices?

CCers should pay more but its just very difficult to implement it in a fair way.

 

.............Dave

How is this different to saying "CART won't change the rules about composting toilet waste disposal because as soon as they try there will be protests and they will back down, like they always do."?

 

If CART try and change the license fee structure to put the costs up for most people then there will (justifiably) be a rebellion. If they're smart (are they?) they'll tweak the changes to close the loopholes and increase the costs for those (the minority?) who effectively fiddle the system or put an extra-heavy load on resources (or are better-off?), while decreasing costs (via discounts) for those (the majority?) who put little load on resources (or are less well-off?) -- in other words, to try and make the system fairer while not raising the overall license revenue.

 

With any change there are always winners and losers, the question is whether the losers -- even if they're in a minority -- make enough noise to force the change to be repealed. But the losers often have the loudest voices and the winners (the silent majority?) don't make much noise, so the negative side of change gets emphasized and the positive (assuming there is one) ignored and nothing changes.

 

I'm sure CART will make any changes with the best of intentions, but it's not impossible that they'll cock it up -- and it's guaranteed that anyone losing out "because it's not fair!" (even if it is) will scream about it via certain organisations and publications...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

How is this different to saying "CART won't change the rules about composting toilet waste disposal because as soon as they try there will be protests and they will back down, like they always do."?

 

Or, the rules about licence fees for wide-beam boats (adding up to 20% to the licence fee)

 

Very little rebellion about that as it affected a minority.

 

Slowly, slowly heat the water and the crab / Lobster doen't realise its being boiled to death.

 

 

First they came with higher fees for longer boats, and I did not speak out because I had a short boat.

Then they came for the wide boats, and I did not speak out because I did not have a wide boat.

Then they came for the boats with Composting toilets, and I did not speak out because I did not have a composting toilet.

Then they came for the CCers, and I did not speak out because I was not a CCer.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

10.10.The Boat must not display an association with, or advertise, any company, business or service without Our express consent in writing.

 

Wonder if this covers the growing number of boats that advertise their channel, Instagram, Facebook etc. on the side of the boat? :D 

Or am i reading too much into it?

 

Will this affect the historic boats advertising Fellows Morton & Clayton and the Grand Union Canal Carrying Co?  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Or, the rules about licence fees for wide-beam boats (adding up to 20% to the licence fee)

 

Very little rebellion about that as it affected a minority.

 

Slowly, slowly heat the water and the crab / Lobster doen't realise its being boiled to death.

 

 

First they came with higher fees for longer boats, and I did not speak out because I had a short boat.

Then they came for the wide boats, and I did not speak out because I did not have a wide boat.

Then they came for the boats with Composting toilets, and I did not speak out because I did not have a composting toilet.

Then they came for the CCers, and I did not speak out because I was not a CCer.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Is that the "me" who perpetually lambasts CART and doesn't actually use the UK canals any more? ?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Is that the "me" who doesn't actually use the UK canals any more? ?

 

It was the 'me' that was using the canals and rivers in a widebeam when the surcharges were introduced.

It was me using a C&RT (BWML) marina that was using it when they introduced a 30% surcharge.

 

Yes, that me.

 

What is your point ?

 

 

Edit :

 

I see you have now edited your post.

Have you read my recent posts on this subject ? you will see that I am actually suggesting that C&RT may well have the right to charge different fees and licences.

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

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Very true, and certainly applies to some of C&RTs T&Cs, but it could be an interesting discussion.

Which particular part of the statute / T&Cs are you refering to ?

 

The 1995 Act states that C&RT can refuse to issue a licence if they are not 'satisfied' so, that is within 'statute'.

 

C&RT cancel a licence because they are not satisfied that the boater is complying with the 1995 Act (by not travelling "enough" to satisfy them), so, again that would appear to be  within 'statute'.

 

Statute allows C&RT to charge for facilities.

 

Statute allows C&RT to charge different prices for different licences.


The requirements to obtain a license are really quite simple if you have a  dedicated marina or towpath mooring you are not required to ‘bona fide’ navigate genuine or otherwise.

 

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tuscan said:


The requirements to obtain a license are really quite simple if you have a  dedicated marina or towpath mooring you are not required to ‘bona fide’ navigate genuine or otherwise.

 

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

This is the critical point:  Have CRT ever refused to renew a licence or put someone on a short licence when they have a mooring but are bridge-hopping?  I've never heard of it happening and I can't see them being able to enforce their T&Cs in this way, which makes them pointless.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tuscan said:


The requirements to obtain a license are really quite simple if you have a  dedicated marina or towpath mooring you are not required to ‘bona fide’ navigate genuine or otherwise.

 

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

That one, I completely agree with you, and have said the same on many occasions.

 

The 'problem' arises when C&RT are no longer 'satisfied' with a CCers movements.

HMers are not required to cruise (C&RTs definition) the same as CCers as I posted earlier re the comments by the Judge.

 

 

However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, wandering snail said:

It looks like there will be different boat licences now for home moorers and ccers but nothing about different fees:

 A Pleasure Boat Licence (“standard boat licence”) for either 3, 6 or 12 months is required to navigate on Our Canals & Rivers. You will need a home mooring for Your boat for this licence type.
 A Continuous Cruising licence does not need Your boat to have a home mooring. This licence is either for 6 or 12 months and You’ll have to follow Our ‘Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring’.
 

 Yet ! :ninja:

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It was the 'me' that was using the canals and rivers in a widebeam when the surcharges were introduced.

It was me using a C&RT (BWML) marina that was using it when they introduced a 30% surcharge.

 

Yes, that me.

 

What is your point ?

 

 

Edit :

 

I see you have now edited your post.

Have you read my recent posts on this subject ? you will see that I am actually suggesting that C&RT may well have the right to charge different fees and licences.

 

My point is that you're doing exactly what the Brexiteers do and many people dislike; having complained endlessly about how badly something was run you've left, but you still spend all your time telling everybody how sh*t the UK canals in general and CART in particular are, how pernickety the regulations are and whether CART can change one letter of them or not -- while reminding us repeatedly how enormous your (not on the canals) boat is, how powerful its massive twin engines are, how safe its expensive anchor is in a sandy-bottomed bay, and generally how much better and cheaper life on the ocean wave is -- oh and look, here's a photo of it in case you've forgotten what it looks like since the other twelve times I've posted it...

 

If you dislike the canals and hate CART and their rules so much and are convinced that big plastic boats on the sea are so much better than sewer tubes on the canals, why do you still bother posting on the Canalworld Discussion Forum?

 

I'd genuinely like to know the answer.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

My point is that you're doing exactly what the Brexiteers do and many people dislike; having complained endlessly about how badly something was run you've left, but you still spend all your time telling everybody how sh*t the UK canals in general and CART in particular are, how pernickety the regulations are and whether CART can change one letter of them or not -- while reminding us repeatedly how enormous your (not on the canals) boat is, how powerful its massive twin engines are, how safe its expensive anchor is in a sandy-bottomed bay, and generally how much better and cheaper life on the ocean wave is -- oh and look, here's a photo of it in case you've forgotten what it looks like since the other twelve times I've posted it...

 

If you dislike the canals and hate CART and their rules so much and are convinced that big plastic boats on the sea are so much better than sewer tubes on the canals, why do you still bother posting on the Canalworld Discussion Forum?

 

I'd genuinely like to know the answer.

 

You do seem bitter and twisted, but there is no need to feel inferior, we all decide what type of boats and boating we want to do, there is no right or wrong.

 

Whilst I don't see the need for having to justify myself, or my membership of CWDF to you, I feel that having been on the Canals and Rivers for getting on for 40 years, I have something to offer less experienced boaters,

 

So, as you have been known to say on other subjects "you don't have to read my posts".

If it makes you feel so frustrated, just put me on ignore then you wont even see them.

 

You don't seem to have any issue with people tht deserted their country 20 years ago, now complain that they can no longer vote, yet post every day how crap the UK and Brexit  is and how wonderful the EU is.

 

Maybe when the politics agree with your own your 'rules' suddenly change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

This is the critical point:  Have CRT ever refused to renew a licence or put someone on a short licence when they have a mooring but are bridge-hopping?  I've never heard of it happening and I can't see them being able to enforce their T&Cs in this way, which makes them pointless.

Unless you are prepared to go and stand up to them in court they can do pretty much what they like. If I was bridge hopping from a marina and got a letter threatening me with losing my licence I would change my behaviour. I wouldn't risk all I own just to prove I was right. You don't always win because you are right as we have seen many times.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Unless you are prepared to go and stand up to them in court they can do pretty much what they like. If I was bridge hopping from a marina and got a letter threatening me with losing my licence I would change my behaviour. I wouldn't risk all I own just to prove I was right. You don't always win because you are right as we have seen many times.

And I'm sure that's exactly what CRT are banking on.  The trouble is that there's always a Nigel or Tony who comes along and just won't roll over.  AFAIK that hasn't happened yet with this issue, but that's probably just a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Unless you are prepared to go and stand up to them in court they can do pretty much what they like. If I was bridge hopping from a marina and got a letter threatening me with losing my licence I would change my behaviour. I wouldn't risk all I own just to prove I was right. You don't always win because you are right as we have seen many times.

If you were bridgehopping from a marina  the legality might be up to a court, but you still wouldn't be right, partly because you'd be almost certainly wrong (home moorers not having many rights at all) but mostly because you would be acting like a freeloading, inconsiderate, thumping nuisance to everyone else on the system. What's not illegal is not necessarily right, much as what is  illegal is not necessarily wrong. Law has little to do with ethics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You do seem bitter and twisted, but there is no need to feel inferior, we all decide what type of boats and boating we want to do, there is no right or wrong.

 

Whilst I don't see the need for having to justify myself, or my membership of CWDF to you, I feel that having been on the Canals and Rivers for getting on for 40 years, I have something to offer less experienced boaters,

 

So, as you have been known to say on other subjects "you don't have to read my posts".

If it makes you feel so frustrated, just put me on ignore then you wont even see them.

 

You don't seem to have any issue with people tht deserted their country 20 years ago, now complain that they can no longer vote, yet post every day how crap the UK and Brexit  is and how wonderful the EU is.

 

Maybe when the politics agree with your own your 'rules' suddenly change.

I'm not bitter and twisted, just fed up with your perpetually negative/legal nitpicking/irrelevant to canals posts, especially since you've left the canals because they're rubbish nowadays -- as you keep reminding everybody, just like a Brexiteer.

 

I've no doubt you could have a lot to contribute to the forum which could be positive, but you seem to choose to mainly focus on the negative (especially the EU) or going on about your wonderful catamaran (or cars or businesses or...) -- if you want to talk about that on a yachting forum (or any other forum where you want people to admire you) then fill your boats ?

 

BTW I don't feel inferior to you or envy you at all -- though you very much seem to feel superior to other people...

 

I do have an issue with anyone who twists the truth and ignores facts to suit their own political persuasions, regardless of whether they're Brexiteer or Remoaner (not my terms). It is however obvious which of the two camps are doing more distorting of and ignoring facts, and it's not those who think Brexit was idiotic.

 

I'm sorely tempted to ignore your posts, but unlike some of the trolls you do occasionally come up with some genuinely useful information, though it's sometimes well hidden ?

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm not bitter and twisted, just fed up with your perpetually negative/legal nitpicking/irrelevant to canals posts, especially since you've left the canals because they're rubbish nowadays -- as you keep reminding everybody, just like a Brexiteer.

 

I've no doubt you could have a lot to contribute to the forum which could be positive, but you seem to choose to mainly focus on the negative (especially the EU) or going on about your wonderful catamaran (or cars or businesses or...) -- if you want to talk about that on a yachting forum (or any other forum where you want people to admire you) then fill your boats ?

 

BTW I don't feel inferior to you or envy you at all -- though you very much seem to feel superior to other people...

 

I do have an issue with anyone who twists the truth and ignores facts to suit their own political persuasions, regardless of whether they're Brexiteer or Remoaner (not my terms). It is however obvious which of the two camps are doing more distorting of and ignoring facts, and it's not those who think Brexit was idiotic.

 

I'm sorely tempted to ignore your posts, but unlike some of the trolls you do occasionally come up with some genuinely useful information, though it's sometimes well hidden ?

 

You are another one who is clueless about what an 'internet troll' actually is.

 

You need to bone up on your definitions before flinging that term around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

And I'm sure that's exactly what CRT are banking on.  The trouble is that there's always a Nigel or Tony who comes along and just won't roll over.  AFAIK that hasn't happened yet with this issue, but that's probably just a matter of time.

Whether you sympathise with the Nigels/Tonies depends on whether they're genuinely trying to stop CART doing something unfair/unreasonable/illegal (which is laudable), or relying on the minutiae of the law and legal process to stop CART making changes intended to either remove a loophole used by boaters who are taking the p*ss (for example claiming that they're CCers while shuttling backwards and forwards by a few miles, or composting bag'nbinners), or to make it so that people pay a fee which more accurately reflects their use of the system (e.g. extra fee for wideboats).

 

It's not always clear which category those who gallantly fight CART in the courts are in -- or indeed which category proposed CART rule changes fall into, there are two sides to every argument...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

Whether you sympathise with the Nigels/Tonies depends on whether they're genuinely trying to stop CART doing something unfair/unreasonable/illegal (which is laudable), or relying on the minutiae of the law and legal process to stop CART making changes intended to either remove a loophole used by boaters who are taking the p*ss (for example claiming that they're CCers while shuttling backwards and forwards by a few miles, or composting bag'nbinners), or to make it so that people pay a fee which more accurately reflects their use of the system (e.g. extra fee for wideboats).

 

It's not always clear which category those who gallantly fight CART in the courts are in -- or indeed which category proposed CART rule changes fall into, there are two sides to every argument...

Not much doubt about Nigel, I think. He had a forensic approach to it together with an awareness of the underlying intentions of the law. Apart from him, I don't think anyone has chosen to fight CRT in the courts, it's usually defence against their actions.

Most of us just get on with it and ignore the T&Cs, as well as the various Acts, as, generally  if you treat the system and other people with tolerance and respect, they're irrelevant. A minority suffers from CRT inefficiency, usually down to the tracking system, and that gets cleared up easily enough. A very small minority may suffer genuine injustice, though I can't remember a single convincing case over the past 30 years - the usual ones quoted look very different when you look further into the facts, or meet the people concerned, rather than read their own onesided accounts. Which, generally,  is why the law ruled against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You do seem bitter and twisted, but there is no need to feel inferior, we all decide what type of boats and boating we want to do, there is no right or wrong.

 

Whilst I don't see the need for having to justify myself, or my membership of CWDF to you, I feel that having been on the Canals and Rivers for getting on for 40 years, I have something to offer less experienced boaters,

 

So, as you have been known to say on other subjects "you don't have to read my posts".

If it makes you feel so frustrated, just put me on ignore then you wont even see them.

 

You don't seem to have any issue with people tht deserted their country 20 years ago, now complain that they can no longer vote, yet post every day how crap the UK and Brexit  is and how wonderful the EU is.

 

Maybe when the politics agree with your own your 'rules' suddenly change.

IanD makes some very good points. 
I do find myself skipping your posts fella. Your input is oftentimes on a par with watching paint dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PD1964 said:

Alan “cut’n’paste” de Enfield?

 

1 hour ago, Jon johan said:

Yes, I noticed he does that a lot, which is why I tend to skip past his posts. 

 

 

And why do I do that ?

 

Because when I said 'stuff' it was poo-pood and It was suggested I was inventing things, or, "can you provide evidence for that statement", now I support my arguments with documentary evidence, saves all the arguments.

 

If I say that C&RT have the right to charge for moorings, I post the section of the Act of Parliament that allows it, if I post that C&RT cannot enforce CCing rules on HMers, then I post extracts from the relevant Act and Judges comments from trials, if you want to view that as 'cut & paste' that is your choice, others take it as it is meant and learn from it.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 3
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.