Jump to content

Jenna Patel

Featured Posts

Not been down that way for a couple of years now, but used to know it well. The vat majority of local boaters are legal and obeying the terms of their licence, otherwise they would be removed. 20 miles is not that hard to do, its not far and maybe non "proper" CCing but it does get more younger people and families onto boats which is a good thing. Some make a significant contribution to the local communities, if nothing else the pub music scene would be in trouble without them.

 

At least part of the local congestion is down to the huge number of hire boats that head to Bath every weekend, and some are very badly behaved (seen this with my very own eyes.)

 

CRT do need to be challenged from time to time as they have done a few very wrong things, and NBTA are quite good at this. If only we could merge NABO and NBTA. However all this whinging about been a persecuted minority and claiming hate speech and discrimination when anybody challenges there arguments is tedious and does not endear the NBTA to the majority of boaters. Sadly it looks like the country is currently heading in that direction so maybe NBTA are just ahead of the game.

 

What saddens me most is their unqualified support for bad boaters no matter who is right or wrong. I have seen plenty of boaters with boats that are untidy beyond what is reasonable, and a lot of anti-social behaviour from boaters, and the usual result is a new set of new mooring signs, justified hostility from the locals, and another good mooring spot lost.

 

Sadly this thread only has two diametrically opposed views.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Cheers 👍

 

I do wonder: there must be people looking in on this that could offer their experience but realise there’d be no point. 
 

Seems the same issue gets talked about again and again by the same few. So it all goes around and around in circles. 

I want to hear some fresh slant on the whole debate. 


Is your question “ how can an NBTA member be an itinerant if they don’t move?”

 

I was part of the movement that worked to stop Sally Ash and her BW cohorts supporting Simon Salems bonus payment scheme of creating ecological disaster on the Lee and Stort.

(I was a CC-er from 2009 to 2019, only stopping due to Kathy and my parents reaching the end of their warranty periods and needing far more support. I was moored in east London in the Nam, opposite Lady Muck at Stonebridge when BW put the notices out on some boats but not others!!)

In London, I kick started the process of organised protest and rebuttal of the BW plan, my initial post on here in Feb 2011 was big news to lots of people on the L&S who should have been consulted and werent. It also reached Chris Pink who was part of the K&A moorings Strategy group and had close links with Nick Brown and Panda. 

A very swift organisation of concerned folks started to develop, the L&S divided itself into 2 loose groups(N&S), as there were pretty much 2 ends which rarely met. Meetings happened quickly, I may well have paid to join one or the other or both as a funding help. My input was not only as an quite long distance CCer, wintering around London, but also from my Operations Management head for large organisations. The groups soon decided that the BW scheme was disastrous for all the L&S users, and reached out to all for input, research and views..something BW had never done.

One of my inputs was to carry on my continuous journey and visit the heads of navigation of the River Lea and Stort, taking note of any of the BW cited "Congestion". In my journey, the only wrongly moored craft, either on lock landings, or, on one occasion, IN A LOCK, were 9 BW vessels....which I obviously took pictures of.

I submitted all, carried on giving helpful input and steering to the Southern L&S group until I departed from London, although carrying on my input through London and beyond both with London Boaters and the L&S groups.

 

I was interested to hear Panda at the L&S meetings, but was put off then by the very much ethnic group Travellers aspect they were pushing...it has been fine tuned now.

 

Yes, Nick's lot did some work at the time, but the proposals were rejected unanimously by the and L&S groups as unworkable as all waterways users had been engaged.

1. Expensively stocked fish would be lost

2. Pounds would be drained with the enforced 6 or 7 zone movements.

3. A zone is not a PLACE

4. Limited and declining services in the 7 zones would mean some folks would have to go back to a place they werent supposed to be in just to get water or elsan/pumpout.

5. The Rowing clubs DIDNT want boats moving if possible.

6. The Cruising clubs would only be allowed out a location once for their communal BBQ rather than 3 or 4 times a year

...

Lots of other points that the BW blue sky thinkers hadnt thought of...the Lea Valley Rangers were gobsmacked at the thought, and the Environmentalists aghast. Etc.

 

So...NBTA,  I wouldnt join at that time as they tried to push in with their angle of itinerant traveller ethnic status(which it was then, whatever Nick says now) . They tried to steer the groups that way , when it was a far different scenario and location then to the Western K&A. I have seen them since hanging folks out to dry seeking a court win, and I say again, they have done some good work with vulnerable boaters and elderly boaters...but so do the Chaplains.

 

I helped set up and indeed was one of the founding members of the  ACC, however, this quickly(between the first and second meetings), became a Facebook club so I wasnt part of it.

I havnt had the time or drive to join anyone else, I know CRT have a dedicated social media team now(they kind of did back then as well..on here, but they were boaters too and understood), so I know my posts on here will.be highlighted if sensible enough.😉

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 

Its obvious there is a fundamental problem, the CRT advise people before they buy a boat that it is very difficult to cc with children and limited resources, it must be obvious. 

 

The fundamental problem lies with BW, and now CRT, they advise no such thing.

 

They encourage waterways TV and vloggers to the hilt, they actively market "Life is Better By Water", but at NO point in the rose tinted glasses boat purchase do they have ANY input.

In 2013, they announced that they were going to work with Brokerages and Marinas selling boats to ensure that things should be done properly.

 

RUBBISH.

 

In 2013, 2014...2021...

People still buy boats with a dream, either of cheap housing, seen Tim and Pru, divorce..only thing I can afford, want to retire, start a business, moor outside me work..etc...

 

The one thing CRT have done which is a slight improvement*from their perspective...is to make licences non transferable. However, this now means that some.ex owners trying to get a refund are cast as villains..(you cant have a refund until you give us the new owners full details )..as far as data protection goes, they havnt got a chance, especially if sold through a broker.

 

If you buy a boat tommorow....there is nothing...NOTHING , given to you by most sellers other than the boat and "you must insure it from midnight tonight".

 

CRT are a victim of their own lack of continuity....a blue sky idea to engage with every brokerage to educate or halt the flood of no knowledge buyers was a brilliant idea.....with zero follow through.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall (perhaps wrongly) that CRT legal got involved and the scheme failed as it would need to be a system wide offering and the problem that there was only one license - (home mooring or not) in the Act  and they didn’t have the power to create a new roving one. This would appear to have changed in latest terms conditions where they clearly talk about two licences.

Edited by Tuscan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

I seem to recall (perhaps wrongly) that CRT legal got involved and the scheme failed as it would need to be a system wide offering and the problem that there was only one license - (home mooring or not) in the Act  and they didn’t have the power to create a new roving one. This would appear to have changed in latest terms conditions where they clearly talk about two licences.

 

I think that in fact there will still be one licence issued via one of the two routes (with / without a home mooring) but there will be an increased number of categories (which they can introduce as per the 1983 Act) and they already have surcharges / discounts for various categories (wide beam / length / electric / Vintage etc)

 

I mentioned this in another thread.

A couple of years ago I was in discussion with Nigel Moore (RIP), on this subject and this was one of his posts on the subject :

 

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways,
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 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

There was a proposal a few years ago to 'make the user pay' and that Boats without a home mooring who use the water and infrastructure the most should pay the most. The plan was to charge CCers 2.5 times the cost of a 'standard' licence.

 

 

 

Screenshot (354).png

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

18 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

I seem to recall (perhaps wrongly) that CRT legal got involved and the scheme failed as it would need to be a system wide offering and the problem that there was only one license - (home mooring or not) in the Act  and they didn’t have the power to create a new roving one. This would appear to have changed in latest terms conditions where they clearly talk about two licences.

This was a later scheme Mark, over a wider area of London, which on the face of it seemed a valid area of BW/CRT concession to those who CC, didnt want to be stuck on a single mooring, but maybe to wander under a shorter area during Winter. 

CRT legal only became involved when NBTA legal (Nick Brown must be proud of himself) questioned the legality of not only this new roving mooring, but the winter moorings as well. 

I did know a few older boaters in West London who were looking forward to this roving permit and disappointed at the actions taken...

Cheers Nick.

Edited by matty40s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, matty40s said:

 

CRT legal only became involved when NBTA legal (Nick Brown must be proud of himself) questioned the legality of not only this new roving mooring, but the winter moorings as well. 
 

 

 

To be fair the legality of winter moorings is I think dubious and CRT are aware of this, however the principle has been established over many years and widely supported so it is unlikely to be challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, matty40s said:

CRT legal only became involved when NBTA legal (Nick Brown must be proud of himself) questioned the legality of not only this new roving mooring, but the winter moorings as well. 

I did know a few older boaters in West London who were looking forward to this roving permit and disappointed at the actions taken...

Cheers Nick.

 

Yes he really shot himself (and the boaters he allegedly represents) in the foot there.

Mind you there would have been a charge for the Roving Mooring Permit and rules to work to so it probably was the antithesis of what the 'No Boats Travel Anywhere' organisation wanted.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

To be fair the legality of winter moorings is I think dubious and CRT are aware of this, however the principle has been established over many years and widely supported so it is unlikely to be challenged.

 

Don't give Nick ideas.

 

Although when I CCed, most of the convenient moorings around here were given over to winter moorings, and as a result, access denied to us real CCers.

 

Bloody annoying so I would actually support him should he elect to try to get them stopped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

To be fair the legality of winter moorings is I think dubious and CRT are aware of this, however the principle has been established over many years and widely supported so it is unlikely to be challenged.

It is indeed , and many of us would prefer not to lose what we have through punitive court actions or threats , but Nick's team basically said to CRT.. drop the roving permits or we will challenge the Winter moorings in court as well.

It was quite a disappointing moment for me at the time, and was around then when I basically moved away from direct involvement with waterways politics.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

To be fair the legality of winter moorings is I think dubious

 

The legal test is to "satisfy the board" and a few hundred quid cheers them up no end.  The boater may only stay for 14 days or longer if it's reasonable - and having paid for one or more months would seem quite "reasonable in the circumstances"

 

I don't see any issue with the legality of it, but then I'm not trying to score points off anyone.

 

(CCer, don't pay for winter moorings, move boat more than once a fortnight)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

I don't see any issue with the legality of it, but then I'm not trying to score points off anyone.

 

1) Planning permission and change of use is one of the hurdles after 28 days use you may need PP for residential use for the mooring.

The question that arises is whether the mooring of such a vessel requires planning permission as a material change in the use of land. The point at which the mooring of a residential boat on a waterway departs from an ancillary use of the waterway (which usually would not need planning permission) and moves to a material change to residential use (which usually would need planning permission) needs to be decided on the basis of fact and degree as well as the particular circumstances of a case. The use of the mooring for this purpose is not included in any of the classes prescribed in the Use Classes Order. It is therefore sui generis (not C3 Dwellinghouses). In this context it is also worth noting that planning permission is usually not required where the residential use of a mooring is for no more than 28 days in any calendar year, since such temporary use is permitted development under Part 4 of the GPDO

 

2) C&RTs legal team pointed out that if you have used the 'no home mooring' route to obtaining the licence then you have agreed to bona fide navigate for the DURATION of the licence so you cannot voluntarily just ignore that, you would need to revoke your licence as you took a 'home mooring' and then re-apply for a 'no home mooring' licence after Winter.

CRTs legal team stated  :  Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the 1995 Act additionally requires that the “bona fide navigation” is “throughout” the period of the licence, which would ordinarily be for a period of 12 months, but will be for at least 3 months. This again emphasises the requirement of a genuine passage or transit for the entirety of the duration of the licence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Move boat to where, when every useful mooring is given over to paying winter moorings?

I am moored on a winter mooring right now. There are two of us here, I suspect the other may be here for the winter, there is still room for one more boat and I will be leaving tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

The legal test is to "satisfy the board" and a few hundred quid cheers them up no end.  The boater may only stay for 14 days or longer if it's reasonable - and having paid for one or more months would seem quite "reasonable in the circumstances"

 

I don't see any issue with the legality of it, but then I'm not trying to score points off anyone.

 

 

 

 

Neither did most until.the NBTA started to rock the boat on the pretext of discrimination, legality and why should some be allowed to pay to be still when others are persecuted for staying still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Move boat to where, when every useful mooring is given over to paying winter moorings?

 

You really do need to try Northern boating Mike!

Take a look at the winter moorings options on the canals up here - there's only 3 or 4 sites and only a few boats on each site in 127+ miles of the L&L.  Even ignoring permanent moorings and grotty bits there's room for thousands of boats here, all empty.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Move boat to where, when every useful mooring is given over to paying winter moorings?

I never worried about those signs, moored my time and moved on...

As the small print says, you can moor there if there is space but must move on when all the booked space is filled....

The ridiculousness of BW which has never gone away was highlighted to me in London.

I got to Stonebridge Lock moorings in late Feb 2011. A single boat had taken a winter mooring there in November as they were new to waterways. There were about 6 boats moored there the whole 5 month period without moving or paying. I left early March to  go up river, I returned on the last day of March.

By the 2nd of April, the Winter mooring boat had an overstay notice cable tied to the door, even though they were inside when it was done....only one other boat out of the other 6 was ticketed. 250 metres of towpath was signed as being Winter moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

1) Planning permission and change of use is one of the hurdles after 28 days use you may need PP for residential use for the mooring.

 

So don't go back in exactly the same boat length when you move for services - I know that you know that's how marinas get round Council Tax with composite hereditament rules.

 

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

2) C&RTs legal team pointed out that if you have used the 'no home mooring' route to obtaining the licence then you have agreed to bona fide navigate for the DURATION of the licence so you cannot voluntarily just ignore that, you would need to revoke your licence as you took a 'home mooring' and then re-apply for a 'no home mooring' licence after Winter.

 

Which is tripe from CRT.  Bona fide navigation includes the right to moor as you well know, they can't ignore part of the paragraph while insisting on another part of it.  My thinking is that paying them a few hundred quid a month makes them feel very satisfied indeed, so staying longer is reasonable.

 

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

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

10 (Planning permission) snipped

 

2) C&RTs legal team pointed out that if you have used the 'no home mooring' route to obtaining the licence then you have agreed to bona fide navigate for the DURATION of the licence so you cannot voluntarily just ignore that, you would need to revoke your licence as you took a 'home mooring' and then re-apply for a 'no home mooring' licence after Winter.

CRTs legal team stated  :  Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the 1995 Act additionally requires that the “bona fide navigation” is “throughout” the period of the licence, which would ordinarily be for a period of 12 months, but will be for at least 3 months. This again emphasises the requirement of a genuine passage or transit for the entirety of the duration of the licence.  

I think they were in error there : there's (at the moment) only one licence for a private boat, and Sec.17 of BWA 1995 only refers to granting a licence.* If "the Board are satisfied" that the boater is complying by paying money in the reasonable expectation of being allowed to moor, then the Act is complied with.

 

* which raises another can of worms : where does the power to remove a licence, as opposed to refuse to renew, come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

* which raises another can of worms : where does the power to remove a licence, as opposed to refuse to renew, come from?

 

17 (4) and (5) 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

 

(4) If—

  (a) (subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or

  (b) an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; or

  (c) either—

    (i) (in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) (c) (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) (c) (i) above is not available for the vessel; or

    (ii) (in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) (c) (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) (c) (ii);

the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).

 

(5) If the holder of the relevant consent does not comply with any notice served pursuant to subsection (4) above then the relevant consent shall determine on the date the notice expires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Iain_S said:

I think they were in error there : there's (at the moment) only one licence for a private boat, and Sec.17 of BWA 1995 only refers to granting a licence.* If "the Board are satisfied" that the boater is complying by paying money in the reasonable expectation of being allowed to moor, then the Act is complied with.

 

Maybe I'm not seeing something that you are, but I think that is what was said "C&RTs legal team pointed out that if you have used the 'no home mooring' route to obtaining the licence ........... "

There are two routes to obtaining THE licence :

1) Having a home mooring.

(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)

 

2) Not having a home mooring

(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).

 

In effect the licence is the same, although the licence number has a code which indicates by which route the licence was granted so anyone looking at the (legally required) licence displayed on the boat can instantly tell if it is a "HM" or "CC" licenced boat.

 

You take out a licence in the Summer declaring you are a CCer so all is good, comes Winter and you decide that you are going to take a mooring for 5 months, but your licence shows anyone (Enforcement ?) that you have registered as a CC boat and are now not complying with the rules, and are overstaying.

C&RT have always said that you should inform them of any change in mooring status to avoid this.

 

 

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

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In this context it is also worth noting that planning permission is usually not required where the residential use of a mooring is for no more than 28 days in any calendar year, since such temporary use is permitted development under Part 4 of the GPDO

 

 

However any understanding of the legal status of these moorings has to consider the following

 

The moorings are let as moorings, they are not conditional on or exclusive to live aboard boaters - I used them with Lutine Bell

It is the mooring which is residential not the boat

One is only in breach on the 29th day (there is a detailed debate to be had about whether one is in breach then, but until the 29th day the fact that someone lives on their boat at the mooring is irrelevant)

One could bung in an application, that will take 8 weeks to determine, taking one to twelve weeks

The application is refused, enforcement starts, that will take a few weeks for enforcement to examine and issue a notice, the notice will have a minimum of 30 days to be complied with

By this time it's the end of March and one is one one's way again... 

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.