100s of revolting boaters

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Yes, Ive read through that before, just got a very bad memory.
I have a vague idea about the shenanigans you’re on about.

 

[BWM]

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

well magnetman referring to boaters as pikeys living in slums, 

if we put your prejudice and imagination aside what do you think of the specific proposals below?

 

An example of some of the mooring changes in London.

Not familiar with all the places, I’d like to hear how it works or doesn’t from continuous cruisers in the London area.

If this sort of change was introduced in Birmingham, which is a place more familiar to me, I’d be a tad pissed off.

14 day moorings down to 7 and 48hr with additional charges.

Are 14 day moorings ever ‘free’ if you’ve paid a license fee to navigate?

Not familiar with most but the Cowley north represents a tiny amount of available mooring space which has attracted a lot of over staying, being close to Iver lane and the boozer. As such it doesn't seem unfair to restrict to free up space for visitors. 

[magnetman]

6 hours ago, Goliath said:

well magnetman referring to boaters as pikeys living in slums, 

if we put your prejudice and imagination aside what do you think of the specific proposals below?

 

I don't have any prejudices. 

I have lived all my adult life on boats most of that without moorings. For me it's not about how cheap it is it is the boat. 

As I have no intention of keeping a mooring long term it is interesting to consider that living on a boat without a mooring might be an option in future but this is looking less and less likely. 

 

My pikey comment is relevant if you have seen the state of towpaths in some areas. Obviously this is not the case everywhere but in some places if is actually quite shocking. We're talking old fridges and internal fittings from boats dumped on public footpath / permissive path. This is bad shit. 

 

Thank you for complimenting my imagination but in this case it's real and not an illusion. 

 

Having prejudices is not interesting. Having discussions is. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by magnetman
Edit to remove volume of quoted text and also to remove an awful comment

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I agree it is “bad shit” to dump stuff on the towpath.

What do you think of the changes to the moorings listed above?

Do you not think reducing time permitted to use them and charging for them might increase the problems?

 

I understand CRT are introducing new moorings in some places but I don’t know where, do you?

 

[magnetman]

It makes sense for a commercial operation such as CRT, who do need money, to attempt to get income from the demand for services. This demand is obviously there, or at least it appears to be. Maybe it isn't and people living on boats actually do not want to pay for the normal cost of living. 

Fair enough if you like that loophole but shout about it too much and it gets closed. 

 

Seems obvious. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

CRT state that the money raised from the charges will pay for more daily checks and enforcement, it won’t go towards improvements.

 

 

[magnetman]

Some would argue that more checks and monitoring is an improvement. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Goliath said:

CRT state that the money raised from the charges will pay for more daily checks and enforcement, it won’t go towards improvements.

 

 

 

If that is true it will be an improvement and will free up more moorings for visitors, not Constant Moorers.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Don’t know why I can’t cut and paste, having to take screen shots

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Goliath
It’s all on CRT website

[magnetman]

It does make sense from a business perspective. Supply and demand. Of course that all gets a bit awkward if you pay out money to provide something which nobody actually wants.

 

I noticed several new residential moorings have gone in on Limehouse cut. Down the Bromley by Bow end which is less salubrious than other areas. So far the only occupier is someone who has squatted the end of the pontoon having noticed nobody is using it. 

 

I do have my doubts as to whether people will pay the ten grand a year to live there but maybe they will. 

 

Someone (Poplar Harca housing association are in on it) has spent a fair bit of money getting the pontoons in and electric, water  shit pump etc installed. 

 

Maybe they will be super cheap moorings. Could be interesting.

 

If you can't afford a Bentley then you don't get one. Nothing new under the sun? 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Are there really people out there who think that market forces don't or should not apply to them? 

 

The massive increase in people living on boats in London over the last decade indicates there is demand. People appear to want to live on boats. That's good. Someone will want to take their money for the privilege at some point. It's really not rocket science and it would be a foolish business (CRT is a business although some think it is a charity) which rejected the opportunity to maximise their income from customers. 

 

It would be far better from a business point of view to have lots of empty moorings while the ones occupied are being paid for at top rate. That way if someone turns up wanting a mooring and having the money (visitor or residential) you can take their money. 

 

It makes no sense to have all the moorings full of people paying nothing for the mooring. 

 

Ok so people have canal licenses but do we really think that £3 a day for mooring in London is market rate no 

 

 

[Tonka]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Are there really people out there who think that market forces don't or should not apply to them? 

 

The massive increase in people living on boats in London over the last decade indicates there is demand. People appear to want to live on boats. That's good. Someone will want to take their money for the privilege at some point. It's really not rocket science and it would be a foolish business (CRT is a business although some think it is a charity) which rejected the opportunity to maximise their income from customers. 

 

It would be far better from a business point of view to have lots of empty moorings while the ones occupied are being paid for at top rate. That way if someone turns up wanting a mooring and having the money (visitor or residential) you can take their money. 

 

It makes no sense to have all the moorings full of people paying nothing for the mooring. 

 

Ok so people have canal licenses but do we really think that £3 a day for mooring in London is market rate no 

 

 

People only want to live on boats because it is cheap. End of.

They don't care about where the canal goes 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It may be worth you looking at the Grant Agreement paperwork :

 

GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS AND CANAL & RIVER TRUST

 

where it details everything - yes it was for 15 years from 2012 and consists of 2-parts.Part A & Part B

 

“Grant Period” means the period for which the Grant is awarded starting on the Commencement Date and ending on 31 March 2027.

 

9.3 Notwithstanding the regular content and cycle of Review Meetings, in the financial year 2021/22 a review will take place to consider whether, and if so, the extent to which there is a case to continue to support by Grant the public benefits (including, but not by way of limitation, provision of land drainage, flood mitigation and other public safety benefits) provided by the waterways under CRT’s stewardship beyond the end of the Grant Period. The 2021/22 Review shall take into account, among other matters, CRT’s performance of its obligations arising under the Grant Agreement. Defra shall issue a report setting out the 12 conclusions of this review with regard to continued support of CRT by Grant beyond the term of this Grant Agreement on or before 1 July 2022.

 

So we are awaiting the findings of the review to see if the grant may be extended. Until that review is published the Grant definitely ceases 30th march 2027, it may or may not be renewed when the report is published.

 

I am sure youare aware of the schenanigans that went on last year with 3 versions of the KPI results being presented tCRT (o different 'markets'

 

You may wish to check for yourself but from memory there were one set which were published in the Company Accounts and filed with Companies House, one set of modified results for the "Management" and a final further modified set for DEFRA.

 

@Allan(nb Albert) Has chapter and verse - he may be tempted to repost ?

I will try to be brief (and, no doubt, fail) -

CRT's 15 year grant agreement runs out in 2027. There is no obligation on government to provide funding after that date but there is a commitment to carry out a review of CRT's performance and make an announcement by 1 July 2022.

CRT's 2019/20 Annual Report was used as the baseline for Defra's investigation into CRT's performance carried out last year. The report was fairly upbeat with only 3 KPI's being worse than the previous year. One of those had a detaled explanation, the other two did not. My belief, is that CRT falsified its Annual Report in an attempt to influence the outcome of the investigation.

CRT falsified it Annual Report AFTER -

• approval by its board of trustees, for the chair, Allan Leighton to sign it on their behalf
• board instructions given to the legal and governance director (and company secretary), Tom Deards to file at Companies House and Charity Commission
• chief executive, Richard Parry telling the board that he would arrange to publish on CRT's website
• Richard Parry quoting a KPI at CRT's APM (later falsified)
• a formal vote by CRT's Council of Members to 'receive' the approved report
• publication of the approved report on CRT's website
• filing of the approved report at Companies House

Having done the above, CRT falsified the report to alter two KPIs where performance was down on the previous year. As Defra would have already been aware of one of the KPI's, Tom Deards sought Defra comments for a letter to be sent from CRT's chair to the Secretary of State (the letter was a requirement under the grant agreement). He failed to tell Defra that the annual report had already been approved and it was being falsified. He failed to tell Defra that a second KPI was also being altered. Meeting minutes confirm that Defra commented and the letter was sent.

Richard Parry had the approved Annual Report removed from CRT's website and replaced by the falsified report.

Tom Deards had the falsified Annual Report filed with the Charity Commission. 

CRT did not file the falsified Annual Report with Companies House (doing so would draw attention)

Following a complaint to the Charity Commission, Tom Deards, on behalf of the trustees, admitted that CRT had altered the report and named Richard Parry, Allan Leighton and deputy chair Jenny Abramsky as responsible (Deards failed to mention his own role and why he failed to report the falsification to his board, as was his duty).

The falsified reports on CRT's website and the Charity Commission have been reverted to the board approved reports. An information request has determined that no record exists of the board approving the changes made even retrospectively.

Allan Leighton will not serve his full term of office but will stand down at the next AGM.

 

[sueb]

19 hours ago, magnetman said:

I would agree with this if the mooring did not have mains electric, water, sewerage, letter box, council tax etc attached. Some LTM sites are quite bad and CRT do have to constantly manage things liked items stored on towpaths. 

 

Also there are conditions attached to the occupation of the mooring which -in theory- prevent degradation into slum conditions.

 

I actually think that ribbon development of London's canals into linear residential moorings with proper services would be an excellent idea but I somehow doubt there is the market for it. People won't want to live in floating metal boxes if there is a cost associated with it which is comparable to renting a flat or paying for a mortgage. 

 

In the majority of cases I believe the choice to live on a boat, in the capital, is one which is made because it is (currently) very cheap, based on the 1995 BW act. 

 

Could be wrong and the only way to prove it would be to build more residential moorings and find out. 

 

Moorings with residential PP and a land address give much more security than a towpath. If you have no money and can demonstrate this then you can probably claim housing benefit to pay for the mooring. 

 

Obviously living on a boat is a fundamentally non secure way of existing. Even on a residential site you don't get security of tenure but everyone knows that and presumably moves onto a boat with their eyes open. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your last paragraph is interesting as I believe it is completely incorrect. It seems to come as a complete surprise. that to many people. that there is no security of tenure and CRT should provide everything they require.

[magnetman]

Feigned ignorance. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I will try to be brief (and, no doubt, fail) -

 

Thank you - far more (relevant) detail than I remember.

 

And 'they' say that the Parliament is corrupt - they could learn a lot from C&RT.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Thank you - far more (relevant) detail than I remember.

 

And 'they' say that the Parliament is corrupt - they could learn a lot from C&RT.

I think my O/P on this was limited to showing that CRT had falsified its Annual Report  by providing links and screenshots. Much has happened since then.

My investigation has shown that, in addition to Leighton/Abramsky/Parry/Deards, several other senior staff were aware but failed to act to inform the board.

Board meetings at the time record that, subsequent to recorded meetings, the board met privately with chief executive, Richard Parry. The possibilty exists that the full board authorised the falsification of its own Annual Report!

If true that would explain why the trustees have failed to act to remove its chair/deputy chair from office for failing to report the maladministration.