Jump to content

London boaters fight for moorings


Boaty Jo

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Absolutely. Kick out the Russians and the Saudi money launderers that buy up most of the new buildings in London and leave them empty. Demolish the empty luxury blocks and offices and replace with decent cheap housing.

I presume you mean by mass immigration the number of people forced to move to London to work (ie the people who actually work rather than just sit at desks moving numbers about) because businesses refuse to move elsewhere? Not really their fault. Unless, of course, it's just a coded bit of racism - are all the canal dwellers foreign imports? I'd never have guessed.

Pointless ranting and playing the race card, grow up.

Edited by waterworks
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, magnetman said:

One way to do it would be like they do with council homes. 

 

Find out if people are genuinely in poverty and if they are then allow them subsidised housing. CRT is currently subsidising housing. 

 

You could easily find that there are very many people "living" on boats while renting out their house or flat. If the subsidy (cc option for boat license) was removed this would not result in them being homeless as they are a property owner. 

 

Not everyone is in this position, obviously. 

 

It's basically just squatters and freeloaders who seem to not understand the market economy who are moaning.

 

Charging for something that is in demand is normal. If you can't afford it you don't have it. 

 

It's not complicated. 

 

Also I think in the CRT transfer order somewhere there is a bit where CRT are obliged to make profit from their assets and must not allow anyone to gain from their assets.

 

So if someone is living on a boat while renting out their property then they are directly gaining because living on a boat cheaply and remaining in one general area is only available due to the 1995 act and the 14 day rule. 

 

You are bound to get parasites in this situation.

 

 

 

 

^^^This^^^ is spot on.

 

I really don't understand why licences for CCers are not twice the price of those for HMers. 

 

Or even more equitably, five times the price.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

^^^This^^^ is spot on.

 

I really don't understand why licences for CCers are not twice the price of those for HMers. 

 

Or even more equitably, five times the price.

 

 

I don't understand your logic. People don't have to be home moorers. Boats are for boating, and the canal is for using. No one pays by the go. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Higgs said:

 

I don't understand your logic. People don't have to be home moorers. Boats are for boating, and the canal is for using. No one pays by the go. 

 

 

 

I think its rooted in prejudice more than anything else.

 

The notion that ccers are somehow getting 'something for nothing'. To follow that logic boaters who engage in extended cruises should pay more too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

I think its rooted in prejudice more than anything else.

 

The notion that ccers are somehow getting 'something for nothing'. To follow that logic boaters who engage in extended cruises should pay more too.

 

There's no caveat in the rule that allows CCing to say it is also to be at a price that subsidizes people that home-moor up indefinitely, polishing brass mushrooms.  

 

 

Edited by Higgs
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

I think its rooted in prejudice more than anything else.

 

The notion that ccers are somehow getting 'something for nothing'. To follow that logic boaters who engage in extended cruises should pay more too.

My suggestion was not rooted in prejudice in the slightest. 

 

Admittedly the "issues" seen in London are a separate point to the availability of cc as an option on the license. 

 

To be fair charging for towpath moorings is probably a far better solution than having different tiers for license costs. 

 

Much more straightforward. You moor the boat you pay. Rates would vary in different parts of the country. 

 

This also brings in the option of having moorings with services for people who are willing to pay a bit more. It could work out really nicely specially for people with electric boats. There would be some free moorings in areas of low demand..

 

Oh, hang on !

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I don't understand your logic. People don't have to be home moorers. Boats are for boating, and the canal is for using. No one pays by the go. 

 

 

The canals were originally operated using a system of tolls. 

 

If, and it is an if, it is found that things become unsatisfactory and certain bias starts happening perhaps it makes some sense to consider returning to the original arrangement. 

 

Canals are not "for using". They were built in order to generate profit for shareholders. If companies did not want to pay the tolls then they would not be allowed to use the waterway. 

 

It seems to me that more income needs to be generated otherwise there is a danger of negative outcomes.

 

Specially in terms of maintenance of ageing infrastructure. 

 

Charging for mooring really isn't rocket science.

 

Either that or zoned tolls. 

 

River Wey is an interesting model in this regard. 

 

It's not fair that it is about £100 for a week and if you want a years license you are obliged to have a mooring on the waterway. 

 

This is basically pricing people out, which should not be allowed according to some people. 

 

But they don't moan about the Wey. 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The canals were originally operated using a system of tolls. 

 

If, and it is an if, it is found that things become unsatisfactory and certain bias starts happening perhaps it makes some sense to consider returning to the original arrangement. 

 

Probably not if the aim it to get boats moving more rather than less!

 

Pay per lock-mile would suit the continuous moorers very well indeed ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Probably not if the aim it to get boats moving more rather than less!

 

Pay per lock-mile would suit the continuous moorers very well indeed ...

A toll is paid for time spent on a certain stretch of water. It makes no difference whether you are moving.

 

Someone has to keep the water in !

 

You would have zones and when you passed from one to another the daily rate would change. This could be worked out according to demand levels. 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The canals were originally operated using a system of tolls. 

 

If, and it is an if, it is found that things become unsatisfactory and certain bias starts happening perhaps it makes some sense to consider returning to the original arrangement. 

 

Canals are not using. They were built in order to generate profit for shareholders. 

 

It seems to me that more income needs to be generated otherwise there is a danger that some negative outcomes start to be caused. 

 

Specially in terms of maintenance of ageing infrastructure. 

 

Charging for mooring really isn't rocket science..

 

 

 

Mooring is an essential need of cruising. A bit like water. Home moorings are not a requirement. Paying for mooring on a continual basis would be the same as having a home mooring, but anywhere one moors, and that isn't required. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

A toll is paid for time spent on a certain stretch of water. It makes no difference whether you are moving.

 

Someone has to keep the water in !

 

You would have zones and when you passed from one to another the daily rate would change. This could be worked out according to demand levels. 

 

 

 

How is the money collected ?

What is in place to extract money from those who do not pay ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

 

Mooring is an essential need of cruising. A bit like water. Home moorings are not a requirement. Paying for mooring on a continual basis would be the same as having a home mooring, but anywhere one moors, and that isn't required. 

 

 

 

 

A "Roving Mooring Permit" was introduced  some time ago and was withdrawn very quickly when found to be illegal.

 

The idea was that you paid the fee and could moor anywhere on the system without getting enforcement for overstaying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

My suggestion was not rooted in prejudice in the slightest. 

 

Admittedly the "issues" seen in London are a separate point to the availability of cc as an option on the license. 

 

To be fair charging for towpath moorings is probably a far better solution than having different tiers for license costs. 

 

Much more straightforward. You moor the boat you pay. Rates would vary in different parts of the country. 

 

This also brings in the option of having moorings with services for people who are willing to pay a bit more. It could work out really nicely specially for people with electric boats. There would be some free moorings in areas of low demand..

 

Oh, hang on !

 

In more remote areas where there is absolutely no congestion or moorings to block there's no real reason to stop boats mooring there or even to make them move on every 14 days, moored boats there are causing no problem to anybody -- except perhaps bringing in less money to CART than boats with a home mooring.

 

The first problem comes in more popular areas where "continuous moorers" or "towpath squatters" (add derogatory term of your choice) hog the limited online mooring space available and prevent others from mooring there -- especially shorter-term visitors -- by monopolising a resource (mooring space) which should be shared. This is just plain selfish, especially if they stay there long-term (against the 14-day rule) which seems increasingly common.

 

The second problem is where they do this on designated short-term or visitor moorings which makes it effectively impossible for visiting boats to find anywhere to moor, and also stay well beyond the designated time -- even more selfish, and also increasingly common.

 

All this happens not only in London but any popular spot where boats congregate e.g. Western K&A, Braunston, many other visitor moorings where the typical comment is "don't expect to roll up at 6pm and expect to find a place to moor" -- and the problem is very often not other short-term visitors following the rules, but longer-term moorers who don't.

 

What would certainly make sense is to have different rules/charges for less popular and more popular areas, but the real issue is that to be effective this would need enforcing and CART don't have the manpower or will to do this... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It's not fair that it is about £100 for a week and if you want a years license you are obliged to have a mooring on the waterway. 

I don't think that is correct but you need to demonstrate that you are moored local to the Wey, such as on the Basingstoke Canal or the Thames and would make regular use of the Waterway and of course have a home mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, waterworks said:

Begone troll.

As has been said so many times, a troll is someone who posts simply to stir up trouble, which rather sums you up. A billy goat, however, is someone who kicks back, which make me one of them. So, back under your bridge, my friend. And if you don't want to be accused of racism, don't post nonsensical racist comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A "Roving Mooring Permit" was introduced  some time ago and was withdrawn very quickly when found to be illegal.

 

The idea was that you paid the fee and could moor anywhere on the system without getting enforcement for overstaying.

 

Neither overstaying or roving mooring permits are prescribed. If an average annual mooring costs £3000, then someone is suggesting it as a payment for all to have make, even if they are CCers. And, I presume those with home moorings would be included, when out on a cruise. 

 

The long and short of it would be: you must pay for a mooring, you cannot be entitled to CC. But of course, you are entitled to CC

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

I don't think that is correct but you need to demonstrate that you are moored local to the Wey, such as on the Basingstoke Canal or the Thames and would make regular use of the Waterway and of course have a home mooring.

Sorry if I got that wrong. It was from memory. I've done the Wey a few times and I thought this was a requirement. 

 

Still not fair to need to have a mooring though. That's prejudice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are CRT going to enforce the reduced time visitor moorings since they have no power to issue fines and no infrastructure to collect fees on visitor moorings, if they charge they have to be able to prove you were there if they want to demand the fee, no different to parking enforcement companies.

 

Your PB licence cannot be revoked or refused for non payment of any charge, fee or fine for any other matter, that is an undesputable legal fact unless it says otherwise in any legislation ( which it doesn't) Making anyone pay these fees would have to be in the end via the courts.

 

There's also the question of what legally defines a charge versus a fee? I remember Nigel Moore once looked into this, not sure what his conclusion was ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, magnetman said:

My suggestion was not rooted in prejudice in the slightest. 

 

Admittedly the "issues" seen in London are a separate point to the availability of cc as an option on the license. 

 

To be fair charging for towpath moorings is probably a far better solution than having different tiers for license costs. 

 

Much more straightforward. You moor the boat you pay. Rates would vary in different parts of the country. 

 

This also brings in the option of having moorings with services for people who are willing to pay a bit more. It could work out really nicely specially for people with electric boats. There would be some free moorings in areas of low demand..

 

Oh, hang on !

 

To be clear I was referencing the poster Higgs quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Your PB licence cannot be revoked or refused for non payment of any charge, fee or fine for any other matter, that is an undesputable legal fact unless it says otherwise in any legislation ( which it doesn't) Making anyone pay these fees would have to be in the end via the courts.

 

 

Most of us prefer to stay under the radar and generally abide by C&RT's Terms and Conditions but please crack on and let us know how you get on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/06/2022 at 15:06, Higgs said:

 

A marina is a place to moor. That's it. Where water goes to and fro has no bearing on the status of private property. The water above that property is not CRT water. The same as the water overflowing onto a farmer's field. Beyond the land boundary, either side is demarcation of access and rights to that space. A boat with a licence could accidentally drift onto water above private property, but legally, it has no authority to be there. Not even if the water is joined to CRT navigation water. 

 

Try mooring in a marina, on the waving of your boat licence. 

 

 

 

 

I thought I had understood that for a while, CaRT will only agree a NAA if the marina constructor can show that they will not be taking a net amount of water from the adjoining  canal. I also think that they have to fill it before the entrance is breached.

 

I am sure someone with detailed experience will be along to correct me . . . 

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.