Jump to content

Charges or fines ?


waterworks

Featured Posts

8 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

I think most reasonable people will accept 24hr moorings to share the mooring with others at popular spots.

The problem is caused by people who do not move on, (or pay the charge) so causing problems.

I accept paying to park my car in a multi storey, as there are capital costs and maintainance,but paying to park on the road I find annoying but reluctantly agree it is necessary because if it was say, one hour parking there would be a minority who ignore this.

The law abiding majority always have to suffer because of the behavior of the minority.

 

And the real problem is that the rulebreaking minority has got significantly bigger in recent years as more and more people have moved onto the canals as a cheap place to live, and want to stay essentially in one place but without a home mooring -- either because they don't exist or they can't find one, can't afford one, or don't see why they should pay for one when they can moor "for free".

 

I suspect that in some areas like London it's not even a minority any more, going by what I see on the canals here (cycling the same sections of towpath several times a week) the "rulebreakers" may even be in the majority -- the same boats in the same places for months or maybe longer, or at best shuffling over a distance far too small to meet the CC requirements...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, frangar said:

I couldn’t be bothered to Google it but the house style both in content and grammar seemed to fit….does anyone actually visit that site still? 

 

Yes, the excessive use of exclamation marks make me think of NBW first, too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spoken to a couple of people who have proudly claimed to have spent ~3 months in one spot. In one case, opposite a water point (he was gloating at the fact that it was so convenient). So far, only seen this attitude on the K&A.

 

In other cases, CaRT allow continuous moorers due to circumstances. In one case a person had been, right next to but not blocking, the water point for years. This was allowed because they were/are an alcoholic slowly killing themselves (not sure if they're still alive, saw an ambulance visit them before moving on).

 

In both cases, there is an attitude that this is acceptable. In the first case people with no real reason to continuously moor have no shame about it, and it's hard to convince them otherwise because so many others think it's perfectly fine. In the second case, acceptance that the canals are an appropriate place for people with serious mental and physical health issues, because they're "cheaper".

 

I would like to see CaRT issue some strong communication to try and change people's minds for the first case. The second one is harder to address.

Edited by Thomas C King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thomas C King said:

I've spoken to a couple of people who have proudly claimed to have spent ~3 months in one spot.

 

What are they doing with their sewage, if they have not moved from the spot in three months?

 

In any individual case they might have a cassette bog and be carrying cassettes to an Elsan station somewhere but after three months of this there must be a temptation to empty it in the cut at night. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

I've spoken to a couple of people who have proudly claimed to have spent ~3 months in one spot. In one case, opposite a water point (he was gloating at the fact that it was so convenient). So far, only seen this attitude on the K&A.

 

In other cases, CaRT allow continuous moorers due to circumstances. In one case a person had been, right next to, but not blocking, the water point for years. This was allowed because they were/are an alcoholic slowly killing themselves (not sure if they're still alive, saw an ambulance visit them before moving on).

 

In both cases, there is an attitude that this is acceptable. In the first case people with no real reason to continuously moor have no shame about it, and it's hard to convince them otherwise because so many others think it's perfectly fine. In the second case, acceptance that the canals are an appropriate place for people with serious mental and physical health issues, because they're "cheaper".

 

I would like to see CaRT issue some strong communication to try and change people's minds for the first case. The second one is harder to address.

 

I'd guess that nowadays the first case (shameless deliberate overstayers) outnumber the second case (severe illness) many *many* times over -- but that won't stop them (and the NBTA) rolling out "think of the poor ill boaters!" as an excuse as to why nothing should be done (just like they (and the NBTA) roll out "think of the children and schools!" when CART try and make them follow CC rules). Stories about deliberately encouraging coots to nest in tyre fenders may be apocryphal, but it's exactly the kind of "how to game the system" advice that you'd expect to be passed on and acted on.

 

Nothing *needs* to be done about the second case because there aren't (and never were) lots of them, the problem is separating out the two cases and addressing the large numbers of deliberate CMers... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

What are they doing with their sewage, if they have not moved from the spot in three months?

 

In any individual case they might have a cassette bog and be carrying cassettes to an Elsan station somewhere but after three months of this there must be a temptation to empty it in the cut at night.

 

I doubt it, we just take it by car if we want to moor in the middle of nowhere. The person who came to mind was opposite the services for 3 months anyway (although the Elsan was notoriously blocked a lot of the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

What are they doing with their sewage, if they have not moved from the spot in three months?

 

In any individual case they might have a cassette bog and be carrying cassettes to an Elsan station somewhere but after three months of this there must be a temptation to empty it in the cut at night. 

 

 

Or do what I've seen several boaters on the Paddington Arm do, have a bike with a trailer that can carry a cassette -- I'm pretty sure none of the boaters along there have cars, and there'd be nowhere to park them anyway. Cycling to the nearest Elsan station along a decent level towpath is easy, even if it's a couple of miles away, and that's exactly what they do.

 

Or maybe they do chuck it in the cut at night, I've seen the evidence of that floating in the canal too... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I'd guess that nowadays the first case (shameless deliberate overstayers) outnumber the second case (severe illness) many *many* times over -- but that won't stop them (and the NBTA) rolling out "think of the poor ill boaters!" as an excuse as to why nothing should be done (just like they (and the NBTA) roll out "think of the children and schools!" when CART try and make them follow CC rules). Stories about deliberately encouraging coots to nest in tyre fenders may be apocryphal, but it's exactly the kind of "how to game the system" advice that you'd expect to be passed on and acted on.

 

Nothing *needs* to be done about the second case because there aren't (and never were) lots of them, the problem is separating out the two cases and addressing the large numbers of deliberate CMers... 😞

 

What I'd say to NBTA, then, is that a boat is not the best place for ill people. If they are campaigning for ill and poor boaters to be given proper accommodation, then fine, but otherwise they're legitimizing something that's harmful.

 

The alcoholic boater that I'm thinking of was in a boat with serious damp and rot issues, somewhat mitigated by some other helpful boaters; the person in question wouldn't have the psychological or physical ability to fix it.

 

You're right, they are two separate issues though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in the microcosm of continuous cruising/mooring areas like London, you can bet there are those that do move every 2 weeks hating those that don't and those under CRTs eye hating those that have painted out their boat names and numbers. With CRT's lack of dealing with the problems the natural order of things will make it so the more illegal you are, the easier your life is and if you can't beat them, join them. What else can you do if you're one of the ones trying to follow the rules but can't get moored up due to those that never move? 

 

I guess eventually things will come to a head when the majority of boats have painted out their IDs and never move.

5 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

What I'd say to NBTA, then, is that a boat is not the best place for ill people. If they are campaigning for ill and poor boaters to be given proper accommodation, then fine, but otherwise they're legitimizing something that's harmful.

 

The alcoholic boater that I'm thinking of was in a boat with serious damp and rot issues, somewhat mitigated by some other helpful boaters; the person in question wouldn't have the psychological or physical ability to fix it.

 

You're right, they are two separate issues though.

On the other hand, if your life has gone that badly wrong, are you really better off in so-called proper accommodation or is that just a feel good answer for everyone else? I feel if it was me, I'd rather slowly rot on my rusty boat than be shovelled into some kind of box ticking bedsit.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Even in the microcosm of continuous cruising/mooring areas like London, you can bet there are those that do move every 2 weeks hating those that don't and those under CRTs eye hating those that have painted out their boat names and numbers. With CRT's lack of dealing with the problems the natural order of things will make it so the more illegal you are, the easier your life is and if you can't beat them, join them. What else can you do if you're one of the ones trying to follow the rules but can't get moored up due to those that never move? 

 

I guess eventually things will come to a head when the majority of boats have painted out their IDs and never move.

 

From what I see, this has already happened (certainly the "never move" bit) in the stretch to the west of Paddington... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

From what I see, this has already happened (certainly the "never move" bit) in the stretch to the west of Paddington... 😞

Eventually CRT will have to address this. You'd think if it was as bad as that, it would pay to enforce the rules. I wonder if rather than licence evasion the root is mooring rule evasion and these boats are in fact licenced. In that case, it's not going to be a financial win for CRT and turning the other cheek is cheaper. 

 

From another angle, enforcing 2,000 boats to swap places every 2 weeks is a kind of pointless cost in the short term. Longer term I get it - before you know it those boats would become too knackered and entrenched to move. I can't help feeling CRT have brought this on themselves by inaction over the years.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Eventually CRT will have to address this. You'd think if it was as bad as that, it would pay to enforce the rules. I wonder if rather than licence evasion the root is mooring rule evasion and these boats are in fact licenced. In that case, it's not going to be a financial win for CRT and turning the other cheek is cheaper. 

 

From another angle, enforcing 2,000 boats to swap places every 2 weeks is a kind of pointless cost in the short term. Longer term I get it - before you know it those boats would become too knackered and entrenched to move. I can't help feeling CRT have brought this on themselves by inaction over the years.

 

That's what I meant when I said "certainly the never move bit" -- I don't know if they have valid licenses or not, but I'm certain they don't move according to the rules, some of them haven't moved since I started cycling this length about a year ago...

 

Swapping places is literally what they do, I've seen them doing co-ordinated changeovers using walkie-talkies or mobiles on "moving day" -- and for certain the distances they move are way too small to meet the CC requirements, the same boats appear month after month in different places on the same few miles of canal.

 

They're quite simply taking the p*ss, and CART have turned a blind eye and let them get away with it to the point where there are now so many of them doing this that it's difficult to clamp down on -- at least, without noisy "think of the children!" protests from the likes of the NBTA... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

 

That's what I meant when I said "certainly the never move bit" -- I don't know if they have valid licenses or not, but I'm certain they don't move according to the rules, some of them haven't moved since I started cycling this length about a year ago...

How ridiculous that this simple evasion technique actually proves to work! Shame on CRT from my perspective. It's something that needs nipping in the bud before it spreads to the entire network. If CRT do not have an answer to this it will. What's worse is that those at least attempting to play the CC game will be the ones to suffer enforcement while the real cheaters go free. This seems to happen in all walks of life eg gun licences where the honest handed in their pistols and the criminals didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

How ridiculous that this simple evasion technique actually proves to work! Shame on CRT from my perspective. It's something that needs nipping in the bud before it spreads to the entire network. If CRT do not have an answer to this it will. What's worse is that those at least attempting to play the CC game will be the ones to suffer enforcement while the real cheaters go free. This seems to happen in all walks of life eg gun licences where the honest handed in their pistols and the criminals didn't.

 

The fundamental problem is that the license conditions (with the CCing "no home mooring" exemption) are no longer fit for purpose, as well as being widely and routinely ignored.

 

The CCing exemption was brought in because "real CCers" -- who actually *do" cruise around the system on a full-time basis -- objected to having to find and pay for a home mooring that they never used. The abuse of this exemption has only really happened recently -- say, the last 10 years or so (fill in your own number of you disagree) -- as more and more people have turned to living on the canals as a cheap option, but aren't interested in moving round the system (i.e. continuously cruising!), they just want a cheap floating home in a place that suits them. And if they can find any ways to game the system -- engine waiting for repairs, birds nesting in fenders, selling boats to each other for a quid -- they'll do just that, because everyone else is doing it.

 

All this has been encouraged recently by articles both online and in the press saying how wonderful and cheap this is, and unsurprisingly people with little money have taken to it like -- well, ducks to water.

 

Except ducks don't occupy all the mooring spaces, overstay on them, chuck out diesel fumes and smoke, and dump toilet waste where it shouldn't go... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"because everyone else is doing it" is the root cause of the problem. Such things if not tackled before they get out of hand become too large to handle.

I believe a lot of people would agree that CRT do not help themselves by using section 8 as their sole weapon when they have any number of bylaws at hand. From reading, it seems to me that section 8 was never intended for this purpose, but for dealing with abandoned boats that were "getting in the way".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

They're quite simply taking the p*ss, and CART have turned a blind eye and let them get away with it to the point where there are now so many of them doing this that it's difficult to clamp down on -- at least, without noisy "think of the children!" protests from the likes of the NBTA... 😞

I agree.  We see this in lots of  ways in many aspects of life.  People overstay just a little bit. Say, one day. It's only a small transgression, so nobody does anything about it.  So lots of people do it and it becomes the (tolerated) norm.  So more major transgressions become the new minor transgressions (which nobody does anything about) and people begin to overstay by a lot.  Then some people clear a bit of towpath and store their belongings there.  Then sheds appear. Many people don't care to police themselves any more.  Those in charge ignore breaches of the little rules and get swamped later.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems is that a liveaboard cannot be a CCer as it contradicts the 1995 Act.

 

The boater is on the boat as it his his/her/its primary residence therefore they are only complying with the CC rules in order to comply .......................

 

I'll leave it to the late Nigel Moore to explain :

 

 

Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

The fundamental problem is that the license conditions (with the CCing "no home mooring" exemption) are no longer fit for purpose, as well as being widely and routinely ignored.

 

I disagree. The truly fundamental problem is the acceptance by BW latterly CRT that stopping for 14 days then cruising for two hours, then stopping for 14 days ad infinitum complies with the law on the subject. In my opinion it doesn't. Here is the text of the act that applies:

 

"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."

 

I think there is an argument that 14 days stopped then a short local cruise then another 14 days stopped in not using the vessel bona fide for navigation, so a license need not be issued. 

 

This was BW just caving into pressure back in the day because it was convenient and the numbers were low. Now the numbers are higher, I think CRT would be perfectly within the law to come up with a practical definition of "bona fide for navigation" to apply, which involves genuine bona fide navigation not this farce of moving a mile once a fortnight. 

 

A mile a day would seem more than reasonable to me, with a 14 day break say, three times a year. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

A mile a day would seem more than reasonable to me, with a 14 day break say, three times a year.

 

Average of a mile a day over a week?

We would probably be outside of that pattern, although could adapt with some after-work cruising. For most weekends our miles + locks is about 10, with the occasional being above 30. I'm not fussed by people even slower than us, moving every two weeks, it really is the ones staying for longer that seem to be causing problems where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

No. Anyone using their vessel "bona fide for navigation" is obviously going to navigate every day.

 

Who has a reason to navigate every day, other than retired people, holidaymakers, and possibly fuel boats (which I have noticed definitely do not move every day)? That's not the canal world I'd want to live in.

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.