Jump to content

Charges or fines ?


waterworks

Featured Posts

It is interesting to note how long it has been since an inland waterways act was passed compared to how long it was for the one before to be passed. 

 

Long overdue but I seem to think CRT are not allowed to apply for primary legislation for some reason. 

 

Nigel would know but he is now partaking of his pipe and a wee dram in slippers in another time space continuum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/04/2022 at 19:06, Goliath said:

Other than charging to take up space on what should be a 14 day mooring, what extra services are CRT giving?

 

 

It's only a 14 day mooring unless otherwise indicated. The mooring in question is otherwise indicated.

 

CRT don't have to provide additional services. What you don't seem to understand are the basic economic laws of supply and demand. When there's an increased demand for a scarce resource, that resource becomes more expensive or access becomes more restricted. This case is no different. 

 

I don't know this particularly mooring but I assume it's a popular spot, so if CRT wants to ensure access for as many licence fee payers as possible which is part of it's remit, rather than it being hogged by a few selfish boaters, then it has to restrict access and impose penalties for overstayers. That's simply the fairest way.

 

It always amazes me when people don't understand these fundamental principles. If we're looking for people to blame for this deteriorating situation let's start by looking at ourselves, not CRT. They're just trying to manage the high demand. And it doesn't matter how long you've been boating, were all part of the problem - newbies & old farts alike.

 

It's analogous to that traffic jam quote "You're not in a traffic jam, you are the traffic jam." 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to hand the details to a good math person and find out how much money per square foot of boat every boater would need to pay to make the whole thing work. 

 

This is assuming no parasite money grubbers in the system. 

 

Sorry for the faux naivety. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

It's only a 14 day mooring unless otherwise indicated. The mooring in question is otherwise indicated.

 

CRT don't have to provide additional services. What you don't seem to understand are the basic economic laws of supply and demand. When there's an increased demand for a scarce resource, that resource becomes more expensive or access becomes more restricted. This case is no different. 

 

I don't know this particularly mooring but I assume it's a popular spot, so if CRT wants to ensure access for as many licence fee payers as possible which is part of it's remit, rather than it being hogged by a few selfish boaters, then it has to restrict access and impose penalties for overstayers. That's simply the fairest way.

 

It always amazes me when people don't understand these fundamental principles. If we're looking for people to blame for this deteriorating situation let's start by looking at ourselves, not CRT. They're just trying to manage the high demand. And it doesn't matter how long you've been boating, were all part of the problem - newbies & old farts alike.

 

It's analogous to that traffic jam quote "You're not in a traffic jam, you are the traffic jam." 

 

 

 

 

 

I very much understand the need to share.

And I will leave such places as these free.

No, CRT do not need to impose ‘fines’ through charging.

 And boaters need to understand these ‘indications’ can only ever be advisory

However, they ought to follow the ADVISORY NOTICE and share
 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thomas C King said:

If you want to make the legal system more predictable, test the law; but, change the law to get guide society in the direction you want.

It is a feature of UK law that no-one really knows what the law is until it has been tested in court. 

 

Most of my working life was spent dealing with patent law, from both sides of the fence, and there were several instances where everyone thought they knew what the Patent Acts and Rules meant, but the courts decided differently. These often needed action by Parliament to amend the legislation to put things right.  Acts take precedence over Rules made by Parliament, and these in turn take precedence over regulations and conditions made by non-parliamentary bodies.   So any regulations made by BWB that are in conflict with the Act and Rules relating to the canals, are prima facie not enforceable. But until these Acts and Rules have been interpreted by the courts, no-one can say for certain what they mean. 

 

While the words of the Acts and Rules used to be interpreted in isolation in accordance with the Interpretation Act,  it was established some decades ago in the case "Pepper vs Hart" that the Parliamentary debates relating to the Act in question as reported in Hansard, could be used to ascertain Parliament's intentions where the wording of a provision of legislation was ambiguous.  In practice, this seldom seems to be useful, especially these days, as it is rare for Parliament to discuss all the provisions of an Act  in  minute detail. The parliamentary draftsmen who prepare the initial versions of the Acts and Rules don't help, as they seem to take great delight in taking plain wording and making it as convoluted as possible. 

 

With so much going on in Parliament these days,  I can see that there is a vanishingly small chance of parliamentary time being found for the canals. 

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

It is a feature of UK law that no-one really knows what the law is until it has been tested in court. 

 

Most of my working life was spent dealing with patent law, from both sides of the fence, and there were several instances where everyone thought they knew what the Patent Acts and Rules meant, but the courts decided differently. These often needed action by Parliament to amend the legislation to put things right.  Acts take precedence over Rules made by parlisment, and these in turn take precedence over regulations and conditions made by non-parliamentary bodies.   So any regulations made by BWB that are in conflict with the Act and Rules relating to the canals, are prima facie not enforceable. But until these Acts and Rules have been interpreted by the courts, no-one can say for certain what they mean. 

 

While the words of the Acts and Rules used to be interpreted in isolation in accordance with the Interpretation Act,  it was established some decades ago in the case "Pepper vs Hart" that the Parliamentary debates relating to the Act in question as reported in Hansard, could be used to ascertain Parliament's intentions where the wording of a provision of legislation was ambiguous.  In practice, this seldom seems to be useful, especially these days, as it is rare for Parliament to discuss all the provisions of an Act  in  minute detail. The parliamentary draftsmen who prepare the initial versions of the Acts and Rules don't help, as they seem to take great delight in taking plain wording and making it as convoluted as possible. 

 

With so much going on in Parliament these days,  I can see that there is a vanishingly small chance of parliamentary time being found for the canals. 

I belive this is very true for most cases. It's very difficult to judge people based purely on words. Once people meet face to face, the truth is harder to hide.

 

Even on the front line. Most of the police in this country use common sense, thus avoiding unnecessary wasted court time.

 

We're very lucky to live in Britain really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all comes down to enforcement the reason CRT is in such a muddle is that they seem unable to enforce pretty much everything from boats mooring on lock landings, service points to overstaying. They have a whole raft of by laws in support of the Act (as Nigel Moore used to point out) however since CRT’s inception they have chosen not to take one boater to court under a by law. They rely on ever brighter signs threatening fines if it was a charge there would be a method of payment advertised. There only enforcement process is to threaten to withdraw a license which for the majority of those not wishing to move takes years and they will sell the boat on before it happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tuscan said:

It all comes down to enforcement the reason CRT is in such a muddle is that they seem unable to enforce pretty much everything from boats mooring on lock landings, service points to overstaying. They have a whole raft of by laws in support of the Act (as Nigel Moore used to point out) however since CRT’s inception they have chosen not to take one boater to court under a by law. They rely on ever brighter signs threatening fines if it was a charge there would be a method of payment advertised. There only enforcement process is to threaten to withdraw a license which for the majority of those not wishing to move takes years and they will sell the boat on before it happens. 

 

They have carried out enforcement though. Several boats have been removed from the Waterways.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

The trouble with taking the strong arm approach all of the time is that it might create bad PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

They have carried out enforcement though. Several boats have been removed from the Waterways.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

The trouble with taking the strong arm approach all of the time is that it might create bad PR.

 

But, but....

 

Those cases AIUI are for having no license, not for overstaying. CRT do not pursue boat owners for the £25 a day charge/fine mentioned on most signage. Nor do they apply any direct enforcement on boats moored for months or years at a time in the same place without a moorings agreement AFAICS.

 

CRt's preferred method of sanctioning CMers is to refuse to renew their boat license, then set about removing the boat for being unlicensed. Quite a perverse and convoluted method of bringing recalcitrant boaters to heel. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of homeless people around these days and even more who are living with parents, friends and in places where they don't want to be or with people who just want them to leave ASAP. There's also a lot of boats around that are a lot cheaper than conventional housing and as we know boas can be very nice homes, not exactly cheap but manageable on an ordinary wage of  say £300 - £400 a week. If I was in that position I would be looking for a boat but hopefully I would be a better neighbour.   There's an element of supply and demand here and as one of my least favourite persons in the world said 'You can't buck the market' - that was Thatcher. Many of us are in a lucky and priveleged position, we have homes and nobody is trying to kill us so we are not living on the towpath or sitting in a dinghy trying to cross the channel, its easy to fall into a kind of fortress mentality but the resources and safe places are getting thinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bee said:

There's a lot of homeless people around these days and even more who are living with parents, friends and in places where they don't want to be or with people who just want them to leave ASAP. There's also a lot of boats around that are a lot cheaper than conventional housing and as we know boas can be very nice homes, not exactly cheap but manageable on an ordinary wage of  say £300 - £400 a week. If I was in that position I would be looking for a boat but hopefully I would be a better neighbour.   There's an element of supply and demand here and as one of my least favourite persons in the world said 'You can't buck the market' - that was Thatcher. Many of us are in a lucky and priveleged position, we have homes and nobody is trying to kill us so we are not living on the towpath or sitting in a dinghy trying to cross the channel, its easy to fall into a kind of fortress mentality but the resources and safe places are getting thinner.

 

All true, but the canals in places like London are not and can never be a solution to the UK housing problem -- a few thousand people living on boats (against the rules, and degrading the canal experience for those who want to actually use them to move around and visit places) doesn't even make a tiny dent in the problem, given that there are hundreds of thousands of people (or millions) caught in the expensive/unavailable housing trap -- who I do have a lot of sympathy for, but this isn't in any way the right answer.

 

Reducing the need for affordable housing in London by perhaps 1% by clogging up the canals makes no sense either from the point of view of "real" boaters or "CMers", it's a very bad tradeoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But, but....

 

Those cases AIUI are for having no license, not for overstaying. CRT do not pursue boat owners for the £25 a day charge/fine mentioned on most signage. Nor do they apply any direct enforcement on boats moored for months or years at a time in the same place without a moorings agreement AFAICS.

 

CRt's preferred method of sanctioning CMers is to refuse to renew their boat license, then set about removing the boat for being unlicensed. Quite a perverse and convoluted method of bringing recalcitrant boaters to heel. 

 

 

 

 

don’t forget before they refuse a license completely they restrict you to a 6 month license and see how you behave. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

All true, but the canals in places like London are not and can never be a solution to the UK housing problem -- a few thousand people living on boats (against the rules, and degrading the canal experience for those who want to actually use them to move around and visit places) doesn't even make a tiny dent in the problem, given that there are hundreds of thousands of people (or millions) caught in the expensive/unavailable housing trap -- who I do have a lot of sympathy for, but this isn't in any way the right answer.

 

Reducing the need for affordable housing in London by perhaps 1% by clogging up the canals makes no sense either from the point of view of "real" boaters or "CMers", it's a very bad tradeoff.

 

And it could be a whole lot worse. Imagine if the government announced people could live on boats fully legitimately and they could moor up where they liked, as long as they liked with no charge or sanction. Postcodes would be issued. What would happen to boat prices? I hold that demand would rocket and they would become 'unaffordable' just like houses. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MtB
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And it could be a whole lot worse. Imagine if the government announced people could live on boats fully legitimately and they could moor up where they liked, as long as they liked with no charge or sanction. Postcodes would be issued. What would happen to boat prices? I hold that demand would rocket and they would become 'unaffordable' just like houses. 

 

 

But it still wouldn't make even a tiny dent in the housing problem, there just aren't enough canals where the demand would be. End result -- canals completely b*ggered, housing crisis unaffected... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

But it still wouldn't make even a tiny dent in the housing problem, there just aren't enough canals where the demand would be. End result -- canals completely b*ggered, housing crisis unaffected... 😞

 

 

No it wouldn't, I agree. People seem to think a few thousand boats used for homes is making a material difference to the housing crisis. They aren't, there are too few of them to 'move the needle' even slightly. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

All true, but the canals in places like London are not and can never be a solution to the UK housing problem -- a few thousand people living on boats (against the rules, and degrading the canal experience for those who want to actually use them to move around and visit places) doesn't even make a tiny dent in the problem, given that there are hundreds of thousands of people (or millions) caught in the expensive/unavailable housing trap -- who I do have a lot of sympathy for, but this isn't in any way the right answer.

 

Reducing the need for affordable housing in London by perhaps 1% by clogging up the canals makes no sense either from the point of view of "real" boaters or "CMers", it's a very bad tradeoff.

No it’s not going to save the UK housing problem. Has anyone suggested it will?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, living on boats will not solve the housing problem as such but if you (or I or my kids) was stuck it would solve their problem and that is what is happening, many individuals are making individual choices and the result is a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure it’s the housing shortage causing people to  buy cheap boats that’s causing the problem. Milton Keynes and Fenny where these signs have appeared is now the domain of expensive wide beams. Central London has a growing number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

Are you sure it’s the housing shortage causing people to  buy cheap boats that’s causing the problem. Milton Keynes and Fenny where these signs have appeared is now the domain of expensive wide beams. Central London has a growing number.

 

In the city areas where the CM problem is worst (including London and the K&A) the vast majority of the boats are not new expensive or widebeam, as any walk along the towpath will show.

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.