Charges or fines ?

[Momac]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

CART not having resources to police every mooring won't be a problem if the nasty rapacious car parking companies get given the job, £25 will seem like a bargain... 😞 😞 😞

I hope that does not happen.

On occasions there will be legitimate  reason for overstaying like a bereavement or a heart attack or even a mechanical breakdown. I such genuine cases its okay with me if people are allowed to stay a while longer. A private company making charges is unlikely   to be sympathetic to such circumstances.

 

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I hope that does not happen.

On occasions there will be legitimate  reason for overstaying like a bereavement or a heart attack or even a mechanical breakdown. I such genuine cases its okay with me if people are allowed to stay a while longer. A private company making charges is unlikely   to be sympathetic to such circumstances.

 

I hope it doesn't too, but I can't see any other way that CART can free up the moorings from towpath squatters other than charging and enforcement, because asking nicely doesn't work.

 

There would have to be exceptions for cases like you say -- as there are today -- but I suspect the standard of proof would be rather higher to stop spurious excuses, which seem to greatly outnumber legitimate ones.

 

Which should be possible (better checking) given the resources the parking companies have and CART don't -- but then they *are* greedy rapacious b*stards, so maybe not... 😞

Edited April 14, 2022 by IanD

[IanD]

54 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’m trying to distract myself from taking my water tank out. 
Not enjoying doing it. 
 

 

Good luck with that, sounds like it's not going well going by the other thread... 😉

[Mad Harold]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I’m trying to distract myself from taking my water tank out. 
Not enjoying doing it. 
 

 

A Jemmy, a big hammer and an angle grinder, and you'll have it out in no time.  😃

[MtB]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

I'll just point out again that the legal position for CART charging for designated moorings/overstaying on them looks to be pretty much identical to car parks -- except the charges for these are *far* higher, and the fines/charges for overstaying are *massively* higher, and the companies make lots of profits out of "persecuting" motorists.

 

 

But with one difference, there are plenty of boats around failing to show their license number. So how will these charges be collected from such stealth boats?

 

Until CRT start or find a way of persuading or forcing ALL boats to display a license number, attempts to impose significant charges for mooring will result in a steadily increasing number of stealth boats showing no name or number, I predict. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

BW / C&RT themselves have suggest 2.5x the current rate for continuous cruisers and hire boats.

 

This was their proposed scale of charges as a multiplyer of the 'base licence fee'

 

 

I think you will find that hire boats, being licenced as commercial, are already charged at 2.5x  (approx). The maximum price for cruising on rivers is, of course, set by law.

 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

But with one difference, there are plenty of boats around failing to show their license number. So how will these charges be collected from such stealth boats?

 

Until CRT start or find a way of persuading or forcing ALL boats to display a license number, attempts to impose significant charges for mooring will result in a steadily increasing number of stealth boats showing no name or number, I predict. 

They change the rule back to "you must display a valid license and number", then they get the parking company to enforce it. People do it now because they can get away with it...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

I think if you presented your ideal figures in a colourful pie chart or a graph it might make your points clearer. 
 

Here’s one, how do you see your vision for CRT in comparison ?

 

I note that if CRT had not sold off BWML, then its income from "boat licences and mooring" would be greater than its "investment and property income".

Perhaps, the answer to CRT's funding problems is to encourage more boats ...


 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

They change the rule back to "you must display a valid license and number", then they get the parking company to enforce it. People do it now because they can get away with it...

 

 

There is no 'changing back' the laws still say that they must be displayed - it is simply that C&RT have said no need to display your licence as we can check from the registration number if you are licenced.

 

The fact that some boaters 'get away with' not displaying, registration number, name and licence  is down to the lack of enforcement (again).

 

Any boater not 'displaying' should feel the full force of the law.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I note that if CRT had not sold off BWML, then its income from "boat licences and mooring" would be greater than its "investment and property income".

Perhaps, the answer to CRT's funding problems is to encourage more boats ...


 

 

 

But its not all about 'income' anyone can be a "busy fool", you only need to look at the giving figures of costs against income (that you have so often provided) to see why sometimes it is better to have a lower income and still end up with more 'disposable income'.

[Slow and Steady]

In the end the London mooring situation I suggest doesn't impinge on that many "tourist" boats in comparison to the many thousands they complain about. I wonder what the figures actually are? A few hundred trips a year? It's a bit like the rowers thing wanting the riff-raff out of the way on the face of it.

 

Those London boaters on the video look to me exactly like a large section of squatters used to (yes I was one once and before you get up in arms, we had the blessing of the property owners as it wasn't fit to rent and we stopped it being wrecked) - middle class young people. I suggest if squatting hadn't become a criminal offense (spookily enough 10 years ago) then the London clog-up wouldn't be happening at all. People do like to do a little more than merely exist - squatting used to simply be a way to make your restricted funds go further and allow for a little life on top of plain existence and boats are just the same.

 

Just like the K&A crusties were recognisable (personally to me, I knew a few) as ex-"peace" convoy crazies when they got clamped down on by new laws. 

 

One door closes another opens. Makes me wonder what next, it's difficult to legislate a mind-set out of existence, particularly when the mind-set is "feck the rules".

[TheBiscuits]

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

Here’s one, how do you see your vision for CRT in comparison ?

 

The concern is that all that lovely DEFRA Grant goes away.  It's worth nearly one and a half times total income from boat licences and moorings.

 

If it does go away, it won't just be CCers seeing Alan's 2.5 x multiplier on licence fees ...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

14 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

The concern is that all that lovely DEFRA Grant goes away.  It's worth nearly one and a half times total income from boat licences and moorings.

 

If it does go away, it won't just be CCers seeing Alan's 2.5 x multiplier on licence fees ...

I know 😞 

 

strange how the government can grows it’s money trees when it wants. 
if only they could be persuaded to grow a massive one for the waterways

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I know 😞 

 

strange how the government can grows it’s money trees when it wants. 
if only they could be persuaded to grow a massive one for the waterways

...which might conceivably happen, if they can be convinced that they benefit a large number of people (walkers, cyclists, tourists -- yes, this makes the canals a "theme park") not just a small number of boaters.

 

Which funnily enough is exactly what Richard Parry said in his "Address to boaters", and was excoriated for by some posters on here for not putting boaters first... 😞

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Slow and Steady said:

In the end the London mooring situation I suggest doesn't impinge on that many "tourist" boats in comparison to the many thousands they complain about. I wonder what the figures actually are? A few hundred trips a year? It's a bit like the rowers thing wanting the riff-raff out of the way on the face of it.

 

Those London boaters on the video look to me exactly like a large section of squatters used to (yes I was one once and before you get up in arms, we had the blessing of the property owners as it wasn't fit to rent and we stopped it being wrecked) - middle class young people. I suggest if squatting hadn't become a criminal offense (spookily enough 10 years ago) then the London clog-up wouldn't be happening at all. People do like to do a little more than merely exist - squatting used to simply be a way to make your restricted funds go further and allow for a little life on top of plain existence and boats are just the same.

 

Just like the K&A crusties were recognisable (personally to me, I knew a few) as ex-"peace" convoy crazies when they got clamped down on by new laws. 

 

One door closes another opens. Makes me wonder what next, it's difficult to legislate a mind-set out of existence, particularly when the mind-set is "feck the rules".

 

I'm not sure what your argument is -- it sounds like you're saying that because there are loads of mooring-squatting "crusties" in London and not many visiting boats, nothing should be done?

 

Apart from the fact that just because lots of people ignore the law (like any other law) doesn't mean this should be ignored, perhaps the overcrowding and lack of VMs is one reason many boaters are put off from visiting London?

 

Because millions of non-boaters visit London to see the many attractions, yet many boaters seem to see it as a no-go zone -- could this possibly be linked to the mooring problem?

 

The mooring rules are intended to allow fair access to moorings for people who want to live in (let's not restart the CC debate...) and visit an area; the fact that they simply aren't working (especially in popular areas) due to lack of enforcement doesn't mean they're wrong or should be ignored, no law works without some kind of enforcement to make sure it's not universally flouted. The problem CART have got is that they can't enforce the rules with the staff and technology (i.e. none...) they have today.

 

Fixing this either means using technology like boat tracking (which many people would object to on Big Brother grounds) or enforcement via an outside agency (like parking companies) who will do it because they can make money out of it -- which people will object to because it will cost them more even if they follow the rules. Without either of these the situation won't improve, in fact it will probably carry on getting worse -- which people don't like either.

 

So which of the three options (head-in-sand ignore it and carry on complaining, Big Brother boat tracking, rapacious parking-style enforcement) do people want?

Edited April 14, 2022 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

6 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

  If I threw rubbish and all sorts of things into a farmer's field, CRT would have to find a solution.  

 

 

I don't think they would, Highways dont have to find a solution to people fly tipping in farmers fields from vehicles 

[KenK]

We no longer boat in the UK our boat is now in the Netherlands, on Sunday we moored up at the passantenhaven (passing mooring) the cost was 32 Euros for an overnight stay, although that does include electricity, water and rubbish disposal. Seems a lot but the Dutch canals do not require the payment of a licence fee so unless moorings are charged for there would not be any. When we had a narrowboat in the UK we followed the rules and on a couple of occasions over the 14 years we had to request a longer stay on a time limited mooring for personal reasons both BW and CRT were helpful once we phoned to explain the problem. The OP can read the sign, if he does not wish to pay then move on after 24 hours. The EA already uses car parking companies to enforce 24 hour mooring on the Thames, you certainly do not want that on CRT waters.

[ditchcrawler]

I just copied this from Facebook. what do you make of the charges here 

[IanD]

42 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I just copied this from Facebook. what do you make of the charges here 

The picture doesn't show up (even when clicked on), as you can see...

 

Ooh, but it does (when clicked on) when quoted like this. Anyone knows what's going on?

 

Aha, in the original post it opens up a window showing a broken image, if you click on this it then appears. Probably due to how it was included in the post in the first place...

 

Anyway, it's very similar to the first post in the thread -- without explaining how to make a payment (e.g. via an app or SMS link) or having any local way to do it (e.g. a payment machine) it's probably not an enforceable contract, same issue as with car parks or street parking machines.

 

Doesn't mean CART can't make such a charge, but I doubt that this sign can enforceably do this -- 10/10 for effort, but 0/10 for delivery. IANAL... 😉

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by IanD

[Ronaldo47]

The picture worked fine for me. The wording is odd.  Does the 14 days refer to the total of 2 day visits in a year?  How long do you have to be away to start another 2 day stay? If you do pay £25 a day, can you only stay for a total of 14 days? 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Ronaldo47

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

The picture worked fine for me. 

What are you viewing it on? Windows + Firefox doesn't like it, as I described...

[Ronaldo47]

Chrome on an ancient Samsung adroid smartphone.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Ronaldo47
Chrome added

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

What are you viewing it on? Windows + Firefox doesn't like it, as I described...

 

Works fine on Chrome on a Samsung tablet and on Win 10 on my PC.

[Arthur Marshall]

The reason 2 1/2 times the licence fee for continuous cruisers was suggested is that simply brings their boating costs more or less up to the equivalent of a moorer.

It's irrelevant to think of it in terms of facility usage etc, it's a simple business calculation - if I can pay licence (800), mooring fees (1200), then to the businessman, anyone with a forty foot boat should stump up two grand, and if they aint paying it to CRT for a mooring, they can pay it to be allowed not to have one - it's their choice.

It was always my opinion, when they brought in the mooring permit, it was simply a sneaky way of increasing licence fees, much like a government freezing income tax and raising NI and pretending they haven't increased direct taxes.

[Ronaldo47]

Governments of all persuasions are experts at that sort of thing. When I was a civil servant I couldn't believe it when I found that the government had invented the 11/12ths  annual season ticket loan, wherein the first repayment instalment  was deducted  simultaneously with them giving you the loan.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Ronaldo47
typos

[Iain_S]

19 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

In the context of the o/p and the last post, it is worth remembering that BW's bill, that became the 1995 Act, specifically asked for powers to erect signage to limit mooring and impose fines for contravention.

BW failed to convince parliament that existing powers were insufficient.

Furthermore, CRT failed to convince parliament that all craft needed a mooring as proposed under the bill. It was BW's Kenneth Dodd (I kid you not), as mentioned above, that then suggested that boats that were being used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence should not require a home mooring. He suggested that the test that BW would apply would simply be that if a boat had not moved for 14 days BW might start to consider that it was not being used bona fide for navigation.

Challenged as to why that 14 should not be 28 days he was unable to provide a convincing answer.

... which is why the 1995 Act is so loosely worded. 

Did they perhaps fail to convince parliament because of the existence of the Transport Act 1962 S43?

If the position at present is that (as some suggest) CaRT have no power to control moorings, then parliament must have been in error.

 

I’ve always been under the impression that the 14 days is a hangover from the poor laws, when a parish was responsible for anyone who was destitute and had been a resident for 14 days.