Jump to content

Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.


Alway Swilby

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, IanD said:

I'm going to when I get it. But you're the one who keeps saying it's "skewed" and you've done it, so I'll ask you again -- what exactly is "skewed" about it?

The questions are biased and promote a divide between boaters. The questions are ‘skewed’ with the aim to charge those without home moorings and those with fat boats more for a license. 
When you read the questions/options you may see what Peter’s referring too. 

 As most of the opinions/answers in a previous survey/consultation were from home moorers you can see how/why the current questioning may be skewed in their favour ??

🤷‍♀️ 

 

225AA8D2-70F0-4508-84BB-D77DAFD72027.jpeg.9b281e6357a4abfe11e4312d3217a2f5.jpeg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 As most of the opinions/answers in a previous survey/consultation were from home moorers you can see how/why the current questioning may be skewed in their favour ??

 

 

Which makes total sensse - get your focus group (consulation) in the same proportion as the users.

 

You wouldn't ask a 'majority' of White middle aged men' something relevant to young coloured girls and expect to get representative responses applicable to your target market.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

You’ve lost me again, I think you’re talking about another completely different thing.

 

If a marina does not have it's own feeder, boats are using CRT water to float, the bed of the marina may be private owned. The water to fill it will be from the canal or river that it is connected to. That is why in some older marinas you don't need a licence as they have their own feeders.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Which makes total sensse - get your focus group (consulation) in the same proportion as the users.

 

You wouldn't ask a 'majority' of White middle aged men' something relevant to young coloured girls and expect to get representative responses applicable to your target market.

Exactly 

It’s a non brainer 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nbfiresprite said:

 

If a marina does not have it's own feeder, boats are using CRT water to float, the bed of the marina may be private owned. The water to fill it will be from the canal or river that it is connected to. That is why in some older marinas you don't need a licence as they have their own feeders.      

I would suggest another thread of its own for that one, rather than clogging up every other thread with the same thing over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

 

If a marina does not have it's own feeder, boats are using CRT water to float, the bed of the marina may be private owned. The water to fill it will be from the canal or river that it is connected to. That is why in some older marinas you don't need a licence as they have their own feeders.      

Not necessarily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put in an application for the EBSS £400. This was for a boat where I pay council tax but the electric comes from a commercial supplier. 

 

This was what I got as confirmation (reference number redacted)

 

Now I don't know if someone using another form of ID would receive the payment from "their council" or the DWP and not sure if they do verify council tax but it looks like it. 

 

The only option was to have a "houseboat" on a long term residential mooring. The mooring has an individually allocated street number so CT is per boat not paid by mooring operator (CRT). 

 

I think they will pay. 

 

IMG_20230311_101037.jpg.d5f932566e1decc1d47214213888957d.jpg

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

On 08/03/2023 at 12:11, nbfiresprite said:

 

If a marina does not have it's own feeder, boats are using CRT water to float, the bed of the marina may be private owned. The water to fill it will be from the canal or river that it is connected to. That is why in some older marinas you don't need a licence as they have their own feeders.      

 

No they aren't using CRT water. The land, above which the water sits, is what decides.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a slightly silly argument because it implies that someone could dig a hole 1km square and 100m deep and drain the entire canal of water and that would be fine. Nothing the CRT can do about it ? 

Water IS an asset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

It is a slightly silly argument because it implies that someone could dig a hole 1km square and 100m deep and drain the entire canal of water and that would be fine. Nothing the CRT can do about it ? 

Water IS an asset. 

 

It's private property (in a marina) - full stop.

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think if I were to buy a field by a canal then dig a Very Big Hole in it and connect it to the canal there is no law protecting the navigation authority against me draining the entire canal? 

 

This would be silly but is the logical outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, magnetman said:

So you think if I were to buy a field by a canal then dig a Very Big Hole in it and connect it to the canal there is no law protecting the navigation authority against me draining the entire canal? 

 

This would be silly but is the logical outcome. 

 

CRT do not maintain farmers' field edges. And a farmer has right to the farmer's property, CRT don't. If water spills over on to the farmer's land, it is not CRT water. CRT cannot have access to that water. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed @Paul C

 

So anyway did anyone else not on a domestic electric contract get through the EBSS application process? 

 

I'm intrigued if one were to use different ID (I just used my address as the ID as I pay the council tax) whether it would go to the same page as I was sent as confirmation or if there is another route to claim which disregards council tax. 

 

It is intriguing. 

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT do not maintain farmers' field edges. And a farmer has right to the farmer's property, CRT don't. If water spills over on to the farmer's land, it is not CRT water. CRT cannot have access to that water. 

 

 

I think this is incorrect. Something will have been put in the original enabling acts to prevent this obvious problem from occurring. 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think this is incorrect. Something will have been put in the original enabling acts to prevent this obvious problem from occurring. 

 

Water that spills onto a farmer's land has spilled over onto private property. CRT would be trespassing. They wouldn't be writing to the farmer to ask for their water back. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT do not maintain farmers' field edges. And a farmer has right to the farmer's property, CRT don't. If water spills over on to the farmer's land, it is not CRT water. CRT cannot have access to that water. 

 

 

 

In theory, if a canal bank eroded to effectively flood another landowner's land, CRT could come along and put (impermeable) banking repairs in, on their side of the edge.

 

If enough depth and width had formed so (a) boat(s) had moored there, they would be trapped in a pond (now with no water supply) the other side of the canal.

 

The NAA is about connectivity (the clue is in the first A), not water supply/sharing. Its a consequence of the connectivity that the water is shared, because almost all marinas are on the same level as the canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

In theory, if a canal bank eroded to effectively flood another landowner's land, CRT could come along and put (impermeable) banking repairs in, on their side of the edge.

 

If enough depth and width had formed so (a) boat(s) had moored there, they would be trapped in a pond (now with no water supply) the other side of the canal.

 

The NAA is about connectivity (the clue is in the first A), not water supply/sharing. Its a consequence of the connectivity that the water is shared, because almost all marinas are on the same level as the canal.

 

If a boat floated onto a farmer's field, CRT would have no jurisdiction. Private land. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Water that spills onto a farmer's land has spilled over onto private property. CRT would be trespassing. They wouldn't be writing to the farmer to ask for their water back. 

 

 

No. They'd just fix the leak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[A] If a bank naturally erodes, and causes (let's say) a 4ft encroachment onto the farmer's field, at a depth of 1ft sloping to zero:

 

* water loss to fill that area - insignificant

* ongoing water loss - insignificant

* opportunity to moor boats - none (barring tiny rowing boats, etc)

* CRT might put piling in to fix the issue and prevent further erosion, if 1) they have the legal duty to do so, 2) the farmer pressed them on it or took legal action etc. But otherwise, its likely nothing will happen

 

[B] If an adjoining field were deliberately excavated to a depth of 5 feet, over a vast area able to moor tens or hundreds of boats, then removed the bank to breach into the canal and form an entrance to the area

 

* water loss to fill that area - significant

* ongoing water loss - depends on how impermeable the works was, or if they lined it, etc etc (technical details)

* opportunity to moor boats - yes

* CRT will take action here, 1) to minimise water loss, 2) to possibly make money from the access/connectivity that was put in, by having the landowner/developer agree to the NAA. And if they can't or won't come to an agreement, impermeable piling is likely to be done by CRT, creating an isolated lake for the landowner with no attraction whatsoever - except perhaps to a tiny handful of boat owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iain_S said:

No. They'd just fix the leak. 

 

Who would? CRT won't accept responsibility for a farmer's field boundary.

 

 

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

[A] If a bank naturally erodes, and causes (let's say) a 4ft encroachment onto the farmer's field, at a depth of 1ft sloping to zero:

 

* water loss to fill that area - insignificant

* ongoing water loss - insignificant

* opportunity to moor boats - none (barring tiny rowing boats, etc)

* CRT might put piling in to fix the issue and prevent further erosion, if 1) they have the legal duty to do so, 2) the farmer pressed them on it or took legal action etc. But otherwise, its likely nothing will happen

 

[B] If an adjoining field were deliberately excavated to a depth of 5 feet, over a vast area able to moor tens or hundreds of boats, then removed the bank to breach into the canal and form an entrance to the area

 

* water loss to fill that area - significant

* ongoing water loss - depends on how impermeable the works was, or if they lined it, etc etc (technical details)

* opportunity to moor boats - yes

* CRT will take action here, 1) to minimise water loss, 2) to possibly make money from the access/connectivity that was put in, by having the landowner/developer agree to the NAA. And if they can't or won't come to an agreement, impermeable piling is likely to be done by CRT, creating an isolated lake for the landowner with no attraction whatsoever - except perhaps to a tiny handful of boat owners.

 

You're tying yourself in knots. For water over a farmer's field, private land, CRT have no authority. Not discussing whether someone is planning to build a marina. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

* CRT will take action here, 1) to minimise water loss, 2) to possibly make money from the access/connectivity that was put in, by having the landowner/developer agree to the NAA. And if they can't or won't come to an agreement, impermeable piling is likely to be done by CRT, creating an isolated lake for the landowner with no attraction whatsoever - except perhaps to a tiny handful of boat owners.

That is how the new Mancetter marina was for about 20 years

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.