Jump to content

Not looking good for us


Midnight

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The marina operator.

 

 

The marina operator's authority is finite. It does not travel beyond the entrance of the marina. CRT's authority is finite, it does not travel by water into the marina. The relationship that the boater has with CRT is a 1st and 2nd party arrangement; authority and licence holder. 

 

The relationship that the boater has with CRT, in a marina, is 1st and 3rd party. CRT and the marina are 1st and 2nd parties. There is no direct transfer of legal authority conferred on the licence. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Higgs said:

 

The marina operator's authority is finite. It does not travel beyond the entrance of the marina. CRT's authority is finite, it does not travel by water into the marina. The relationship that the boater has with CRT is a 1st and 2nd party arrangement; authority and licence holder. 

 

The relationship that the boater has with CRT, in a marina, is 1st and 3rd party. CRT and the marina are 1st and 2nd parties. There is no direct transfer of legal authority conferred on the licence. 

 

 

 

Waffle.

 

If the marina t&c's stipulate you have to have a licence you have to have one.

 

Did you have one when you moored in Mercia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M_JG said:

 

Waffle.

 

If the marina t&c's stipulate you have to have a licence you have to have one.

 

Did you have one when you moored in Mercia?

 

No argument, but the licence is not legal in a marina. It is only legal when it is out of the marina. The licence has no validity in a marina. It is not necessary. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

No argument, but the licence is not legal in a marina. It is only legal when it is out of the marina. The licence has no validity in a marina. It is not necessary. 

 

 

 

I didnt say it was a 'legal' requirement in a marina.

 

I said it was a stipulation often stated in marina t&c's?

 

So having satisfactorily answered your queries I shall bid you goodnight and leave you to have your so treasured 'last' word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, M_JG said:

I didnt say it was a 'legal' requirement in a marina.

 

It isn't legal, and CRT isn't authorised to make it legal in a marina. It isn't correct of the marina to insist it is needed. The whole thing is a system of threats. If the business doesn't agree, it gets no access to the customers on the canal. If the boater doesn't get a licence, they're kicked out of the marina. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2023 at 10:35, howardang said:

I certainly feel a distinct change in attitudes concerning our  inland waterways in recent years both from CRT and also  if the amount of newcomers asking questions about canals recently is any indication. A large proportion of these newbie enquirers seem to me to have absolutely no interest in what the inland waterways are all about, but rather how can they get involved so that they can find somewhere cheap  to live which will reduce their outgoings. That is no bad thing in these days of austerity necessarily, however the growing number of "rose tinted" press articles are very misleading and frequently lead people up the wrong garden path. Sadly, if we are not careful we are going to lose something of great importance, and once gone it will never be replaced. I know it may be a controversial thing to say and that it may annoy some people but I sometimes wonder if this web site is sometimes too helpful in some of these cases when it quickly becomes apparent that the sole purpose of the queries is to enable someone to find a cheap alternative to their housing situation.

 

Regarding the comment that a move to salt water boating may be the way to go for some present boaters,  it is certainly a thought worth considering, and for some it might be the answer. However, it is not for everyone and for those who do decide to get their "boating fix" in this way they will certainly have to consider that one of the adaptations needed will be that they will need to become much more "boat minded"  and become familiar with concepts that some boaters presently seem to push to the back of the mind (seamanship/boatmanship) and regard as relatively unimportant.  I think that the percentage of boaters presently on the inland waterways who decide to give salty water boating a try might be relatively low, and for the remainder  I think we may well  be seeing an upsurge in mobile homes and caravans on our already crowded roads! Happy days;  I'm only glad that we decided to hang up our windlasses when we did.🤥

 

Howard

 

The obvious answer is to convert the little used canals to residential use (no need to dredge or repair locks) and charge accordingly, and then spend the increased CRT income on properly maintaining the more popular canals for the benefit of hirers and those who wish to actually go boating (albeit on a more restricted network).

 

And just like most compromises it satisfies no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

The obvious answer is to convert the little used canals to residential use (no need to dredge or repair locks) and charge accordingly, and then spend the increased CRT income on properly maintaining the more popular canals for the benefit of hirers and those who wish to actually go boating (albeit on a more restricted network).

 

And just like most compromises it satisfies no one.

You sir, are a genius. I nominate the Ashby and Aylesbury arm. Instead of the Beeching cuts, it could be named the cuthound cuts. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't legal, and CRT isn't authorised to make it legal in a marina. It isn't correct of the marina to insist it is needed. The whole thing is a system of threats. If the business doesn't agree, it gets no access to the customers on the canal. If the boater doesn't get a licence, they're kicked out of the marina. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It IS legal, but civil not criminal. The marina operator has a contract with CRT (the Network Access Agreement) which stipulates that boats need to have a licence in the marina. So, the marina operator puts a clause in the (civil) mooring contract to stipulate it. CRT are authorised to have this clause because they are the navigation authority that the marina is connected to. 

 

The obvious thing to mention, is that unless there's a separate gated area for non-licence-payers and licence payers, it would be very easy for non-licence-paying moorers to occasionally nip out and go boating, with no real worry of being caught. That's the reason why CRT wanted a blanket rule that everyone who could access the canal, had a long term licence.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

The obvious answer is to convert the little used canals to residential use (no need to dredge or repair locks) and charge accordingly, and then spend the increased CRT income on properly maintaining the more popular canals for the benefit of hirers and those who wish to actually go boating (albeit on a more restricted network).

 

And just like most compromises it satisfies no one.

Doing it already on the Rochdale and Huddersfield narrow and the Calder and hebble 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Give me the money, I'll do it tmor. 

 

 

You could challenge this via CRT's complaints procedure and the Waterways Ombudsman as a no cost option.

 

It would not be the first time that a WO has found in favour of a boater regarding licencing which why most shared ownership boats can now licence at the private rate rather than the commercial rate.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

Higgs, I’ve got to ask the obvious,

why would you not want to take your boat out for a spin?

 

You can only be arguing this from a hypothetical point of view? unless of course a disability stops you taking the boat out and then I’m sorry that’s the case. 
 

But most will find this an odd argument, having a boat and not go boating?

But again I guess there are reasons, but 🤷‍♀️ I don’t understand. 
 

 

I think you rather miss the obvious. Many boaters do not want to boat in the winter months. They would take out a licence for the period when they wished to use CRT's waterways.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, IanD said:

 

The world is unfair. It's unfair that CART don't get enough money from the government. It's unfair that the ultra-rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.

 

In most cases, the people who make most noise about unfairness -- like, repeatedly posting about it on CWDF, for example -- think that it should be corrected.

 

Sometimes they even come up with suggestions about how this might be done, for example by making bigger differences between the license fees paid by different people on different boats in different places.

 

But according to your posts not you, it seems. Ho hum... 😉

Claiming that the world is unfair, does not excuse the behaviour of those that make it so.

 

With regard to licence fees and differential pricing, I suggest you read the Oxera report and subsequent consultation for understanding of the issues.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Claiming that the world is unfair, does not excuse the behaviour of those that make it so.

 

With regard to licence fees and differential pricing, I suggest you read the Oxera report and subsequent consultation for understanding of the issues.

 

 

 

I never said that it excused such behaviour.

 

What I said is that -- maybe unfortunately -- we don't live in a Utopian world where all unfairness can be magically removed, we live in an imperfect real world, and if we wish to improve this by making changes to the status quo we need.to look at all the effects of this, not just the positive ones which may be obvious but also the less obvious negative ones.

 

For example, posters who think that it would be better -- or "fairer" -- if boaters who never leave their marina (i.e. them) didn't pay the CART license fee seem strangely reluctant to face up to the fact that the obvious consequence would be everybody else paying considerably more for theirs -- it's not just them ending up better off (hooray!), it's everyone else ending up worse off (boo!). It's how any business who offers new discounts to some customers has to recoup the lost revenue.

 

I'd love to know if the Oxera report reaches a similar conclusion (does it?), but if it doesn't I'd suggest that it's ignoring economic reality...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

For example, posters who think that it would be better -- or "fairer" -- if boaters who never leave their marina (i.e. them) didn't pay the CART license fee seem strangely reluctant to face up to the fact that the obvious consequence would be everybody else paying considerably more for theirs -- 

 

Precisely as in the last consultation where the majority of inland waterways boat owners, who are  narrowboat owners ,said it would be good if  boats wider than a narrowboat should pay greater license fees  because it had less financial impact on the majority a narrowboaters.

 

Another C&RT consultation , as we have seen, is on the way and is likely to have a similarly prejudiced result.

.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, IanD said:

I never said that it excused such behaviour.

 

What I said is that -- maybe unfortunately -- we don't live in a Utopian world where all unfairness can be magically removed, we live in an imperfect real world, and if we wish to improve this by making changes to the status quo we need.to look at all the effects of this, not just the positive ones which may be obvious but also the less obvious negative ones.

 

For example, posters who think that it would be better -- or "fairer" -- if boaters who never leave their marina (i.e. them) didn't pay the CART license fee seem strangely reluctant to face up to the fact that the obvious consequence would be everybody else paying considerably more for theirs -- it's not just them ending up better off (hooray!), it's everyone else ending up worse off (boo!). It's how any business who offers new discounts to some customers has to recoup the lost revenue.

 

I'd love to know if the Oxera report reaches a similar conclusion (does it?), but if it doesn't I'd suggest that it's ignoring economic reality...

I suggest you read it rather than guess what it says and condemn it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

They're told they need a licence, but what they don't tell is, it isn't by law, in a marina. 

The marina terms and conditions on the boat owner and the CRT NAA terms are legally binding (and voluntarily entered into by the boat owner and marina respectively). What you mean is that the requirement to have a licence while in a NAA marina isn't imposed by statute law. But then nobody claims it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

It IS legal, but civil not criminal. The marina operator has a contract with CRT (the Network Access Agreement) which stipulates that boats need to have a licence in the marina. So, the marina operator puts a clause in the (civil) mooring contract to stipulate it. CRT are authorised to have this clause because they are the navigation authority that the marina is connected to. 

 

The obvious thing to mention, is that unless there's a separate gated area for non-licence-payers and licence payers, it would be very easy for non-licence-paying moorers to occasionally nip out and go boating, with no real worry of being caught. That's the reason why CRT wanted a blanket rule that everyone who could access the canal, had a long term licence.

 

A licence fee inside a marina is a non-legal requirement, whether CRT have enough 'policing' resources or not.

 

So, rather than a licence being necessary to use the waterway, you're saying moorers have to have a licence, just in case a moorer decides to do something underhanded? And, 2, you defend an underhanded practice, practiced by CRT and the marinas?

 

Back in the early days of Mercia marina, your contract would say virtually nothing, apart from some administration detail. What they have these days runs to several pages. Nowhere does it say that you don't legally need a licence, because the marina is not a Trust waterway. Nowhere does it say that CRT cannot enforce its authority directly on the moorer. You pay for a licence in a marina, because it keeps the marina and CRT happy business partners; that is the single reason for having a licence in a marina. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, David Mack said:

The marina terms and conditions on the boat owner and the CRT NAA terms are legally binding (and voluntarily entered into by the boat owner and marina respectively). What you mean is that the requirement to have a licence while in a NAA marina isn't imposed by statute law. But then nobody claims it is.

 

The NAA is not legally binding on the moorer. The marina, while they have their rule, they are not an authority entitled to apply a law it doesn't have a right to apply. Not even CRT have the right to apply that law inside a marina. And, I have made it clear, I appreciate that the marinas have terms and conditions. They do not represent the law that governs licence requirement. Marinas represent themselves as a business. 

 

The marinas enter into an agreement with CRT, it is for financial gain. It is mercenary. It just so happens, moorers have to pay towards the maintenance of that business contract - involuntarily, no consultation.

 

What would you call it, when someone is forced to buy something they don't need, under the pretence it is necessary?

What would you call it, when that unnecessary payment comes with a threat, if not paid.?

 

A marina cannot give authority to a licence. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

A licence fee inside a marina is a non-legal requirement, whether CRT have enough 'policing' resources or not.

 

So, rather than a licence being necessary to use the waterway, you're saying moorers have to have a licence, just in case a moorer decides to do something underhanded? And, 2, you defend an underhanded practice, practiced by CRT and the marinas?

 

Back in the early days of Mercia marina, your contract would say virtually nothing, apart from some administration detail. What they have these days runs to several pages. Nowhere does it say that you don't legally need a licence, because the marina is not a Trust waterway. Nowhere does it say that CRT cannot enforce its authority directly on the moorer. You pay for a licence in a marina, because it keeps the marina and CRT happy business partners; that is the single reason for having a licence in a marina. 

 

 

 

 

 

Its down to semantics. And on that note, I think you should understand the difference between criminal and civil law. And perhaps not use the term "non-legal requirement" - it IS a legal requirement, due to contract law. There is a contractual requirement. But its a civil thing, not a criminal thing, so saying "non-legal" is muddying the waters somewhat.

 

"Just in case a moorer decides to do something underhanded" - could be reworded as "just in case a boater uses their boat to go out on the canal without a licence". Given that this is what boats do, its not an unlikely scenario. So I think its fair enough that to simplify enforcement, its done at the point of taking out a mooring and the requirement is an all-year-round thing. If you disagree with this, then see IanD's above point - for licences to be cost-neutral income, we would see rises for boaters who actually use their boats on canals. You seem to have given no consideration to this.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

The NAA is not legally binding on the moorer.

And I have never said it is.

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

The marina, while they have their rule, they are not an authority entitled to apply a law it doesn't have a right to apply.

And they are not doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

What would you call it, when someone is forced to buy something they don't need, under the pretence it is necessary?

Nobody but you is claiming that it is necessary under statute law. It is only necessary to meet the terms of the mooring agreement.

There's no pretence involved.

Edited by David Mack
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.