C&RT License Survey

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I’m not wanting to get in tit for tat arguments again

But rather than seeing NBTA as promoting rule bending

I see them as an organisation that holds CRT to account for their rule bending.

 

21 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Do you know anyone in the CRT or the NBTA? 

As it happens I’ve done both at the same time 😂
for several years 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Goliath

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Do you know anyone in the CRT or the NBTA? 

 

If not then how do you know what their motivations are ? 

 

I know it is all a bit London centric and the canals have taken on the same role as squatting residential property did before it was criminalised but the actions of the NBTA will have consequences. 

 

I don't, but I'd be surprised if CART employees were allowed to be members of the NBTA since it's a pressure group whose objectives directly oppose CART policy in several areas -- from the NBTA website:

 

The NBTA seeks to represent the interests of all itinerant live aboard boat dwellers – “Bargee Travellers” – in respect of

 

-- lobbying at both central government and local government levels

-- Object to CRT’s plans to remove 14-day mooring space in Birmingham!

-- What to do if you get a notice under CRT’s Improper Mooring Process

-- STOP THE CRT BOAT CULL IN LONDON

-- Template complaint about so-called ‘safety zones’ enforcement

 

I think it's crystal clear what NBTA's motivations are, it's spelled out here -- often in CAPITAL LETTERS...

 

Most employment contracts say that you're not allowed to do anything which is directly against the interests of your employer, and I'd be very surprised if CART's don't have this clause.

Edited February 27, 2023 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I like the wording "it would not be right to modify or relax the legal requirement". 

 

Very good ! Its not up to the CRT to do either of those things and perhaps this form of words is rather telling. 

 

I still think the right approach here is to transfer towpaths, including mooring rights, to local councils as they are in most cases a local amenity. 

Like the Basingstoke Canal

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Like the Basingstoke Canal

 

Which actually works really well. Boats are a rarity but the towpaths are like the M4, full of ramblers, dog walkers, cyclists etc all enjoying the absence of miserable moaning boaters!

 

 

[magnetman]

How terrible it must be for the locals to be able to see the water. 

[Arthur Marshall]

I would be surprised if the majority of liveaboard continuous moorers wouldn't welcome the chance of a not too expensive residential mooring where they want to be. Those working would pay for them,  those not could claim it on benefits. Either way it's less hassle for them, less risk of losing their homes.

It won't work for the dumpers who use the boat as an occasional holiday home. But the advantage for CRT would be that they immediately become easy to spot and remove - no court order required. The very, very few who are actually on an extended trip round the country would just have to move a bit more often to stay under the radar.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The very, very few who are actually on an extended trip round the country would just have to move a bit more often to stay under the radar.

That’ll be me

but I ain’t afraid of no radar 😃

no reason to

 

 

 

 

…I wear a tin foil hat 

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I would be surprised if the majority of liveaboard continuous moorers wouldn't welcome the chance of a not too expensive residential mooring where they want to be. Those working would pay for them,  those not could claim it on benefits. Either way it's less hassle for them, less risk of losing their homes.

It won't work for the dumpers who use the boat as an occasional holiday home. But the advantage for CRT would be that they immediately become easy to spot and remove - no court order required. The very, very few who are actually on an extended trip round the country would just have to move a bit more often to stay under the radar.

The question is what is "not too expensive"? I believe a typical CART online mooring is something like £2k per year (more Dahn Sarf), and I can't see many CMers being willing to pay this unless it gets a *lot* more expensive carrying on as the are (e.g. a +100% CC surcharge).

 

Logically CART should do both (carrot and stick, more moorings and a big CC surcharge), but logic may not come into it, especially if the NBTA start their usual "destroying families" campaign when CART announce their license fee changes...

[Bristolfashion]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I would be surprised if the majority of liveaboard continuous moorers wouldn't welcome the chance of a not too expensive residential mooring where they want to be. Those working would pay for them,  those not could claim it on benefits. Either way it's less hassle for them, less risk of losing their homes.

It won't work for the dumpers who use the boat as an occasional holiday home. But the advantage for CRT would be that they immediately become easy to spot and remove - no court order required. The very, very few who are actually on an extended trip round the country would just have to move a bit more often to stay under the radar.

I'm planning a "see the whole system" trip - but I'd be happy to pay a mooring  charge on top of the licence 'cos, after all, that what I'll be doing every night. To be fair, since (unlike a permanent morning) the location isn't guaranteed and the facilities are variable, something towards the bottom end might be appropriate? Whilst it is tempting to complicate things by having a charge per night - after all, one wouldn't be on CRT waters every night or might be paying for a mooring, I'd go the simple route.

 

My first suggestion is a flat £500 or, secondly, maybe £10 per foot/year - 50% loading for widebeams.

 

I'd also like to see those overstay charges go up seriously - is £25 a night a huge deterrent?

 

BTW, I'm not stupid rich, I just think that that approach is fair - and I'd like to see the system not only survive, but prosper.

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

My first suggestion is a flat £500 or, secondly, maybe £10 per foot/year - 50% loading for widebeams.

 

 

You're kidding! 

 

A basic, "no facilities" CRT on-line leisure mooring sold for £5k a year recently in Great Bedwyn on the eastern K&A. £5,000 a year, not £500!

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by MtB
Add a detail

[LadyG]

Most people seem to assume that folks can either fork out double the current expenditure or claim Gov Benefits, this is not correct, most people live on a budget, balancing income against expenditure, it has always been so, yes some always rely on Govt Benefits, but not everyone.

[Bristolfashion]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

You're kidding! 

 

A basic, "no facilities" CRT on-line leisure mooring sold for £5k a year recently in Great Bedwyn. £5,000 a year, not £500!

 

 

 

I've seen comment elsewhere that a basic, no facilities in line mooring might be £15 to £20 per foot per annum, so £10 for a non guaranteed mooring didn't seem unreasonable - especially as the current rate is a big fat £0!

 

It doesn't sound like your example is the cheapest on the system.

 

What's your proposal?

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Most people seem to assume that folks can either fork out double the current expenditure or claim Gov Benefits, this is not correct, most people live on a budget, balancing income against expenditure, it has always been so, yes some always rely on Govt Benefits, but not everyone.

 

 

Something being historically available for stupid cheap is NOT a reason for the supplier never to start charging a sensible, commercial price for it. 

 

People who are living on the cut purely for the low cost can always move off their boats to some other, cheaper, accommodation. "But there is nothing cheaper!" I can imagine you typing. Which rather proves the point.

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by MtB

[LadyG]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Something being historically available for stupid cheap is NOT a reason for the supplier never to start charging a sensible, commercial price for it. 

 

People who are living on the cut purely for the low cost can always move off their boats to some other, cheaper, accommodation. "But there is nothing cheaper!" I can imagine you typing. Which rather proves the point.

 

 

 

That is a ridiculous argument. You sound like Maggie Thatcher who sold the family silver in exchange for a few years in government.

Edited February 27, 2023 by LadyG

[MtB]

19 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

I've seen comment elsewhere that a basic, no facilities in line mooring might be £15 to £20 per foot per annum, so £10 for a non guaranteed mooring didn't seem unreasonable - especially as the current rate is a big fat £0!

 

It doesn't sound like your example is the cheapest on the system.

 

What's your proposal?

 

 

Triple licence fees with an additional 100% loading for boats over 7ft 6in wide. CRT might have a prayer of a chance of maintaining the waterways if that happens. I can't imagine your suggestion making much difference.

 

Edit to add:

Where its gone wrong in my opinion, is the CRT policy of ramping up the price of their unserviced on-line moorings whilst at the same time holding down licence fees at ridiculously low rates. If they charged a sensible price eg £3k a year for an average 57ft narrowboat and £6k for a widebeam, along with say £1k for an unserviced on-line mooring, several problems would all be solved at once. 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by MtB

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Most people seem to assume that folks can either fork out double the current expenditure or claim Gov Benefits, this is not correct, most people live on a budget, balancing income against expenditure, it has always been so, yes some always rely on Govt Benefits, but not everyone.

I can’t be arsed with it anymore. Too many made up figures and invented scenarios. 
Most missing the point there is no CC license. 
 

 

 

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

That is a ridiculous argument

👏 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

That is a ridiculous argument. 

 

You started it!

[enigmatic]

34 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I would be surprised if the majority of liveaboard continuous moorers wouldn't welcome the chance of a not too expensive residential mooring where they want to be. Those working would pay for them,  those not could claim it on benefits. Either way it's less hassle for them, less risk of losing their homes.

It won't work for the dumpers who use the boat as an occasional holiday home. But the advantage for CRT would be that they immediately become easy to spot and remove - no court order required. The very, very few who are actually on an extended trip round the country would just have to move a bit more often to stay under the radar.

The majority of liveaboard continuous moorers want to be in the areas of the country where liveaboard moorings are rarely available and ridiculously expensive. 

 

Can't see the people currently "continuous cruising" in London welcoming the chance to pay £9k a year to moor in a no facilities towpath mooring a bit like one of their regular ones, and I can't see it making sense for the CRT to go way below market price either...

[LadyG]

So it's £9K per annum now, where did that come from?

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, LadyG said:

So it's £9K per annum now, where did that come from?

That's the bottom end of a mooring in London - they are known to make £15k+ at auction

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

It so happens this has just been emailed to me (I signed up about 5yrs ago and still get notifications)

So, hot off the press, to give an example of what’s on offer and what you might expect for you money. By Market Drayton. 

Oh yea,

highest bidder wins,

could go for more

[Jim Wortelhock]

If anyone saw Cruising The Cut when he interviewed the CEO of CRT it was obvious that we have a useless academic rather than a "Doer" in charge.  Who built the canals? Risk taking entrepreneurs with vision and guts. We need more people like this rather than wasting money on surveys. 

[Cheshire cat]

Have the services been reinstated at Tyrley wharf? If not you've got to use Norbury or Market Drayton which requires a degree of planning ahead.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

Have the services been reinstated at Tyrley wharf? If not you've got to use Norbury or Market Drayton which requires a degree of planning ahead.

Last time I passed was awhile ago, August I think, and there was a working water tap and a compound for the bins.

The Elsan was unavailable, out of order

and I can’t remember if the toilet was open or not ?

 

I think I heard the pub’s shut too 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

 
Most missing the point there is no CC license. 
 

This is true in a literal sense but we now have the term "continuous cruiser" written on a government website.

 

This changes the game significantly.

 

There is only one type of licence for canals and that is a Pleasure Boat Licence. Everyone knows this but the creep of Terms and Conditions and Rules is having the effect of moving the goalposts.

 

 

The CRT do claim that there is such a thing as a continuous cruiser licence. It technically doesn't exist but effectively. going forwards, it does exist. 

 

This is where the real world and the technically accurate world of law start to get into a disagreement.

 

I wonder if there arrr people who can counter this.

The funny thing is it won't be the NBTA who counter it because this is what they are attempting to achieve.

 

Be careful what you wish for.