The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It is odd on the face of it that they choose not to. 

 

It is odd that they have never (?) enforced a single bylaw.

[MtB]

It just strikes me as fair and reasonable for owners of bigger boats to pay more than owners of smaller boats, and boaters who use the system more to pay more than boaters who use the system less. 

 

This translates into charging by deck area not length, and to charging CCers more than home moorers.

 

Stands to reason, dunnit. 

 

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think it is completely impractical. The point is that a lot of boats these days don't move a lot. If they are not moving and have not passed a toll house then it is incredibly easy to work out where they are. 

 

It would require splitting the network into about 26 different "zones" or possibly more but the finances would be good so I think it could be achieved. 

 

 

To have any reasonable chance of charging CMers who shuffle backwards and forwards and charge boaters by actual usage including locks, you'd probably need toll points every 10 miles or so. Which would need 200 toll posts, which would need 200 toll checkers, which including overheads would cost CART something like £7M a year -- which is £200 per boater before there's any net income from the tolls.

 

Change the numbers how you want, it's completely impractical.

 

Chances of tolls 

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is odd that they have never (?) enforced a single bylaw.

Byelaws turn out to be quite interesting when people do FOI requests 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/general_canal_byelaws_1965

 

https://narrowboatworld.com/13592-the-general-canal-guidelines

 

The CRT don't enforce byelaws. 

 

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

To have any reasonable chance of charging CMers who shuffle backwards and forwards and charge boaters by actual usage including locks, you'd probably need toll points every 10 miles or so. Which would need 200 toll posts, which would need 200 toll checkers, which including overheads would cost CART something like £7M a year -- which is £200 per boater before there's any net income from the tolls.

 

Change the numbers how you want, it's completely impractical.

 

Chances of tolls 

£200 a year is a shocking amount of extra money to pay for a canal with water in it. I can see why you object! 

[George and Dragon]

4 hours ago, Steve_C said:

Just a thought but will someone who has a "CC licence" and then decides to take a CRT or independent winter mooring then have to cancel the "CC licence", get a refund, re-apply for a "non CC licence", no doubt with administration costs, then cancel the "non CC licence" and pay the extra for the new "CC licence" plus administration costs when they leave at the conclusion of thier winter mooring.

Surely CRT can come up with something far less intuitive than that. If not they're obviously not trying.

 

As a non liveaboard with a home mooring I don't want to see genuine continuous cruisers penalised. I would like to see overstayers encouraged to comply with the T&Cs of their licences and those without licences removed from the water. Unfortunately this is going to mean people who can't afford to live on land in cities won't have the option of living in floating shanty towns. 

Perhaps we need a government that takes the need to house the population seriously though where we'd get one of those from is not a topic for this particular forum.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

Was it in fact necessary to have a home mooring before the 95 act in order to obtain a licence from BW? 

 

I'm not convinced it was but someone will know. 

No.

BW, in the private bill attempted to get a requirement for everyone to have a home mooring. They failed to convince that this was needed. They also attempted to get powers to errect signs limiting moorings. This was also rejected.

 

It is in parliamentary records but these predate what is held online.

 

 

 

 

 

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

 

As a non liveaboard with a home mooring I don't want to see genuine continuous cruisers penalised.

“Penalised” is an emotive word. The facts of the matter are that CCers cost CRT more in terms of rubbish disposal, elsan disposal, fresh water and possibly wear and tear on the infrastructure.

 

Whether you think that it’s fair that a group who costs the organisation more, should pay more, or not, is of course a matter of opinion. But currently I am struggling to think of a justification as to why they shouldn’t.

 

In our marina there are a majority of boats that never, or very rarely leave it. But they all have to have a CRT licence. Money for old rope is the expression, and their licence fee is close to 100% subsidy for those who spend all their time out on the system using its facilities and resources.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

“Penalised” is an emotive word. The facts of the matter are that CCers cost CRT more in terms of rubbish disposal, elsan disposal, fresh water and possibly wear and tear on the infrastructure.

 

Whether you think that it’s fair that a group who costs the organisation more, should pay more, or not, is of course a matter of opinion. But currently I am struggling to think of a justification as to why they shouldn’t.

 

In our marina there are a majority of boats that never, or very rarely leave it. But they all have to have a CRT licence. Money for old rope is the expression, and their licence fee is close to 100% subsidy for those who spend all their time out on the system using its facilities and resources.

I was told years ago that it was the rule of thirds. One third don't move. One third move but only within the marina and the other third actually venture outside ...

[magnetman]

I've only been in a marina for 1 day in 29 yars living on boats. 

 

Not much experience there but I imagine that handling a boat out of the marina safely and securely without someone spotting one doing a wrong move must be rather awkward. 

 

Confidence about being able do this could put people off moving the boat. 

 

I'd not like it much. 

[MtB]

23 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

“Penalised” is an emotive word. The facts of the matter are that CCers cost CRT more in terms of rubbish disposal, elsan disposal, fresh water and possibly wear and tear on the infrastructure.

 

You've overlooked the costs of enforcement.

 

All those towpath walkers who walk the whole of the 2000 miles of CRT canals every fortnight (apparently), do it to enforce the rules on CCers, not home moorers.

 

Why should all boaters bear the full cost of that? Why not load the whole of the costs onto CC licences?

 

 

 

 

[Tacet]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

You've overlooked the costs of enforcement.

 

All those towpath walkers who walk the whole of the 2000 miles of CRT canals every fortnight (apparently), do it to enforce the rules on CCers, not home moorers.

 

Why should all boaters bear the full cost of that? Why not load the whole of the costs onto CC licences?

 

 

 

 

Because enforcement is not solely or mainly for the benefit of CCers?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Tacet said:

Because enforcement is not solely or mainly for the benefit of CCers?

 

Because it is a cost caused by them, durrrr....

 

[Tacet]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Because it is a cost caused by them, durrrr....

 

Good point.  Makes you wonder why I should pay for locks on my boat when it is a cost caused by the reprobates.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

26 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Because it is a cost caused by them, durrrr....

 

No. It is a cost caused by CRT by refusing to license. 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

No. It is a cost caused by CRT by refusing to license. 

 

Twaddle. 

 

Loads of CCers have a license. 

 

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

No. It is a cost caused by CRT by refusing to license. 

No. It is a cost caused by people signing up to the “no home mooring” option and then feeling no compunction to abide by the associated laws.

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

No. It is a cost caused by people signing up to the “no home mooring” option and then feeling no compunction to abide by the associated laws.

 

Well put.

 

If there were no piss-takers and everybody cruised by the rules they signed up to, CRT would have no enforcement costs to fund. 

[matty40s]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

No. It is a cost caused by people signing up to the “no home mooring” option and then feeling no compunction to abide by the associated laws.

 A law must have specific parameters to be broken. A loose guidance of perhaps 20km, or 20miles(although nobody at CRT will give a definitive answer), whether that be range or distance perhaps. This may be overlooked in case of breakdown, lockdown, meltdown or paddy ashdown, not even touching on the schooling of kids or being near a hospital for treatment, is not an enforceable law.

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

“Penalised” is an emotive word. The facts of the matter are that CCers cost CRT more in terms of rubbish disposal, elsan disposal, fresh water and possibly wear and tear on the infrastructure.

 

Do we? More than people permanently moored in a private marina with its own facilities, certainly, but many other liveaboards with permanent moorings rely entirely on CRT facilities either at their mooring or nearby.

 

They don't drink or shit less than me (I presume most couples and families manage more!) and they don't spend time on EA waters either!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Twaddle. 

 

Loads of CCers have a license. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

No. It is a cost caused by people signing up to the “no home mooring” option and then feeling no compunction to abide by the associated laws.

CRT enforce by refusing licences rather than prosecute under the 1995 Act. The cost is caused by CRT deciding to take action.

 

[nicknorman]

4 minutes ago, matty40s said:

 A law must have specific parameters to be broken. A loose guidance of perhaps 20km, or 20miles(although nobody at CRT will give a definitive answer), whether that be range or distance perhaps. This may be overlooked in case of breakdown, lockdown, meltdown or paddy ashdown, not even touching on the schooling of kids or being near a hospital for treatment, is not an enforceable law.

Wishful thinking and a little naive in my opinion. Well, of course some laws have specific parameters that can be measured, speeding and drink driving spring to mind. But many (most) laws are less precise, hence the need for trials and juries.

 

The law says that if you want a licence, you either need a home mooring or

ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

So if the board (which is now CRT) is not satisfied with the above, you don’t get a licence. No licence = no boat on the cut. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

Bona Fide says to me that the applicant wants the licence mainly to go boating, not to live in a spot convenient for work and school at a fraction of the cost of a land-based dwelling. Bona Fide indicates intention and honour, not “I’ve signed up to this, now how much can I wriggle and scream to get out of my obligations”.

 

 

13 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

Do we? More than people permanently moored in a private marina with its own facilities, certainly, but many other liveaboards with permanent moorings rely entirely on CRT facilities either at their mooring or nearby.

 

They don't drink or shit less than me (I presume most couples and families manage more!) and they don't spend time on EA waters either!

Obviously if you have a CRT permanent mooring then an element of your mooring fees goes to the use of the facilities. There are of course some private moorings that don’t have their own facilities, but then again how many of those have planning permission to be used for live aboard? Very few, I suggest. But yes that doesn’t seem to stop people from exploiting weak enforcement and permanently living aboard, dodging paying council tax and thus expecting society to subsidise their existence. Not a personal attack as I have no idea whether your mooring is a residential one or not. We are talking generalisations.

[peterboat]

7 hours ago, M_JG said:

 

Cough - being pedantic for a sec. some are on the offside too. Our CRT mooring at Pollington was on the offside not the towpath with no access to jo public, only narrowboaters with a mooring specific key(not even a generic BW/CRT one)

Correct even to last year when we moored on the visitors moorings and visited the pub

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

Because enforcement is not solely or mainly for the benefit of CCers?

 

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Because it is a cost caused by them, durrrr....

 

 

 

As the consulation preamble says "the cost of enforcement for CCers is far greater than for boats with a home mooring"

[ditchcrawler]

44 minutes ago, matty40s said:

 A law must have specific parameters to be broken. A loose guidance of perhaps 20km, or 20miles(although nobody at CRT will give a definitive answer), whether that be range or distance perhaps. This may be overlooked in case of breakdown, lockdown, meltdown or paddy ashdown, not even touching on the schooling of kids or being near a hospital for treatment, is not an enforceable law.

I thought it was to satisfy the board

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

As the consulation preamble says "the cost of enforcement for CCers is far greater than for boats with a home mooring"

That's a fancy way of saying is it is more costly to refuse a licence than grant one.

 

CRT's choice ...