Jump to content

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


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think ethics were mentioned anywhere. This is a subject about navigation authority raising the prices of licences for use of canals. 

 

Ethics don't come into it. 

 

It is obviously becoming an ethical question. Some people with home moorings are expressing that they are somehow being more ethical. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

Section 17 (3) (C) (II)

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; 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.

 

It is for the boater to satisfy the Board (C&RT) that the boat will be used for navigation for the lenght of licence applied for.

The legislation does not specify any distance to be travelled.  BUT (and it's a big but) if C&RT were to publish what would satisfy the Board, then any distance could be in that information, and would have the same power as the legislation.  You don't "Satisfy the Board" you don't get a licence.

Now why C&RT don't use this, is beyond me.

 

Bod

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A huge number of CCers don't comply with the spirit of the law either, relying on the letter of it to legally game the system. You really can't have it both ways.

 

I look forward to you holding a similar opinion of CRT. When you do, you may begin to make sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, magnetman said:

In business terms charging for mooring to the towpath seems a bit of a no brainer. I realise it would cost a bit to implement but if everyone had to pay £10 per 24 hour stop I'm sure it would pay wages and bring in some money to the CRT and lose some of the freeloaders. 

 

£3650 a year is very cheap to be able to live in Greater London. There is no other way of doing it that cheap apart from couch surfing with charitable friends. 

 

They've already started expanding the charging for places to the likes of Salthouse Dock and (to a lot more protest) parts of central Birmingham, and more London locations would be an obvious place to do it

 

But charging everyone everywhere for towpath moorings would be impractical and expensive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think ethics were mentioned anywhere. This is a subject about navigation authority raising the prices of licences for use of canals. 

 

Ethics don't come into it. 

 

But they do, because one reason for CART looking at adding a "CC surcharge" is almost certainly the behaviour of the rule-bending "CMers" who declare that they're "Continuously Cruising" and then ignore both the letter and the spirit of the law, to the detriment of other canal users who either genuinely CC or pay for a home mooring.

 

It's selfish behaviour, which I think most people would say falls under the header of "ethics", even if you don't... 😉

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

Just now, IanD said:

 one reason for CART looking at adding a "CC surcharge" is almost certainly the behaviour of the "CMers" who declare that they're "Continuously Cruising", and then ignore both the letter and the spirit of the law to the detriment of other canal users who either genuinely CC or pay for a home mooring.

 

True, but I don't think charging me more money will help with that issue.

 

Better enforcement would, or using the powers they don't bother with under the byelaws to physically remove boats from the specific location.  I don't mean Section 8 and crane them out, I mean grab a CMer and tow them a couple of (tens of?) miles away then charge them for this ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

True, but I don't think charging me more money will help with that issue.

 

Better enforcement would, or using the powers they don't bother with under the byelaws to physically remove boats from the specific location.  I don't mean Section 8 and crane them out, I mean grab a CMer and tow them a couple of (tens of?) miles away then charge them for this ...

 

Charging just you more money won't really help CART financially, but surcharging all CCers -- whether genuine or a CMer -- obviously will.

 

It would be nice if CART could find a way to distinguish between the two and a legal method of charging them different amounts but this is difficult for many reasons. I'm afraid that the "real CCers" like you will be collateral damage in the struggle to extract more money from the "CMers"... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Charging just you more money won't really help CART financially, but surcharging all CCers -- whether genuine or a CMer -- obviously will.

 

So, in your opinion, whether a CCer complies or not is not even relevant. The ones that 'aren't' complying obviously are not making great use of the towpath. A shoplifter steals, because they have need of resources. Is needing resources you only justification for discriminatory action?

 

He won't see this.

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

Except CRT don't care what my farm rent is, they charge me, as a home moorer, half the going CRT rate (EOG), which is currently £800. And bang goes the whole ghost mooring concept, back into an urban myth where it belongs.

 

 

What about if you moor on the Middle Level like I use to

34 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

In my view floating one's boat on water which is directly connected to the canal is "using the canal". If there was a lock between marina and canal with the marina being maintained at a higher level then I would agree but this is very unusual if it even exists. 

A bit like the far end of the Ashby at the moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours 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 

 

You would need 600 plus toll collectors to cover 24/7, staff sickness annual leave, training etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The zones would be much bigger than 10 miles. I could see Oxford to Napton being one zone. A boat either is there or it isn't. It will have passed one end to get it and if it has not exited the other end then it gets charged per day. 

 

If boat goes off water onto private property or marina they produce proof in the form of invoice for mooring or lifting. 

 

Simple. You could easily monitor movement through the start and end points with cameras. 

 

They do it on the roads for congestion charging. 

 

It would cost but it might keep traffic moving and bring in more money for the navigation authority which seems to be an important point. 

 

I know the canals are very quaint and all that but some people theorise that they are at risk due to funding problems.

 

I think it would be nice if they are retained for future generations to enjoy. Young people these days are always using convenient smart phone apps to do anything so a camera gantry across the entrance to a lock really isn't going to be a big issue compared with the possibility of actually losing a functioning canal network. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm afraid that the "real CCers" like you will be collateral damage in the struggle to extract more money from the "CMers"... 

😞

 

Thing is, I don't mind paying more - it's obvious that CRT need more money and boaters are an obvious source.

 

What annoys me is that hugely increasing CCer fees won't actually solve the CMer "problem"

 

I may write a rant about this later when I have time ....

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

As a generalisation, CCers cost CRT more than permanent moorers. 

 

I don't think that's rational. The canal is there to be used. And there are plenty of moorers that never use the canal, not even on it, they are at least equal to the task of giving compensation to the costs CRT have of actually having to do some servicing. Shock horror.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Charging just you more money won't really help CART financially, but surcharging all CCers -- whether genuine or a CMer -- obviously will.

 

It would be nice if CART could find a way to distinguish between the two and a legal method of charging them different amounts but this is difficult for many reasons. I'm afraid that the "real CCers" like you will be collateral damage in the struggle to extract more money from the "CMers"... 😞

 

It always strikes me there are three categories of 'boaters without a home mooring", as CRT like to put it.

 

1) The boaters genuinely CCing around and moving most days if not every day, as the MPs drafting the 1995 act were told needed to be accommodated. Engaged in genuinely and continuously cruising around the system and truly in no need of a home mooring.

 

2) The 'legal' piss-takers who move 500 yards up the cut every two weeks, ignoring the spirit of the law whilst complying with CRT's interpretation of the letter. 

 

3) The really piss-taking piss-takers who stay in one place for as long as it takes for CRT to notice then chase them on. Around here I notice this often runs into months on end. 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bod said:

 

The legislation does not specify any distance to be travelled.  BUT (and it's a big but) if C&RT were to publish what would satisfy the Board, then any distance could be in that information, and would have the same power as the legislation.  You don't "Satisfy the Board" you don't get a licence.

My recollection is that BW tried exactly this approach, with a requirement that to qualify as a CCer you had to cruise over an extensive part of the network. But a court threw out this argument, with the result that BW/CRT can now effectively challenger only the worst offenders. They then carefully said that travelling less than 20 miles a year would not satisfy the Board, without specifying what would. But since then they've rather shot themselves in the foot by giving an example movement plan that allows children to stay in school during term time, which gives carte blanche to the CMers.

 

The problem with tightening the rules for existing boaters is that the vocal ones will cry foul, that this is not what they signed up to, it affects their ability to work or their children's schooling etc. and CRT are forced to back down. So my suggestion is that existing licence holders are allowed to continue as at present, including when those licences are renewed, but all new licence holders without a home mooring should have to sign up to much more onerous terms regarding distance travelled etc. That would mean that there will be two classes of CCer, but I don't see why that would be a problem. The existing monitoring and enforcement processes could be adapted to cope with this, and over time the number of 'old' CCers will decline. This will then discourage the use of CC status by those who liveaboard and want to stay in a small area, while not impacting those who genuinely do cruise more extensively (whether liveaboards or weekenders).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You will need to explain.

 

 

There was a CRT or BW executive who was heard using this term to describe sone boaters. I forget who it was. It was some yars ago and caused some amusement as it seemed to be a window into the real world of the navigation authority. 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The zones would be much bigger than 10 miles. I could see Oxford to Napton being one zone. A boat either is there or it isn't. It will have passed one end to get it and if it has not exited the other end then it gets charged per day. 

 

If boat goes off water onto private property or marina they produce proof in the form of invoice for mooring or lifting. 

 

Simple. You could easily monitor movement through the start and end points with cameras. 

 

They do it on the roads for congestion charging. 

 

It would cost but it might keep traffic moving and bring in more money for the navigation authority which seems to be an important point. 

 

I know the canals are very quaint and all that but some people theorise that they are at risk due to funding problems.

 

I think it would be nice if they are retained for future generations to enjoy. Young people these days are always using convenient smart phone apps to do anything so a camera gantry across the entrance to a lock really isn't going to be a big issue compared with the possibility of actually losing a functioning canal network. 

 

 

If the zones are "much bigger than 10 miles" then they would be completely useless for extracting money from CMers.

 

Cameras would need financing/installing/networking/protecting from vandals, and wouldn't work right now since boats don't have visible camera-readable numberplates like cars.

 

I know distance/usage tolls are a favourite of yours, and you're right it *is* simple -- there's simply no way they'll work on the canals without automated GPS tracking and toll collection, which I'm pretty sure would meet with massive objections from anti-Big-Brother boaters...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

That would mean that there will be two classes of CCer, but I don't see why that would be a problem.

 

 

I'm sure the NBTA would manage to make it into a problem, with the greatest of ease. 

 

Just as there are some on here who can start an argument in an empty room, NBTA make it their business to find fault with everything CRT do, or say.

 

A bit like NBW too, I suppose...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

 

If the zones are "much bigger than 10 miles" then they would be completely useless for extracting money from CMers.

 

Cameras would need financing/installing/networking/protecting from vandals, and wouldn't work right now since boats don't have visible camera-readable numberplates like cars.

 

I know tolls are a favourite of yours, and you're right it is simple -- there's just no way they'll work on the canals without automated GPS tracking and toll collection, which I'm pretty sure would meet with massive objections from anti-Big-Brother boaters...

Of course it would work for CMers that is the whole point! 

 

You pay per day for being on the canal. 

 

The 95 act can be used to deal with people who persistently overstay as it can be already used for this.

 

My toll would be for time spent in the zone not based on precise location. 

 

As for big brother everyone is getting used to it. ANPR cameras everywhere you drive, car parks etc. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

My recollection is that BW tried exactly this approach, with a requirement that to qualify as a CCer you had to cruise over an extensive part of the network. But a court threw out this argument, with the result that BW/CRT can now effectively challenger only the worst offenders. They then carefully said that travelling less than 20 miles a year would not satisfy the Board, without specifying what would. But since then they've rather shot themselves in the foot by giving an example movement plan that allows children to stay in school during term time, which gives carte blanche to the CMers.

 

The problem with tightening the rules for existing boaters is that the vocal ones will cry foul, that this is not what they signed up to, it affects their ability to work or their children's schooling etc. and CRT are forced to back down. So my suggestion is that existing licence holders are allowed to continue as at present, including when those licences are renewed, but all new licence holders without a home mooring should have to sign up to much more onerous terms regarding distance travelled etc. That would mean that there will be two classes of CCer, but I don't see why that would be a problem. The existing monitoring and enforcement processes could be adapted to cope with this, and over time the number of 'old' CCers will decline. This will then discourage the use of CC status by those who liveaboard and want to stay in a small area, while not impacting those who genuinely do cruise more extensively (whether liveaboards or weekenders).

 

The problem with this approach is that it would be far more divisive than almost anything else that has been suggested... 😞 

 

And to put it simply, why should law-breakers be allowed to continue getting away with it in future just because they were in the past? This applies to very few other ares, why should it apply to the canals?

 

I agree that CART made a rod for their own back with the "think of the kids" exception -- which is clearly against their own definition of what CC is! -- when they buckled under protests from the NBTA and friends. But that still doesn't make it right, or even sensible... 😉

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.