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

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The law that gives them the authority to act within the law. CRT do not have their legal authority on private property. 

 

 

I'm sorry but CaRT do have legal authority - as part of the NAA which the marina owner 'willingly' signed. It does not have to be written into statute to make it legal. It is unhelpful to continue to assert that only statute matters as it might mislead some less-well informed folk to get into difficulty.

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

Contract law is challengeable with a "reasonableness" test. Until it is challenged (and that is successful), it would stand as a term. If I had a mooring contract with unreasonable terms, I would read the T&Cs and negotiate with them before signing it. In fact - interesting story - I actually did that once. I was about to sign a mooring contract, and I read through it, only to find a term which prevented repairs/working on the boat on the mooring. I asked about it and they said "oh that's just a standard thing the company puts in, because we have a workshop here". I crossed it out, signed it and handed it back. The marina manager signed his part and that issue became a non-issue in about 15 secs.

Only if there was not another cause which said that marina managers are not authorised to make changes to the standard contract (which sometimes happens in commercial contracts)

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Thankyou for finding that - but there are a few additions later in the thread wich have not been consolidated into the list.

But a significant proportion on the original list are river marinas which have a different legal context. If we are talking about canal marinas hen the number seems to be quite small and, of course, all pre-date the NAA.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

Only if there was not another cause which said that marina managers are not authorised to make changes to the standard contract (which sometimes happens in commercial contracts)

 

Are you confusing the variation of an agreed contract, rather than the negotiation of the wording of the original contract before it is signed by both parties?

 

If the wording is obliterated before the thing is signed, I don't think a "blanket" clause somewhere else saying the manager can't make changes can be held reasonable, since I would not know what the original wording was (because its been obliterated). I would be relying on memory and the other party would be relying on producing a similar, but not that, contract.

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably the marinas with no NAA fee to pay have a permanent agreement with the navigation authority excluding them from this payment.

 

If they have a renewable contract then surely the CRT could decide to bring them into the NAA system. Or is this just to do with canal bank ownership?

 

It seems to me the CRT should be looking to extract as much money as possible from businesses which rely on a functioning canal system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Presumably the marinas with no NAA fee to pay have a permanent agreement with the navigation authority excluding them from this payment.

 

 

I believe in most cases, there is a historical agreement going back many years, possibly a hundred years or more, which entitled the marina (or what was there before it might have become a marina) to greater than the current NAA would allow. (And it would have been written before the NAA even came into existence). And of course, no end date was set to the agreement so it is allowed to continue.

 

Imagine, old loading wharfs etc where a factory or other business might have negotiated something with the canal company of the time; and both parties have evolved into "Marina X" and "CRT" through various changes of ownership.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Presumably the marinas with no NAA fee to pay have a permanent agreement with the navigation authority excluding them from this payment.

 

If they have a renewable contract then surely the CRT could decide to bring them into the NAA system. Or is this just to do with canal bank ownership?

 

It seems to me the CRT should be looking to extract as much money as possible from businesses which rely on a functioning canal system. 

In the main (there are always exceptions) these marinas are on river navigations, existing arms not owned by CRT or connected so long ago that they enjoy 'prescriptive rights'. Not all agreements are standard NAAs as prior to their introduction 'licences to connect' were granted. There is no formal agreement not to have an agreement of some kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably what is happening. 

 

It is just slightly interesting from a financial perspective if boats in non NAA marinas don't need licences. If that is the case then the marina operator is trousering the money assuming they charge the same mooring rate as the next marina which does need licences on boats. 

 

Something wrong with this if the story about the CRT becoming impecunious is true. 

 

ETA 

 

What I meant was if marina A was charging £4500 per year and you don't need a licence and marina B was charging 3500 a year and you do need a licence then marina A would be effectively getting paid the licence fee rather than the CRT

 

People will be interested in their total outgoings. 

 

Interesting to know what proportion of people in marinas who do not require licence actually don't opt to buy one. 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul C said:

Imagine, old loading wharfs etc where a factory or other business might have negotiated something with the canal company of the time; and both parties have evolved into "Marina X" and "CRT" through various changes of ownership.

 

Bloke at Portland Basin told me his access to the canals was a permanent agreement with the builders of the canal granting access for loading of coal and goods or "any other purpose", which was sufficiently broad for CRT to be unable to charge him for stuff like emptying and filling his dry dock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

This is probably what is happening. 

 

It is just slightly interesting from a financial perspective if boats in non NAA marinas don't need licences. If that is the case then the marina operator is trousering the money assuming they charge the same mooring rate as the next marina which does need licences on boats. 

 

Something wrong with this if the story about the CRT becoming impecunious is true. 

I what way is it wrong? If there is no legal basis to require an agreement than that's the end of it. Unless you can think of a way to put it 'right'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This is probably what is happening. 

 

It is just slightly interesting from a financial perspective if boats in non NAA marinas don't need licences. If that is the case then the marina operator is trousering the money assuming they charge the same mooring rate as the next marina which does need licences on boats. 

 

Something wrong with this if the story about the CRT becoming impecunious is true. 

 

It would be a competitive advantage but no two marinas are the same. Location location location, after all. It might have poor road connections, be on an unattractive (in terms of route planning) part of the canal/river network, or have some other historical quirk which makes it awkward and less attractive for customers. Or they might choose to offer lower fees than other neighbouring marinas because they can. Or they might simply make more money (or make money rather than lose money) as you're suggesting. No two marinas are the same.

 

And remember, the newer marina operator would have known about the existence of the competitor old marina with his better potential profitability.

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This is probably what is happening. 

 

It is just slightly interesting from a financial perspective if boats in non NAA marinas don't need licences. If that is the case then the marina operator is trousering the money assuming they charge the same mooring rate as the next marina which does need licences on boats. 

 

Something wrong with this if the story about the CRT becoming impecunious is true. 

 

I think you may be confusing things - the marinas do not make money money from the licence so there is no financial advantage to not requiring a licence.

 

BUT

 

Where there is a financial benefit is that no having an NAA means that they are not paying 9% of their mooring income (based on 100% occupancy) to C&RT.

 

It is therefore to their (marina with an NAA agreement) benefit to always have 100% occupancy so it would not be unusual for them to accept a lower margin and price the mooring at the same as those without an agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think you may be confusing things - the marinas do not make money money from the licence so there is no financial advantage to not requiring a licence.

 

BUT

 

Where there is a financial benefit is that no having an NAA means that they are not paying 9% of their mooring income (based on 100% occupancy) to C&RT.

 

It is therefore to their (marina with an NAA agreement) benefit to always have 100% occupancy so it would not be unusual for them to accept a lower margin and price the mooring at the same as those without an agreement.

 

Effectively there is a financial advantage to the marina if the total cost of boat ownership is the same for the customer of the NAA as it is for the non NAA marina. They (marina) take the extra money rather than the CRT

 

I meant in terms of total cost of keeping boat on water. Licence + mooring. 

 

 

I don't understand why the navigation authority is not protected from this problem. It seems that someone could dig a massive hole in their own land and drain the entire contents of the canal and there is nothing the navigation authority could do about it. 

 

Given that they had stop locks with a few inches each side it is clear that water is an asset so why are people allowed to take it and not pay? 

 

I don't understand this oversight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Effectively there is a financial advantage to the marina if the total cost of boat ownership is the same for the customer of the NAA as it is for the non NAA marina. They (marina) take the extra money rather than the CRT

 

I meant in terms of total cost of keeping boat on water. Licence + mooring. 

 

 

 

There is also a £1000 (?) advantage to the boater, as in a Non-NAA marina as they do not need a licence. So, for those who just want a floating flat the Non-NAA marinas are the ones to go to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 so it would not be unusual for them to accept a lower margin and price the mooring at the same as those without an agreement.

 

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is also a £1000 (?) advantage to the boater, as in a Non-NAA marina as they do not need a licence. So, for those who just want a floating flat the Non-NAA marinas are the ones to go to.

 

OK. Got it. 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It seems that someone could dig a massive hole in their own land and drain the entire contents of the canal and there is nothing the navigation authority could do about it. 

I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion. Providing the prospective marina is on a waterway where CRT can require a NAA it would not allow it to connect without one. In deciding whether or not to do so it assesses whether it would 'harm' the waterway by adversely affecting water resources or impacting the safety of the waterway and navigation upon it. If it causes such harm it would refuse consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion. Providing the prospective marina is on a waterway where CRT can require a NAA it would not allow it to connect without one. In deciding whether or not to do so it assesses whether it would 'harm' the waterway by adversely affecting water resources or impacting the safety of the waterway and navigation upon it. If it causes such harm it would refuse consent.

A pub on the Shroppie had a bit of a basin next to it and decided to dig it out properly and rent it for long term moorings as a small marina. They were refused permission and if I remember correctly, CRT (or BW, was a  while back) dropped a dredger across the entrance until they'd agreed it would not be so used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A pub on the Shroppie had a bit of a basin next to it and decided to dig it out properly and rent it for long term moorings as a small marina. They were refused permission and if I remember correctly, CRT (or BW, was a  while back) dropped a dredger across the entrance until they'd agreed it would not be so used.

Kingfisher Marina at Yardley Gobion was closed off with campshed piling by BW when they dug it out without permission. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion. Providing the prospective marina is on a waterway where CRT can require a NAA it would not allow it to connect without one. In deciding whether or not to do so it assesses whether it would 'harm' the waterway by adversely affecting water resources or impacting the safety of the waterway and navigation upon it. If it causes such harm it would refuse consent.

I was thinking of the marinas that have been built without requiring an NAA. Presumably there is some sort of agreement where they do not extend the size of their mooring basins. 

 

 

If they are all on rivers then it is obviously a different story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

I don't understand why the navigation authority is not protected from this problem. It seems that someone could dig a massive hole in their own land and drain the entire contents of the canal and there is nothing the navigation authority could do about it. 

 

 

 

You can't extract water or add water to the canal without permission. And you can't connect to it without permission. 

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.