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

By Alan de Enfield
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

magnetman Veteran II

magnetman

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It's a boat in a field. 

 

 

Surely not ! 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Wasn't there last time I passed. Anyone seen it the last couple of years?

I wonder how they moved it. Looks a bit soft for a crane. 

 

There was a nb in a field near Wallingford recently which got there from flooding and that was taken away on a trailer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It's a boat in a field. 

 

 

No, its a boat in a very very small marina in a field. So small in fact, that there is only about 5ft of water all around it. 

 

Its a marina that practises what you preach, i.e. has no NAA with CRT - because it is not connected to the canal. So everyone is happy! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

No, its a boat in a very very small marina in a field. So small in fact, that there is only about 5ft of water all around it. 

 

Its a marina that practises what you preach, i.e. has no NAA with CRT - because it is not connected to the canal. So everyone is happy! 

 

It's someone using private land. Is nothing sacred.

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnetman Veteran II

magnetman

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

It someone using private land. Is nothing sacred.

 

 

So it wasn't brought by the angel of the Lord when he came down.

 

That is a relief as one would not wish to be tempted by religion as a way of getting cheap boat transport sorted out.

Are we saying that marinas connected to the cut are sacred?

Edited by magnetman
was a good one
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So it wasn't brought by the angel of thr Lord when he came down.

 

That is a relief as one would not wish to be tempted by religion as a way of getting cheap boat transport sorted out.

 

If the word sacred is a problem. How about - do you care if people respect your private space? Do actually consider the privacy of your home as up for grabs?

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Todd Veteran

Mike ToddDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

1. The impact of licence fee increases on CC's is overstated by NBTA - many will be on UC and they can claim the cost of licence fees (and mooring fees) as an addition to basic UC. They are more insulated from the inflation than any other category of boater, in this respect (not with all the other costs, alas) 

 

2. The ultimate level of enforcement is very difficult when it involves removing someone's home. It is around a year-long process and is very expensive. Some of the figures I have heard for a single boat removal are eye watering. Hence CaRT try any alternative first - only resorting to seizure when all else fails - usually persistently for a number of years. No doubt they have calculated the breakeven length of time.

 

3. Whatever the effectiveness in the past, be aware that, within the limited resources available, CRT are gradually increasing the scope and effectiveness of licence support (aka enforcement). But also note that they are doing so in parallel with increasing the amount of help and care for boaters in difficulty, partly because they believe it to be right to do so as a public charity but also because they ultimately have to convince a court that they have taken reasonable steps before applying for a seizure order.

 

4. Whilst it may be possible at the moment to evade licence payment, it is vanishingly rare that anyone can do so without being spotted. Other boaters may not realise it, as - at present - the length of time before action is evident is long. Not everyone treats their first overstay notice as a trophy.

 

5. If the new fee structure does indeed include a higher rate for CC's then it would be foolish indeed to assume that it will be easy to cheat. Assuming that by CCer we mean someone without a home mooring then the only way to evade is by making a false declaration about having a home mooring. Gradually, CaRT have better records about the total number of available home moorings as they ensure that EOG's (or more often end of farm) are properly recorded and paid for. Any marina built in recent times will be under the NAA from which CaRT can derive quite accurate information alas well as the right to to make visits to check. If it becomes material, expect marinas to be even more cautious about harbouring boats for evasion purposes as their own licence will be at risk. It will only take the threat of closing down a marina for breaches of the NAA to persuade everyone else that it is perhaps a good idea to comply! (Many will have hefty loans to service)

 

6. As it stands, it is not necessary for a CCer to self-define (only not to state that they have a home mooring). It will only be necessary for CaRT to assume that every boater is CC unless they can present satisfactory evidence to the contrary. An invoice for a much larger fee will probably quickly elicit compliance from those who genuinely do have a home mooring. (such a claim has to be made now but not, IIRC, evidenced) This may involve submitting cruising records which may be checked against official sightings

 

7. It seems quite probable that the quickest enforcement against false declarations of a home mooring, or the use of ghost moorings, will come via a statement that, as the boater has failed to comply with T&Cs then they will not be issued with a new licence at next renewal. Even now, it is evident that such a situation is the start of an inevitable slope.

 

8. I do have reasonable evidence that boaters whose CC life style is viable, rarely present a problem to either other boaters, towpath users or the adjoining  community. Many are quite proud to believe that they comply with cruising expectations. Good work in recent years around 'reasonable adjustments' has yielded very good results. The recipients guard them carefully, with good reason.

 

9. There is quite clearly an issue with a small number of boaters (probably much smaller than NBTA like to suggest) whose lifestyle is not viable or sustainable, for a whole variety of reasons, not dissimilar to comparable land-based situations. But ensuring that everyone, and I mean everyone, has access to a minimum standard of living, is a political issue not one that CaRT can resolve or be held responsible for. The low standard of mental health care, especially for those classed as NFA, is but one factor. Remember, that none of us can can be immunised against mental health.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

As it stands, it is not necessary for a CCer to self-define (only not to state that they have a home mooring). It will only be necessary for CaRT to assume that every boater is CC unless they can present satisfactory evidence to the contrary.

 

BWML worked on a similar premis :

An applicant for a 'leisure mooring' would not be granted one unless they could show a Council Tax Bill in their name (or some other method of proving that the boat was not their main residence).

No proof = no leisure mooring and you either took a residential mooring or went eleswhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

That depends on whether it is a "place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left".

 

Any definition of lawfulness would pertain to the use of the land, and without reference to anything else. But, as the structure is not a permanent fixture, it may not be much of, if any, a transgression.

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Mack Veteran II

David MackDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

 

Any definition of lawfulness would pertain to the use of the land, and without reference to anything else.

 

 

Indeed. But I would have thought that changing a piece of ordinary field into a pond for the purposes of keeping a boat in it would require planning permission, so the use is only lawful if such permission has been obtained. Does anybody know if that is the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Midnight Influencer

MidnightDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, perfectlydressed said:

CRT only need to read how much you lot bitch and spit at each other to know their executive wages are safe while you hate on each other, how sad...

It seems you are now one of 'us lot' we don't hate you ...

... yet! 😆😆😆

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Indeed. But I would have thought that changing a piece of ordinary field into a pond for the purposes of keeping a boat in it would require planning permission, so the use is only lawful if such permission has been obtained. Does anybody know if that is the case?

 

If you've looked around, after a good rain. ponds crop up spontaneously in fields. The structure itself is not a permanent fixture. I think that does have a bearing on gaining permissions, and less likely to need any. 

 

But it is private property, and is something for the owner of that property to deal with. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

7. It seems quite probable that the quickest enforcement against false declarations of a home mooring, or the use of ghost moorings, will come via a statement that, as the boater has failed to comply with T&Cs then they will not be issued with a new licence at next renewal. Even now, it is evident that such a situation is the start of an inevitable slope.

 

I predict a meteoric rise in people realising the way to evade needing a license at all, is to have no ID showing on the boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)

Home moorers haven't proved they are above being treated to a towpath surcharge. Is every home mooring contract going to come with a get-out clause. And is the law going to be changed to say CCing is not permitted?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Todd Veteran

Mike ToddDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

If you've looked around, after a good rain. ponds crop up spontaneously in fields. The structure itself is not a permanent fixture. I think that does have a bearing on gaining permissions, and less likely to need any. 

 

But it is private property, and is something for the owner of that property to deal with. 

 

 

 

 

Remember that usage of land is as much a part of Planning as any structure itself.

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I predict a meteoric rise in people realising the way to evade needing a license at all, is to have no ID showing on the boat. 

They may get a shock . . .

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.