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

[enigmatic]

42 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The issue of boats visiting from non-CRT waters is already addressed through visitor licences. Not messy.

 

see https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/licence-your-boat/short-term-visitor-licences

It is messy if they want an annual licence to use CRT waterways, something which is completely possible and in most cases completely reasonable at the moment. If they charge a "CCer rate" or massively increase licence fees with discounts for moorers on CRT waterways, the CRT has to make a call on whether (and how) to count moorings on non CRT waterways. Owners of non CRT waterways obviously have a financial interest in this too...

 

 

10 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Not exactly. The '95 Acts requirements for what is generally termed a 'home mooring' are:

 

"(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;"

 

So there is no requirement for CRT to 'approve' home moorings. It is up to the boater to satisfy them that he has a place where the boat can be kept. A receipt from a marina or mooring provider would be one way of showing this, buts it is not the only way.

 

Sure, but we're talking hypotheticals where the CRT want to charge extra for not having a "home mooring", and parties that are not the CRT want to profit from offering people "home moorings" to save them money on licence fees. The CRT will have to decide whether these people's "home moorings" are entitled to the discount or not. Obviously with money involved, it's much more complicated than when it's just with cruising rules involved.

Edited March 14, 2023 by enigmatic

[magnetman]

If the aim is to gain more money then it seems logical for the CRT to charge full licence fee cost to anyone who is not contributing to their coffers via mooring rates. It does not make sense to discriminate between people who have a mooring elsewhere and people who just don't have a mooring anywhere and claim the 14 day rule.

 

If you put all these people on the same rate for licences it would cut out the problems with people claiming moorings which don't exist or those which are let multiple times by remote mooring operators. 

 

"The board are satisfied" and "satisfy the board" seem to be pertinent parts of the available legislation. This seems to give the CRT a certain amount of choice about what to actually do. 

 

[Kiwidad]

6 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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

Yes, was there a couple of months ago

[Arthur Marshall]

23 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Not exactly. The '95 Acts requirements for what is generally termed a 'home mooring' are:

 

"(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;"

 

So there is no requirement for CRT to 'approve' home moorings. It is up to the boater to satisfy them that he has a place where the boat can be kept. A receipt from a marina or mooring provider would be one way of showing this, buts it is not the only way.

You can't moor your boat up outside your  house without CRTs agreement. You've got a place to keep it ok, but unless CRT agree, and you pay EOG, you can't leave your boat there. That's why not every canalside farm has moorings. So, to be lawfully left,  CRT have to approve the mooring. If I move from one farm to another, CRT have to agree the new mooring and as such it's on my agreement. They've been known to refuse permission for moorings.

Playing with words is a lot if fun, but reality does tend to intrude occasionally.

[enigmatic]

22 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If the aim is to gain more money then it seems logical for the CRT to charge full licence fee cost to anyone who is not contributing to their coffers via mooring rates. It does not make sense to discriminate between people who have a mooring elsewhere and people who just don't have a mooring anywhere and claim the 14 day rule.

 

If you put all these people on the same rate for licences it would cut out the problems with people claiming moorings which don't exist or those which are let multiple times by remote mooring operators. 

 

"The board are satisfied" and "satisfy the board" seem to be pertinent parts of the available legislation. This seems to give the CRT a certain amount of choice about what to actually do. 

 

 

I can see that from the point of view of simplicity of charging (as I said, even easier for them to just let the marinas and garden owners they have agreements with rebate the new licence difference, which most of them won't)

 

But I can also see the CRT wanting a much bigger slice of the Gold Licence (or effectively killing it) and devaluing the Peel Group's Bridgewater Canal holdings as being the sort of move that causes bigger arguments.

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by enigmatic

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You can't moor your boat up outside your  house without CRTs agreement. You've got a place to keep it ok, but unless CRT agree, and you pay EOG, you can't leave your boat there. That's why not every canalside farm has moorings. So, to be lawfully left,  CRT have to approve the mooring. If I move from one farm to another, CRT have to agree the new mooring and as such it's on my agreement. They've been known to refuse permission for moorings.

Playing with words is a lot if fun, but reality does tend to intrude occasionally.

But I could keep my boat in a marina on a non CRT waterway, or keep my trailable boat on its trailer in my driveway. Both of those are locations which meet the requirements of the Act, and CRT do not need to 'approve' them.

[magnetman]

You do need to satisfy the board. 

 

Does the ACT make any difference as to how much the CRT choose to charge people for licences? 

 

They could choose to charge existing customers less for a licence simply from a business point of view. 

 

I know the cc ers are viewed as a "problem" but they are bringing in exactly the same amount of money per foot of boat as someone who has a mooring or somewhere to keep the boat which does not involve payment to the CRT. 

 

Logically it would make sense to simply have a fixed charge for licence for everyone and offer discounts for people already paying the CRT via their mooring contracts. Directly or indirectly. 

 

This would cut out a lot of problems. 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

Does the ACT make any difference as to how much the CRT choose to charge people for licences? 

 

 

I believe this has been covered thoroughly before: No, the act doesn't make any difference; in other words, CRT can decide pretty much any way they want to, how to apportion licences.

 

It could only be challenged by judicial review - something that no boater has ever done on any other aspect of law.

 

[magnetman]

So what you do is multiply the existing licence fee by x then discount for mooring customers. This would make business sense I would have thought.

 

I suppose it might cause an increase in people declaring no home mooring to save money which could have a knock on effect elsewhere and in the monitoring and enforcement departments. 

[Paul C]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

I suppose it might cause an increase in people declaring no home mooring to save money which could have a knock on effect elsewhere and in the monitoring and enforcement departments. 

Sorry, makes no sense from (at least) two points. 1) surely an increase in "CC licence" cost would cause a DECREASE in that type of licence, 2) surely people, in the main, would declare if they had a mooring or not, knowing that there is an audit process underlying their declaration.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Paul C

[David Mack]

15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You do need to satisfy the board. 

Yes. But the option for a home mooring only requires that you have one somewhere (reasonable and lawful etc.), not that it has to be on CRT's network. So provided you can document that you have such a mooring, CRT cannot treat you differently from a home moorer who has a CRT home mooring.

[magnetman]

A "cc" licence doesn't exist. 

 

There is one type of licence for this topic. It is called a Pleasure Boat Licence. On scheduled rivers there is the Pleasure Boat (Registration) Certificate. 

 

Increase the cost of these "blind to who has or does not have a mooring" then apply discounts to people who have a verifiable mooring which pays the CRT directly or indirectly. 

 

People may choose to declare no home mooring under the '95 act as a way to save mooring fees they were paying elsewhere as costs rise. Effectively someone with a mooring elsewhere would be paying the same licence fee as someone declaring no home mooring. 

 

The only people to get discounts are CRT mooring customers. 

 

It does add up when you remember there is actually only one type of licence for private pleasure craft. 

 

CC and Home Mooring are red herrings and never mentioned anywhere in law. 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Yes. But the option for a home mooring only requires that you have one somewhere (reasonable and lawful etc.), not that it has to be on CRT's network. So provided you can document that you have such a mooring, CRT cannot treat you differently from a home moorer who has a CRT home mooring.

They can't treat you differently in terms of issuing the relevant consent but is it also true they can't vary the cost of licence between customers? I wonder how they can increase the licence cost for wide beam craft then.

Edited March 14, 2023 by magnetman
typo

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

CC and Home Mooring are red herrings and never mentioned anywhere in law. 

 

 

They are mentioned in law but everyone knows the simpler terms "CC" and "home mooring" because to be pedantically correct and quote the law word for word on each occasion it needs to be differentiated, would be tedious to read.

[magnetman]

Whether you declare intention to navigate bona fide or that you have somewhere to keep the boat makes no difference in reality because there is only one type of licence which the CRT can issue for use of private pleasure boats on canals.

 

PBL. Pleasure boat licence. 

 

The CRT can apply different terms and costs but they can not issue or refuse to issue anything other than a PBL for private pleasure boats. 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

Yeah but that's just being pedantic. Really when people (and the government) say "CC licence" everyone knows to interpret that as a Pleasure Boat Licence with the declaration there is no home mooring but that the licence holder will bona fide navigate blah blah blah

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Yes. But the option for a home mooring only requires that you have one somewhere (reasonable and lawful etc.), not that it has to be on CRT's network. So provided you can document that you have such a mooring, CRT cannot treat you differently from a home moorer who has a CRT home mooring.

Of course . However, most people have home moorings on CRT water, so I was ignoring the relatively few who don't. But the higher rated licence would simply be for a boat with no Waterscape Moorings (bearing in mind that the latter seem to encompass every mooring on CRT water with the possible exception of the few non-CRT marinas) Very easy to manage. It would make no difference if you parked your boat on your driveway, in a non-CRT marina or hung it on a tree, you're on the higher rate - because you're not contributing to the coffers by the mooring fee.

That's what this is all about - money; the rationale is that those not paying for moorings, should, because we all moor all the time we're on the water. If your boat's on your drive or in the non-CRT marina, you just cash in the licence.

Do bear in mind I'm not saying whether I agree with this or not. I'm just trying to understand the thinking behind it.

[peterboat]

12 hours ago, IanD said:

Hmm, moving from a comfy setup with a cheap mooring, garden and compost heaps (for composting toilet) and cheap Northern beer and food (in 'spoons and elsewhere) and a good public transport system (keen on free trams and buses) to somewhere which is likely to be in the middle of nowhere with none of these -- and no license fee, but probably more expensive moorings since it's not Rotherham. Doesn't sound like a bargain to me... 😉

Its lovely here, shame about the waterways managers running the waterways into the ground 

However where I am going is lovely as well and cheaper moorings 

[Higgs]

6 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Of course . However, most people have home moorings on CRT water, so I was ignoring the relatively few who don't. But the higher rated licence would simply be for a boat with no Waterscape Moorings (bearing in mind that the latter seem to encompass every mooring on CRT water with the possible exception of the few non-CRT marinas) Very easy to manage. It would make no difference if you parked your boat on your driveway, in a non-CRT marina or hung it on a tree, you're on the higher rate - because you're not contributing to the coffers by the mooring fee.

That's what this is all about - money; the rationale is that those not paying for moorings, should, because we all moor all the time we're on the water. If your boat's on your drive or in the non-CRT marina, you just cash in the licence.

Do bear in mind I'm not saying whether I agree with this or not. I'm just trying to understand the thinking behind it.

 

I think this policy thinking should be fought off, tooth and nail. 

 

Every boat has to moor. Some people with boats pay, to make sure they have a guaranteed mooring, or because CCing is totally impractical for them. It would be one of the worst day's work CRT would have embarked on, to load CC licences. It's unethical. If CRT want to mess around with the status of CCers, they should go back to parliament. 

 

 

[Naartjie - Duck Hatch]

Just a question as a Newbie. (posted on a previous topic) 

If the continuous cruisers surcharge is implemented. Would they then not be paying extra because of their unrestricted use of the system & its facilities. 

If so would other Boaters then be allowed only limited access/use of the canal system or do they have the same user rights as the continuous cruisers. 

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Naartjie said:

Just a question as a Newbie. (posted on a previous topic) 

If the continuous cruisers surcharge is implemented. Would they then not be paying extra because of their unrestricted use of the system & its facilities. 

If so would other Boaters then be allowed only limited access/use of the canal system or do they have the same user rights as the continuous cruisers. 

 

All boaters with a licence have use of the system. Home moorers and CCers are all liable equally for the upkeep, in as far as it is possible to expect of the numbers involved. Home moorers pay for the benefit of having somewhere they can call a permanent mooring, if they want. 

 

I think it is a valid question, to ask if home moorers should be allowed the same access to the system, if they pay less to use the towpath. This is not what the home moorers will be expecting to happen. If such a scheme was to be implemented, it would create a lot of animosity towards home moorers. This will not create a very comfortable or friendly atmosphere on the canal. 

 

It would be very unwise to implement a surcharge on CCers. 

 

 

[magnetman]

Everyone has unrestricted use of the system and facilities regardless of whether they have a mooring or not. 

 

People who declare "home mooring" have the same licence and rights to use the system and facilities as those who declare they will "continuously cruise". 

 

This is part of law and I don't think the CRT are in a position to alter it. 

 

As for conflict on the actual cut itself it seems that getting more money to ensure there still is a cut in future is rather important. Perhaps those who do not view it as important should go away. 

 

Canal licences are basically far too cheap. It is the bargain of the century given what is available. Even if you multiply it by 3 it is still an amazing deal. Where else can you live 365 days a year in such a nice environment with a comfy home, central heating, coal fires, interesting changing scenery, convenient physical activity in the open air for a tenner a day.

 

£3k a year for a licence would still be a Major Bargain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

As for conflict on the actual cut itself it seems that getting more money to ensure there still is a cut in future is rather important. Perhaps those who do not view it as important should go away. 

 

The canal is so important, that not even the government want to fund this 'treasure'. And to expect the relatively small number of boat users to be in the main firing line is stupid. The system requires major backing, and the government should be it. The government have not long ago paid out £billions to customers, because of the antics of a reckless power company. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

I don't think the survival of canals is particularly important. I doubt my kids will be interested. 

 

I would have thought people who actually use the cut itself would be interested in everything working properly. Maybe not. 

 

It would make no difference to me if the entire network north of Watford was a stagnant rotting ditch with collapsed locks. 

 

I still think its worth funding though. I said it before - if people find themselves living on a boat and costs go up and it is unaffordable then state support is available for this. If you can afford it then pay. If you can afford it but don't want to pay then go away. 

 

Yes government should be paying but is this likely to happen? 

 

I'm thinking realistically. Don't know what is going to happen but what is so ridiculous about charging people who actually need the canal to work more money? 

 

It is totally logical to do this. 

 

There are far more important priorities for government than a toy train set with boats as as the trains and water as the tracks. 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think the survival of canals is particularly important. I doubt my kids will be interested. 

 

I would have thought people who actually use the cut itself would be interested in everything working properly. Maybe not. 

 

It would make no difference to me if the entire network north of Watford was a stagnant rotting ditch with collapsed locks. 

 

I still think its worth funding though. I said it before - if people find themselves living on a boat and costs go up and it is unaffordable then state support is available for this.

 

Your thinking is scrambled. 

 

You don't care if it falls into disrepair, yet you think it needs funding. by placing an excessive burden on the boaters. The government don't want to pay for the canal now, yet you expect the government to be there for those that couldn't afford the excessive payment burden.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

I think it is appropriate for government to pay. There are more important things for them to be doing but the fact is they will pay via DWP benefits if it is housing costs and you are eligible. 

 

So in effect there would be government funding although admittedly not very much.

 

If the CRT would build more residential moorings of their own this would be useful but apparently can't happen and of course there may be a majority of people who would be nowhere near a boat were it not such a cheap way to live in their desired postcode area. 

 

When I said I am not bothered about the state of the network I meant from a purely selfish point of view. It makes no difference to me as I do my boating on the Thames but happen to have a mooring on a CRT river.

 

One can have two points of view. One being the selfish one and the other being the one which can see the bigger picture and what would be a desirable outcome. 

 

Sorry if presenting both of these is confusing. 

 

 

I agree 'loading' boaters with the costs is not going to raise much money so perhaps a pointless exercise anyway. 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by magnetman