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

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You said no home moorer pays to moor on the towpath. 

 

I must have misunderstood your point.

 

It seems to me that if the CRT are allowed to charge people to tie a boat to the towpath then they are allowed to charge people to tie a boat to the towpath.

 

I don't know the history of how long term towpath moorings happened but they are on the towpath. 

 

No home moorer pays to be on any other part of the towpath, or offside, other than the mooring they have been designated to use as a home base, or a mooring. CRT have right to charge for designated moorings. 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Higgs

[Guest]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

You said no home moorer pays to moor on the towpath. 

 

I must have misunderstood your point.

 

It seems to me that if the CRT are allowed to charge people to tie a boat to the towpath then they are allowed to charge people to tie a boat to the towpath.

 

I don't know the history of how long term towpath moorings happened but they are on the towpath. 

 

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)

[magnetman]

Indeed and my CRT mooring is off side with no public access. 

 

I was just idly wondering about how it works on the towpath. People do already pay to moor on the towpath in lots of places. Presumably there must be a reason why this does not apply everywhere on the towpath. 

 

Maybe they have to supply mooring rings before being able to charge people money. 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Indeed and my CRT mooring is off side with no public access. 

 

I was just idly wondering about how it works on the towpath. People do already pay to moor on the towpath in lots of places. Presumably there must be a reason why this does not apply everywhere on the towpath. 

 

Maybe they have to supply mooring rings before being able to charge people money. 

 

Because of a campaign, which got the rules changed to state that it was not necessary to have a home mooring. If people still wanted to pay for the privilege, that was not against the law, either. 

 

Being able to moor is as essential as having water to navigate. Everyone pays for a licence.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

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. 

[Higgs]

3 minutes 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. 

 

I wish I had the relevant references, but a home mooring was required. and with the building of new marinas, online moorings have been reduced. About 1 online mooring for every 10 in a marina. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

It would be good to get this sorted out. 

 

I started out in 1994 and there were a lot of boats around which I don't think had moorings but it is of course possible that they had declared something which was not true. 

 

There is some confusion around this whole topic. An application form for a licence may ask where the boat is moored or kept but unless there is specific legislation on this exact point then this is not actually part of the legal framework around licensing..

 

Similarly the application form asks what type of lavatory is on the boat. If you get this wrong you are not going to be subject to prosecution.

 

 

Just because something is on the application form does not mean it is a legal requirement.

 

It could simply be information gathering. 

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I wish I had the relevant references, but a home mooring was required. 

 

 

I am not so sure old bean? I held a licence from 89 onwards and certainly was a constant mover with periodic mooring on and off. I honestly cant remember if a mooring location had to be put on the paper forms?? Maybe I just left the mooring address from wherever I had previously moored lol?

I do distinctly recall the bloke I bought the boat off in 89 telling me we had to move at least every 14 days which was zero problem.

[Higgs]

Just now, magnetman said:

It would be good to get this sorted out. 

 

I started out in 1994 and there were a lot of boats around which I don't think had moorings but it is of course possible that they had declared something which was not true. 

 

There is some confusion around this whole topic. An application form for a licence may ask where the boat is moored or kept but unless there is specific legislation on this exact point then this is not actually part of the legal framework around licensing..

 

Similarly the application form asks what type of lavatory is on the boat. If you get this wrong you are not going to be subject to prosecution.

 

 

 

There was the use of ghost moorings; some mooring that was dirt cheap and probably useless, and miles away from anywhere a boat would be used.  

[Steve_C]

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.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

I am not so sure old bean? I held a licence from 89 onwards and certainly was a constant mover with periodic mooring on and off. I honestly cant remember if a mooring location had to be put on the paper forms?? Maybe I just left the mooring address from wherever I had previously moored lol?

I do distinctly recall the bloke I bought the boat off in 89 telling me we had to move at least every 14 days which was zero problem.

 

There was a campaign to alter the requirement, but I haven't got the references. 

 

 

[David Mack]

7 minutes 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. 

My recollection was that there was no such requirement. The Bill which became the 95 Act had a clause requiring all boats to have a home mooring - presumably because boats mooring to some random bit of towpath were becoming a problem in some areas, and also requiring a home mooring would provide another source of income for BW (and other mooring operators). It was only because of objections by the small number of boaters who did genuinely cruise more or less full time over a wide area, that the CC concept was added in. But it was a last minute fudge to get the Act passed, and (with hindsight) insufficient attention was paid to the precise wording, hence the imprecision about how far you have to move from one 'place' to another, how soon you can return to a previous 'place' or how far you might have to travel over a period of time to 'satisfy the Board'.

[Higgs]

1 minute 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.

 

Haven't tried it, but I wouldn't think it was worth the paperwork, to faff around changing licencing status. Winter moorings are normal moorings, but paid for, used as a more permanent base through a few winter months.

 

 

 

 

 

[David Mack]

3 minutes 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.

At the moment there is only one licence, and to comply with licencing requirements you either have to have a home mooring, or you have to satisfy the Board (now CRT) you will comply with the CC requirements. So if you change from one to the other, you only have to notify CRT, you don't need to relicence. And if in future CRT charge different licence fees for home moorers and CCers, there will still only be one licence (unless the 95 Act is amended), so the process shouldn't change, except you may have to pay some extra if you go from home mooring to CCing, and you will get some money refunded in the reverse case.  So yes there will be some extra admin involved for CRT licencing staff. But most boaters will probably be full time home moorers or full time CCers, so it won't be that significant.

[magnetman]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

My recollection was that there was no such requirement. The Bill which became the 95 Act had a clause requiring all boats to have a home mooring - presumably because boats mooring to some random bit of towpath were becoming a problem in some areas, and also requiring a home mooring would provide another source of income for BW (and other mooring operators). It was only because of objections by the small number of boaters who did genuinely cruise more or less full time over a wide area, that the CC concept was added in. But it was a last minute fudge to get the Act passed, and (with hindsight) insufficient attention was paid to the precise wording, hence the imprecision about how far you have to move from one 'place' to another, how soon you can return to a previous 'place' or how far you might have to travel over a period of time to 'satisfy the Board'.

I must say this is what I thought as well. 

 

The '95 act was originally there to outlaw "having no home mooring" but was successfully altered to allow "having no home mooring" to continue subject to legal restrictions. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by magnetman
punctuation and clarify

[Steve_C]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Haven't tried it, but I wouldn't think it was worth the paperwork, to faff around changing licencing status. Winter moorings are normal moorings, but paid for, used as a more permanent base through a few winter months.

 

At present then no it isn't necessary but in the article posted at the start of the thread it was my understanding that someone without a mooring was to be charged more for a cruising licence than someone who has a mooring. If a CCer takes a winter mooring for 4mths then surely they should then be charged at the lesser rate for those 4mths.

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Would a short term winter mooring be counted as a "home mooring"?

 

I would have thought it would be counted as someone who paid a bit extra to have the 14 day part of the '95 act waived under the 'reasonable circumstances' part. Reasonable circumstances being "They are paying us money - This MUST be reasonable". 

 

Whether the CRT can waive this part is of course subject to questioning and brings the whole idea of time restrictions into some doubt.

 

Presumably if Winter Moorings are available then Summer Moorings could also be available. Maybe in the same place but subject to slightly higher fees?

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Would a short term winter mooring be counted as a "home mooring"?

 

I would have thought it would be counted as someone who paid a bit extra to have the 14 day part of the '95 act waived under the 'reasonable circumstances' part. Reasonable circumstances being "They are paying us money - This MUST be reasonable". 

 

Whether the CRT can waive this part is of course subject to questioning and brings the whole idea of time restrictions into some doubt.

 

People pay extra to be planted in one place. One place. Dispensing with mooring restrictions. Home mooring.

 

 

[mrsmelly]

I suppose much of the difference then was as with cars, you could buy the boat with the licence, non of this having to buy a new licence on purchase. So when you bought the boat it could have best part of a years licence with it and you could go from there. I kniw my boat was licensed as they were full time liveaboards. Maybe when I bought my first licence I was in some boat yard for a short stay or some such thing??? Too long ago to recall.

[Tam & Di]

28 minutes ago, David Mack said:

My recollection was that there was no such requirement. The Bill which became the 95 Act had a clause requiring all boats to have a home mooring - presumably because boats mooring to some random bit of towpath were becoming a problem in some areas, and also requiring a home mooring would provide another source of income for BW (and other mooring operators). It was only because of objections by the small number of boaters who did genuinely cruise more or less full time over a wide area, that the CC concept was added in. But it was a last minute fudge to get the Act passed, and (with hindsight) insufficient attention was paid to the precise wording, hence the imprecision about how far you have to move from one 'place' to another, how soon you can return to a previous 'place' or how far you might have to travel over a period of time to 'satisfy the Board'.

 

This is fundamentally correct. Talk of a "CC Licence" however is incorrect - there is no such thing. There are long term licences and short term ones, and Gold Licence and Trade Licences, but no CC Licence.

Me and Di were among the original Petitioners against the BW Bill in the Lords which is where inter alia the requirement for all craft to have a home mooring was introduced, and we still have all the documentation. The NBOC among others joined us there, and they were the people most concerned about that section of the Bill as they had many members who did genuinely cruise around the system. I've not got time to spell it all out in detail yet again but I see what the thread looks like tomorrow  😏

 

Tam

Edited March 12, 2023 by Tam & Di
spilling

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

People pay extra to be planted in one place. One place. Dispensing with mooring restrictions. Home mooring.

 

 

I know why people pay for winter moorings. The legal mechanism sounds interesting .

 

It seems to be a demonstration that the CRT can charge people for use of towpath moorings. 

 

If this available everywhere throughout the yar it could become quite popular and bring in a lot of money. 

[Higgs]

13 minutes ago, Steve_C said:

At present then no it isn't necessary but in the article posted at the start of the thread it was my understanding that someone without a mooring was to be charged more for a cruising licence than someone who has a mooring. If a CCer takes a winter mooring for 4mths then surely they should then be charged at the lesser rate for those 4mths.

 

I wouldn't like to speculate. If such a distinction is going to be made between home moorers and CC'ers, there's going to be trouble.

 

 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Tam & Di said:

 

This is fundamentally correct. Talk of a "CC Licence" however is incorrect - there is no such thing. There are long term licences and short term ones, and Gold Licence and Trade Licences, but no CC Licence.

Me and Di were among the original Petitioners against the BW Bill in the Lords which is where inter alia the requirement for all craft to have a home mooring was introduced, and we still have all the documentation. The NBOC among others joined us there, and they were the people most concerned about that section of the Bill as they had many members who did genuinely cruise around the system. I've not got time to spell it all out in detail yet again but I see what the thead looks like tomorrow  😏

 

Tam

 

"Continuous Cruiser" is a term now used on government websites. Everyone knows that they don't exist in the sense there is no specific licence for this but the existence of Continuous Cruisers is looking more and more like being real. 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I know why people pay for winter moorings. The legal mechanism sounds interesting .

 

It seems to be a demonstration that the CRT can charge people for use of towpath moorings. 

 

If this available everywhere throughout the yar it could become quite popular and bring in a lot of money. 

 

They charge to allow CC moorers some permanence of mooring, for a short period. It's place specific and time specific. 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

They charge to allow CC moorers some permanence of mooring, for a short period. It's specific and time specific. 

 

 

Exactly. This is what I'm getting at. 

 

Is there any specific reason then why people declaring no home mooring should not have to pay to moor on the towpath at any time? 

 

 

Or anyone for that matter. Why can't the CRT just charge everyone a mooring fee per day to stop on the towpath? 

 

It is obvious that people without a home mooring would pay more but they are already paying less due to not having a mooring so it makes sense to level the playing field. 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by magnetman
edit to add "no"