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

32 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Obviously if you have a CRT permanent mooring then an element of your mooring fees goes to the use of the facilities. There are of course some private moorings that don’t have their own facilities, but then again how many of those have planning permission to be used for live aboard? Very few, I suggest. But yes that doesn’t seem to stop people from exploiting weak enforcement and permanently living aboard, dodging paying council tax and thus expecting society to subsidise their existence. Not a personal attack as I have no idea whether your mooring is a residential one or not. We are talking generalisations.

 

I'm a CCer (obviously didn't make that clear enough in my original post). But then there's usually only one of me on the boat, not two people or.a family or two people and five dogs and a hobby than generates a lot of waste. Talking generalisations, theoretically those people could be charged more too. And the fake continuous cruisers who are never on their unfinished project boats apart from the fortnightly move could demand lower fees for barely using facilities!

 

Whacking up CCer costs in excess of those paid by people with actual year round moorings (whilst continuing to keep the availability of moorings in most parts of the system at hen's teeth levels) who can still CC if they want to might work from a revenue raising perspective, but I don't see it as actually making things fairer, and I don't see how they can pull it off without the market prices for moorings everywhere going sky high anyway and the people who don't use the system much also being affected. Even those of us that only bought the boat to go to a different place every week can just pay for ghost moorings we never use. And yes, obviously that means enforcement would still be needed to stop people hogging a visitor mooring in a much nicer place than their paid-for mooring all year.

 

A lot more available liveaboard moorings (especially in desirable areas) would be a better idea to raise revenues in a way which actually helps boaters but I think the CRT face other restrictions there...

 

Edited by enigmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, matty40s said:

 A law must have specific parameters to be broken. A loose guidance of perhaps 20km, or 20miles(although nobody at CRT will give a definitive answer), whether that be range or distance perhaps. This may be overlooked in case of breakdown, lockdown, meltdown or paddy ashdown, not even touching on the schooling of kids or being near a hospital for treatment, is not an enforceable law.

 

Matty I'm both surprised and disappointed in you, of all people, have joined the "I want a specific distance" brigade and claim not to know or realise when CCers are taking the piss or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

Matty I'm both surprised and disappointed in you, of all people, have joined the "I want a specific distance" brigade and claim not to know or realise when CCers are taking the piss or not.

 

 

But C&RT have 'crapped in their own bed' when they amended the rules for CCers with children at school, now, the turkeys are coming home to roost before the 'do-dah hits the fan' big style.

How can you respect any organisation that crumbles as soon as they get a letter from an MP saying they are discriminating against parents of young children.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

I'm a CCer (obviously didn't make that clear enough in my original post). But then there's usually only one of me on the boat, not two people or.a family or two people and five dogs and a hobby than generates a lot of waste. Talking generalisations, theoretically those people could be charged more too. And the fake continuous cruisers who are never on their unfinished project boats apart from the fortnightly move could demand lower fees for barely using facilities!

 

Whacking up CCer costs in excess of those paid by people with actual year round moorings (whilst continuing to keep the availability of moorings in most parts of the system at hen's teeth levels) who can still CC if they want to might work from a revenue raising perspective, but I don't see it as actually making things fairer, and I don't see how they can pull it off without the market prices for moorings everywhere going sky high anyway and the people who don't use the system much also being affected. Even those of us that only bought the boat to go to a different place every week can just pay for ghost moorings we never use. And yes, obviously that means enforcement would still be needed to stop people hogging a visitor mooring in a much nicer place than their paid-for mooring all year.

 

A lot more available liveaboard moorings (especially in desirable areas) would be a better idea to raise revenues in a way which actually helps boaters but I think the CRT face other restrictions there...

 


But the thing is, no system can perfectly cater for every individual’s specific circumstance. As a generalisation, CCers cost CRT more than permanent moorers. So despite your specific circumstances, you might just have to suck it up. Same for me, I have to pay council tax on our house, most of which goes to schools (I don’t have any children) and social services (never interacted with them). And it costs me a lot more than an CRT licence. Poor me, it is so unfair. Otherwise known as “that’s life”.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Byelaws turn out to be quite interesting when people do FOI requests 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/general_canal_byelaws_1965

 

https://narrowboatworld.com/13592-the-general-canal-guidelines

 

The CRT don't enforce byelaws. 

 

£200 a year is a shocking amount of extra money to pay for a canal with water in it. I can see why you object! 

I'm not objecting to the money, I expect fees will have to go up by more than this. The point is that if just collecting the tolls costs £200 per boater, the fees (including tolls) have to go up by £200 more than collecting the money in other cheaper ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Specific distance' always was going to be an impossible criterion for bona fide navigation - as one of the Law Lords commented, a ferry travelling backwards and forwards over the same short distance was nevertheless compliant. Fundamentally however that is the ferry's purpose. An owner travelling between bridges is doing so for convenience and to avoid paying mooring fees, and that is something altogether different - it is certainly not bona fide navigation in any proper sense of the term.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:


But the thing is, no system can perfectly cater for every individual’s specific circumstance. As a generalisation, CCers cost CRT more than permanent moorers. So despite your specific circumstances, you might just have to suck it up. Same for me, I have to pay council tax on our house, most of which goes to schools (I don’t have any children) and social services (never interacted with them). And it costs me a lot more than an CRT licence. Poor me, it is so unfair. Otherwise known as “that’s life”.

The Council Tax "that's life" argument is an argument for the status quo position that trying to charge people more based on assumptions about their usage isn't a good idea. There's even a similarity in other respects (people with big houses and people with boats in marinas they rarely even visit might not use services as much as people with kids or CCer liveaboards, but they've on average got a lot more disposable income to charge)

 

And you missed the second, more important point, which is that if CCers costs go up by an amount similar to that involved in getting a budget mooring, then more CCers will try to get a budget mooring (no more rules to follow and a free place to stop for winter! yay!) Therefore availability of moorings will fall and mooring costs for non CCers on budget moorings will also rise, whether they use the system or not. 

 

So not only does it fail to approximate people's use of the system, it also puts non-CCers' costs up anyway, but with much of that extra money going into private pockets rather than the CRT's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

'Specific distance' always was going to be an impossible criterion for bona fide navigation - as one of the Law Lords commented, a ferry travelling backwards and forwards over the same short distance was nevertheless compliant. Fundamentally however that is the ferry's purpose. An owner travelling between bridges is doing so for convenience and to avoid paying mooring fees, and that is something altogether different - it is certainly not bona fide navigation in any proper sense of the term.

 

Tam

I thought this was  given in a magistrates court but stand to be corrected.

 

With regard to distance, my understanding from going through parliamentary records is 14 days non movement was to be BW's test for when they might consider that a boat was not being used bona fide for navigation. They were unable to satisfy a parliamentary committee as to why a longer period might be more suitable for boaters needs hence the current  1995 Act wording.

 

Has anyone other than the late Nigel Moore and myself looked at the passage of the bill that became the 1995 Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, enigmatic said:

 

I'm a CCer (obviously didn't make that clear enough in my original post). But then there's usually only one of me on the boat, not two people or.a family or two people and five dogs and a hobby than generates a lot of waste. Talking generalisations, theoretically those people could be charged more too. And the fake continuous cruisers who are never on their unfinished project boats apart from the fortnightly move could demand lower fees for barely using facilities!

 

Whacking up CCer costs in excess of those paid by people with actual year round moorings (whilst continuing to keep the availability of moorings in most parts of the system at hen's teeth levels) who can still CC if they want to might work from a revenue raising perspective, but I don't see it as actually making things fairer, and I don't see how they can pull it off without the market prices for moorings everywhere going sky high anyway and the people who don't use the system much also being affected. Even those of us that only bought the boat to go to a different place every week can just pay for ghost moorings we never use. And yes, obviously that means enforcement would still be needed to stop people hogging a visitor mooring in a much nicer place than their paid-for mooring all year.

 

A lot more available liveaboard moorings (especially in desirable areas) would be a better idea to raise revenues in a way which actually helps boaters but I think the CRT face other restrictions there...

 

The ghost mooring thing isn't going to help CCers get a cheaper licence, that's the whole point of increasing the CC licence. Using my tub as an example, if I was a CC, I'd be paying the current £900 for my licence. So if CRT stick it up by 50%, I'd be paying £1400 (rounding it up, as I'm sure they would). So to keep it at the £900 as a home moorer, I pay for a cheap farm mooring up north, which, as I'm never going to use it, the guy lets me have for half the going rate, £200. So I've saved £300.

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.

When there were only a few CCers the loss of this income really didn't matter to BW or CRT. Now everyone and his dog dumps their boats on the towpath, they've spotted the opportunity. It's unfair on the genuine cruisers, but fairness isn't a business factor.

A genuine huge increase in affordable residential moorings would be better and more profitable, but you could say the same about housing and it won't happen for the same reasons.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The ghost mooring thing isn't going to help CCers get a cheaper licence, that's the whole point of increasing the CC licence.

 

 

CC'ers don't get a cheaper licences now. They pay as everyone else does. You don't deserve any special treatment. No one forced you to take on a home mooring. It isn't unethical to be a CC'er.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't unethical to be a cc er it is just too cheap to be a cc er as has been demonstrated by the vast increase in people using boats as accomodation. 

 

It is basic supply and demand economics. If something is too cheap and there is too much demand you put the price up. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 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. 

 

Stop trying to call this suggested scheme anything that it wouldn't be. It would be a complete reversal of the present setup, where home moorings aren't necessary. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

It isn't unethical to be a CC'er.

 

Indeed and CCers are not the fly in the ointment - it is the greater number of those who fraudulently sign their licence application confirming they will CC in accordance with the guidelines, but have no intent to comply, and, are just looking for cheap accomodation.

It is these that require so much time and cost in getting them to do what they said they'd do. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

It isn't unethical to be a cc er it is just too cheap to be a cc er as has been demonstrated by the vast increase in people using boats as accomodation. 

 

It is basic supply and demand economics. If something is too cheap and there is too much demand you put the price up. 

 

 

 

Too cheap? If it's too cheap for them, it's too cheap for every user of the towpath. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aquavista marinas do it. You have a berth in one marina like Limehouse for example and you are allowed to stay at other Aquavista sites for example Sawley for a certain number of days per year. 

 

it makes sense. 

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Too cheap? If it's too cheap for them, it's too cheap for every user of the towpath. 

 

 

No because you have a situation where those who use the system more are paying less than those who use it less. 

 

This doesn't add up and looks too much like a loophole. 

I'm talking about payment to the CRT not marina profits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed and CCers are not the fly in the ointment - it is the greater number of those who fraudulently sign their licence application confirming they will CC in accordance with the guidelines, but have no intent to comply, and, are just looking for cheap accomodation.

It is these that require so much time and cost in getting them to do what they said they'd do. 

 

It isn't a crime to try to live within a budget. It also isn't a crime to use a boat for accommodation. CRT don't comply with the spirit of the law. And many on here support that.

 

 

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Aquavista marinas do it. You have a berth in one marina like Limehouse for example and you are allowed to stay at other Aquavista sites for example Sawley for a certain number of days per year. 

 

it makes sense. 

No because you have a situation where those who use the system more are paying less than those who use it less. 

 

This doesn't add up and looks too much like a loophole. 

I'm talking about payment to the CRT not marina profits. 

 

Some people don't use the canal at all. Do you support an equal treatment of those non-users, but licence payers? How much would you decrease their licence fees?

 

CRT know about loopholes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't a crime to try to live within a budget. It also isn't a crime to use a boat for accommodation. CRT don't comply with the spirit of the law. And many on here support that.

 

 

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.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Has anyone other than the late Nigel Moore and myself looked at the passage of the bill that became the 1995 Act.

 

Yes  😁

 

As I said just back a few posts, Di and I were Petitioners arguing in the Lords Committee against various Clauses in the Bill that ultimately became the 1995 Act. Our particular interest was that BW wanted to have all the original Canal Enabling Acts annulled, and as owners of some canalside land we maintained that the Rights given to landowners in those Acts were still valid today. Happily we were successful, and BW had to amend that part of the Bill.

 

We were not active participants in the objections against Clauses requiring all boats to have a home mooring, but were in attendance. We still have the daily Hansard reports and are about to go through them to try to reduce the enormous amount of space they current occupy.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed and CCers are not the fly in the ointment - it is the greater number of those who fraudulently sign their licence application confirming they will CC in accordance with the guidelines, but have no intent to comply, and, are just looking for cheap accomodation.

It is these that require so much time and cost in getting them to do what they said they'd do. 

 

This is the issue. There's no way to seperate genuine CCers' from CMers using the license system. I'm not even sure it would be legal to have two fees for the same license. Maybe a surcharge which could be applied based on the boat's previous year's sightings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to previous links by A de E quoting Nigel moore it appears that the CRT are allowed to have various tiers for licence prices. 

 

It seems there perhaps would need to be a standard price after which discounts could be applied according to other factors. It is all further up in the thread. 

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't a crime to try to live within a budget. It also isn't a crime to use a boat for accommodation. CRT don't comply with the spirit of the law. And many on here support that.

 

 

 

Some people don't use the canal at all. Do you support an equal treatment of those non-users, but licence payers? How much would you decrease their licence fees?

 

CRT know about loopholes.

 

 

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. 

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.