Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[Jerra]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Checking every fortnight is not enough to confirm that boats meet the rules, they could have been in one place for up to a month.

CRT clearly thinks fortnightly checks are enough.   However, lets up the number of checkers to 30.  You say it would be too expensive so go on how much do you think it would cost an individual licence holder?

3 hours ago, IanD said:

If the existing checking/enforcement system worked we wouldn't be having this discussion... 😉

 

Having real people walking round the canals writing down boat numbers is the kind of solution that almost every other sector has abandoned, because there are much cheaper and easier solutions which work better available nowadays -- and yes, they involve technologies like smartphones. Welcome to the 21st century... 😉

Which is why I have been dwelling mainly on technology.   In fact, it was my post that introduced technology into the discussion.   Do keep up with the thread when making comments.

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Yes I know there are people who would rather it all went away. For example, instead of discussing this on an online forum we could all hand-write letters and put them in the post... 😉

Nobody other than you has suggested it should all go away!   However, I have said to work properly it has to be trouble free for the boater i.e. require them to do nothing otherwise a good proportion wont do it and at least one other poster has confirmed he isn't prepared to do anything to help CRT track him.

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Funny how nobody seems to object to the fact that you need a computer or a smartphone to access CWDF, but suddenly it's *terrible* if you need the same for CART to know that you're following the CC rules... 😞

Needing a device to access CWDF is purely voluntary your suggestions would make it compulsary.  A totally different thing incase you haven't noticed.  Easy to suggest when you aren't strapped for cash, not so easy to do when you are.

4 hours ago, IanD said:

But hardware on the boat really *can* track where you go every minute of every day, which many would see as invasion of privacy, especially if wearing a tinfoil hat.

Nobody other than you has suggested it should be tracked every minute of every day.  Please when replying to me stick to what I have said not what you think I might have said.

4 hours ago, IanD said:

A photo every few days is exactly the same for tracking purposes as a checker walking past, which nobody is objecting to.

But that requires people to;

 

a) have the equipment which for some will mean expense

b) require them to take action which many won't do.

4 hours ago, GUMPY said:

You lot do make it complicated!

All it needs is for the licence "disc" to be a GPS tracker, permanently affixed to the boat it sends back details to the central hub. GPS trackers are cheap >£20 retail I'm sure cart could get a deal the thousands they would need.

No tracker then the boat gets crushed.

No personal information, no personal tracking, just boat tracking which is what's required.

This is more or less what I suggested back up the thread, but in a different way.

[magnetman]

Corporal punishment is too good for them. 

 

 

 

What a lot of people blatantly fail to appreciate is that there actually isn't a problem. 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, matty40s said:

CRT doesnt take licences away, it can refuse a new one, or give a restricted 3/6 month licence with a warning which allows that boater to satisfy the board with their boat movements....or not, then no new licence.

 

It may not do so, but under the 1995 act it can quite legally revoke a licence (consent)  if ...........

 

(a)(subject to subsection (6) below) the vessel does not comply with the standards applicable to the vessel on the date when the consent was granted; or

(b)an insurance policy is not in force in respect of the vessel; or

(c)either—

(i)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) (c) (i) above) it appears to the Board that a mooring or other place such as is referred to in subsection (3) (c) (i) above is not available for the vessel; or

(ii)(in the case of a vessel in respect of which a relevant consent is issued pursuant to subsection (3) (c) (ii) above) the vessel has not in fact been used bona fide for navigation in accordance with the said subsection (3) (c) (ii);

the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days).

 

(5)If the holder of the relevant consent does not comply with any notice served pursuant to subsection (4) above then the relevant consent shall determine (be withdrawn) on the date the notice expires.

 

(6)Where prior to the grant of a relevant consent a certificate (“the boat safety certificate”) has been issued by a person authorised by the Board so to do in respect of a vessel confirming that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to it at the date upon which the boat safety certificate is issued, subsection (4) (a) above shall have effect throughout the period for which the boat safety certificate is expressed to be valid as if for reference to the date when the consent was granted there were substituted reference to the date when the boat safety certificate was issued.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[matty40s]

Yes, we know that Alan, but it has never used that in 30 years.

[Hudds Lad]

This board you have to satisfy, how many of them are there, and what if they’re into kinky stuff? 

[magnetman]

One hopes this thread is satisfying the bored. 

 

 

[Jon57]

23 minutes ago, magnetman said:

One hopes this thread is satisfying the bored. 

 

 

I’m bored to death with it 🤪

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, matty40s said:

Yes, we know that Alan, but it has never used that in 30 years.

But you miss the point .

 

I agreed with you that they may not have used it extensivley but we know they have.

 

In the past they have not taken boaters to court for 'not moving enough'. They remove their licence for faiing to comply with the movement requirements and then take them to court for not having a licence.

 

This 'route to court' has been discussed many times in the future.

 

The main thrust of the thread is what methods can be used to control overstaying etc. & I posted the detail for the benefit of the uninitiated to showswhat could be done if C&RT had the will,

[magnetman]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

.

 

This 'route to court' has been discussed many times in the future.

 

 

Time travel eh? 

[MtB]

My own view differs widely from all the other suggestions in this thread.

 

It looks to me as though Parliament gave BW (now CRT) extensive power to deal with the CMing situation in the 1995 British Waterways Act but BW & CRT have consistently failed to use them. 

 

Firstly, this expression "Satisfy the board" is enormously powerful but CRT just don't seem to want to use it. They could declare themselves 'not satisfied' and refuse a license in so many cases but they just don't, and I'm not sure why. Weak management just looking for an easy life each day in the office, I suspect.

 

Secondly, this thing about moving once a fortnight is rubbish. It's a ridiculously generous interpretation of the act. When picked apart, the law says two week pauses in navigation are allowed in connection with the boat being used bona fide for navigation. Not that the boat can be moored for continuous and consecutive two week periods separated by one hour cruises (as seems to be the interpretation at the moment). 

 

Secondly, In the case of boats without a home mooring, these licenses should be issued sparingly and only to boats genuinely used bona fide for navigation. Any suspicion that a boat is hanging around in one area and the board should require the boater to provide some evidence of use bona fide for navigation at renewal time. No evidence, no license. A list of what would "Satisfy the board" could be published, along with a reassurance that the board could be satisfied in other ways too when the boat concerned genuinely bona fide navigates but in an unusual or unconventional manner. 

 

And all this tosh about going to court when it is a liveaboard can be dispensed with too, as under the byelaws it is illegal to live aboard. CRT have power AIUI to enforce the bylaws but chooses not to. No-one seems to know why.

 

The problem in my opinion lies with CRT persistently failing to use the powers it already has, granted to them long ago by parliament for the specific purpose. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by MtB
Add para 3

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

And all this tosh about going to court when it is a liveaboard can be dispensed with too, as under the byelaws it is illegal to live aboard. CRT have power AIUI to enforce the bylaws but chooses not to. No-one seems to know why.

 

The problem in my opinion lies with CRT persistently failing to use the powers it already has, granted to them long ago by parliament for the specific purpose. 

 

Discussed previously -

 

As shown above C&RT have sufficient backing of the legislation (1995 Act) to remove / recind licences from both CCts and HMers - They choose to rarely use their powers.

 

 

In response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws :

 

Nigel Moore (Rip) 8/2/20

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

“Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

 

1 hour ago, MtB said:

....................as under the byelaws it is illegal to live aboard.

 

Not if the board have given permission, by the granting of a licence they are giving permission, the question is "should the licence application include a question about bat usage ?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another of Nigel Moores discussions he concluded that : Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

His commnents on following another court case

 

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was for living on &  not for navigating.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

 

..

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[TGweeder]

On 06/07/2023 at 19:51, matty40s said:

Only one boat lifted out in the end, onto the K&A at Devises. Not allowed back even when the docks are (if) completed.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/victimised-canal-boat-owner-forced-8580033#amp-readmore-target

Hi all, 

Bit late to the party here, 

Yet again the papers writing articles with out fact checking, 

Reality is : the effected boat was one originally from the docks BUT the current owner in the article attached bought the boat only one year ago thinking they could freeload as correctly stated the boats were on a free pass so to speak, not having to move or having to pay for a mooring for a few years,

All boats were given notice the beginning of last year (find a home mooring on the canal or leave) 

On the other side of the coin CRT were working with local businesses to identify and secure agreements to provide home moorings, 

If the above mentioned had been respectful to the situation and location they were in when they bought the boat and didn't cause trouble cause fights and generally turn the area into a tip. 

The business would happily of offered them a mooring, 

Short canal local news travels fast they had no options or offers else's where, 

Crt's offer to pay to move them I would think was a cheaper option than a prolonged Court case as advertised by there solicitor, 

Before moving onto the boat they were van dwelling (still have three van's) 

Take from this what you will, 

Best of luck to those they end up locating next to on the K&A

[Alan de Enfield]

 

From a post, now a few years old, but I'm sure the costs have not reduced over those last 10 years.

 

 

Section 8 Costs Incurred by C&RT – 31/10/16

 

A large part of the problem though, is that it is a long way from “the cheapest way”. If you look at the statistics, a tiny minority are able to pay the enormously inflated costs of recovering their boats once seized and transported [usually] to the storage places furtherest from their original location.

 

In the year to August 2014 69 boats were removed from CaRT waters under s.8. Many more will have been removed since July 2012 when they came into being, but the figures have not been divulged [although the number 170 was mooted apparently derived from CaRT sources]. Of those, 57 were supposedly removed following court action because live-aboards.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_part_8_civil_procedure#comment-53842 

 

The usual minimum cost of removals using CaRT’s contractors is approximately £5,000. 

 

According to CaRT figures, of these 170 boats, 8 were “disposed of” following the “Torts Act” procedure, presumably sold. Whether the sums recovered by these presumed sales sufficed to cover the costs is not revealed. 

 

By inference, all other un-reclaimed boats were simply destroyed eventually, at yet further cost.

 

Of all these boats, only 9 were reclaimed by the owners, and only 3 were subsequently re-licensed.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_a_breakdown_of_boats#comment-55267 

 

If we then take the total cost of removals in those 2 years, a rough estimation would amount to £850,000 for 170 boat removals [not including storage and any subsequent destruction and disposal costs].

 

The 9 recovered boats would account – on the same basis – for recovery of £45,000, leaving an outlay of unrecovered sums of approximately £805,000. To be generous, supposing that the 8 boats mentioned as being disposed of by sale were sold for sufficient to cover all costs incurred, then another £40,000 can be detracted, leaving an irrecoverable outlay of £765,000.

 

As stated, the end result over these two years of such expenditure was only 3 renewed boat licences.

 

Not “the cheapest way” to enforce boat licensing in my book; while I take the point that fear of seizure will reduce the numbers taking the risk of going unlicensed in the first place – that amounts to over a quarter million per successfully enforced re-licensing. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

52 minutes ago, TGweeder said:

 

Best of luck to those they end up locating next to on the K&A

I suspect they could feel right at home

 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I suspect they could feel right at home

 

 

The NBTA crowd tends not to venture up the flight. 

 

(As it involves several hours of boating, I suspect.) 

[Iain_S]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

(snip)

On another of Nigel Moores discussions he concluded that : Legally, a liveaboard cannot be a CCer.

 

His comments on following another court case

 

 

I actually take issue with the applicability of “intent”; I believe the judge in Davies got bamboozled by Mr Stoner QC's (as he since became) clever rhetoric on the point. As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was for living on &  not for navigating.

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies.

 

..

 

If a boater had the objective or intention to cruise the connected canal system, or a large part of it, then the primary purpose of the boat would be "bona fide" navigating, and the use of the boat as a place to cook or sleep would be secondary. If the boater intends to continue in that manner, then an address on land becomes just as unnecessary as a home mooring.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Iain_S

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, matty40s said:

What does the 1st paragraph mean, it doesnt make sense.

It is, I think, a bit more subtle than that. The boater has to convince the Board that they are engaged in bona fide navigation. Whilst the Board can state what is not likely to convince them, they cannot (to avoid Judicial review) state that certain situations will be required, as they have to take into account context of each application. Nor can they add further requirements to what will satisfy them (such as only allowing pink boats or not allowing boats without a point end)

 

(I know that it was IanD's post but I forgo to go back and find it!)

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

If a boater had the objective or intention to cruise the connected canal system, or a large part of it, then the primary purpose of the boat would be "bona fide" navigating, and the use of the boat as a place to cook or sleep would be secondary. If the boater intends to continue in that manner, then an address on land becomes just as unnecessary as a home mooring.

 

 

You may well be correct, there are always contrary views when trying to interpret the law, but both the Judge & Nigels' view was the opposite.

 

When you are not cruising the boat is still your primary residence

[Iain_S]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

You may well be correct, there are always contrary views when trying to interpret the law, but both the Judge & Nigels' view was the opposite.

 

When you are not cruising the boat is still your primary residence

I suspect that, had Mr. Davies spent even just the weekends boating on the K&A and connected waterways, the judge might have come to a different conclusion in that particular case. (Of course, had Davies done that, he probably wouldn't have been in court in the first place! )

Edited July 9, 2023 by Iain_S

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, Jerra said:

CRT clearly thinks fortnightly checks are enough.   However, lets up the number of checkers to 30.  You say it would be too expensive so go on how much do you think it would cost an individual licence holder?

Which is why I have been dwelling mainly on technology.   In fact, it was my post that introduced technology into the discussion.   Do keep up with the thread when making comments.

Nobody other than you has suggested it should all go away!   However, I have said to work properly it has to be trouble free for the boater i.e. require them to do nothing otherwise a good proportion wont do it and at least one other poster has confirmed he isn't prepared to do anything to help CRT track him.

Needing a device to access CWDF is purely voluntary your suggestions would make it compulsary.  A totally different thing incase you haven't noticed.  Easy to suggest when you aren't strapped for cash, not so easy to do when you are.

Nobody other than you has suggested it should be tracked every minute of every day.  Please when replying to me stick to what I have said not what you think I might have said.

But that requires people to;

 

a) have the equipment which for some will mean expense

b) require them to take action which many won't do.

This is more or less what I suggested back up the thread, but in a different way.

It is also important to factor in the development cost to CaRT. Such systems are never cheap and usually more expensive than first imagined. Failure to do things properly, with a good eye for future needs , is why organisations end up in an IT mess. It has been widely reported that CaRT's systems are/were in a bad state, quite likely because insufficient was spent on their introduction. Many of the approaches suggested, I suspect, fall down because the current systems could not support them. CaRT has limited capabilities for capital works and a new IT system just for checking CC compliance might well rank lower than new gates for you favourite leaky lock. (Assuming CaRT's accounting rules allow it to capitalise IT development, if not they it will compete with repairing your least favourite leaky lock)

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But you miss the point .

 

I agreed with you that they may not have used it extensivley but we know they have.

 

In the past they have not taken boaters to court for 'not moving enough'. They remove their licence for faiing to comply with the movement requirements and then take them to court for not having a licence.

 

This 'route to court' has been discussed many times in the future.

 

The main thrust of the thread is what methods can be used to control overstaying etc. & I posted the detail for the benefit of the uninitiated to showswhat could be done if C&RT had the will,

and had the money

[Dockeroo]

I like that CRT isn't full of jobsworths and is humane and doesn't act so strictly on what they could do with the powers they have in general which yes can lead to people who "take" too much to get a nasty suprise but I don't blame crt it's the boaters choice if they get a problem or not.

 

The unwritten "2 week rule" is not a bad thing, we don't need very specific strict rules when we can be allowed to use common sense and fairness, just because some take the mick doesn't mean we should ruin it for everyon or bow to supremecy.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Dockeroo

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

and had the money

 

It will only take a few examples being taken to court and them losing for many of the others to fall into line.

 

If C&RT carefully select their targets they will win and be awarded costs>

As Nigel described in an earlier post, they can then call in the baliffs, the boater can even end up in prison.

The "Call in the Bailiff"  TV programmes seem to get the money owed for everything from a car repair to several £1000 owed by a (major) airline

[MtB]

6 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

It is, I think, a bit more subtle than that. The boater has to convince the Board that they are engaged in bona fide navigation. Whilst the Board can state what is not likely to convince them, they cannot (to avoid Judicial review) state that certain situations will be required, as they have to take into account context of each application. Nor can they add further requirements to what will satisfy them (such as only allowing pink boats or not allowing boats without a point end)

 

(I know that it was IanD's post but I forgo to go back and find it!)

 

They could however, legitimately state that pink boats would most definitely satisfy the board, whilst at the same time stating that other colours may, or may not. 

 

Its a subtlety of logic that goes over the heads of many boaters. 

 

The whole point is that these are not requirements, just indications of certain things (possibly easy to achieve) that most definitely would satisfy the board.

 

Other things might be, for example, two dated photos of the boat in places 50 miles apart. This is not to say two dated photos of the boat in two places 20 miles apart might not also satisfy the board, just that two dated photos 50 miles apart might definitely satisfy the board and can be relied upon so to do.

 

Just an illustrative example ya see. But I know plenty here might perhaps struggle to grasp that concept too.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by MtB
Add a bit.

[enigmatic]

On 08/07/2023 at 19:19, matty40s said:

It will be interesting to see the results of a new EA process on the Nene, no courts involved. Some of these boats have been there for a LONG time, some unlicensed.

The EA has a process on the Nene?!

 

In all seriousness the Nene works pretty well for the most part because the continuous moorers want to be where (i) there's loads of space and (ii) boaters passing through don't want to be. So the four or five boats on the river that actually move have all the decent spots to themselves, and actually do move on after 48 hours, and the EA is probably happy just to collect licence fees from the rest. Or some of the rest...

 

 

On 08/07/2023 at 20:49, David Mack said:

Forcing boaters to use a smartphone app to report their position or requiring them to attach a tracking device to their boat is outside CRT's legal powers. The requirement to 'satisfy the Board' is imposed on an applicant for a licence without a home mooring, not a holder of the said licence. Once the licence has been issued, the boater is not required to demonstrate compliance (or even comply) with whatever he may have agreed to at the application stage, so CRT can't impose such a requirement. All they can so is observe the boater's pattern of movement, and when the licence is coming up for renewal and the boater once again becomes an applicant, only then can CRT take past behaviour into account in deciding whether they are satisfied with a boaters movement intentions. Which is why they currently offer on renewal only a 6 month licence to those whose pattern of movement has not been acceptable.

 

I assume they could tell six month licensees that the board is unlikely to be satisfied that they have improved their movement pattern when they make their next application unless they can prove it, preferably using a tracker.

 

 

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You may well be correct, there are always contrary views when trying to interpret the law, but both the Judge & Nigels' view was the opposite.

 

When you are not cruising the boat is still your primary residence

 

Only Nigel's view was the opposite

 

The judge even commented " it seems to me that use of the boat as a home does not necessarily exclude a co-existent use for navigation. Indeed a person who continuously cruises the waterways in the manner envisaged by the Board might well be living full time on the boat with no other home"  which is about as clear a statement that a liveaboard can be a CCer as it was possible for him to make

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by enigmatic

[Dockeroo]

If they were that strict with the navigation thing then the canal wouldn't even be open like they are.

 

The notion is there from history and heritage, but the canals were made redundant and dead due to trains, road vehicles, ect. (Which is navigation)

 

So in order to get the funds to keep the canals open and revamp, they let people live on the boats and have purposely lacks rules (ie: move every 2 weeks) around the navigation so allot more people most good and decent still use the waterways so the traditionalists still can too.

 

If the rules were that strict, the waterways would be on the decline and allot of then would be gone.

 

To prove you are legitimately navigating, you would have to give your paperwork for your to and from destination and purpose, like delivering goods from factory to factory ect.

 

Who does that on the canal these days? Where are you actually going where the canal leads to without a car? Not many are actually using the canals for the sole purpose of navigating to a certain point, its more for tradition and pleasure that you navigate the canals that are open for the purpose of navigating, and the people who aren't true navigators just allow the ones that are to have lots more maintained waterways to do so.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Dockeroo