Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[Hudds Lad]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But lots of lengths of canal are relatively inaccessible compared to streets, so the cost of deploying enforcement staff will be higher regardless of who employs them.

But aren't the bulk of the honeypot locations where the issues lie within easy access of roads etc.?

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

But aren't the bulk of the honeypot locations where the issues lie within easy access of roads etc.?

That's what I said -- which is why these are where mooring/stay enforcement should be concentrated, so it has some chance of actually working.

[magpie patrick]

30 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

But aren't the bulk of the honeypot locations where the issues lie within easy access of roads etc.?

Most, but by no means all - increasingly peope will leave cars some distance from the boat, and the walk need not be along the towpath but along country footpaths

26 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's what I said -- which is why these are where mooring/stay enforcement should be concentrated, so it has some chance of actually working.

 Actually, it works remarkably well but it relies on people moving when asked - most do do at least the minimum movement after ending up on the spotters radar. And despite claims that spotters can't be everywhere, CRT do know about boats not complying even though they are moored "in the sticks", and they do send out notices to such people (assuming the boat is actually licensed). 

 

It's the ones that aren't reasonable that cause the issue - add to that if 200 "reasonable" boaters descend on the same short length of canal.... 

[Tracy D'arth]

Its odd but the Bridgewater Canal, Peel Holdings owned, does not seem to have any problem controlling boat moorings.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

That's what I said -- which is why these are where mooring/stay enforcement should be concentrated, so it has some chance of actually working.

This is the most likely reason for it to fail in  court, picking on certain people when there are others getting away with it. Which is why CRT have to show they patrol 2000m of canals and rivers every 2 weeks.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, matty40s said:

This is the most likely reason for it to fail in  court, picking on certain people when there are others getting away with it. Which is why CRT have to show they patrol 2000m of canals and rivers every 2 weeks.

Why is it any different to parking?

 

AFAIK there's nothing that says CART have to apply exactly the same rules across the whole network, only that they have to apply them equally to all boaters in a given area -- otherwise there couldn't be any mooring restrictions at all, could there?

[Mad Harold]

52 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Its odd but the Bridgewater Canal, Peel Holdings owned, does not seem to have any problem controlling boat moorings.

But it is patrolled by (by all accounts) a Barsteward on a moped!

[TheBiscuits]

10 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

But it is patrolled by (by all accounts) a Barsteward on a moped!

 

Sunny has never been unpleasant or impolite to me.  

 

Maybe because I don't try and bend the rules he's there to enforce ...

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Sunny has never been unpleasant or impolite to me.  

 

Maybe because I don't try and bend the rules he's there to enforce ...

just what i was thinking too. The thinnest smattering of posts on here about him being rude to piss-takers suggests Peel are getting it exactly right, and CRT could do with mimicking their methods. 
 

[IanD]

Just now, MtB said:

just what i was thinking too. The thinnest smattering of posts on here about him being rude to piss-takers suggests Peel are getting it exactly right, and CRT could do with mimicking their methods. 
 

Though of course Peel have a much smaller length of canal to deal with, with a lot fewer moorings, and much more freedom about what they do to enforce it than toothless/cash-strapped/red-tape-entangled CART... 😉

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Its odd but the Bridgewater Canal, Peel Holdings owned, does not seem to have any problem controlling boat moorings.

Because the Bridgewater Canal Company, along with most other navigation authorities except CRT, does not have to offer 'continuous cruising' licences, so insists on all long term licenced craft having a home mooring.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Because the Bridgewater Canal Company, along with most other navigation authorities except CRT, does not have to offer 'continuous cruising' licences, so insists on all long term licenced craft having a home mooring.

 

Of course CART doesn't *have* to offer CC licenses either, it didn't use to... 😉

[Hudds Lad]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

Of course CART doesn't *have* to offer CC licenses either, it didn't use to... 😉

Technically it doesn't now, just a licence with or without a home mooring  

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Technically it doesn't now, just a licence with or without a home mooring  

 

That's what I meant -- but having opened the CC door to CMers (50-odd years ago?) and now having getting on for 20% of all boats on the canals without a home mooring, the outcry if they tried to get rid of it and enforce home moorings would be massive, the NBTA would go ballistic, the press would be full of "think of the children" reports... 😞

 

A CC/CM surcharge would be easier to defend, and it's possible that this will be one outcome of the "license fee consultation" earlier this year. Wasn't this due to be published about now?

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Its odd but the Bridgewater Canal, Peel Holdings owned, does not seem to have any problem controlling boat moorings.

Maybe because they don't let you have a licence unless you have a mooring?

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

That's what I meant -- but having opened the CC door to CMers (50-odd years ago?) and now having getting on for 20% of all boats on the canals without a home mooring, the outcry if they tried to get rid of it and enforce home moorings would be massive, the NBTA would go ballistic, the press would be full of "think of the children" reports... 😞

 

A CC/CM surcharge would be easier to defend, and it's possible that this will be one outcome of the "license fee consultation" earlier this year. Wasn't this due to be published about now?

They'd also be acting illegally.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Maybe because they don't let you have a licence unless you have a mooring?

They'd also be acting illegally.

 

Why? There's nothing legally that says CART *have* to offer a CC ("no home mooring") license, they didn't until the 1960s IIRC, before then you had to have a home mooring to get a license.

 

It's a concession that they made then, and could remove today if they chose to because it's not written into law.

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[Iain_S]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Why? There's nothing legally that says CART *have* to offer a CC ("no home mooring") license, they didn't until the 1960s IIRC, before then you had to have a home mooring to get a license.

 

It's a concession that they made then, and could remove today if they chose to because it's not written into law.

 

British Waterways Act 1995, Sec. 17 (3)(c)(ii)

 

Quote

3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

 

Quote

ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

 

British Waterways Act 1995, Sec. 17 (3)(c)(ii)

 

 

IANAL but you may well be right 🙂

 

However this is a pointless argument, AFAIK there's no proposal from CART to remove the CC exemption as part of the license fee review because this would force every boater to get a home mooring and there simply aren't enough of them.

 

Their possible proposal was to make a surcharge (higher license fee) for CCers ("no home mooring"), which IIRC they are allowed to do -- just like a surcharge for widebeams or area-related pricing which are other ideas floated around.

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Their possible proposal wass to make a surcharge (higher license fee) for CCers ("no home mooring"), which IIRC they are allowed to do.

 

Not quite that simple as the law states that Rivers only registration fees can only be a maximum of 60% of the canal and river licence cost.

 

I had long discussions with Nigel Moore (Rip) on the subject and he agreed that if a 'standard licence fee was set high enough "£1000's) then discounts could be offered to achieve what C&RT want to do,

 

My argument is based on :

 

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

Nigel's reponse to various forum members suggesting I was wrong and C&RT could not vary licence charges ............................

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Not quite that simple as the law states that Rivers only registration fees can only be a maximum of 60% of the canal and river licence cost.

 

I had long discussions with Nigel Moore (Rip) on the subject and he agreed that if a 'standard licence fee was set high enough "£1000's) then discounts could be offered to achieve what C&RT want to do,

 

My argument is based on :

 

[snip]

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

 

 

You're arguing pointlessly about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin again...

 

Regardless of how they write the rules -- whether it's a £10000/year fee with discounts for narrowboats/home moorers/whatever -- CART can make different charges to different types of boat/boater, so long as they stay within the law, which is that the river-only fee can't be higher than 60% of the river+canal fee. Whether you call the fee scales discounts or surcharges makes absolutely zero difference to what is paid, the result is the same.

 

So if they want to charge different amounts by boat size (width/length) or usage (home mooring or not) or anything else, they can do that, so long as the river-only fees are cheaper by at least 40%.

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[magpie patrick]

44 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Why? There's nothing legally that says CART *have* to offer a CC ("no home mooring") license, they didn't until the 1960s IIRC, before then you had to have a home mooring to get a license.

 

It's a concession that they made then, and could remove today if they chose to because it's not written into law.

Ian, with this post you demonstrated that you have no understanding of how the law over licensing and mooring is framed. From this point on you have lost credibility. If you were so ill informed on the law regarding licensing with no home mooring then nothing you say regarding this matter can be taken seriously now. 

 

Your comments relating to how parking operates and is enforced were a complete red herring - the legislation has no common basis and the rights of the motorists and the authorities are both far better defined for roads than for boaters and  CRT on the canals. 

 

It isn't angels dancing on pin heads - it's the law as it relates to CRT canals. Some of us have spent a lot of (paid for) hours understanding it. 

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Ian, with this post you demonstrated that you have no understanding of how the law over licensing and mooring is framed. From this point on you have lost credibility. If you were so ill informed on the law regarding licensing with no home mooring then nothing you say regarding this matter can be taken seriously now. 

 

Your comments relating to how parking operates and is enforced were a complete red herring - the legislation has no common basis and the rights of the motorists and the authorities are both far better defined for roads than for boaters and  CRT on the canals. 

 

It isn't angels dancing on pin heads - it's the law as it relates to CRT canals. Some of us have spent a lot of (paid for) hours understanding it. 

 

And I've just admitted that I could well have been wrong saying that due to later laws, something which some people on here would *never* do... 😉

 

It *is* angels dancing on pin heads, or pedantry if you want to call it that -- CART can charge different license fees for different boats and boaters, and whether this is called a "CC surcharge" or a "home moorer discount" is only of interest to lawyers (and some CWDF posters), because the end effect on what boaters pay is exactly the same.

 

Do you agree?

 

It's also what Nigel Moore said and it's what Alan said, so maybe you should argue with them... 😉

 

The comment about parking was to try and show that dividing up the mooring rules/length of stay by location is just what parking does, there's no reason a similar solution shouldn't work on the canals, and it would lead to far better enforcement in honeypot areas than the current system. All CART would have to do is keep the exiting (and enshrined in law) 14-day CC rule in honeypot areas, but waive it elsewhere -- the law says that they can't refuse a license for a valid CCer, but AFAIK it doesn't say the 14-day rule has to apply everywhere (and need checking/enforcement), for example "out in the sticks".

 

If you disagree, please explain why this is wrong instead of stooping to personal insults.

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And I've just admitted that I could well have been wrong saying that due to later laws, something which some people on here would *never* do... 😉

 

It *is* angels dancing on pin heads, or pedantry if you want to call it that -- CART can charge different license fees for different boats and boaters, and whether this is called a "CC surcharge" or a "home moorer discount" is only of interest to lawyers (and some CWDF posters), because the end effect on what boaters pay is exactly the same.

 

Do you agree?

 

It's also what Nigel Moore said and it's what Alan said, so maybe you should argue with them... 😉

 

The comment about parking was to try and show that dividing up the mooring rules/length of stay by location is just what parking does, there's no reason a similar solution shouldn't work on the canals, and it would lead to far better enforcement in honeypot areas than the current system.

 

If you disagree, please explain why this is wrong instead of stooping to personal insults.

 

Which personal insult? There wasn't one 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Which personal insult? There wasn't one 

The first paragraph.

 

If he had bothered reading the follow-up post I made, I had already said that it looked like I was wrong -- I'd assumed the law from the 60s was still valid, and it had been superseded.

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

The first paragraph.

 

Nope.

 

If you think that is a personal insult I would say you need to grow some.