Licences

[magnetman]

Not sure about no boats but if it could be arranged to get rid of the liveaboard gits it could improve the situation no end for pleasure users. 

 

It always reminded me a bit of the Israel Palestine thing. A roadmap to war. 

 

When are the continuous cruisers front going to take up their pitchforks? 

 

 

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Yes I am sure.

But if there were no boats and therefore no license fees then C&RT would not have the expense of keeping locks  in  working order, all boater facilities like toilets etc could be taken out of use , lock keepers would not be required , admin staff not required etc.

 

 

 

A nice little duck and paddleboard waterway 6ft wide with a natural reed bank. The waterway fed with clean water via weirs which used to be locks back in the day. 

Wider cycle path separated fro. the pedestrian path with a wall. Pedestrians enjoying romantic and fabulous encounters beside the peaceful and clean waterway. Fishes. Damselflies. Water voles. Herons. Herrings !

 

Maybe take an electric punt ride. 

 

All of this in an inner city area. 

 

Locks to be picnic sites with interpretation boards. 

 

Bollards could be made into gaily painted stools for children. 

 

Fun for everyone in their linear pleasure gardens. 

 

A glimpse of a beautiful future for the masses. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

25 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Not sure about no boats but if it could be arranged to get rid of the liveaboard gits it could improve the situation no end for pleasure users. 

 

It always reminded me a bit of the Israel Palestine thing. A roadmap to war. 

 

When are the continuous cruisers front going to take up their pitchforks? 

 

What I've gathered from the outraged squeals of Facebook is that most CCers have no concept of the costs of even a "cheap" mooring. Most are under the impression that you can get a field mooring oop north for a few hundred quid a year, and that's the only cost involved. There seems to be a considerable sense of shock when they find out that the actual cost of mooring is well over the cost of their licence, and can easily be several times that amount.

And, going back to my early days, I don't remember continuous cruisers lining up to support moorers complaining about the introduction of BWs mooring fees. Just saying...

ETA please note I have nothing against CCers, liveaboard or not. The place would be much worse off without the genuine ones, and a lot duller without all of them, parkers, dumpers, stealth - whatever.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[dmr]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Not sure about no boats but if it could be arranged to get rid of the liveaboard gits it could improve the situation no end for pleasure users. 

 

It always reminded me a bit of the Israel Palestine thing. A roadmap to war. 

 

When are the continuous cruisers front going to take up their pitchforks? 

 

 

 

 

A nice little duck and paddleboard waterway 6ft wide with a natural reed bank. The waterway fed with clean water via weirs which used to be locks back in the day. 

Wider cycle path separated fro. the pedestrian path with a wall. Pedestrians enjoying romantic and fabulous encounters beside the peaceful and clean waterway. Fishes. Damselflies. Water voles. Herons. Herrings !

 

Maybe take an electric punt ride. 

 

All of this in an inner city area. 

 

Locks to be picnic sites with interpretation boards. 

 

Bollards could be made into gaily painted stools for children. 

 

Fun for everyone in their linear pleasure gardens. 

 

A glimpse of a beautiful future for the masses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After coming up Hatton and Lapworth last week was talking to another boater about this. Most visitors visit the locks to see a moving boat and even chat to boaters. So if CRT shut down the system but just kept the "honeyspot" lock flights open and employed a nice pretty boat to continually go up and down would that be just as good for the visitors?   Our gut feeling was No..

 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, robtheplod said:

Indeed, and if i may be contentious, rather odd. CRT need to promote boating and use of the canals,

 

Errr nope, sorry, you've got me there. Why do CRT need to 'promote boating and use of the canals'? 

 

My own perception is the canals are grossly over-used and over-populated and boat builders are building boats flat out to meet demand for cheap accommodation on the water. 

 

What we need in my opinion is a massive rise in license fees to stem the flooding of the canals with ever more liveaboard boats used as cheap accommodation and at the same time swell the coffers of CRT so they can have a chance of maintaining the waterways half-properly.

 

 

[HenryFreeman]

On 19/09/2023 at 16:19, bigcol said:

Ive just replied to this crt letter with below

 

What a load of Tosh!!!

First of all, let’s hammer the wide beams, 

1) wide beams haven't got the full use of the system

2) what’s left of the canals, the inability of using the sides of the canal

2a) vegetation of trees and bushes which plays havoc with narrow beams as well, making a lot of areas unpasseble.

3b The sides of the canal all boats have problems getting in close to moor as lack of dredging. Some sides have got less than 18”

 

But none of this maintenance never gets done!!

Being here at a marina on the canal, I’ve never Never seen the canal here dredged!!!!! The directors /managers should be ashamed of them selves

I imagine your pay checks are above 4 figures!!, instead of getting pay increases, you should loose your jobs.

 

The whole network tunnels bridges locks the whole Network  inc buildings just 21 years from start to finish as it were.

All made and dug out by hand took 21 years in total!!!

 

from 1759 to the early 1770's and from 1789 to almost the end of the eighteenth century. 

 

CRT hasn’t dredged 1/2 a mile!!  In 15 years !!!!!!!!!!

infact has anyone seen a significant amount of dredging done at all.?

In fact does make CRT management look stupid don’t you think

a precious national treasure

 

which hopefully, gratefully can continue to enjoy for a little while yet.

and be part of a larger community that’s learnt to make do

 

Colin

 

 

I think this needs a few more exclamation marks to really hammer the point home.

[MtB]

On 19/09/2023 at 16:19, bigcol said:

First of all, let’s hammer the wide beams, 

1) wide beams haven't got the full use of the system

 

 

And did anybody hold a gun to your head and force you to buy your widebeam that you knew would not have 'full use of the system'? 

 

Were there no narrow beam boats available on the market for you to buy? 

 

Everybody with a widebeam knew the deal when they bought a boat too wide to cruise half the system and they had the choice to buy a boat that fits everywhere.

 

By your argument 70ft narrow boats should get a cheaper licence than 57ft narroeboats too, which is just plain silly IMO.

 

 

 

[magnetman]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Errr nope, sorry, you've got me there. Why do CRT need to 'promote boating and use of the canals'? 

 

My own perception is the canals are grossly over-used and over-populated and boat builders are building boats flat out to meet demand for cheap accommodation on the water. 

 

What we need in my opinion is a massive rise in license fees to stem the flooding of the canals with ever more liveaboard boats used as cheap accommodation and at the same time swell the coffers of CRT so they can have a chance of maintaining the waterways half-properly.

 

 

 

It makes sense for the CRT to attempt to shift people who actually are in trouble with their housing onto the state. The CRT is not a housing authority other than in very limited circumstances where people live on residential moorings. They should not be spending CRT funds on dealing with housing issues. 

 

For example if the licence for a cc er was raised significantly at this time causing people who are in need to claim state funds it could be a safety net for the CRT and the person on the boat.

Fifteen yars down the line when the problem of far too many boats in poor condition and never moving gets too severe these people, who do have a right to live somewhere, will be in a stronger position to use state support for their housing needs. 

 

It does make sense from the point of view of people living on boats if it is considerably more expensive to do this otherwise you get problems. 

 

I know not everyone with a cc licence lives on the boat but there is a cheap housing topic in this. 

 

 

[bigcol]

It’s funny, how different things , brings up different meanings, for different people.

 

I’ve never moaned about having a Widebeam, or not being able to use the whole system.

my point is that is a key argument about putting prices up more so on widebeams. Why?

Because all the Garbage about needing to put prices up again next year, was again same reason they put prices up last year, and the year before that.  Infrastructural this and infrastructural that.and

 last year, and the year before.

I have not seen any works done, on this part of the system. NEVER!

and I will put more explanation marks behind the NEVER,why because I can, and yes I did want to hammer the point home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

very much it’s got arround I’ve got a small dick, my answer to that is,

but I have 17.4 stone to hammer it home with!

 

I know I go off on a tandrant, I know my spelling isn’t that good, or my punctuation.

but putting extra explanation marks in, is because I can, and yes indeed sir, I wanted to bang the point home.

 

there will be a day, soon enough, that  Narrowboats will not be able to access the whole system

how many of you now are passing a moored boat, Widebeam on your right starboard side

but you can’t really due to the vegetation that’s be allowed to grow, or trees leaning over the waterway so you can’t pass because vegetation has taken over.

at the moment, it’s somthing we’ve learnt to deal with, a saw on board,  etc pruning shears,  its one of those things.

but soon enough it will be !!!

 

Col

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by bigcol
More spelling!

[wandering snail]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

For rather obvious reasons I do know that the DwP will pay for mooring and licence costs if you live on your boat, have low or no income and a limited amount of savings. 

 

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homeownership/living_on_a_boat

 

OK so some people using boats for pleasure and taking advantage of cc while living in houses may be priced out but that's life. 

 

Nobody needs to be priced out of living on their boat if they have recourse to state funds. 

 

 

 

I notice they use the term 'continuous cruiser licence', I wonder where they got that from??

[magnetman]

33 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

I notice they use the term 'continuous cruiser licence', I wonder where they got that from??

 

 

Interesting isn't it. 

 

A cc licence does not exist it is just a tick box in an application form. The licence for canals is a PBL pleasure boat licence. 

 

Well now it looks like it does exist. 

 

 

I think it may have been the NBTA who caused this to happen as they are the most active campaign group in this area. 

 

I am yet to be convinced this is a positive outcome. 

 

 

 

 

Continuous Cruiser is a term also used on a .gov website. 

 

The times they are a'changing. 

 

 

This is where the game changed 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by magnetman

[Momac]

15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Interesting isn't it. 

 

A cc licence does not exist it is just a tick box in an application form. The licence for canals is a PBL pleasure boat licence. 

 

Well now it looks like it does exist. 

 

 

I think it may have been the NBTA who caused this to happen as they are the most active campaign group in this area. 

 

I am yet to be convinced this is a positive outcome. 

 

 

 

 

Continuous Cruiser is a term also used on a .gov website. 

 

The times they are a'changing. 

 

 

This is where the game changed 

 

 

Everyone who has their current status with C&RT as continuous cruiser should be looking out for the yet to be announced price increases and supplements  and seeing whether they wish to change to declare a home mooring instead before April 2024.

 

Continuous cruisers who have narrowboaters with a home mooring are  to blame for this  situation as it was the majority narrowboaters with home moorings who gave C&RT permission to charge the continuous cruisers a greater fee.

 

A civil war on the canals may follow. All engineered by C&RT.

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, MartynG said:

Everyone who has their current status with C&RT as continuous cruiser should be looking out for the yet to be announced price increases and supplements  and seeing whether they wish to change to declare a home mooring instead before April 2024.

 

Continuous cruisers who have narrowboaters with a home mooring are  to blame for this  situation as it was the majority narrowboaters with home moorings who gave C&RT permission to charge the continuous cruisers a greater fee.

 

A civil war on the canals may follow. All engineered by C&RT.

 

 

 

Interesting one to watch. 

 

If the CRT hit the cc ers hard (I think they won't do this - my prediction is 50% surcharge rather than a big hike) it could cause issues of sorts. Maybe locks will be locked or barricaded or worse.

 

One fine day in the middle of the night two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. 

 

Boaters are a bunch of cool people who can easily see through a divide and rule policy executed by people who think they are the masters. 

 

 

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

I also believe this is a 'divide and conquer' tactic. We all need to stick together before parts of the system  start to get shut down (which I wonder might be the ultimate goal).

 

Oops, that sounds like a conspiracy!

 

However, anything which makes it harder for boaters to stay on the cut whether it be funding or lack of maintenance is a threat to all boaters.

 

Use it, or lose it.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If the CRT hit the cc ers hard (I think they won't do this - my prediction is 50% surcharge rather than a big hike) it could cause issues of sorts. Maybe locks will be locked or barricaded or worse.

 

My feeling is that the CC 'surcharge' will be equivalent to around an 'average price' mooring (lets say £1200 - £1500) so that will be well in excess of 100% increase.

Fat boats will see at least another 100% rise (they have already had a 25% surcharge introduced over the last 2 or 3 years)

 

A Fat-CCer will be hit very hard probably around 2.5x the existing licence fee,

 

We will soon be getting the actual figures announced.

[haggis]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

My feeling is that the CC 'surcharge' will be equivalent to around an 'average price' mooring (lets say £1200 - £1500) so that will be well in excess of 100% increase.

Fat boats will see at least another 100% rise (they have already had a 25% surcharge introduced over the last 2 or 3 years)

 

A Fat-CCer will be hit very hard probably around 2.5x the existing licence fee,

 

We will soon be getting the actual figures announced.

Don't think you will find many moorings at £1200 - 1500. Perhaps very short boats..We  have been paying over  £1800 for a basic marina which is one of the cheapest..

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But :

 

 

A company can only do what the law says it can do.

 

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

 

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/4.html

 

 

The Stourbridge case needs to be read in full, to understand the context. The canal company wanted to rely on the common law right of a landowner to charge for the use of their property, although their enabling Acts only gave powers to charge tolls for passage through locks on the original section, whereas an upper section had no locks at all. Not even commercial boats had to pay tolls on their cargoes if they stayed on the lock-free sections, and some carriers did just that. For awhile they paid demanded tolls anyway, but when the prices were arbitrarily increased inordinately [in their opinion], they baulked, and refused to pay anything at all anymore. The court agreed that they did not need to. The full judgment is online –

http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1831/276.pdf

But the law says it can set T and Cs.

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, bigcol said:

It’s funny, how different things , brings up different meanings, for different people.

 

I’ve never moaned about having a Widebeam, or not being able to use the whole system.

my point is that is a key argument about putting prices up more so on widebeams. Why?

Because all the Garbage about needing to put prices up again next year, was again same reason they put prices up last year, and the year before that.  Infrastructural this and infrastructural that.and

 last year, and the year before.

I have not seen any works done, on this part of the system. NEVER!

and I will put more explanation marks behind the NEVER,why because I can, and yes I did want to hammer the point home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

very much it’s got arround I’ve got a small dick, my answer to that is,

but I have 17.4 stone to hammer it home with!

 

I know I go off on a tandrant, I know my spelling isn’t that good, or my punctuation.

but putting extra explanation marks in, is because I can, and yes indeed sir, I wanted to bang the point home.

 

there will be a day, soon enough, that  Narrowboats will not be able to access the whole system

how many of you now are passing a moored boat, Widebeam on your right starboard side

but you can’t really due to the vegetation that’s be allowed to grow, or trees leaning over the waterway so you can’t pass because vegetation has taken over.

at the moment, it’s somthing we’ve learnt to deal with, a saw on board,  etc pruning shears,  its one of those things.

but soon enough it will be !!!

 

Col

 

 

 

Its not linked to maintenance. They are increasing it for widebeams because they can. It doesn't matter that you can only use xx% of the system, because if you are not using those bits you can't reach, then you are using the bits you can, more.

[magnetman]

From time to time as they see fit was the wording wasn't it. 

 

I reckon anyone who thinks the CRT can't do this might end up with an awfully big legal bill when they are disabused of their fanciful notions..

[Cheshire cat]

Some large increases being thrown around on here. I'll be suprised if it's more than 20% this year for CC. That doesn't preclude further jumps in subsequent years but a massive hit in a single jump will cause the market to implode.

[Arthur Marshall]

58 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Everyone who has their current status with C&RT as continuous cruiser should be looking out for the yet to be announced price increases and supplements  and seeing whether they wish to change to declare a home mooring instead before April 2024.

 

Continuous cruisers who have narrowboaters with a home mooring are  to blame for this  situation as it was the majority narrowboaters with home moorings who gave C&RT permission to charge the continuous cruisers a greater fee.

 

A civil war on the canals may follow. All engineered by C&RT.

 

 

As I've said, you'd have to have a surcharge of at least £1500, and probably two or three times that, before there would be any advantage for a Ccer to swap to a being home moorer.

And, as far as whinging that it's all the  moorers' fault and we should have all stood together, as I've also said, I don't remember a peep out of (admittedly fewer) CCers when BW brought in mooring fees!

In the end, it'll be what it is and we'll muddle on as best we can, and nobody will fall out. Some have always said CCers  and moorers don't like each other and in thirty years I've seen no evidence of it, and don't expect to in the future. I don't think CCers have much notion of what it costs to moor a boat or realise what relative bargain they've been getting - especially the majority that hardly move.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

Some large increases being thrown around on here. I'll be suprised if it's more than 20% this year for CC. That doesn't preclude further jumps in subsequent years but a massive hit in a single jump will cause the market to implode.

they’ll most likely do the CCers and fat boats over a 5 year period of incremental increases 🤷‍♀️

because no doubt all licenses will have an annual or even biannual increase. 
 

 

[JemShaun]

I don't think the hike will be as bad as many suggest, however I do agree something needs to be done.

I do have a few ideas that could work.

 

1 all boats need to have a home mooring, whether CC, marina Based or holiday boats. you do not have to stay there, you  must register there.

All cc boats need to pay an additional cost per annum to use the system.

 

2 marinas, lineage moorings, private moorings are responsible to collect said fees.

fines in place for those marinas who do not comply 

 

3 Any craft without said licence provision will be given 2 weeks to get licence, failure to get license after aid date will result in removal of craft from waterway (sold on or scrapped)

 

4 Wide beams by their nature take up more water surface, so need to be charged accordingly.

 

5 Every boater pays 15% increase spread over 2 years

 

This is an extreme example in an ideal world, however it could be achieved with a few tweeks

[magnetman]

Monthly licences rather than annual. 

 

If you misbehave then you get refused the next month and put on special measures. If the behaviour does not improve in the next month you get another month to remove the boat or someone else removes it and charges for the work. 

 

Keep people on their toes. 

 

The basic problem is that the licence lasts for 12 months. 

 

Fortnightly would work even better. 

 

 

In the modern age of machine based admin it would be easy to sort this. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by magnetman
basic error

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

48 minutes ago, haggis said:

Don't think you will find many moorings at £1200 - 1500. Perhaps very short boats..We  have been paying over  £1800 for a basic marina which is one of the cheapest..

 I think a lot of people are out of touch as to what a decent mooring costs, yes you can EOG in a farmers field, but few and far between and not secure. With the rise in the non-home mooring licence, this might mean Marina’s may up their prices? As @Arthur Marshall said previously a lot of CCers don't know how expensive a Mooring can be.

[sigsegv]

How about a dwindling surcharge. It starts at 200% of the current license fee and reduces a percent for every 10 miles genuinely navigated. Boats could be fitted with tracking devices to verify distance travelled (welded to the boat, so it can't be removed and put in a car or something). This has the added benefit that when you're stuck due to a CRT stoppage, CRT end up getting even more money so they can fix the network! I'm full of great ideas, me