Licences

[Cheshire cat]

Peel holdings are also way ahead in that they don't allow cc'ing.

[Momac]

On 22/09/2023 at 20:35, magnetman said:

 

 

Everyone needs a canal. 

 

Oh hang on ! 

Exactly

No one "needs" a canal or a boat.

Boats are a leisure activity for all but a few who live aboard and have no other residence.

 

 

[Paul C]

On 23/09/2023 at 00:40, Cheshire cat said:

Peel holdings are also way ahead in that they don't allow cc'ing.

Or cycling (on the vast majority of towpaths)

 

[Jon57]

9 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Or cycling (on the vast majority of towpaths)

 

Things are slipping ATM. Seen people cycling. Even a wide beam at lymm been there for over 3 weeks. Peel holdings apparently have cut employees numbers through out their organisation. No Sammy replacement ATM.

[Alan de Enfield]

39 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Boats are a leisure activity for all but a few who live aboard and have no other residence

 

Houses don't need to move, so liveaboard boaters could have the same restriction - just a big puddle is sufficient.

[Momac]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Houses don't need to move, so liveaboard boaters could have the same restriction - just a big puddle is sufficient.

A static boat doesn't need to be floating in water.

But there is no reason to restict live aboard to being  static.

 

Nor is a continuous cruiser required to live aboard.

 

People who received the fuel subsidy as continuous cruisers have effectively identified themselves to be live aboard.

 

I think if there is a continuous cruiser license there should also be a liveaboard license.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

9 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I think if there is a continuous cruiser license there should also be a liveaboard license.

 

I suspect one of CRT's intentions longterm is to ensure only those living on a boat can register as a continuous cruiser, as, of course, was the original intention. The surcharge is essentially to make those using the towpath as a permanent, if slightly variable, mooring pay the same as those who have a registered mooring. The idea that you can have a permanent home (and life) in a house on land and at the same time be on a continuous cruise is self evident nonsense. Just because it could be technically legal, doesn't make it anything else.

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, Jon57 said:

Things are slipping ATM. Seen people cycling. Even a wide beam at lymm been there for over 3 weeks. Peel holdings apparently have cut employees numbers through out their organisation. No Sammy replacement ATM.

Yes they closed Doncaster Sheffield airport for what seems no good reason? Now in the process of being taken over possibly by compulsory purchase! I think Peel had a buyer as an industrial estate? John a mate has a unit there and it was the duty rumour 

[Momac]

17 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 The idea that you can have a permanent home (and life) in a house on land and at the same time be on a continuous cruise is self evident nonsense. Just because it could be technically legal, doesn't make it anything else.

Not nonsense at all.

Are you suggesting no one who lives in a house moors at the side of a canal to avoid paying mooring fees?

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by MartynG

[peterboat]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I suspect one of CRT's intentions longterm is to ensure only those living on a boat can register as a continuous cruiser, as, of course, was the original intention. The surcharge is essentially to make those using the towpath as a permanent, if slightly variable, mooring pay the same as those who have a registered mooring. The idea that you can have a permanent home (and life) in a house on land and at the same time be on a continuous cruise is self evident nonsense. Just because it could be technically legal, doesn't make it anything else.

Sorry Arthur Ian the manager at New and used boat company has constant cruised his boat at weekends and holidays for years very successfully, probably better than some livaboards. But I agree its CRT intentions to get rid of him and probably all of us!

[Momac]

To be clear

C&RT do not ask about residential status in any of the questions raised on when a license for a boat is purchased.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by MartynG

[Rambling Boater]

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Sorry Arthur Ian the manager at New and used boat company has constant cruised his boat at weekends and holidays for years very successfully, probably better than some livaboards. But I agree its CRT intentions to get rid of him and probably all of us!

 

I'm wondering how the general public will feel when the dream of escaping to living on a boat on retirement vanishes? (even though most wouldn't go through with it anyway once they assess the risks and lack of space issues).

 

There has been increasing pressure on those who want to escape in camper vans too.

 

Anyone see a pattern here?

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

To be clear

C&RT do not ask about residential status in any of the questions raised on when a license for a boat is purchased.

 

 

This is true however they now have the fuel payment claims. 

 

Well I don't know the CRT has that themselves but .gov have the data. If you claim the payment then you must be living on the boat or it would presumably be fraud. 

 

 

 

 

IF the CRT could get that data then this is a starting point. Obviously some people will no longer be living on the boat but it would help to give a general picture. 

 

I think the CRT probably know more about people on their waterways than one might expect. 

 

 

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I think the CRT probably know more about people on their waterways than one might expect. 

I'm sure they know quite a lot in statistical terms from surveys etc. But that is different from having accurate records about every individual boat owner, which is what they would need if this information is to be used for licence fee differentiation.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

I'm sure they know quite a lot in statistical terms from surveys etc. But that is different from having accurate records about every individual boat owner, which is what they would need if this information is to be used for licence fee differentiation.

 

I'm interested to know what data the boat spotters gather. 

 

I've heard it said if you have your eye in you can pretty reliably tell if a boat is lived on. 

 

Not infallible but I suspect most people with some experience would get a high score. 

[Arthur Marshall]

49 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Not nonsense at all.

Are you suggesting no one who lives in a house moors at the side of a canal to avoid paying mooring fees?

 

Not sure what your question is. I suspect that a large proportion of continuous cruisers live in houses and moor on the towpath to avoid paying mooring fees. What they're not is on a cruise. Nor is someone, like Peterboat's bloke, who potters down to the boat on a Saturday, trundles a few hours, moors it up on Sunday afternoon and goes home to their house . It's legal under the current legislation, but that doesn't make it a continuous cruise by any sensible definition - it's a day out for your hobby with a free six day mooring. And odds on, that's not done either if the weather's bad or in the depths of winter.

I imagine CRT's view is that the only way to CC is by being on the boat throughout the cruise, which was surely the original intention of the law - it was actually drafted because those on a long term cruise didn't see why they should be forced to have a mooring when they were permanently on the move. The fact that so many have bent the intention has brought us to where we are - though CRT's imposition of higher and higher mooring fees has also considerably contributed to it. The latter has increased the disparity of income from the two kinds of boaters, as well as the number of semi abandoned boats, until it has become glaringly obvious something would be done.

I've said before that I thought the whole mooring fee concept was an error and BW should just have whacked up the licence cost - which is what it was about while pretending it wasn't. That's just a pigeon come home to roost.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I think the CRT probably know more about people on their waterways than one might expect. 

Your probably right, I’m sure their database highlights persistent over-stayers, continuous Moorers and people who contact them to complain constantly, be it by phone or Social Media. No doubt they’ll be monitoring sights like this also.

[Alway Swilby]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

This is true however they now have the fuel payment claims. 

 

Well I don't know the CRT has that themselves but .gov have the data. If you claim the payment then you must be living on the boat or it would presumably be fraud. 

 

 

 

 

IF the CRT could get that data then this is a starting point. Obviously some people will no longer be living on the boat but it would help to give a general picture. 

 

I think the CRT probably know more about people on their waterways than one might expect. 

 

 

No claim was required for the recent fuel payment. The voucher turned up in email inboxes automatically if your boat was listed as not having a home mooring. I don't see how that could be defined as fraud.

[Arthur Marshall]

18 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

No claim was required for the recent fuel payment. The voucher turned up in email inboxes automatically if your boat was listed as not having a home mooring. I don't see how that could be defined as fraud.

It would be interesting to know if it turned up for those registered as a CC but also with a home address that had already had the benefit of the fuel subsidy, or whether it was crosschecked and stopped. As second home owners got it twice, there's no reason it shouldn't have been paid.

[Alway Swilby]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It would be interesting to know if it turned up for those registered as a CC but also with a home address that had already had the benefit of the fuel subsidy, or whether it was crosschecked and stopped. As second home owners got it twice, there's no reason it shouldn't have been paid.

I couldn't possibly comment 🤫

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As second home owners got it twice,

 

Cobblers.

 

I certainly didn't get it twice.

 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Alway Swilby said:

No claim was required for the recent fuel payment. The voucher turned up in email inboxes automatically if your boat was listed as not having a home mooring. I don't see how that could be defined as fraud.

Sorry I thought one had to claim it. 

 

I had to claim my payment using my residential mooring address. 

 

I didn't realise people with cc licences got it automatically. My mistake. 

 

 

Interesting for someone with a dinghy with a cc licence. 

[Cheshire cat]

4 hours ago, Paul C said:

Or cycling (on the vast majority of towpaths)

 

Not true. There is a cycle path from Dunham to Manchester and another from Waters meeting to Minton. That's a significant proportion of their waters

[Momac]

9 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Well I don't know the CRT has that themselves but .gov have the data. If you claim the payment then you must be living on the boat or it would presumably be fraud. 

 

 

Why would it be fraud?

As far as I can understand it the only requirement is to have a valid licence on a cc basis on a certain date?

And I may be wrong but believe  no claim is necessary.

 

 

[HenryFreeman]

11 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Why would it be fraud?

As far as I can understand it the only requirement is to have a valid licence on a cc basis on a certain date?

And I may be wrong but believe  no claim is necessary.

 

 

 

Indeed. From the email when I received the voucher:

 

You have been sent this voucher because:

 

You held a Canal & River Trust long-term leisure licence without a home mooring (continuous cruiser 6- or 12-month licence) for a minimum of one day between 27 February and 31 May 2023

 

You have not received last winter’s Energy Bills Support Scheme or Alternative Fuels Payment support