Licences

[Arthur Marshall]

9 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

One crucial point which has been mentioned before is that those who are paying for a mooring can access all the facilities CC'ers have access to. It's up to you whether you want to cruise or stay on your mooring.

 

However, CC'ers don't have access to the same benefits as those in a marina and some on-line moorings. Security is better and there is no restriction on how long you stay there.

 

CRT's point, surely, is that CCers access these facilities all year round on a regular basis, while the bulk of moorers use them for a couple of weeks a year, or in the case of most of the boats on my mooring, never. And a continuous cruiser on a continous cruise will obviously spend most of their time on the boat, so security is less of an issue than for someone with a mooring.

Of course, if by CC you mean someone who parks for a weeks at a time and lives the rest of the time in a house, moving the boat a few miles and doing the same again, using every excuse in the book (stoppages, weather, winter , ice, illness ) to avoid even that amount of boating, and who would be seen dead rather than actually live on a boat, that's just the risk they take to avoid contributing to CRT's coffers.

It seems that the majority of CCers want the privileges you get by paying several thousand quid for a mooring for free. Not all, but most. If only BW hadn't tried to finagle the licence system by diffentiating between boater types, we wouldn't be having this debate.

[Midnight]

I believe C&RT only introduced this CCer surcharge in response to those who don't CC. In my opinion it unfairly penalises genuine CCers (Note the @MtB there are more than 10). Over the last 3 years we have probably used as many of the facilities as any CCer. I can see why CMers should be hit with massive surcharge. Free moorings are not part of the deal. As I mentioned earlier it would be relatively easy for C&RT to seperate genuine CCers from CMers & bridge hoppers and the benefits of doing so.

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 Free moorings are not part of the deal. 

If you CC and use towpath moorings then free moorings ARE part of the deal. That is the whole point. 

 

The CRT need to do something in order benefit from their assets. in the absence of pay as you go / moor tolls one approach is to increase fees for people who use towpath moorings more on average than others. 

 

It does make sense. 

People who will be paying more don't have to like it. 

 

Its not about fairness its about the CRT using their assets to gain more money. 

 

People can moan as much as they like about how the CRT are useless but its what we have in a reality based situation. 

 

CRT get government funding cut and look to boaters to get more money. 

 

It really isn't rocket science. 

 

 

[Bee]

What the poor old boater does or doesn't do has very little effect on CRT's finances, it doesn't matter much if the boat is moored or moving and if it just happens to be part of the scenery in Bradford on Avon then that may annoy some people or it may be an interesting diversion for others. CRT needs more money and does not have many choices where it comes from. Boaters are going to pay more for licences and moorings and fairness as we see it doesn't come in to it. They will charge what they think most people will pay - some will not be able to and will sell up and leave. CRT will only take any notice if many people can not or will not pay. Waterways are so far down the governments agenda that I doubt the subject is ever mentioned. This was the situation for us years ago under Thatcher and we left the canals. When we resumed boating again 18 years ago it was just a couple of years in the UK as a last hoorah then over to  France where we do not feel victimised, it is not perfect but at least we can afford it.

[Paul C]

24 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 Over the last 3 years we have probably used as many of the facilities as any CCer.

Not picking on you in particular, but many posters have made statements about their own personal use - which is fair enough. However we must not personalise it, and not lose sight of the AVERAGE situation - which is that, the majority of CCers do liveaboard too, and the majority of home moorers either don't liveaboard, or when they do they're using their mooring's facilities not CRT's.

 

They don't need to justify it (they can charge, because they can) but obviously mooring in some places holds much more "value" than other places. And it is an obvious area of funding which can be tapped with this strategy.

[magnetman]

I don't fully understand why the CRT have to wait for inflation figures before they can announce the increases. 

 

Surely inflation will just be a figure upon which they then add whatever amounts the increases are going to be. If inflation was one or ten percent the increases would be on top of it. 

 

Presumably because it is a percentage increase and the actual licence cost for x boat can't be announced until inflation is known. 

 

Similar story in Ireland with figures of "between 400% and 2000% increase in licence costs" being suggested. 

 

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2023/09/21/fee-increases-for-houseboats-could-lead-to-homelessness-residents-have-warned/

 

 

Presumably in Ireland they don't have a welfare state as backup like we do in the UK. 

 

----

"The Royal Canal Amenity Group, which will also attend the meeting, has said in its opening submission that the current bye laws did not envisage the substantial increase which would occur in the number of houseboats.

“There are now more than 50 residential boats on the Royal Canal and most of these are without basic services (water, sewage, power). Should Waterways Ireland have a foley in providing housing facilities or in acting as landlords by allowing people to moor on their water assets?” its statement has said."

 

 

Slum clearance innit. 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

However, CC'ers don't have access to the same benefits as those in a marina and some on-line moorings. Security is better and there is no restriction on how long you stay there.

 

Just remember that one of the benefits that CCers have over a boat with a home mooring has is that they are legally allowed to stay in one place for 14 days (unless signed differently). Boats with a home mooring have no such mooring rights, and any period that a boat with a home mooring morrs outside of their home mooring is simply permissive and can be revoked / changed at will.

 

C&RT would be within their rights to say "boats with a home mooring may only moor on the canal for a period of 24 hours and must then move"

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

. However we must not personalise it, and not lose sight of the AVERAGE situation - which is that, the majority of CCers do liveaboard too, and the majority of home moorers either don't liveaboard, or when they do they're using their mooring's facilities not CRT's.

 

They don't need to justify it (they can charge, because they can) but obviously mooring in some places holds much more "value" than other places. And it is an obvious area of funding which can be tapped with this strategy.

And yet every time I suggest that only those who live on board can be legitimate continuous cruusers, I get howls of outrage from many people who say (correctly) it is totally unnecessary to do so to fulfil all their legal obligations (although I would risk a large bet that none of them really do). It's even more pronounced on Facebook.

I suspect CRT have woken up to the two facts that a majority of CCers don't in fact live on, and that the majority of those who do, don't really cruise. Which is tough on those who do both (with whom I have much sympathy) , but is the natural result of too many people bending the rules.

[magnetman]

It does occur to me that vested interests such as marina operators may be encouraging the CRT to make cc ing more difficult. 

 

I've no idea what the occupancy rates are for marinas. 

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

If you CC and use towpath moorings then free moorings ARE part of the deal. That is the whole point. 

 Read what I wrote

[Rambling Boater]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Just remember that one of the benefits that CCers have over a boat with a home mooring has is that they are legally allowed to stay in one place for 14 days (unless signed differently). Boats with a home mooring have no such mooring rights, and any period that a boat with a home mooring morrs outside of their home mooring is simply permissive and can be revoked / changed at will.

 

C&RT would be within their rights to say "boats with a home mooring may only moor on the canal for a period of 24 hours and must then move"

 

But they don't.

[magnetman]

34 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 Read what I wrote

I think you are wrong that there are genuine and non-genuine cc ers. 

 

If you declare no home mooring then you are a cc er and get free moorings on towpaths 365 days a yar. 

 

How you choose to move your boat is not relevant. Unless the CRT take enforcement action and get rid of you then you are a cc er even if you don't move according to the letter of the law. 

 

You appear to me making out that there is another group called continuous moorers. This is a non existent group. 

 

I understand what you are getting at. 

 

However, in reality free towpath moorings ARE part of the deal for anyone declaring they have no home mooring regardless of how they use the boat. 

 

The point is that one gets a free mooring. The CRT manage the canal system. If they need money they want to look at charging for towpath mooring but this is difficult so taking more money from people who use towpath moorings more than other is logical. It makes sense. 

 

 

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT would be within their rights to say "boats with a home mooring may only moor on the canal for a period of 24 hours and must then move"

Almost all of the moorings in our area are 2 days with one at  72hrs .

I don't see why anyone really needs any longer than that except in exceptional circumstances which should not unreasonably be granted .

A generally max 2 days stay gives other folks a chance.

 

Must admit I did not realise continuous cruisers were treated differently to boats  with a home mooring  with regards to the time they may stay at a mooring.

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

But they don't.

 

You mean they haven't yet.

 

Surely you are starting to realise that what has happened in the past is not indicative of the future !

Edited September 29, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Almost all of the moorings in our area are 2 days with one at  72hrs .

I don't see why anyone really needs any longer than that except in exceptional circumstances which should not unreasonably be granted .

A generally max 2 days stay gives other folks a chance.

 

Must admit I did not realise continuous cruisers were treated differently to boats  with a home mooring  with regards to the time they may stay at a mooring.

 

 

 

 

There's 2 quite separate things. One is, on a visitor mooring there is a typical time limit as you've illustrated, which is (almost always) shorter than 14 days. The other is that CCers are required to not stay in one place any longer than 14 days (and this applies everywhere on the canal network). 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Almost all of the moorings in our area are 2 days with one at  72hrs .

I don't see why anyone really needs any longer than that except in exceptional circumstances which should not unreasonably be granted .

A generally max 2 days stay gives other folks a chance.

 

Must admit I did not realise continuous cruisers were treated differently to boats  with a home mooring  with regards to the time they may stay at a mooring.

 

 

 

 

 

In principle, using the 'reasonable' criteria they are both similarly treated, however the law differentiates between the two, giving boats without a home mooring legal right to moor in one place for (up to) 14 days, whilst not giving boats with a home mooring the same rights.

[magnetman]

It is important in this topic to understand that CMers and bridgehoppers do not exist. They are continuous cruisers which is a .gov recognised term. 

 

The person who cruises widely around the canal system is in exactly the same position as the person who takes advantage of the lax wording of the '95 Act. There is no difference. They just use their boats in a different way but at the end of the day they all get free moorings on towpaths all of the time. 

 

 

 

Adding the word 'genuine' in front if the words 'continuous cruiser' is a red herring. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Adding the word 'genuine' in front if the words 'continuous cruiser' is a red herring. 

 

So what do you call a boater who commits fraud when applying for his licence as a 'boat with no home mooring' when he has no intention of complying with the legal requirements ?

 

So what do you call a boater who applies for his licence as a 'boat with no home mooring' and fully complies with all the leagl requirments ?

 

What terminology can be used to differentiate between the two ?

[IanD]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

It does occur to me that vested interests such as marina operators may be encouraging the CRT to make cc ing more difficult. 

 

I've no idea what the occupancy rates are for marinas. 

 

Pretty high, going by what I found when looking for a mooring earlier this year. The most common response -- the majority -- was "Sorry, we're full"...

 

So there doesn't seem much incentive for marina operators to push CRT to make CCing more difficult -- the likely reasons for this have been explained at length in this thread.

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So what do you call a boater who commits fraud when applying for his licence as a 'boat with no home mooring' when he has no intention of complying with the legal requirements ?

 

What terminology can be used to differentiate between the two ?

 

 

You can't differentiate between the two because they are both continuous cruisers. 

 

The term continuous cruiser is now an official form of words. 

 

How the person chooses to use their boat is irrelevant. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Pretty high, going by what I found when looking for a mooring earlier this year. The most common response -- the majority -- was "Sorry, we're full"...

 

 

Our Marina (coastal) occupancy is 95+% and in the Winter will be around 120% when boats are lifted onto the hard, and other boats move into their spaces.

 

When we were based on the Trent the marina there was virtually always at virtually 100%, when anyone was away cruising their slot would be filled by visiting boats.

Very few 'winter moorings' were ever available and these were booked from 1 year to the next.

[kris88]

On 26/09/2023 at 11:15, magnetman said:

 

 

My younger daughter asked me yesterday "Papa, if plastic is made from oil can we make it back into oil again then use it for cars and heating?" 

 

I bet they are the only kids at school who know what coal is. 

Tell her yes the process is called pyrolysis. 

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

I don't fully understand why the CRT have to wait for inflation figures before they can announce the increases. 

 

Surely inflation will just be a figure upon which they then add whatever amounts the increases are going to be. If inflation was one or ten percent the increases would be on top of it. 

 

Presumably because it is a percentage increase and the actual licence cost for x boat can't be announced until inflation is known. 

 

Similar story in Ireland with figures of "between 400% and 2000% increase in licence costs" being suggested. 

 

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2023/09/21/fee-increases-for-houseboats-could-lead-to-homelessness-residents-have-warned/

 

 

Presumably in Ireland they don't have a welfare state as backup like we do in the UK. 

 

----

"The Royal Canal Amenity Group, which will also attend the meeting, has said in its opening submission that the current bye laws did not envisage the substantial increase which would occur in the number of houseboats.

“There are now more than 50 residential boats on the Royal Canal and most of these are without basic services (water, sewage, power). Should Waterways Ireland have a foley in providing housing facilities or in acting as landlords by allowing people to moor on their water assets?” its statement has said."

 

 

Slum clearance innit. 

I told you about this. 

[Naughty Cal]

4 hours ago, Midnight said:

I believe C&RT only introduced this CCer surcharge in response to those who don't CC. In my opinion it unfairly penalises genuine CCers (Note the @MtB there are more than 10). Over the last 3 years we have probably used as many of the facilities as any CCer. I can see why CMers should be hit with massive surcharge. Free moorings are not part of the deal. As I mentioned earlier it would be relatively easy for C&RT to seperate genuine CCers from CMers & bridge hoppers and the benefits of doing so.

Much the same as the widebeam surcharge which was in response to narrowboat owners?

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Much the same as the widebeam surcharge which was in response to narrowboat owners?

That's correct 

A very predictable outcome .

 

 

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Just remember that one of the benefits that CCers have over a boat with a home mooring has is that they are legally allowed to stay in one place for 14 days (unless signed differently). Boats with a home mooring have no such mooring rights, and any period that a boat with a home mooring morrs outside of their home mooring is simply permissive and can be revoked / changed at will.

 

C&RT would be within their rights to say "boats with a home mooring may only moor on the canal for a period of 24 hours and must then move"

And where is the grant of this right to moor in one place for 14 days (unless signed differently)?

 

It's not the British Waterways Act 1995 which merely makes it a licence pre-condition (in the alternative) not to remain in the same place for more than 14 days.  It does not expressly grant the right to moor.  And certainly there is no mention of subject-to-signage.