Licences

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Hudds Lad said:

Just had my renewal email, they seem keen as it's not due until 30th November (not as keen as RCR who sent the renewal 10 days ago), unsure if it reflects the new increases that were to be announced in November i think?

 

Further to the announcement made by the Trust on 2nd August 2022 regarding an interim price increase of 4% for all leisure and business licenses effective from 1st October 2022, please note that the annual price increase of 9% will also apply from 1st April 2023. We’re having to increase licence fees to secure the maintenance and repair programme required to help keep the waterways safe and navigable in the face of soaring inflation across the economy. The rapid growth in inflation has led to even greater increases in prices for energy, fuel and materials, leading to a projected shortfall in our finances. Unless measures are taken urgently to address the budget gap, works would be affected, and we would have to cancel some planned jobs and scale back non-essential maintenance’We will do all we can to support those who may be struggling with the nationwide cost of living crisis. Please speak to your local boat licence customer support team: canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/licence-your-boat/boat-licence-customer-support-team/contact-your-local-officer

 

I think the price increases to be announced in November will take effect from next April. Your last November one must have included the 4% (plus whatever had been announced previously) and this one 9%. I think. I'm rather losing track...

[Hudds Lad]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the price increases to be announced in November will take effect from next April. Your last November one must have included the 4% (plus whatever had been announced previously) and this one 9%. I think. I'm rather losing track...

You and me both  

[Momac]

14 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

You and me both  

Look at the dates on that message

[Hudds Lad]

10 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Look at the dates on that message

Good point, i still forget what year it is  i'll get used to it by December 31st

[Drayke]

I wounder what will happen when a CCer takes a winter mooring, will they get a refund on that part of their licence? Just asking😇

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Drayke said:

I wounder what will happen when a CCer takes a winter mooring, will they get a refund on that part of their licence? Just asking😇

 

Let's hope not.

 

CRT needs the money, which is the whole point of the excercise.

 

 

 

 

[Drayke]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Let's hope not.

 

CRT needs the money, which is the whole point of the excercise.

 

 

 

 

Well what about those that have a home mooring but go out CCing for 6-8 months of the year, again just asking.

[TheBiscuits]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

Let's hope not.

 

An online winter mooring via CRT doesn't change CCer/ no home mooring status.

 

Mooring for a few months (actually more than 14 days!) in a marina or on a non-CRT mooring means you should change your mooring status declaration with CRT.  

 

Yes, there should be a change in licence fee for this period.  I suspect in practice the admin fee will cost more than any potential saving though, at least for the next couple of years until the higher surcharges kick in.

1 minute ago, Drayke said:

Well what about those that have a home mooring but go out CCing for 6-8 months of the year, again just asking.

 

If you surrender the mooring for 6 months and declare no home mooring then you'll get an increase in your licence fee.  If you still have a home mooring and go out cruising for 6 months you're not CCing!

[ditchcrawler]

12 minutes ago, Drayke said:

Well what about those that have a home mooring but go out CCing for 6-8 months of the year, again just asking.

If they have a home mooring they are not CCing

[Momac]

15 minutes ago, Drayke said:

Well what about those that have a home mooring but go out CCing for 6-8 months of the year, again just asking.

Excellent suggestion

Maybe more than a month on C&RT water but away from the home mooring should require a monthly  top up payment in line with the continuous cruising fee.

 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

Maybe more than a month

 

14 days, or longer as is reasonable in the circumstances, surely...

Edited October 18, 2023 by TheBiscuits
spellink

[Ianws]

The staffing and admin costs would probably outweigh additional income. The new surcharges are a way to generate extra income without much or any extra administration. Suggested bespoke tweaks might make it "fairer" but aren't likely to happen.

[Private Fraser]

9 hours ago, Drayke said:

Well what about those that have a home mooring but go out CCing for 6-8 months of the year, again just asking.

And so it begins 🙄

[GUMPY]

What about those that have a mooring on another navigation like River Thames, River Nene, River Wey, River Avon but spend 6 months a year on cart waters? 

[magnetman]

The admin is going to be too much. 

 

Coastal marinas ? Mud berth in creeks with an invoice from the site manager? 

 

Also intriguing to see what happens about the Gold licence. 

 

 

[Momac]

 

7 hours ago, Ianws said:

The staffing and admin costs would probably outweigh additional income. The new surcharges are a way to generate extra income without much or any extra administration. Suggested bespoke tweaks might make it "fairer" but aren't likely to happen.

 

The licensing system was very simple. C&RT  already added complexity. The split between home mooring or not adds to that.

8 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

What about those that have a mooring on another navigation like River Thames, River Nene, River Wey, River Avon but spend 6 months a year on cart waters? 

Isn't that what a gold license is for?

 

 

[magnetman]

If I remember right there is already a list of moorings which autofills on the website. 

 

It seems to me also that the mooring would need to be for the entire period of the licence or at least for an equivalent period but then one could just cancel it after a month. 

 

Presumably the mooring problem is why the price increases were so small. If they had significantly increased licence costs then it would have got out of hand trying to check all the mooring claims. 

 

 

I was offered a mud berth for £350 per annum all legit with invoice from the manager (PLA owned site with a lease). There is at least one narrow boat there. 

 

I somehow doubt the CRT would accept it as a mooring but it is a mooring. 

[GUMPY]

24 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

 

The licensing system was very simple. C&RT  already added complexity. The split between home mooring or not adds to that.

Isn't that what a gold license is for?

 

 

Not always 

IMMSMC the Wey and the Avon are not covered by the gold licence. So you would need a 6 month cart licence with a mooring off cart waters.

 

[magnetman]

There is an obvious problem with 'home mooring' because it does not have to be a mooring.

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; 

 

It seems to all revolve around the boars being satisfied so they probably need to do a bit of work on it and outline exactly what would and would not satisfy them. 

 

It also just says 'will be available for the vessel' not 'used by the vessel'. 

 

So in theory you could tell them that there is a boatyard with a crane who can lift the boat out if you need to leave it somewhere. 

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It also just says 'will be available for the vessel' not 'used by the vessel'.

 

Which was exactly the point made by a Judge .........................

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, MartynG said:

Excellent suggestion

Maybe more than a month on C&RT water but away from the home mooring should require a monthly  top up payment in line with the continuous cruising fee.

 

 

 

And, obviously, a refund of the relevant proportion of the equivalent EOG mooring fee, which is about four times as much. I'm all for it!

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Which was exactly the point made by a Judge .........................

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

I do wish people would stop quoting the judge in the Mayers case. It's a perfect example of the law being an idiot, and a judge an incompetent fool. Hardly any of the rulings make any logical sense, and the only person in the case dafter than the judge was Mayers himself, who I had the misfortune to suffer a meeting with and a borderline insane rant from.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

10 hours ago, Drayke said:

Well what about those that have a home mooring but go out CCing for 6-8 months of the year, again just asking.

I’ve just been out for the last 4 month, but I still had to pay for my home mooring or it would not if been there when I get back. If I was out 10 month of the year I would still have to pay and my mooring would be there when I got back, So I still have a home mooring.

  If I went out for 6-8 month and never paid, so my mooring wouldn’t be available when I returned, I would class myself as a CCer until I was paying for a home mooring, if I was on it or not.

Edited October 19, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I do wish people would stop quoting the judge in the Mayers case. It's a perfect example of the law being an idiot, and a judge an incompetent fool.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you read the Act then he has stated exactly what it actually says, rather than what you, C&RT or anyone else thinks it says.

 

It is certainly the way that I read it.

 

The Act does not state that the mooring MUST BE USED, it simply says it must be available - do you disagree ?

 

either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(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.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[GUMPY]

28 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And, obviously, a refund of the relevant proportion of the equivalent EOG mooring fee, which is about four times as much. I'm all for it!

In the days when I used to pay an EOG mooring fee I used to cancel it in April and get a refund, go boating until October when I would take out a new EOG mooring worked well 😉.

I used to pay the owner for the whole year I just saved 6 months EOG fee.

Due to a deal with cart/BW the landowner took over paying the EOG fee so I had to pay for the full year. 😟

[Momac]

As said  one issue with taking a mooring on a part year  basis  is the mooring may not be available when it is wanted again.

Another factor is that 12 months mooring at a single location is not necessarily double the cost of 6 months mooring.  

 

The intent of course is that the home mooring is available all year but in practice C&RT are not to know whether a mooring arrangement (with a private business like a marina)  that expires part way through a license period has not been renewed. Just don't tell 'em .