Licences

[Mike Todd]

On 05/10/2023 at 15:06, Arthur Marshall said:

The problem is that so many CCers take the mickey. That's largely what's brought this on. I'd be intrigued to know how many if them are actually moving round large swathes of the system as opposed to desperately trying not to.

The vast majority of boaters, who pay a ridiculously large sum to have their boats sitting unused for most of the year, see this and get grumpy. It doesn't take CRT to encourage "divide and rule" - it just takes every holidaying boater seeing all the best mooring spots taken up by abandoned boats, or a couple of converations with CCers on the towpath proudly announcing how long they've been sat on a 48 mooring, and why it doesn't matter. I meet this several times a trip. Ccers probably don't as they don't move enough - look how often these "minimum distance" pleas come up. One woman on FB is still very cross because CRT have told her she isn't moving enough - and she covered a whole hundred miles last year!

The fat boat thing is similar. On their proper canals they are fine, but too many are now in the wrong place - again, a self inflicted injury.

And one of those died in 2003...

The 'rules' state range not distance. 

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

The 'rules' state range not distance. 

I thought the rule was to satisfy the board that you were on a bona fide journey  

[Mike Todd]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

I thought the rule was to satisfy the board that you were on a bona fide journey  

As you know I was referring to the guidance on the website, not legislation. It is the guidance that is used when issuing letters about not moving enough.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

As you know I was referring to the guidance on the website, not legislation. It is the guidance that is used when issuing letters about not moving enough.

 

Which seems weird to me. The letters should state the board is not satisfied you are using your boat primarily bona fide for navigation.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

The 'rules' state range not distance. 

If someone has moved their boat over a distance of 100 miles in a year, there is no way that can encompass a range constituting a cruise. As a Ccer, they should have moved, allowing for stoppages and ice, at least 14 times a year - which would be less than 8 miles a trip, about 3 hours travel a fortnight. That aint a cruise. It's only just above the speed of continental drift.

[Rambling Boater]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Which seems weird to me. The letters should state the board is not satisfied you are using your boat primarily bona fide for navigation.

Yes but as there is no exact legal definition of the parameters for bona fide navigation, C&RT have had to make their own parameters up.

 

So any warning letter has to refer to their interpretation of the law  i.e their guidance.

 

TBH, I can't believe we are still going on about this after many years. It seems to go around in circles. So I think I'll call it a day here.

 

It is probably true though, that if people didn't take the P, (all types of boater), we wouldn't be having the conversation. Except that everyone's view of what a P taker differs. So I guess the discussion will go on and on with the same posters 😞

 

I do have to say though  that in my experience, I see very little of what I would call P taking outside built up areas. Most live aboards tend to moor up out of the way of honeypot sites and keep themselves pretty much to themselves. Many have home moorings, so how do people know they are CC'ers or not when they go on a cruise?

 

I've rarely seen any arguments between CC'ers/live aboards and other types of boater either. So perhaps Arthur has been very unlucky when he's been travelling.

 

Having said that, I was told by a chap in a rather nice looking boat once that he didn't like live aboards. At least he did it face to face.

[Rob-M]

Plenty of P takers at Great Haywood, mostly roving traders mooring for anything up to 3 weeks on a 48hr mooring.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

One thing I hope when the licence costs are released, is that it will be compulsory for all boats to display their licence, registration number and name. CaRT enforcement need to be stronger if any of this licence change is going to work, also they could indicate the type of licence with a ‘M’ or ‘C’ on the licence  to make it easier identifying boats that have paid. Not too difficult and not hard to comply with.

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

One thing I hope when the licence costs are released, is that it will be compulsory for all boats to display their licence, registration number and name. CaRT enforcement need to be stronger if any of this licence change is going to work, also they could indicate the type of licence with a ‘M’ or ‘C’ on the licence  to make it easier identifying boats that have paid. Not too difficult and not hard to comply with.

 

 

I'm reasonably sure licence display is compulsory already and has been for decades. The problem is, AIUI, CRT announcing a few years ago they will no longer enforce the bylaw requiring it so few people bother to comply nowadays.

 

 

 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm reasonably sure licence display is compulsory already and has been for decades. The problem is, AIUI, CRT announcing a few years ago they will no longer enforce the bylaw requiring it so few people bother to comply nowadays.

 This is why I said CaRT need to be stronger and enforce it and maybe start bringing in fines, CaRT seam to have lost control on the waterways with Continuous moorers and boaters taking the biscuit, They need a few years enforcing things the people will start towing the line, as what I’m seeing it’s becoming a joke and even CaRT non enforcement workers on the ground think the same with the enforcement side of CaRT. 

[magnetman]

Rigorous enforcement of index number display would help. I really don't understand why you are allowed to paint the numbers on. There should be a requirement to display the original supplied aluminium plate (for larger boats) as these are difficult to copy..

 

4 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 This is why I said CaRT need to be stronger and enforce it and maybe start bringing in fines, CaRT seam to have lost control on the waterways with Continuous moorers and boaters taking the biscuit, They need a few years enforcing things the people will start towing the line, as what I’m seeing it’s becoming a joke and even CaRT non enforcement workers on the ground think the same with the enforcement side of CaRT. 

 

Its the elephant in the room isn't it. 

 

I think at some stage the CRT may consider bringing in private enforcement companies. Not nice but they are effective. 

 

The only thing is whether the CRT or their agents are legally authorised to issue fines. I'm not convinced they are and they are a creature of statute so their powers are quite tightly controlled. 

 

Having said that they will fine people £150 for late payment of licence so maybe there is a mechanism. 

 

 

 

 

It does occur to me that there may alternatively be moves to separate management of the navigation itself, which is ruled by statute, from the management of CRT owned land which is presumably actually private property. 

 

 

It seems to me that the CRT are two things. A navigation authority -and- a landowner. 

 

These are two very different things. 

 

One could argue that use of towpaths by boats is no longer technically needed because there are no horses. It is an obsolete part of the canal system. 

 

 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

20 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Rigorous enforcement of index number display would help. I really don't understand why you are allowed to paint the numbers on. There should be a requirement to display the original supplied aluminium plate (for larger boats) as these are difficult to copy..

 

 

Its the elephant in the room isn't it. 

 

I think at some stage the CRT may consider bringing in private enforcement companies. Not nice but they are effective. 

 

The only thing is whether the CRT or their agents are legally authorised to issue fines. I'm not convinced they are and they are a creature of statute so their powers are quite tightly controlled. 

 

Having said that they will fine people £150 for late payment of licence so maybe there is a mechanism. 

 

 

 

 

It does occur to me that there may alternatively be moves to separate management of the navigation itself, which is ruled by statute, from the management of CRT owned land which is presumably actually private property. 

 

 

The DVLA or whichever Govt Dept is responsible for enforcing cars/road seam to be able to do it quite easily. The other night next to my mooring a car was pulled over by the Police, half an hour later it was on the back of a low-loader with the 3x occupants stood at the side of the road with their bags. CaRT has to realise they’ve lost control and people are doing what they want and if it’s not addressed soon it will turn into chaos. Just by thinking increasing CCing licenses may sort it, shows they are not in touch with what’s happening on the system. Yes, get private enforcement in, what have they got to loose if all their licenses/cruising regulations are in place and legal. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[magnetman]

I think its pretty much inevitable that the car park guys will turn up. Its a shame because continuous cruising was nice once (I did it properly between 1994 and 2006) but it has got too popular and people have spotted the weakness. 

 

If the CRT don't get onto it properly this is going to end up very very expensive for every licence payer.  

 

They need to hit hard at some point and show who is in charge. 

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by magnetman
typo

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think its pretty much inevitable that the car park guys will turn up. Its a shame because continuous cruising was nice once (I did it properly between 1994 and 2006) but it has got too popular and people have spotted the weakness. 

 

If the CRT don't get onto it properly this is going to end up very very expensive for every licence payer.  

 

They need to hit hard at some point and show who is in charge. 

 

I think all it would need is a hard handed approach for the next 2-4 year, then all these boaters/continuous cruisers who watched the dreamy Vlogs during lockdown and thought it will be cheap living will be gone and reality will deter similar types.

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I think all it would need is a hard handed approach for the next 2-4 year, then all these boaters/continuous cruisers who watched the dreamy Vlogs during lockdown and thought it will be cheap living will be gone and reality will deter similar types.

I was chatting to a London boater the other day, he was telling me people have given up moving every 14 days, lack of moorings and I would assume lack of checks has ruined visits to the capital. Its just as well there are paid for moorings in London, otherwise my visit in 2008 would be impossible today 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

I was chatting to a London boater the other day, he was telling me people have given up moving every 14 days, lack of moorings and I would assume lack of checks has ruined visits to the capital. Its just as well there are paid for moorings in London, otherwise my visit in 2008 would be impossible today 

 Just look at Eastwood visitor moorings, a prime example of the lack of enforcement. Then CaRT are telling boats thats the place to moor before going up the Tinsley Flight. How do they moor there when it’s being taken over and full of encamped Continuous Moorers? 😂👍

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 Just look at Eastwood visitor moorings, a prime example of the lack of enforcement. Then CaRT are telling boats thats the place to moor before going up the Tinsley Flight. How do they moor there when it’s being taken over and full of encamped Continuous Moorers? 😂👍

It's been reported and section 8 is happening 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

It's been reported and section 8 is happening 

 

Yes give it 13 years and they'll all have been craned out. 

 

Judging by CRT performance in the George Ward case.

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Yes give it 13 years and they'll all have been craned out. 

 

Judging by CRT performance in the George Ward case.

Actually Moke one has been repaired and had a trial cruise the other day!

The issue is why move, toilets  water, electric, showerd and elsan point. Plus lots of shops

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 This is why I said CaRT need to be stronger and enforce it and maybe start bringing in fines, CaRT seam to have lost control on the waterways with Continuous moorers and boaters taking the biscuit, They need a few years enforcing things the people will start towing the line, as what I’m seeing it’s becoming a joke and even CaRT non enforcement workers on the ground think the same with the enforcement side of CaRT. 

They need to second Sonny from the Bridgewater Canal 

[Cheshire cat]

Or a man with a mag drill

[magnetman]

It is possible that the people who are stepping outside of the boundaries of reasonable behaviour just had crap parents when they were tiny children.

 

A lot of this type of behaviour comes down to early parenting. Maybe the parents had no idea what to do, the kids could have been told 'the wheels on the bus go round and round all day long' when they obviously don't. 

 

All sorts of potentially problematic inputs as children and now these people are adults. 

 

What they need is firm guidance. 

 

Breaking their legs comes later on. 

 

 

 

 

The CRT need to sort it out 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

22 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I'm reasonably sure licence display is compulsory already and has been for decades. The problem is, AIUI, CRT announcing a few years ago they will no longer enforce the bylaw requiring it so few people bother to comply nowadays.

 

 

 

Under GDPR, who, other than CaRT, have a justifiable reason to know? As with vehicles, these days only the identifying number is really needed.

On 06/10/2023 at 21:03, ditchcrawler said:

I thought the rule was to satisfy the board that you were on a bona fide journey  

No, that is the law, the rules are an indication of what will generally not satisfy the board.

21 hours ago, peterboat said:

I was chatting to a London boater the other day, he was telling me people have given up moving every 14 days, lack of moorings and I would assume lack of checks has ruined visits to the capital. Its just as well there are paid for moorings in London, otherwise my visit in 2008 would be impossible today 

At least, six weeks ago, there were plenty of boaters in London trying to comply with what they thought the 'rules' required, as related to them by the boater next door or by certain organised groups. It us sometimes quite sweet to listen to their stories. Apart from boaters able and willing to use only bookable moorings, it is very time consuming even to comply and do all the normal domestic stuff, and earn the huge wages that drew them their in the first place. I am surprised that more don't take the name Dick Whittington  I met a couple on their way there last week.

22 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

The DVLA or whichever Govt Dept is responsible for enforcing cars/road seam to be able to do it quite easily. The other night next to my mooring a car was pulled over by the Police, half an hour later it was on the back of a low-loader with the 3x occupants stood at the side of the road with their bags. CaRT has to realise they’ve lost control and people are doing what they want and if it’s not addressed soon it will turn into chaos. Just by thinking increasing CCing licenses may sort it, shows they are not in touch with what’s happening on the system. Yes, get private enforcement in, what have they got to loose if all their licenses/cruising regulations are in place and legal. 

Luckily, CaRT, nor any landlord, have the powers of the Police.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

 

Luckily, CaRT, nor any landlord, have the powers of the Police.

Maybe it’s time for CaRT to seek legislation through the courts/Government so they can deal with non licensed

and non insured boats more quickly, like the DVLA/Police do with illegal cars on the road. Also bring in fines for excessive overstays. I’m sure the majority of boaters wouldn’t mind a more hard handed approach from CaRT.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Maybe it’s time for CaRT to seek legislation through the courts/Government so they can deal with non licensed

and non insured boats more quickly, like the DVLA/Police do with illegal cars on the road. Also bring in fines for excessive overstays. I’m sure the majority of boaters wouldn’t mind a more hard handed approach from CaRT.

 

C&RT do already have the powers you suggest under the Bylaws.

 

The fact that C&RT (and BW before them) choose not to use them is another matter and has often been questioned.

 

It was even raised when (our old friend) George Ward appeared in Court in 2012.

 

Whilst the fines may be simply a nominal sum (£100 + costs), if found guilty they will now have a criminal record for the rest of their life, which could affect getting a job, cost of insurance etc etc. Should they default and not pay the £100 then the Court Baliffs can be sent in to sieze goods, and the boater could even end up in Jail.

 

 

Nigel Moore posted ...........................

 

In response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws :

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

“Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”  

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the CRT could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Alan de Enfield