Licences

[cuthound]

9 minutes ago, MartynG said:

If the continuous cruiser supplement is significant I  suspect there will not be many continuous cruiser declarations after April 2024.

 

 

Depends on whether they can get cheap moorings.

 

If there is an increase in demand, then mooring charges are likely to rise as a result.

[adam1uk]

20 hours ago, nicknorman said:

it is annoying. But unfortunately IMO CRT have historically not spent their government money wisely. And the government have noticed. And so they have reduced the payments as punishment. And we suffer and have to make up the shortfall in order to minimise the decline in services and navigation infrastructure.

The government analysis of the CRT grant concluded it was good value for money — but they decided to cut it anyway.  That’s one of CRT’s arguments for getting the decision reversed, that much of the public good could be lost (although they’re not expecting this government to change its mind, they’re concentrating on influencing the next one).

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

23 minutes ago, MartynG said:

If the continuous cruiser supplement is significant I  suspect there will not be many continuous cruiser declarations after April 2024.

 

  That’s the thing will it be of such significance to have a big impact or will CaRT not wanting to upset the masses make more significant increase spread over future years, once boaters know what declaring a non-home mooring involves? 

Edited September 20 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[MartynG]

12 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

That’s the thing will it be of such significance to have a big impact or will CaRT not wanting to upset the masses make more significant increase spread over future years??

We will find out in due course .

 

[Arthur Marshall]

16 minutes ago, MartynG said:

If the continuous cruiser supplement is significant I  suspect there will not be many continuous cruiser declarations after April 2024.

 

It would have to be a hell of a big rise to make it worth changing to a cheap mooring, which would almost certainly be online.

If I was a continuous cruiser, I would currently be paying CRT £934 for my licence, and that's it.

I've got a cheap online farm mooring of a few hundred quid a year, the kind of thing a CCer looking to escape the surcharge might get. My mooring fee to CRT is £748 (both figures after discounts).

So the surcharge, bearing in mind we're likely heading for at least a 10% increase all round, would have to be MORE than £800 before it was cheaper for a CCer with a forty foot boat to get a cheap mooring. I'm not sure anyone has grasped the size of these figures - some idiot on Facebook was expecting a surcharge of fifty quid.

 

[magnetman]

22 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

  That’s the thing will it be of such significance to have a big impact or will CaRT not wanting to upset the masses make more significant increase spread over future years, once boaters know what declaring a non-home mooring involves? 

(post has been edited since)

 

The easiest way would just be to have an extra box like for insurance and BS ticket. You fill in the provider/company/inspector, the policy/BSSER/mooring contract number and the end date. 

 

It doesn't seem that complicated. 

 

OK people might take one month moorings but this would be circumvention in the same way that insuring the boat for one month would be. 

 

Where it gets interesting is how the CRT would deal with mooring declarations. Simplest would be to say it is one of theirs or a NAA marina otherwise you are a cc er. 

 

That way they keep control of the situation. If people are allowed to declare they have a mooring in a creek somewhere in Kent when not on CRT water the game is lost. 

 

Control needed. 

 

(the post I quoted was subsequently edited while I was writing so it is now out of context)

 

 

Edited September 20 by magnetman

[emm]

20 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Depends on whether they can get cheap moorings.

 

If there is an increase in demand, then mooring charges are likely to rise as a result.

Do you not think CRT will be raising the rent/agreements on the land etc that they lease out?

I dread to think what our next rent review will be.

We will ALL have to pay more regardless of cc or leisure or whatever.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Since the criterion is 'having a home mooring' there is nothing said about how often the boat may be used. Hence there is nothing to decide should a boat be out for a long period. At least I hope so since that has been our pattern for the past few years. 

 

And, according to the Judge, there is also no requirement for the mooring to ever be used ....................

 

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.

 

[MartynG]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

The easiest way would just be to have an extra box like for insurance and BS ticket. You fill in the provider/company/inspector, the policy/BSSER/mooring contract number and the end date. 

The home mooring is already declared on the boaters online account for the boat. Although not the renewal date.

Insurance is declared including renewal date.

The BSS data is automatically noted on the account  by C&RT.

 

26 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It would have to be a hell of a big rise to make it worth changing to a cheap mooring, which would almost certainly be online.

Some folks on this forum are suggesting very large supplements .

But no one really knows.

i expect some people may make false declarations.

.

[magnetman]

It seems interesting that the continuous cruising status is being quite aggressively separated from other use of boats. 

 

Wide beans it makes sense to charge more just because of the area but the cc ing thing is more interesting.

 

As it has become an officially recognised term one idly wonders if at some point this term might be used in legislation which is otherwise not related to canals. A way to control the behaviour could be found without the CRT needing to be involved in applying for the legislation. 

 

Maybe this is hyper-systemising ! 

[Cheshire cat]

I think there will be an increase in boats that have had their name and serial numbers removed.

 

C&RT still haven't got a workable pla for the anonymous boats. 

[magnetman]

 

If it all goes pear shaped they might consider using private enforcement contractors to give people a hard time. At some point the CRT need to show they are in charge of the situation.  

 

It could work out cheaper to do that than spend endless money on dealing with problems they are not very well equipped for. 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

Tolls do make sense and this is how canals were originally operated. 

 

In France the toll motorway gates are operated by a tag in your car and presumably the owner is registered to the tag in order to take payments.  

 

Maybe it is prepaid and anyone could use it. I don't know exactly how the verification works with these things but it doesn't seem to be rocket science to arrange tolls based on the time a boat remains between two sets of readers ie zones. 

 

An extra benefit of this system would be it would enable varying charges for staying in different areas based on demand. 

 

@IanD who appears to know a lot about tech stuff thinks tolls can't work. 

 

The problem with tolls is they're expensive to collect and enforce; this works fine when you have millions of movements per day like on French motorways, it simply wouldn't make financial sense on the canals with maybe a thousand times fewer, the cost of collection would almost certainly be higher than the tolls collected.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:

I think there will be an increase in boats that have had their name and serial numbers removed.

 

C&RT still haven't got a workable pla for the anonymous boats. 

Remove them under the fly-tipping laws as extremely large litter.

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And, according to the Judge, there is also no requirement for the mooring to ever be used ....................

 

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.

 

Yes, but that ruling was a prime example of a judge being an idiot. I can't imagine there's another one like him.

[Paul C]

It was a ruling in a county court and has no value as a precedent. In any case, the point stands - simply having a home mooring is enough to not need to obey the CC laws, because you're a home moorer.

 

Regarding no index numbers etc, like every other aspect of enforcement CRT need to toughen up. The existing powers exist, it is enough to attach a notice to the boat then after the legally required period, remove it. No licence number = no need to engage with the boater if they are not on it at the time of the placement of the notice. And if the boat moves, then detail photographs of the boat would be reasonable to positively identify it.

 

If anyone has a case of "mistaken identity" and has their boat inadvertently removed from the canal, perhaps they should have put the licence number on it and not painted it grey primer??

 

And if there's ever a case where duplicate/false plates are found, the full force of Fraud Act can be applied.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

Yes, but that ruling was a prime example of a judge being an idiot. I can't imagine there's another one like him.

 

But, that is what is written in law, and, I'm sure it is the interpretation that the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would make.

You can only read the law as written, it if it not written then it is not law (required).

 

The law simply (and explicity) states that a mooring 'must be available'

[robtheplod]

11 hours ago, magnetman said:

It seems interesting that the continuous cruising status is being quite aggressively separated from other use of boats. 

 

Indeed, and if i may be contentious, rather odd. CRT need to promote boating and use of the canals, yet with this they are penalising those that do boating 'properly'. It would make more sense from a CRT point of view to aggressively go after those that just live on the water, without moving and have no interest in doing so (thinking of the boats in London here). It also seems odd for marinas to be built to be filled with people in boats that don't move? why not just built flats?  ok, this isn't a thought out view, but one that i find interesting!

[magnetman]

The policies also have some shades of the good old 'divide and rule' tactic. 

 

Sow discontent among boaters and get them daggers drawn with each other. 

 

We should be fighting against the common enemy! The continuous cruisers front. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

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

I don't think the CRT particularly want boats which are on the canal all the time. 

 

It is possible that some people in marinas don't go boating partly because they are jaded and think the places they like to moor are liable to be full of boats and they'll just be listening to someone else's engine running when they want to relax.

 

The CRT want to promote navigation and use of canals but they don't want to promote use of towpaths as residential areas even by people who do move around a lot. 

 

 

The simple fact remains if you can't afford the increases and can prove this you can get it paid for by the state. If you can afford it then pay up! 

[Mike Todd]

59 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, that is what is written in law, and, I'm sure it is the interpretation that the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would make.

You can only read the law as written, it if it not written then it is not law (required).

 

The law simply (and explicity) states that a mooring 'must be available'

Actually the law is silent on the matter of usage. Hence it is possible that the T and Cs could be altered to require at least an annual visit, ad thus is not contrary to the law.

[Bee]

How about setting up stocks at various points so the goody two shoes boaters can chuck cabbages and elsans at their fellow boaters. But seriously, by the government putting progressively less money into a very good national asset more pressure comes onto those who can barely afford to use the canals. Inevitably there will be more unlicenced boats and boats with no, or fictitious moorings, its what happens when something becomes unaffordable. It is just the usual cynical attitude of authority when faced with a problem, lets blame those at the bottom of the heap for our f*** up. The depressing thing is that those lucky people with more cash join in and blame the minority for causing the problem. I sometimes think that the British canals are no longer a very nice place.

[magnetman]

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. 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

36 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Actually the law is silent on the matter of usage. Hence it is possible that the T and Cs could be altered to require at least an annual visit, ad thus is not contrary to the law.

 

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

Edited September 21 by Alan de Enfield

[MartynG]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

 

 

I don't think the CRT particularly want boats which are on the canal all the time. 

 

I think C&RT would prefer if there were no boats at all.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, MartynG said:

 

I think C&RT would prefer if there were no boats at all.

 

But would still like to receive the licence fees.

[MartynG]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But would still like to receive the licence fees.

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.