Boaters' Update - changes to communications to CCers.

[Arthur Marshall]

From the Boaters update. . Last two paragraphs are interesting. Looks like an intention to get a bit more insistent... the change to the continual issue of short term licences looks like a threat.

 

 

CHANGES TO CANAL & RIVER TRUST LICENCE COMMUNICATIONS 

    The Canal & River Trust is making changes to the licence communications sent to boaters, to provide them with more clarity and advice around cruising expectations and to highlight the help available to boaters who are struggling.    

From June 2024 an advisory letter will be sent with every renewed licence instead of just being sent with new licence applications. The communication, sent by email where possible, will include important information about the licence requirements, the Trust’s Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring, the welfare support available to boaters, answers to the most-asked questions, and guidance on maintaining a cruising log.    

From the same date, the Trust will stop sending a midpoint reminder about cruising patterns. These reminders often have limited impact, can cause confusion, and are costly to administer.    

There are no changes to what boaters are required to do to meet the terms of their boat licence. 

From June 2024, for those boaters whose cruising patterns do not meet the licence requirements, the Trust will offer a single six-month restricted licence to give them the time to meet the terms of their licence. A second restricted period will be offered in only the most exceptional of cases.    

The Trust will also be reducing the number of letters sent to boats on restricted licences, incorporating the information into its existing processes. The changes will take effect from January 2024.     For more information on boat licensing, visit: Licence your boat | Canal & River Trust (canalrivertrust.org.uk)

Edited December 1, 2023 by Arthur Marshall
Source found, title changed.

[Stroudwater1]

This seems to have already started.
 

Met a couple of  boaters last month who had just been put onto restricted licences. One had been cruising the same pattern for years, and apparently never had received any notifications of not travelling enough miles/ overstaying etc.  
Strange as crt describe it starts in the middle of next year. 
 

It seems that there’s no appeal or possible explanation. We have  heard of boaters receiving emails when in the same place on the way up and on the way down in the past , so a couple of these could lead to a restrictive licence.
 

Sounds like a big change here. . 

[Adam]

Desperately needed but will have limited impact if the boots on the ground don't act properly. Looking at the salary they pay the enforcement guys no wonder they are reluctant to get involved in actually enforcing anything. 

 

We genuinely CC in the winter and find it frustrating finding good moorings covered in boats that actively don't move and it is more apparent in the winter.

[magnetman]

Are the Board raising the satisfied bar? 

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

Is this a knock-on effect of the time and cost taken with George on the K&A?  Less warnings and faster action taken?

 

I'll not object if it is, but then I move the boat ...

[ditchcrawler]

30 minutes ago, Adam said:

We genuinely CC in the winter and find it frustrating finding good moorings covered in boats that actively don't move and it is more apparent in the winter.

How do you know they dont move unless you overstay yourself to see?

[IanD]

56 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

How do you know they dont move unless you overstay yourself to see?

Well I suppose it's possible that all the boats I've seen twice a week (or more) apart on a 48 hour mooring have been somewhere else for six days, and it's pure coincidence they happen to be there both times I passed them, but Ockham's Razor suggests that it's far more likely that they never moved from it...

 

And the odds go down even further when I see them again a week later, then again a week after that...

Edited December 1, 2023 by IanD

[Stroudwater1]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

How do you know they dont move unless you overstay yourself to see?

Perhaps they talk to the owners of these boats? Many are surprisingly open about their lack of moving.
 

I often chat to permamoorers round here. The number of broken gearboxes about to be repaired is significant too 🤣😕 

[magnetman]

If it is reasonable in the circumstances then it is reasonable in the circumstances..

IF the Board (Trust) is satisfied. 

 

(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.

 

(MY EMPHASIS)

Edited December 2, 2023 by magnetman

[Stroudwater1]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If it is reasonable in the circumstances then it is reasonable in the circumstances..

IF the Board (Trust) is satisfied. 

 

(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.

 

(MY EMPHASIS)

The difficulty appears to be that the chance of explaining any reasonable circumstances to the board seems not to be possible with this change. The previous system was a warning email message which could be responded to outlining the situation. 
 

the spotting record which was briefly visible earlier in the year could have been useful to see if the spot was an error / reasonable circumstances existed etc but that seems to have gone. 

[magnetman]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Are the Board raising the satisfied bar? 

 

 

 

It looks like the game might be changing..This has been predictable for a long time. 

[Paul C]

8 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

The difficulty appears to be that the chance of explaining any reasonable circumstances to the board seems not to be possible with this change. The previous system was a warning email message which could be responded to outlining the situation. 
 

the spotting record which was briefly visible earlier in the year could have been useful to see if the spot was an error / reasonable circumstances existed etc but that seems to have gone. 

 

Its still possible, its just that you need to do it unprompted.

[magnetman]

The CRT will need more hardstanding.

 

 

Someone should be doing monthly drone flyovers of Greenwalls Farm.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Its still possible, its just that you need to do it unprompted.

And probably better, I have never seen anyone post anything other than CRT noting it. never one saying you will be in breach of the T&C

[haggis]

There will really be no excuse for not moving enough if every time a continuous cruiser renews they get a document telling them how much is acceptable. It will be interesting to see what that document says as there have been several different theories about this. 

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, haggis said:

There will really be no excuse for not moving enough if every time a continuous cruiser renews they get a document telling them how much is acceptable. It will be interesting to see what that document says as there have been several different theories about this. 

 

I do not think C&RT can tell anyone what is 'acceptable' as 'acceptable is not defined in law, they can only indicate what is NOT acceptable which is why in the past they have said things like "any less than 20 miles is unlikely to be consided acceptable"

 

They have pretty much defined it anyway in an email from the London Enforcement Manager to a boater -

 

“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:

· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.

. Journeys: For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.
While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.
Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.
This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.
We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.

The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.

Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).

Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

[haggis]

That seems clear enough and if something along those lines is sent out to continuous cruisers every time they renew their licence, it should strengthen C&RTs hand as defaulters will no longer be able to say they didn't know the "rules". 

It will be interesting to hear what the Baton Twirlers view is 🙂 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by haggis

[magnetman]

I wonder if the CRT are being leant on. It is interesting wording. Not all cc ers are used as dwellings. 

 

"The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust."

 

 

 

At some point other organisations unrelated to canals will get hacked orf by too many slums forming. 

 

Property developers. People moan about noise and smoke nuisance from boats in built up areas. 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I wonder if the CRT are being leant on. It is interesting wording. Not all cc ers are used as dwellings. 

 

"The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust."

 

 

 

At some point other organisations unrelated to canals will get hacked orf by too many slums forming. 

 

Property developers. People moan about noise and smoke nuisance from boats in built up areas. 

 

 

 

 

I think this is CRT's first step to insisting that only those living on their boats can be classed as continuous cruisers, except in very exceptional circumstances. It is, after all, virtually impossible to genuinely cruise unless you're on board. You can't do it if you spend most of your life in a house, popping down to move a few miles every couple of weeks - except, obviously, when it's inconvenient.

They have probably got fed up with complaints* about the number of dumped boats, both licenced and unlicenced, clogging up moorings for weeks on end and this is the start of getting rid of them without the need for expensive court proceedings.

 

*complaints coming from the people who pay the most to CRT, who are the marina-dwelling holiday boaters and hire fleets.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think this is CRT's first step to insisting that only those living on their boats can be classed as continuous cruisers, except in very exceptional circumstances. It is, after all, virtually impossible to genuinely cruise unless you're on board. You can't do it if you spend most of your life in a house, popping down to move a few miles every couple of weeks - except, obviously, when it's inconvenient.

They have probably got fed up with complaints* about the number of dumped boats, both licenced and unlicenced, clogging up moorings for weeks on end and this is the start of getting rid of them without the need for expensive court proceedings.

 

*complaints coming from the people who pay the most to CRT, who are the marina-dwelling holiday boaters and hire fleets.

 

Wasn't that exactly who the original "CC exemption" (no need to have/pay for a home mooring that was never used) was aimed at -- boaters who kept moving round the system over time instead of staying in one place?

[magnetman]

That was the theory 28 yars ago. Things changed a little. Instead of being 21 and living on a boat I am 49 and living on a boat. 

 

Its definitely interesting to observe behaviour from the CRT going forwards. 

 

I wonder if part of the object is to change the narrative and hope to slow down the massive influx of cc declared boats. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 hours ago, haggis said:

That seems clear enough and if something along those lines is sent out to continuous cruisers every time they renew their licence, it should strengthen C&RTs hand as defaulters will no longer be able to say they didn't know the "rules". 

It will be interesting to hear what the Baton Twirlers view is 🙂 

 

I understand NBTA see it as further discrimination towards itinerant boaters. 

 

45 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

*complaints coming from the people who pay the most to CRT, who are the marina-dwelling holiday boaters and hire fleets.

don’t forget anyone paying for a business license pays more towards CRT coffers than any paying for a leisure license. 

Many folk with business licenses are itinerants and have been putting more into the system for a long time. 

 

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

At some point other organisations unrelated to canals will get hacked orf by too many slums forming.

Where are the slums?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

don’t forget anyone paying for a business license pays more towards CRT coffers than any paying for a leisure license. 

Many folk with business licenses are itinerants and have been putting more into the system for a long time. 

 

Indeed the have / do, but its like a land based shop, the shop keeper will be paying (probably) rent on the shop as well as rates, in addition to paying for their Council tax etc for their living accomodation.

At least they are making a living (or a contribution to their costs) by running a boat-based business.

[Arthur Marshall]

16 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I understand NBTA see it as further discrimination towards itinerant boaters. 

don’t forget anyone paying for a business license pays more towards CRT coffers than any paying for a leisure license. 

Many folk with business licenses are itinerants and have been putting more into the system for a long time. 
 

The itinerant business licence holders will be genuine CCers - no-one can argue with that. They may well be some of those who justifiably complain to CRT that they can't pitch up in prime selling spots because they are hogged by non-movers.

It can't possibly be discrimation against itinerant boaters, because itinerant ones don't have problems with CRT. Stationary boaters, however...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed the have / do, but its like a land based shop, the shop keeper will be paying (probably) rent on the shop as well as rates, in addition to paying for their Council tax etc for their living accomodation.

At least they are making a living (or a contribution to their costs) by running a boat-based business.

I always find it hard to make/draw these sort of comparisons between living on a boat and living on land. 
As when folk make comparisons with owning cars to owning boats, comparing insurance, licenses and such like. 
We can discuss council tax til the cows come home, but as it stands an itinerant (rightly or wrongly) is not required to pay Council Tax. 

I’d guess the extra costs in such business licenses are to cover public liability, admin and such like,  the remainder going in the pot. 
 

(and of course those with a businesse will be paying extra on insurance, but that’s an aside and not really relevant)