Boaters' Update - changes to communications to CCers.

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

f course it doesn’t prevent them moving,

but it does prevent them from easily finding another mooring,

 

As far as the canals are concerned isn't the towpath bank pretty much available anywhere for mooring, it may not allow everyone to moor exactly where they want but I bet that in most cases there is a spot to moor within a few hundred metres of the desired location.

 

There is something approaching 2,000,000 metres of available moorings on C&RT waters, I find it difficult to believe that anyone can say they cannot find a mooring.

 

Saying "I cannot moor where I want is something different"

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, dmr said:

 

Its back to the winter mooring problem, can you pay to buy your way out of the 14 day rule?  A long term social mooring is a bit different but a few CMers do appear to get something similar for free, at least for a few years.

not sure what you saying,

 

but yes one can buy their way out,

and pay for ‘protection’ through the winter,

usually dismal spots unless you strike lucky, like what I did and get to moor by the Golden Lion at Tod with services

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It permits transit moorings.

And that’s all one needs when travelling,

but we do need them,

CRT can’t reduce them or charge for them, or require bookings and whatever with our expecting some complaint in return. 

[dmr]

Going back to the main topic, I doubt this is the beggining of the end for short distance continuous cruisers, more like just a desk warrior dreaming up more changes to procedures.

Letters and rules etc are meaningless unless backed up with enforcement, and enforcement is very very time consuming and expensive.

 

In strictly financial terms boaters are a big loss maker, they put in about 15% of the money and use up 75% of the resources. I made these figures up but I bet they are close. Amongst boaters CCers are even more of a loss maker because they put in a bit less money and use the bins more etc. And I suspect that amongst CCers the CMers are an even bigger loss maker as they have a higher evasion rate and generate much more enforcement and legal costs, plus the NBTA are a thorn in CRT's side. I suspect that as the %age of CCers increases then so the %age of CMers amongst them is also increasing. I wonder if somebody within CRT has worked out that the canal system would be better off if restricted to leisure only boats?.

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

What cobblers 

We had a boat didn't live on it and every week moved it for between 5 and 15hrs to a different location around the system. A typical year saw us leave our winter mooring on the GU and go up to Manchester and across the L&L back up the Trent and home.

So you are saying this sort of use should not be CC 

I know "dumpers" are a hobby horse of yours but you really haven't thought this one through.

So if I live in a house, but every weekend I go and stay in my holiday cottage on Anglesey, I am therefore continually resident in Anglesey? No, I'm not, and you were no more on a continuous cruise than I would be if I took my boat to the pub and back every weekend. The operative word is "continuous". You were just on a short day's trip, once a week. Just because the start and finish location changed doesn't make it a cruise. Of course, no one could define you as a dumper, which refers to the long term mickey takers, which you obviously weren't, just a short term moorer.

It's legitimate under the current rules, but I suspect it won't be for much longer, as usual, because of the numbers extracting the michael.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As far as the canals are concerned isn't the towpath bank pretty much available anywhere for mooring, it may not allow everyone to moor exactly where they want but I bet that in most cases there is a spot to moor within a few hundred metres of the desired location.

 

There is something approaching 2,000,000 metres of available moorings on C&RT waters, I find it difficult to believe that anyone can say they cannot find a mooring.

 

Saying "I cannot moor where I want is something different"

Where I travel, which is mostly countrified, I agree. 
But down London I believe it’s a little different.
I understand moorings have been given over to safety zones for instance. 
 

[dmr]

3 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

not sure what you saying,

 

but yes one can buy their way out,

and pay for ‘protection’ through the winter,

usually dismal spots unless you strike lucky, like what I did and get to moor by the Golden Lion at Tod with services

 

I note that none of the winter moorings outside the Golden Lion have been taken this year. There has been some trouble from local houses dwellers complaing about chimney smoke so maybe the word has spread.

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I should have added the word 'all'. 

 

It was an open goal!

 

I agree though. When I came off the Thames onto the cut I was amazed to find I didn't have to pay the fiver a night I generally paid on the Thames, and it seemed to me to be unnecessarily generous of BW to allow overnight mooring for free. 

 

 

I think getting everyone accustomed to paying a fiver a night could even fix CRT's funding problem.

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

I note that none of the winter moorings outside the Golden Lion have been taken this year. There has been some trouble from local houses dwellers complaing about chimney smoke so maybe the word has spread.

now that has been a problem caused by one particular boater in particular, 

they were naughty when I were there and last I heard they were still hanging around,

 

so yeah, an example of how one boater can upset the Apple cart for the rest of us,

especially in a small area, 

best policed by other boaters and encouraged to fk off

[MtB]

It would certainly clear an absolute TONNE of wasters and freeloaders off the canal system.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, dmr said:

In strictly financial terms boaters are a big loss maker, they put in about 15% of the money and use up 50% of the resources, and George Ward uses up 25%. 

 

FTFY.

 

 

[dmr]

23 minutes ago, MtB said:

It would certainly clear an absolute TONNE of wasters and freeloaders off the canal system.

 

 

 

 

FTFY.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to know how much a typical eviction costs, and how much CRT spend each year on handling genuinely non compliant boaters.

To redress the balance it would also be Very interesting to know how much money CRT spend settling or fighting the claims of cyclists who have pretended to fall into the canal.

But I will only wonder about this, I have no plans to make a FoI claim as I want my licence money to be spent on keeping the system navigable.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

It would be interesting to know how much a typical eviction costs, and how much CRT spend each year on handling genuinely non compliant boaters.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if CRT were underwater to the tune of £1m or so for the totality (so far) of their dealings with Mr Ward. Bear in mind they sued him about ten years ago for £90k legal costs IIRC. 

 

 

[GUMPY]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if CRT were underwater to the tune of £1m or so for the totality (so far) of their dealings with Mr Ward. Bear in mind they sued him about ten years ago for £90k legal costs IIRC. 

 

 

They Are at it again

 

https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/23961358.canal-river-trust-threatens-evicted-boater-legal-action/

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

They Are at it again

 

https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/23961358.canal-river-trust-threatens-evicted-boater-legal-action/

 

I'm sure he will pay the £48k he owes them promptly, mindful of the effect on his credit rating should he not do so. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if CRT were underwater to the tune of £1m or so for the totality (so far) of their dealings with Mr Ward. Bear in mind they sued him about ten years ago for £90k legal costs IIRC. 

 

 

 

In C&RTS first 2 years they section 8 170 boats of which 57 were believed to have been liveaboards,

 

A post from 2016 by Nigel Moore :

 

Section 8 Costs Incurred by C&RT – 31/10/16

 

A large part of the problem though, is that it is a long way from “the cheapest way”. If you look at the statistics, a tiny minority are able to pay the enormously inflated costs of recovering their boats once seized and transported [usually] to the storage places furtherest from their original location.

 

In the year to August 2014 69 boats were removed from CaRT waters under s.8. Many more will have been removed since July 2012 when they came into being, but the figures have not been divulged [although the number 170 was mooted apparently derived from CaRT sources]. Of those, 57 were supposedly removed following court action because live-aboards.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_part_8_civil_procedure#comment-53842 

 

The usual minimum cost of removals using CaRT’s contractors is approximately £5,000. 

 

According to CaRT figures, of these 170 boats, 8 were “disposed of” following the “Torts Act” procedure, presumably sold. Whether the sums recovered by these presumed sales sufficed to cover the costs is not revealed. 

 

By inference, all other un-reclaimed boats were simply destroyed eventually, at yet further cost.

 

Of all these boats, only 9 were reclaimed by the owners, and only 3 were subsequently re-licensed.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_a_breakdown_of_boats#comment-55267 

 

If we then take the total cost of removals in those 2 years, a rough estimation would amount to £850,000 for 170 boat removals [not including storage and any subsequent destruction and disposal costs].

 

The 9 recovered boats would account – on the same basis – for recovery of £45,000, leaving an outlay of unrecovered sums of approximately £805,000. To be generous, supposing that the 8 boats mentioned as being disposed of by sale were sold for sufficient to cover all costs incurred, then another £40,000 can be detracted, leaving an irrecoverable outlay of £765,000.

 

As stated, the end result over these two years of such expenditure was only 3 renewed boat licences.

 

Not “the cheapest way” to enforce boat licensing in my book; while I take the point that fear of seizure will reduce the numbers taking the risk of going unlicensed in the first place – that amounts to over a quarter million per successfully enforced re-licensing. 

 

Nigel believed that there had been an average of about 100 'section 8s' per annum since.

[oboat]

21 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

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. . 

As said before. On the way up & on the way down is a big problem going in & out of Liverpool & the Ribble link. Yet no enforcement of any type on the Chesterfield.

[___]

Looks to me like it's possibly more about reducing administration costs than any real change in enforcement.

 

I think the vast majority of boaters with no home mooring know exactly what they need to do to keep onside of CRT. Almost all of the rest don't care and they are the real problem for CRT.  But I suspect they are very much a minority even amongst boats without a home mooring (noting that I do not observe what happens in London). As @Stroudwater1 says many boaters are happy to divulge their mooring patterns even if they aren't totally compliant (me included). If you traverse the same section of canal repeatedly over the course of a whole year (the only way you can start to understand how boaters move over the course of their licence) and talk to some of the boaters you will start to understand it's because they know how the enforcement works and are happy do what's necessary to be on the right side and balance that with their own convenience. Therefore I don't think there will be a significant change in behaviours unless CRT improve their enforcement system. I think it's probably not very fit for purpose but if folk think improving it will reduce the number of boats tied to the towpath I'm far from sure it will make much difference.

 

The congregation of liveaboard boats on visitor moorings does increase once they revert to 14 days out of season and it can be annoying for those wanting a short term mooring. But if you find a mooring full on one occasion and return to the same mooring approximately 14 days later you may find it relatively deserted (as happened to me on two boat moves involving mooring in Newbold recently). Also bear in mind that many visitor moorings are available for long term winter mooring permits from 1st November to 28/29th February so may be legitimately 'colonised' by boats. I'd be happy for a system whereby short term visitor moorings retain at least some time restricted length all year, complimented by the winter mooring scheme.

 

 

 

[matty40s]

Most of the local boats on this pound were given 6 month licences during this year, most had reduced cruising during Covid and without the local interaction, hadnt restarted longer journeys(up or  down a set of locks. ) 

Most have restarted using Leicester line and Rugby/Calcutt directions now, but more boats are infiltrating from Milton Keynes given the enforcement there has been upped.

In all previous years, the Stowe Hill winter moorings have been on the far side of the water point from the A5.

Last 4 years 3 boats max, one who paid for 8 years didn't bother as nobody else did any more.

This year, the signed moorings are from the A5 bridge and past the water point as well....a long stretch, at least 3 boats(including the above mentioned  chap,) all beyond the water point again.

[TheBiscuits]

47 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The congregation of liveaboard boats on visitor moorings does increase once they revert to 14 days out of season

 

That's because they can actually get on the moorings when the summer-only boats go back in to the marinas

 

[___]

5 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

That's because they can actually get on the moorings when the summer-only boats go back in to the marinas

 

 

There is some truth in that and liveaboard boaters are at least not nearly so precious about proximity to the adjacent boat as leisure boaters seem to be. But I think it's probably more to do with the ability to not have to move for 14 days. Which in itself suggests a willingness to comply with CRT restrictions.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

There is some truth in that and liveaboard boaters are at least not nearly so precious about proximity to the adjacent boat as leisure boaters seem to be. But I think it's probably more to do with the ability to not have to move for 14 days. Which in itself suggests a willingness to comply with CRT restrictions.

 

But seem a lot more precious on the proximity to mooring by bridges.

[magnetman]

I think in general it is true to say that most people understand why rules are in place and would prefer to be compliant. 

 

 

However if a bias occurs whereby the number of people seeking to be non compliant out of devilment increases then it gets problematic. 

[Francis Herne]

The sightings list is still available at https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk/Boat/Sightings if you're logged in. All they removed was the link to it from the main dashboard.

 

I'm not entirely certain it's still being updated, as my last sighting was two months ago. That seems typical when I'm on the BCN though - sighted once in four months last year, even having spent a fortnight in the centre of Birmingham.

[___]

22 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

The sightings list is still available at https://licensing.canalrivertrust.org.uk/Boat/Sightings if you're logged in. All they removed was the link to it from the main dashboard.

 

I'm not entirely certain it's still being updated, as my last sighting was two months ago. That seems typical when I'm on the BCN though - sighted once in four months last year, even having spent a fortnight in the centre of Birmingham.

Good find Sir.

 

I think it’s still being updated. I was last spotted on 25th October on the Staffs & Worcs which is after the link was taken down. From then up until a week or so ago I’ve been squirrelled away on the BCN. That’s twice this year I’ve managed to spend a month on the BCN without being spotted.

 

[blackrose]

On 02/12/2023 at 04:53, 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.

 

You mean inactively don't move? 🤣 No I get your point.

 

Presumably you CC all year around, not just in the winter?

[Adam]

5 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

You mean inactively don't move? 🤣 No I get your point.

 

Presumably you CC all year around, not just in the winter?

Only the winter, we have to do that whole work thing in the summer months. The wrong way round to do it really.

 

I geuss overstaying is more of a thing in winter, we notice it when collecting the car or nipping back to sanitary stations or whatever.