Marina mooring and CC’ing - are the miles enough?

[___]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That statement only applies to boaters with no home mooring, for boaters with a home mooring there is no such requirement.

Yes.
 

The context of the discussion is about the implications of a boat with no home mooring taking a short term paid mooring. 

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Yes.
 

The context of the discussion is about the implications of a boat with no home mooring taking a short term paid mooring. 

 

It also seems to be discussing if a boat with a home mooring becomes a CCer when they leave the mooring for 3-4-5-6 months 'Summer Cruising'.

[Arthur Marshall]

16 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Yes.
 

The context of the discussion is about the implications of a boat with no home mooring taking a short term paid mooring. 

Thanks for the clarification. A sensible interpretation.

[Mike Todd]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It also seems to be discussing if a boat with a home mooring becomes a CCer when they leave the mooring for 3-4-5-6 months 'Summer Cruising'.

It matters not as the surcharge is not for CCing but for not having a home mooring. If you have a home mooring, you have a home mooring!

[___]

35 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It also seems to be discussing if a boat with a home mooring becomes a CCer when they leave the mooring for 3-4-5-6 months 'Summer Cruising'.

I hadn’t read it like that for the simple reason there is no change for anyone with a home mooring.

 

Perhaps there is a little confusion.

[Arthur Marshall]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It also seems to be discussing if a boat with a home mooring becomes a CCer when they leave the mooring for 3-4-5-6 months 'Summer Cruising'.

I certainly don't. There was a bit of a debate as to status while I travelled from one home mooring to another as yet unspecified, but it was a bit nitpicking. The "6 month" mooring thing mentioned above seems sensible, applied both ways - although I didn't have a mooring, I would certainly have one within that time frame so would never have qualified as a boater without one.

 

[Momac]

46 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It also seems to be discussing if a boat with a home mooring becomes a CCer when they leave the mooring for 3-4-5-6 months 'Summer Cruising'.

If a boat has a genuine home mooring the 14 day or other relevant shorter mooring restrictions out on the waterways apply but the need to move more than a certain mileage does not apply. There is no change proposed  to this .

A boat with a genuine /accepted home mooring paid for all year whether it is occupied or not doesn't change its status even if the boat never occupies that mooring.

 

,

[Momac]

I think C&RT may soon regret asking license holders for approval of the idea of charging greater fees for boat without a home mooring.

Adding complexity to the licensing system will simply add to administrative costs.

 

As for the folks who wish to flit between marinas and have periods with no home mooring in between but want to be 100% open and honest they can always buy a new license each  time they wish to bat for the other side. That should be a good little money earner for C&RT.

 

,

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

 

A boat with a genuine /accepted home mooring paid for all year whether it is occupied or not doesn't change its status even if the boat never occupies that mooring.

Like everyone else, I am aware that a judge stated the above. I think that a more intelligent judge may well have a different view, so I certainly wouldn't rely on that particular ruling for anything. Very little he said appeared rational.

What is relevant is that CRT have avoided any attempt by CCers to avoid the surcharge by acquiring ghost moorings, simply by setting the surcharge so low. Any apparent saving by paying a pittance for an online bit of offside mud would certainly be outweighed by the whacking great EOG fee that CRT would charge - probably three times the surcharge.

Why someone would bother to try to finagle the system in such a way, when they'd be quids in declaring as CC, makes as little sense as the original judge's ruling. The only reason to keep paying for a mooring is because you want the security of somewhere to leave your boat. It's not a cheap option.

The t&cs now more or less equate the cruising rules for both statuses, so there's no advantage there any more, either. And, of course, both CRT and a court would almost certainly rule that a claimed home mooring, never visited and never used, simply wasn't one.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

‘Continuous Cruiser’ is a nasty misused term and is simply a dumbing down of the rules/laws/guidance to encourage ‘squatters’ to keep on the move. 

One has a home mooring or one don’t. Simple. 

 

encouraging the term CCer by CRT is probably a clever move,

 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

18 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I think C&RT may soon regret asking license holders for approval of the idea of charging greater fees for boat without a home mooring.

Adding complexity to the licensing system will simply add to administrative costs.

 

As for the folks who wish to flit between marinas and have periods with no home mooring in between but want to be 100% open and honest they can always buy a new license each  time they wish to bat for the other side. That should be a good little money earner for C&RT.

 

,

If CRT say a home mooring doesn't exist unless it's for a minimum 6 month contract, and there isn't one, then there's no dishonesty in maintaining CC status, and no added admin costs.

I do agree that it's unnecessarily complex. They should just either have doubled the licence fee with a 50% discount to home moorers, or just doubled it and scrapped eog.

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I think C&RT may soon regret asking license holders for approval of the idea of charging greater fees for boat without a home mooring.

Adding complexity to the licensing system will simply add to administrative costs.

 

As for the folks who wish to flit between marinas and have periods with no home mooring in between but want to be 100% open and honest they can always buy a new license each  time they wish to bat for the other side. That should be a good little money earner for C&RT.

 

,

 

 

They are making it more complex than it need be.

It should be simply a once-a-year (licence renewal time) opportunity to declare either 'Home Mooring', or 'No Home Mooring'. Evidence of a home mooring for a minimum of 6 months required if that is your declaration..

 

When being granted the licence for a home mooring you guarantee/agree that you will keep a home mooring for the period of the licence - just as you do for the BSS and the Insurance.

 

7. Insurance

7.1. There must always be Boat insurance in place when You are on Our Waterways. It must be valid for the whole licence period. The insurance must cover anyone allowed to use the Boat. The insurance policy must cover the use of the Boat.

 

This does not mean that the renewal dates MUST co-incide with the licence renewal dates, it simply means that the boat has insurance cover for the full period of the licence.

Similar with the BSS and the 'mooring status'.

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

‘Continuous Cruiser’ is a nasty misused term and is simply a dumbing down of the rules/laws/guidance to encourage ‘squatters’ to keep on the move. 

One has a home mooring or one don’t. Simple. 

 

encouraging the term CCer by CRT is probably a clever move,

 

I'm sure it's a step towards tightening the rules as to who is allowed not to have a home mooring. "Continuous Cruiser" puts a stress on both the boater and their movement pattern, rather than the boat just not having a permanent mooring. I reckon in a year or two it'll appear defined in a new bit of t&c's as "a person or persons residing permanently on their boat and moving regularly round the system". And the term "boats without a home mooring" will be scrapped.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Momac]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 Evidence of a home mooring for a minimum of 6 months required if that is your declaration..

 

This is not necessarily practical nor justifiable. It has never been necessary to date to provide evidence of a home mooring so why should that start now? 

 

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

. I reckon in a year or two it'll appear defined in a new bit of t&c's as "a person or persons residing permanently on their boat and moving regularly round the system". 

It has never been necessarily the case that a continuous cruiser boat is  also full time residential boat.

Residential status and continuous cruiser are independent of each other .

 

 

 

[___]

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

They are making it more complex than it need be.

It should be simply a once-a-year (licence renewal time) opportunity to declare either 'Home Mooring', or 'No Home Mooring'. Evidence of a home mooring for a minimum of 6 months required if that is your declaration..

 

When being granted the licence for a home mooring you guarantee/agree that you will keep a home mooring for the period of the licence - just as you do for the BSS and the Insurance.

 

7. Insurance

7.1. There must always be Boat insurance in place when You are on Our Waterways. It must be valid for the whole licence period. The insurance must cover anyone allowed to use the Boat. The insurance policy must cover the use of the Boat.

 

This does not mean that the renewal dates MUST co-incide with the licence renewal dates, it simply means that the boat has insurance cover for the full period of the licence.

Similar with the BSS and the 'mooring status'.

That is essentially what they have done. And it’s not actually any different to what happens now.

 

8 minutes ago, MartynG said:

This is not necessarily practical nor justifiable. It has never been necessary to date to provide evidence of a home mooring so why should that start now? 

 

The requirement to prove mooring status is a fall back for cases where CRT have reason to doubt the declaration.
 

22 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I'm sure it's a step towards tightening the rules as to who is allowed not to have a home mooring. "Continuous Cruiser" puts a stress on both the boater and their movement pattern, rather than the boat just not having a permanent mooring. I reckon in a year or two it'll appear defined in a new bit of t&c's as "a person or persons residing permanently on their boat and moving regularly round the system". And the term "boats without a home mooring" will be scrapped.

 

The correct terms are enshrined in law. Have you fallen in to the trap of associating residential status and mooring status? That’s a big gripe of many folk affected by this change. And also why what you suggest won’t happen.

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, MartynG said:

This is not necessarily practical nor justifiable. It has never been necessary to date to provide evidence of a home mooring so why should that start now? 

 

 

I'm sure you know that they have a list of 'approved' moorings and check if the one you claim actually exists, also, if they 'doubt you' they will check with the mooring provider that you have a mooring.

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The requirement to prove mooring status is a fall back for cases where CRT have reason to doubt the declaration.

So only used in cases of possible dishonesty, which is not unreasonable. 

 

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm sure you know that they have a list of 'approved' moorings and check if the one you claim actually exists, also, if they 'doubt you' they will check with the mooring provider that you have a mooring.

Yes but you are suggesting the marina contract renewal date might have to be  6 months or more after the license  starts which is not reasonable.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

So only used in cases of possible dishonesty, which is not unreasonable. 

 

Yes but you are suggesting the marina contract renewal date might have to be  6 months or more after the license  starts which is not reasonable.

 

No.

You could have it (a mooring) from (say) 4 months previously, so has another 2 months to go, but you are signing/agreeing to renew it when it expires (just as you do with the BSS and Insurance requirements.

 

Its just the same as with a car : My Licence expires at the end of September, my MOT expires end of October and the Insurance expires end February.

You renew them as they expire so the vehicle is never without a licence, MOT, or Insurance.

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No.

You could have it (a mooring) from (say) 4 months previously, so has another 2 months to go, but you are signing/agreeing to renew it when it expires (just as you do with the BSS and Insurance requirements.

 

Its just the same as with a car : My Licence expires at the end of September, my MOT expires end of October and the Insurance expires end February.

You renew them as they expire so the vehicle is never without a licence, MOT, or Insurance.

So no change from the present system.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

So no change from the present system.

 

 

Exactly, so whats all the fuss about ?

 

It is just the potential to 'game the system' now there is a financial penalty for not having a home mooring

[___]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Exactly, so whats all the fuss about ?

 

It is just the potential to 'game the system' now there is a financial penalty for not having a home mooring

Mostly it’s a just a number of posters that are completely unaffected by it overly concerning themselves with how it might be abused by the small number who are affected by it and are trying to find out how it will work.

[Arthur Marshall]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Exactly, so whats all the fuss about ?

 

It is just the potential to 'game the system' now there is a financial penalty for not having a home mooring

But as has been endlessly (and apparently pointlessly) pointed out, there isn't. At least, not if you compare it to the actual cost of a mooring. Anywhere. It will always be cheaper to not have a mooring.

26 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Mostly it’s a just a number of posters that are completely unaffected by it overly concerning themselves with how it might be abused by the small number who are affected by it and are trying to find out how it will work.

I think CRT have been pretty clever in avoiding the chance of such abuse.

[___]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

I think CRT have been pretty clever in avoiding the chance of such abuse.

I think so too. They’ve tried to rule out changes of status during the licence period as much as they can. Albeit seemingly creating a different definition of “home mooring” for the purpose of licensing than for movement.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

6 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I think so too. They’ve tried to rule out changes of status during the licence period as much as they can. Albeit seemingly creating a different definition of “home mooring” for the purpose of licensing than for movement.

Indeed. I'm not affected by it, but it does still interest me as it affects friends and the whole culture of the waterways. I don't think that'll be the last bit of redefining terms they do, either.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Arthur Marshall
Deleted.

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think CRT have been pretty clever in avoiding the chance of such abuse.

 

I can think of a couple of ways that the system can be abused by a CCer to their financial advantage.