A broad view of canal boat licence fees (The other side)

[Alan de Enfield]

The Guardian (1 hour ago) :

 

Your report about increases in licence fees for canal boats neglects to mention why the increase in fees is necessary (Fee hikes will price us out of canals, say houseboaters in England and Wales, 19 April). The Canal & River Trust (CRT) has, from its inception in 2012, received a grant from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to help with the finances of running and maintaining more than 2,000 miles of the 200-year-old inland waterways network. This grant is no longer index-linked, and over the next decade this will result in a shortfall in funding to the CRT of approximately £300m. This shortfall will have to come from somewhere, and a proportion of it has to come from increases in boat licence fees.

 

 

A campaign called Fund Britain’s Waterways has been set up to try to get more funding from Defra for all Britain’s waterways. If it is successful, the large rise in fees will not be necessary. Some of the London boaters who seem most vocal in criticising the CRT would do well to support this campaign.

Michael Geraghty

Oleanna, Trent and Mersey canal

 

 

In recent years many people have taken to living on water. Driving this trend is a housing crisis and the exorbitant cost of rental housing in many cities. One consequence is the virtual choking of canals in many urban areas. Many have become boat parks, straining water, refuse and sanitary facilities to the limit.

Many would-be boaters buy the cheaper “continuous cruiser” licence, but with little intention of going anywhere. The waterways network faces enormous challenges, and the Canal & River Trust’s business model has problems of its own: many people like canals and enjoy the benefits, but it is boaters who pay to use them. The issue is not helped by people paying for a cheaper licence that does not reflect their use of the canal.

Kathy Squires

Ferndown, Dorset

Edited April 26 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

It’s possible you meant to provide this link

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/26/a-broad-view-of-canal-boat-licence-fees

 

your’s links back to another article you posted before

 

 

 

eta: oh no my mistake sorry, you posted the whole of the article, 

Edited April 26 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

It’s possible you meant to provide this link

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/26/a-broad-view-of-canal-boat-licence-fees

 

your’s links back to another article you posted before

 

Thankyou - as this is a response to the previous article the live link is to that previous article.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Yes, I see that now

[Higgs]

14 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The issue is not helped by people paying for a cheaper licence that does not reflect their use of the canal.

Kathy Squires

Ferndown, Dorset

 

She'll be talking about H moorers, now. 

 

 

Edited April 27 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

She'll be talking about H moorers, now. 

 

 

 

If you have a home mooring then you DON'T need to use any specific 'amount' of the canals, you have paid the extra to allow you to use as much, or as little, as you wish.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If you have a home mooring then you DON'T need to use any specific 'amount' of the canals, you have paid the extra to allow you to use as much, or as little, as you wish.

 

No they haven't. They've got a mooring.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

No they haven't. They've got a mooring.

 

 

 

And if you haven't got a mooring, you have to obey the rules about how much and how often you can use the canals, and, how long you can stay tied up.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And if you haven't got a mooring, you have to obey the rules about how much and how often you can use the canals, and, how long you can stay tied up.

 

I know the 14 day rule, or that relevant to VMs. I know that when I had a mooring, I was paying for the mooring.

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

I know the 14 day rule, or that relevant to VMs. I know that when I had a mooring, I was paying for the mooring.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, if you paid an extra charge (for a mooring) then you could use the canal as you wished.

 

 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So, yes, if you paid an extra charge (for a mooring) then you could use the canal as you wished.

 

Yep, that's what CCers do. And they didn't need to have a home mooring. No home moorer needed a home mooring. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yep, that's what CCers do. And they didn't need to have a home mooring. No home moorer needed a home mooring. 

 

 

 

 

 

Surely CCers cannot just use the canal 'as they wish', they have to abide by rules and conditions that HMers do not.

[Higgs]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Surely CCers cannot just use the canal 'as they wish', they have to abide by rules and conditions that HMers do not.

 

The rule that was created that didn't require a CCer to have a home mooring, or anyone, for that matter.

 

When home moorers are out and about on the canal, the rules are the same for them as CCers. When I went on holiday and was away from the boat for a month, I put the boat in a marina, and took a home mooring to do it. It allowed me a permanent mooring for more than a fortnight. As it does for all home moorers.

 

 

Edited April 27 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

21 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yep, that's what CCers do. And they didn't need to have a home mooring. No home moorer needed a home mooring. 

 

 

 

 

That last sentence makes no sense whatsoever..

I will point out again that it doesn't matter to CRT what bit of the Macc that I choose to moor on (a bit like it doesn't matter where a CCer moors), or which farmer I pay for my mooring (or how much), I have to pay the same additional fee to CRT. It's not tied to a particular place at all - I paid the same when I moored on the Shroppie.

The difference, of course, is that it can be adjusted for circumstance, so if I wanted to hang about in a popular spot like London, the CRT fee would be higher. For a CCer, this isn't the case, they now get the same small surcharge everywhere. This is logical for the ones that move round the system, but for the majority that don't I suspect further changes may be in the pipeline.

The point is that everyone moors, but only some pay a fee to do so. That fee has nothing to do with the rent paid to the landlord.

The law was written to be fair to those who wanted to cruise the system. It wasn't intended to cope with those who wanted to stay in a small area for whatever valid reason. That's the trouble with the law, which is inflexible, and the society it controls, which can change rapidly. Luckiky, CRT have found a way round it, following the example of those who have, themselves, found a way round the intention of the law.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That last sentence makes no sense whatsoever..

I will point out again that it doesn't matter to CRT what bit of the Macc that I choose to moor on (a bit like it doesn't matter where a CCer moors), or which farmer I pay for my mooring (or how much), I have to pay the same additional fee to CRT. It's not tied to a particular place at all - I paid the same when I moored on the Shroppie.

The difference, of course, is that it can be adjusted for circumstance, so if I wanted to hang about in a popular spot like London, the CRT fee would be higher. For a CCer, this isn't the case, they now get the same small surcharge everywhere. This is logical for the ones that move round the system, but for the majority that don't I suspect further changes may be in the pipeline.

The point is that everyone moors, but only some pay a fee to do so. That fee has nothing to do with the rent paid to the landlord.

The law was written to be fair to those who wanted to cruise the system. It wasn't intended to cope with those who wanted to stay in a small area for whatever valid reason. That's the trouble with the law, which is inflexible, and the society it controls, which can change rapidly. Luckiky, CRT have found a way round it, following the example of those who have, themselves, found a way round the intention of the law.

 

You're still telling me that you have a right to moor in a place of your choosing for more than a fortnight. And that is why you pay.

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

You're still telling me that you have a right to moor in a place of your choosing for more than a fortnight. And that is why you pay.

 

 

 

 

You clearly still have only the haziest grasp of the differences in the rights and responsibilities of home moorers and CCers.

[Higgs]

Just now, MtB said:

 

 

You clearly still have only the haziest grasp of the differences in the rights and responsibilities of home moorers and CCers.

 

I've been both. And a home moorer for the much longer period. I paid for a mooring in one instance, and decide, perfectly reasonably, to be a CC'er in the other. As a CC'er, I have a fortnight limitation of mooring, in the other, I didn't. 

 

 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

When home moorers are out and about on the canal, the rules are the same for them as CCers.

As a matter of law that is incorrect. Under the 95 Act, those without a home mooring are required to not remain in any place for more than 14 days (or such longer period...). There is no such constraint under the Act for those with a home mooring. However CRT (and BW before them) have sought to impose a similar requirement on those with a home mooring through their terms and conditions. The enforceability of this requirement has been questioned here, but as far as I am aware has never been tested in court, so it's a moot point as to whether a home moorer can legally stay longer than 14 days in one place.

[Higgs]

19 minutes ago, David Mack said:

As a matter of law that is incorrect. Under the 95 Act, those without a home mooring are required to not remain in any place for more than 14 days (or such longer period...). There is no such constraint under the Act for those with a home mooring. However CRT (and BW before them) have sought to impose a similar requirement on those with a home mooring through their terms and conditions. The enforceability of this requirement has been questioned here, but as far as I am aware has never been tested in court, so it's a moot point as to whether a home moorer can legally stay longer than 14 days in one place.

 

You seem to be saying: Home moorers have to behave as CCers. They can't stay moored for longer than 14 days. They can slip back into the marina, and possibly get the count to start again. They are also required to leave VMs, as the time states.

 

Would you, by any chance, be trying to find rules that home moorers can follow, that CCers are not permitted to follow? Like, CMing, for instance?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

And of course the word (and definition) "Place" has a different meaning dependent on you being a HMer, or a CCer.

This was mentioned by a Judge as being very unsatisfactory.

 

For a CCer a 'Place' is commonly explained as being a parish, or an area a 'kilometre from a previous mooring place'.

For a HMer a 'Place is a boat shaped and boat sized piece of land / water' where the boat can be kept.(Maybe best descibed as a 'location')

 

The Judge suggested that if a boat with a home mooring moved sufficiently (just a few metres) such that it was in a different boat shaped / boat sized pieces of water, it would indeed have moved to a 'new place'.

 

There is no requirement for a HMer to move every 14 days. although, and there is no legal right for a HMer to moor for anymore than 'overnight .............................

 

Nigel Moores take on the subject :

 

 

From the very first enabling Acts, the towpath was not to be obstructed; it had to be available to all for the use it was designed for – accordingly, overnight stays would have been the only (perhaps) tolerated use for mooring. In one of the major canal company’s Acts, in fact, pleasure boats were even banned from ANY use of the towpath (and that clause has never, to my knowledge, been explicitly rescinded).

 

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

 

 

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

 

That's obviously gone out the window.

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's obviously gone out the window.

 

 

 

 

The comment was in regard to moorings, not licence fees.

 

As I'm sure you remember (it has been mentioned to you many times in the past) BW / C&RT can set whatever licence fees and subdivided  to cover any categories they wish (fat boat, thin boat, long boat, River only boat, CCer, HMer, steel, grp etc etc.)

It is enschrined in law in the 1971 & 1983 Act.

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The comment was in regard to moorings, not licence fees.

 

 

I obviously should have misread it. Would you not like to try and scotch the idea that home moorers might be able to CM?

 

"For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application."

 

 

Edited April 27 by Higgs

[Paul C]

17 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 the idea that home moorers might be able to CM?

 

 

 

 

 

What would be the incentive for the boater to do so?

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

What would be the incentive for the boater to do so?

 

By implying that they might not have to follow the rules CCers have to follow.