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

[Paul C]

39 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

...............what is demonstrably a 'progressive journey' qualifies as 'bona fide for navigation' irrespective of whether I returned home at points during the overall period of the journey? Would it have constituted a single journey in your eyes if I had simply stayed aboard while on those moorings? Is one not allowed to take a break during a long journey? The law seems to think it reasonable.

.................

 

 

The law is vaguely written, I believe deliberately, to allow for a variety of cruising styles.

 

While there is a requirement to move from place to place (refer to Act for exact wording) every 14 days, there is also a requirement that the boat is used for navigation throughout the licence period.

 

A narrow interpretation might be that one can engage only in navigation-related activities, for example it would be reasonable to stop for a day or two to service the engine, or attend to another maintenance task. It might also be reasonable that alongside the navigation, the boat is slept in overnight, thus necessitating the replenishment of supplies etc thus a stop for (say) a week in a town.

 

A wider interpretation might be that the "place to place" in 14 days means that boating only need occur once every ~14 days, and the other time the licence holder is free to do whatever they wish, be that return home, work, have kids attend school, etc.

 

Since CRT so far concentrate on the movement 14 days aspect, rather than the navigating throughout aspect, it is clear that so far they have focused on the wider interpretation.

 

Also while we're here, since "cruising" is a synonym for "navigating", and the licence requires it "throughout" (of which "continuous" is a fair equivalent term), the slang term "continuous cruising" is reasonable.

[ditchcrawler]

Didn't a judge or someone say that the Woolwich Ferry is on a bonified navigation, going back and forth across the river 

[sigsegv]

23 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Now is that a straw man argument? Instead of addressing the comment reply with an insult?

Nah that's an ad hominem, if we're deciding we're getting into tedious internet debate territory. Or maybe just name-calling, I'm not sure.

 

This entire discussion is basically just purely academic anyway. Regardless of what the laws or bylaws or rules or T&Cs are, if they are not able to be effectively enforced, it's all basically a moot point. We could (and, on this forum, *do*) debate endlessly on the way things should be but given that CRT's enforcement of the rules is so ineffective and slap-dash, I get the impression that you can basically do what you want. Which I don't view as necessarily a bad thing - I know that overstaying in some areas has a direct consequences to people wanting to moor in those areas. So I won't do it and advise every other CCer I run into as such. But I also know that if I'm in the bum-end of nowhere, I've got a full water tank, empty sh*t tank and plenty of beer onboard, I'm not going to inconvenience anyone so if I happen to stay a few days longer than is legally allowed... well so what?

 

When one gets into the debate of what is strictly legal, vs what is actually in the spirit of the law, and *especially* when the initial intentions of that law no longer reflect the reality of the area it is supposed to legislate for, we naturally end up in a bit of mess, and that's where tension among different groups starts to arise. Indeed, most of the 'debate' on this subject comes from just that - the laws that were written mostly before I was born no longer accurately reflect the state of our waterways today. The usage by basically every broad group of boaters has changed somewhat, and legislation is slow as molasses in being able to accommodate for those changes.

 

 

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Didn't a judge or someone say that the Woolwich Ferry is on a bonified navigation, going back and forth across the river 

 

A ferry has a home mooring. In any case, the only ferry I can think of has 3 stops........

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

A ferry has a home mooring. In any case, the only ferry I can think of has 3 stops........

 

 

But wasn't that the point it was, it was going back and forth between two points but still a bonified navigation. but please do ask me to find details, its just something in my head

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Didn't a judge or someone say that the Woolwich Ferry is on a bonified navigation, going back and forth across the river 

 

Yes, and I would suggest that the Ferry possibly does more miles in a day than some CCers do in a year.

 

He also said :

 

 

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.

 

[___]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

The law is vaguely written, I believe deliberately, to allow for a variety of cruising styles.

 

While there is a requirement to move from place to place (refer to Act for exact wording) every 14 days, there is also a requirement that the boat is used for navigation throughout the licence period.

 

A narrow interpretation might be that one can engage only in navigation-related activities, for example it would be reasonable to stop for a day or two to service the engine, or attend to another maintenance task. It might also be reasonable that alongside the navigation, the boat is slept in overnight, thus necessitating the replenishment of supplies etc thus a stop for (say) a week in a town.

 

A wider interpretation might be that the "place to place" in 14 days means that boating only need occur once every ~14 days, and the other time the licence holder is free to do whatever they wish, be that return home, work, have kids attend school, etc.

 

Since CRT so far concentrate on the movement 14 days aspect, rather than the navigating throughout aspect, it is clear that so far they have focused on the wider interpretation.

 

Also while we're here, since "cruising" is a synonym for "navigating", and the licence requires it "throughout" (of which "continuous" is a fair equivalent term), the slang term "continuous cruising" is reasonable.

 

I get all that, but unfortunately some folk seem to take it rather literally based on what they would like the requirements to be.

[Mike Todd]

46 minutes ago, sigsegv said:

Nah that's an ad hominem, if we're deciding we're getting into tedious internet debate territory. Or maybe just name-calling, I'm not sure.

 

This entire discussion is basically just purely academic anyway. Regardless of what the laws or bylaws or rules or T&Cs are, if they are not able to be effectively enforced, it's all basically a moot point. We could (and, on this forum, *do*) debate endlessly on the way things should be but given that CRT's enforcement of the rules is so ineffective and slap-dash, I get the impression that you can basically do what you want. Which I don't view as necessarily a bad thing - I know that overstaying in some areas has a direct consequences to people wanting to moor in those areas. So I won't do it and advise every other CCer I run into as such. But I also know that if I'm in the bum-end of nowhere, I've got a full water tank, empty sh*t tank and plenty of beer onboard, I'm not going to inconvenience anyone so if I happen to stay a few days longer than is legally allowed... well so what?

 

When one gets into the debate of what is strictly legal, vs what is actually in the spirit of the law, and *especially* when the initial intentions of that law no longer reflect the reality of the area it is supposed to legislate for, we naturally end up in a bit of mess, and that's where tension among different groups starts to arise. Indeed, most of the 'debate' on this subject comes from just that - the laws that were written mostly before I was born no longer accurately reflect the state of our waterways today. The usage by basically every broad group of boaters has changed somewhat, and legislation is slow as molasses in being able to accommodate for those changes.

 

 

I disagree strongly  that CaRTs enforcement is "ineffective and slapdash" On evidence I have seen they have a well thought through process which, ultimately, achieves its purpose. Above all, it seeks to keep within the law, interpreted where possible to satisfy the maximum of legitimate users. It is also compassionate and fair, going well beyond the behaviour if many commercial landlords.

 

I do not know explicitly but I believe that there is a longer term strategy to achieve a better alignment with what they are asked to do, given the disparate needs of many groups,  including but not exclusively, boaters. In particular, they aim to eradicate mooring long term in uncontrolled and unauthorised locations that, sadly, all too often brings with it behaviours that do not help the cause. (LTRU) 

 

The real problem is money. Enforcement, especially compassionate enforcement, is very expensive, up to £100K each and very limited budgets only permit a handful of complete enforcement each year. Hence the focus on the most egregious.

 

It would help if anyone wanting to change the current context first understands the reality of the present. It can also help to talk to those involved on various sides. It may well be then that the scope for change, let alone more extensive expense, is strictly limited and quickly rules out many of the more off the wall proposals.

[Alan de Enfield]

From July 2012 to August 2014 C&RT removed (section 8 ) 170 boats, of which 57 went thru the courts as they were liveaboards.

 

9 boats were reclaimed by the owners and 3 of those were subsequently relicenced.

 

The cost of these removals was £850,000 not including storage or destruction and removal costs.

The 9 boats reclaimed paid C&RT a total of £45,000.

 

At the end of the day C&RT spent £805,000, to remove 170 unlicenced boats and it only resulted in 3 boaters renewing their licence.

 

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. 

 

 

 

Edited May 4 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

Alan, being unlicensed is just a step in the process for most:

 

Non-compliant CCing  --> CRT doesn't renew licence --> Boat is unlicensed --> Section 8 proceedings are used to remove from CRT waters

 

In some cases, the boater resists at step 4. I don't believe there has been any case where at step 2, the boater has used a judicial review to argue that the non-renewal of the licence is unreasonable.

[___]

34 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Alan, being unlicensed is just a step in the process for most:

 

Non-compliant CCing  --> CRT doesn't renew licence --> Boat is unlicensed --> Section 8 proceedings are used to remove from CRT waters

 

In some cases, the boater resists at step 4. I don't believe there has been any case where at step 2, the boater has used a judicial review to argue that the non-renewal of the licence is unreasonable.

Most of what group in this instance?

 

Most never even start on that process or otherwise get past stage 1. A stage that does not lead directly to your stage 2.

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Most of what group in this instance?

 

The 170 boats Alan referenced in his post (above mine).

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

The 170 boats Alan referenced in his post (above mine).

 

Were any of them 'Stealth' boats? 

 

I.E. the boats one sees with all traces of ID meticulously removed.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Were any of them 'Stealth' boats? 

 

I.E. the boats one sees with all traces of ID meticulously removed.

 

You would have to ask C&RT - the information is taken from the C&RT website and from a presentation they made at an "Open Boaters Meeting" in Nottingham

They also give (elsewhere on their website) a figure of  258 boats removed from their waters in the 4 years to 2014

[Higgs]

On 04/05/2024 at 15:16, Arthur Marshall said:

Unfortunately, while CRT doesn't give a toss about what boat is on my mooring, or precisely where it is, the farmer does. But as you don't pay mooring fees to CRT anyway, you'd have no right to it anyway A bit of logic, please.

 

Hoping to see you paying for your exclusive right to moor anywhere on the canal.

 

 

[Mike Todd]

On 04/05/2024 at 21:03, ___ said:

Most of what group in this instance?

 

Most never even start on that process or otherwise get past stage 1. A stage that does not lead directly to your stage 2.

At present, on the K and A at least, CaRT are using a six month licence as a gentler approach to achieving some degree of compliance rather than going straight from a non-compliant observation to the start of removal process. So far I believe that it has had a good degree of success.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

At present, on the K and A at least, CaRT are using a six month licence as a gentler approach to achieving some degree of compliance rather than going straight from a non-compliant observation to the start of removal process. So far I believe that it has had a good degree of success.

yes , they’re doing this across the system and I believe from those I’ve met, on the whole it works as a deterrent,

I think the next stage if someone still doesn’t comply after the 6 months CRT insist the boat must have a home mooring before a license is issued? I might be wrong.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

At present, on the K and A at least, CaRT are using a six month licence as a gentler approach to achieving some degree of compliance rather than going straight from a non-compliant observation to the start of removal process. So far I believe that it has had a good degree of success.

 

 

Before the implementation of the 'softer touch' C&RT undertook a review of the situation on the K&A during 2014/15.

There were some 391 boats that were registered as having no home mooring and pretty much all of them came into enforcement.

 

At the end of April, 33 boats were still in the CC enforcement process. However, many cases were closed in readiness for the new CC process. All boats that had only received a pre CC1 by the end of February had their enforcement cases closed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

yes , they’re doing this across the system and I believe from those I’ve met, on the whole it works as a deterrent,

I think the next stage if someone still doesn’t comply after the 6 months CRT insist the boat must have a home mooring before a license is issued? I might be wrong.

 

I think that i have heard that said but I have not heard of an actual case yet. This is distinct from helping those who have lived aboard for some time but are no longer able the biat, often on their own and with no exit plan.