Sharing Moorings

[Kingken]

Just because a boat is licensed as a continuous cruiser doesn't mean it can't arrange a mooring somewhere for a certain period of time. Pleny of continuous cruisers arrange winter moorings for example. What we're discussing here is the arrangment itself.

I am quite aware of that, but the op has not stated if this boat is continually cruising, the fact that he says two months on and two months off, makes me think otherwise.When continuous cruisers make arrangements to stay for a while, they make the arrangements with the owner of a mooring (marina, boat club etc) not with an individual. Also BW allow them to stay on short term moorings in the winter, for the appropriate fee.In my opinion, if the boat in question is a continuous cruiser, then he is breaking BW regulations by staying on this mooring for two months on and two months off. And as I stated in my previous post, if he is not continuously cruising then he will have (or should have) paid for a permanent mooring elsewhere.

That's one way of looking at it, but the other boat doesn't necessarily have to be half a mile up the cut - it could be anywhere. Also it doesn't have to kick a hole in their budget and could actually mean extra funding for BW through licensing a new boat. I don't see this as anything to do with loopholes or cakes, and think that a more positive attitude might see BW embrace such arangements as a way to reduce the amount of boats without moorings, by meeting the need of craft who don't neccesarily want year round moorings. In this demand driven a market economy, is seems to me that a more flexible scheme which responds to the needs of its users is well overdue.

What happens in Winter, when both boats want the mooring?

[blackrose]

And think of the Pump Out Machine, that back-pressure problem could never cope with twice the volume of business! :-)

Sensible boaters don't choose pump-out toilets

 

I am quite aware of that, but the op has not stated if this boat is continually cruising, the fact that he says two months on and two months off, makes me think otherwise.When continuous cruisers make arrangements to stay for a while, they make the arrangements with the owner of a mooring (marina, boat club etc) not with an individual. Also BW allow them to stay on short term moorings in the winter, for the appropriate fee.In my opinion, if the boat in question is a continuous cruiser, then he is breaking BW regulations by staying on this mooring for two months on and two months off. And as I stated in my previous post, if he is not continuously cruising then he will have (or should have) paid for a permanent mooring elsewhere. :blush:What happens in Winter, when both boats want the mooring?

 

So by your reckoning if a continuous cruiser stays on a garden end mooring (arranged with an individual) for a couple of months, he or she is breaking the terms of their licence? I beg to differ.

 

What happens in winter is that the 2 months on/off arrangement continues because both boats cannot use the mooring at the same time.

Edited January 2, 2008 by blackrose

[moggyjo]

What happens in Winter, when both boats want the mooring?

I was going to say the same thing but not just in the winter time. It still does not seem fair to me that you would be the only party with security of tenure for this mooring. What would happen if the other person was on YOUR mooring for their 2 month slot and you needed to get back to your mooring for any reason, breakdown or health for example, what would happen then?

[blackrose]

I was going to say the same thing but not just in the winter time. It still does not seem fair to me that you would be the only party with security of tenure for this mooring. What would happen if the other person was on YOUR mooring for their 2 month slot and you needed to get back to your mooring for any reason, breakdown or health for example, what would happen then?

 

There are plenty of continuous cruisers who have breakdowns and health problems - what do they do? If my friend brokedown miles from the mooring then presumably he'd be unable to return. If he or his partner had health problems and needed to return then I would vacate the mooring and would expect him to reciprocate if I were ill. Sharing anything requires that people are reasonable and flexible.

 

As I stated earlier - this was the other boater's idea and not mine. We're friends and nobody is out to rip the other off. Since any arrangement made between ourselves would be acceptable to both of us, and neither would make such an agreement that we didn't think was fair, then whether it's acceptable to anyone else in terms of it's fairness to either party is really not our concern.

 

Whether it's acceptable to BW may be another matter.

 

It does strike me that compared to other parts of the world, we really have a negative "can't do" culture in this country. Of course it's always wise to look at worst case scenarios and prepare for things going wrong - but how about being a bit more positive about new ideas instead of just focusing on the reasons they can't be done?

Edited January 2, 2008 by blackrose

[WJM]

It is fair if you genuinely have one boat moored and one genuinely 'Continuously Cruising' - problem with so much of the behavior on the canal is that as soon as you give an inch, boaters take a mile. Look at all the non-res mooring boaters who live onboard, all the supposed CCers shacked up for months in the same place. I can see a time in the very near future when BW will start to tighten up on all these lost revenue opportunities and they are not going to like your idea much!

[chris w]

Hadn't thought of that - it's obviously worthy of consideration... Then again a huge asteroid crashing into the marina might be a worse case scenario.

 

Only if one's insurance company classed it as an "Act of God"

[blackrose]

It is fair if you genuinely have one boat moored and one genuinely 'Continuously Cruising' - problem with so much of the behavior on the canal is that as soon as you give an inch, boaters take a mile. Look at all the non-res mooring boaters who live onboard, all the supposed CCers shacked up for months in the same place. I can see a time in the very near future when BW will start to tighten up on all these lost revenue opportunities and they are not going to like your idea much!

 

BW actively encourage unofficial live aboard boaters on non-res moorings, so contrary to being lost revenue it's actually a big part of their business and without us they'd certainly be in a much more difficult financial situation.

 

Perhaps you're right and BW won't like the idea of shared moorings, but personally I don't see things in quite the same way as you - I don't recognise your characterisation of boaters being given an inch and taking a mile - in my opinion that only applies to a minority, and I certainly don't understand why some boaters get uptight and pit themselves against other boaters just because they do something different that doesn't really affect anyone else. We should all stick together.

[carlt]

I don't recognise your characterisation of boaters being given an inch and taking a mile - in my opinion that only applies to a minority, and I certainly don't understand why some boaters get uptight and pit themselves against other boaters just because they do something different that doesn't really affect anyone else. We should all stick together.

Hear Hear! and a most worthy 3000th post, sir

[blackrose]

Hear Hear! and a most worthy 3000th post, sir

 

Blimey 3000! I must think about getting a life

[Lesd]

Are you starting to wish you didnt ask Mike ??? lol

For whats it worth I think its a good idea, sharing like that may help to take pressure off of a very rare resource.

Les

[sueb]

Sensible boaters don't choose pump-out toilets

 

snipped

 

Oh yes they do and they have their own pump kit.

Sue

[GUMPY]

Oh yes they do and they have their own pump kit.

Sue

Fine until you get frozen in, then what do you do?

Been there, frozen for 5 weeks on the Aylesbury arm had to buy a porta potti.......

 

Never have a PO again.

 

Julian

[blackrose]

Oh yes they do and they have their own pump kit.

Sue

 

And where do you pump to may I ask?

 

I've seen people self-pumping into BW elsan points, even though this is prohibited. They weren't designed for this and I wouldn't be very happy if I couldn't empty my 17 litres because some idiot had pumped a huge tank into the elsan point and either blocked or damaged it.

 

(My turn to have a go at other boaters )

Edited January 3, 2008 by blackrose

[Kingken]

There are plenty of continuous cruisers who have breakdowns and health problems - what do they do? If my friend brokedown miles from the mooring then presumably he'd be unable to return. If he or his partner had health problems and needed to return then I would vacate the mooring and would expect him to reciprocate if I were ill. Sharing anything requires that people are reasonable and flexible.

 

As I stated earlier - this was the other boater's idea and not mine. We're friends and nobody is out to rip the other off. Since any arrangement made between ourselves would be acceptable to both of us, and neither would make such an agreement that we didn't think was fair, then whether it's acceptable to anyone else in terms of it's fairness to either party is really not our concern.

 

Whether it's acceptable to BW may be another matter.

 

It does strike me that compared to other parts of the world, we really have a negative "can't do" culture in this country. Of course it's always wise to look at worst case scenarios and prepare for things going wrong - but how about being a bit more positive about new ideas instead of just focusing on the reasons they can't be done?

 

You ask in your original post and in this one 'Whether it's acceptable to BW may be another matter.' to quote BW mooring regulations :-

 

DEFINITIONS

‘Boat’ means the Boat or vessel named in this agreement or

one that is substituted for it with our prior written consent

(which will be subject to the suitability of the Mooring and

payment of an additional Mooring fee, where applicable).

 

 

3. The Mooring agreement is personal to you and you may not

assign it to any person. You may allow another person to use

the Mooring for short periods but only with our permission

which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

 

6. The Boat must be properly licensed for the duration of this

Agreement. Current Mooring and licence permits must be

displayed where they can be easily seen from either side of

the Boat at all times.

 

So, yes you can if you inform BW in writing and pay any additional fees; which defeats the object.

 

Hope this helps, I am not trying to throw a spanner in the works, but you did ask whether it would be acceptable to BW.

[WJM]

"I certainly don't understand why some boaters get uptight and pit themselves against other boaters just because they do something different"

 

 

I promise you it does not bother me personally, but I could understand the frustration of paying £5000/a for a residential mooring and be moored beside a £4000/a non-residential mooring being used by full time live aboard. There are many forms of 'difference' that should be celebrated, but society needs a certain amount of conformity in order to function.

 

 

Everybody likes to complain about the increases in license fees and mooring charges. Eliminate all these tricks and ploys, recover the lost revenue, and we will all have much less to complain about.

[blackrose]

You ask in your original post and in this one 'Whether it's acceptable to BW may be another matter.' to quote BW mooring regulations :-DEFINITIONS‘Boat’ means the Boat or vessel named in this agreement orone that is substituted for it with our prior written consent(which will be subject to the suitability of the Mooring andpayment of an additional Mooring fee, where applicable).So, yes you can if you inform BW in writing and pay any additional fees; which defeats the object.Hope this helps, I am not trying to throw a spanner in the works, but you did ask whether it would be acceptable to BW.

Interesting, thanks.

I promise you it does not bother me personally, but I could understand the frustration of paying £5000/a for a residential mooring and be moored beside a £4000/a non-residential mooring being used by full time live aboard.

Sorry, I don't understand the frustrations of someone who owns a house and a boat, but feels resentful about those who's only form of accommodation is a boat. If they are really that petty they should complain to BW about it because as I said, they know exactly what's going on. I don't think they'll get much satisfaction though.

Everybody likes to complain about the increases in license fees and mooring charges. Eliminate all these tricks and ploys, recover the lost revenue, and we will all have much less to complain about.

Licence fees and mooring charges have not increased because of anything boaters have or have not done - apart from buying too many boats! There is no lost revenue - BW has under it's control a scarce resource which is in high demand and they will charge according to what the market will bear. Anyway, from Kingken's last post it looks like such a scheme would be in line with BW regs, so there are no tricks or ploys involved. Edited January 3, 2008 by blackrose

[blackrose]

There are many forms of 'difference' that should be celebrated, but society needs a certain amount of conformity in order to function.

Agreed, just not too much conformity.

[WJM]

BW need to increase their revenue and there are various 'gaps' in their collection system - total non-payers, residential on non-res moorings, pseudo-CCers etc. First rule of increasing revenue is to increase your income on the work/service you are already providing. On the understanding that BW is now being run by businessmen, then this must be the reason for the mooring tenders. I predict they will progressively tighten everything in the near future. It is only fair.

[blackrose]

BW need to increase their revenue and there are various 'gaps' in their collection system - total non-payers, residential on non-res moorings, pseudo-CCers etc. First rule of increasing revenue is to increase your income on the work/service you are already providing. On the understanding that BW is now being run by businessmen, then this must be the reason for the mooring tenders. I predict they will progressively tighten everything in the near future. It is only fair.

 

Well fairness is subjective. If you're saying it's fair to make those with the least homeless then I would have to disagree with you, but I also believe you're not alone in your prediction. However, I don't think that moorers residing on non-residential moorings represent a gap in BW's income revenues. In general, the people that you see around you are all on the waiting list for residential moorings and have been for many years. The reason that they don't get such a mooring is because they are in very short supply. In our marina the local council has only approved 5 or 6 residential moorings - about 15% of the berths. Thus BW has nothing to offer that would fill any gap in their income. If the council approved more residential moorings then I'm sure BW would be quick to offer these to us, but once a mooring is classed as residential it would also require BW to provide extra facilities, some of which may not be available.

Edited January 3, 2008 by blackrose

[gralyn]

Consider the worse case scenario. You lend out your mooring for a couple of months. The "guest" moorer's boat catches fire and destroys the boats on either side. I, for one, were I to be the owner of one of those boats, would have my lawyers issue a writ against you, the normal moorer, for negligence, breach of duty of care and damages. In allowing the guest moorer to come in, there is an implied duty of care on your part. I would also sue the guest moorer too.

 

Your insurers, were you to try to fight my claim through them, would probably tell you to go swivel on it as they wouldn't cover you for this eventuality.

 

Although a purposely extreme example, one has to at least go through the possibilities. Are the worry and the possible serious financial consequences worth a few hundred quid in guest fees? Plus BW may kick you out for breaching regs by not informing them originally.

 

Chris

 

Assuming that British Waterways gave permission then who would you sue?. And would you sue the legitimate moorer if it was his boat that caught fire and Damaged yours?.

I also presume that you would only sue if a satisfacturary insurance settlement wasn't reached, or would you sue anyway?.

[WJM]

"I don't think that moorers residing on non-residential moorings represent a gap in BW's income revenues"

 

They do if there is £1000 missing (difference between Res and Non-Res).

 

 

But that extends the cause of the problem, BW would if they could! If the 25 non-res moorings were let strictly as non-res and this was rigidly enforced that might prompt a mass exodus and a big drop in income. The demand in urban areas is almost entirely for residential. Because of planning restrictions BW quietly allow their largely unsalable non-residential stock to be sold as residential.

 

Business sense would suggest BW should be exploring ways to 'convert' non-res to res, from a planning perspective, thus allowing them to recover the missing £1000.

 

 

I wonder how private marinas operate this issue of Residential and Non-Residential - what is the difference between the public front and the reality on the water?

[carlt]

Business sense would suggest BW should be exploring ways to 'convert' non-res to res, from a planning perspective, thus allowing them to recover the missing £1000.

 

Gaining planning permission for what would effectively be new housing estates would not be straighforward, or cheap. Providing the local authority with assurances that schooling, waste management, etc. would be difficult.

 

Most large bricks and mortar developments chuck in a school, play area, shopping precinct and pub as sweeteners. Because an estate of houses is far more lucrative than 200 (existing) boats bunging an extra grand.

 

Business sense would suggest that BW should keep their heads down and hope that jobsworth planning officers don't read forums such as this and make themselves a little project.

[blackrose]

They do if there is £1000 missing (difference between Res and Non-Res).

 

Not if they can't provide the extra residential moorings & facilities. They're not missing anything because they haven't provided it.

 

Since you bring up the subject of mooring tenders in the same post as fairness, I would suggest that judging by past reaction on this forum, the vast majority of people on the waterways think the introduction of this scheme along with the scrapping of waiting lists for moorings is grossly unfair. We already have examples of boaters who live in houses with their boats on residential moorings in our marina, and mooring tenders simply allow more of these sought after resources to go into the hands of people who need them the least & already have more than their fair share. As I said, fairness is subjective.

Edited January 3, 2008 by blackrose

[WJM]

Ah but now you are discussing the very fabric of our society. Ours is a market driven capitalist economy/society. Other systems are/were available in other parts of the world, all with varying degrees of success. This is the stuff of other forums.

 

Freedom for Tooting!

[carlt]

Ours is a market driven capitalist economy/society.

Which is exactly why BW can't afford to convert every liveaboard's mooring into a legitimate residential one.

 

 

And you were the one who first said "it is only fair" btw.

 

Why is thinking mooring tenders are unfair any different to you thinking a liveaboard living on a non-resi mooring is unfair?