CRT Commission

[Alan de Enfield]

 

A couple of interesting extracts from a recommendation by the Waterways Amenity Advisory Council to the BW board in February 1989

 

Nothing has changed  and 36 years later  we are having a commission review what they should do !

 

The grant~making provisions of the 1968 Transport Act recognised that Britain's inland waterways could not be economically self~ supporting. We fully appreciate the need to maximise revenue.

But, it is the Council's view that, even by increasing efficiency. the grant-in-aid can never be eliminated. The long-term effect of not maintaining the necessary level of grant would be to inhibit the planned maintenance and development of the system necessary for improved economic performance. It would also seriously restrict the Board's ability to achieve a sound level of monitoring and accountability.

 

The Monopolies & Mergers Commission, in their 1987 report on the Board, said: "The real value of the Government's grant has fallen steadily in recent years, without being compensated by an increase in BWB's revenue from users. We are concerned that if this process continues much longer, BWB will be in danger of reverting to the situation which existed for many years prior to the early 1980's when, far from making progress, the business was in general decline. The objectives now agreed between DoE and BWB mean that both are committed to preserving the waterways, and to improving their conditon so that more people will be attracted to using them, especially for leisure purposes. It seems to us essential that BWB should have the funds which it needs to achieve those objectives, from whatever sources those funds are derived, and especially to enable it to reduce the backlog of maintenance. Otherwise, it will not be able to sustain the progress it has made in recent years, and the impetus to improve its efficiency will be reduced."

 

And 

 

Enforcement

There has been considerable adverse user-reaction against the 1989 increases in the Board's charges for privately owned pleasure boats. In particular, boat owners feel they are not achieving value for money because they perceive a high level of fee evasion, in their view due to a lack of effectiveness in the Board's collection and enforcement system. We have advised the Board on this matter and look forward to further measures being introduced to combat the problem. It is believed that the Board, as a long-term measure, are planning to introduce increased byelaw powers which will enable them to prosecute in a greater number of cases.

 

And 

 

Unlicensed or unregistered craft

7.13 a Considerable anecdotal and witnessed evidence exists to the effect that large number of craft using the Board's waterways and facilities are unlicensed or unregistered. Attention has been drawn earlier

to the presence of unlicensed residential boats on the Board's canals and rivers, but this situation is even more common in respect of non-residential boats.

7.14 It is the Association's view that rigorous pursuit and prosecution of such offenders would augment the Board's revenue income far more effectively and, in the long run, more beneficially than exaggerated fee and charge increases.

 

7.18 Evidence can be provided, if necessary, of several instances of unlicensed craft moored within close proximity of central points, of virtually abandoned craft left unlicensed at the Board's overnight, visitor or short-stay moorings, and other flagrant breaches of regulations.

7.19 It is the Association's view that, firstly, there are not sufficient uniformed patrol officers, and, secondly, the existing staff is neither efficiently deployed nor effectively engaged in detecting and pursuing potential and actual offenders.

7.20 a The Board's 1985-86 report states that during the year from 1 April 1985 total of 163 instances of licensing and navigational offences led either to written warnings or to prosecutions. That total represents 0.7% of the average number of boats licensed and registered during the year to 31 March 1986. No separate details are given in respect of the recovery of outstanding licence or registration fees by either administrative or court action. [No equivalent statement appears in the 1987-88 report].

7.21 In the Association's view, that is an unacceptably low level of pursuit and prosecution. The identification and prompt prosecution of offenders should be given a very much higher priority, and specific detailed information on prosecutions and fee recoveries should be made publicly available.

Edited March 13, 2025 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

If the towpath has ben reclassified as a footpath due to horses being obsolete is it possible that there is a defined width associated with the footpath and the bit between that and the canal itself while registered to the CRT as land owner is in fact not part of the path any more?

I'm sure I've seen an official definition somewhere which designates the full width of the land between the waters edge and the boundary as 'towpath', regardless that not all of the width is necessarily used by pedestrians (or horses).

[Narc]

On 13/03/2025 at 11:13, Jahsiwgrosbfodbdkvnelwjwh said:

This. 
 

I am one of the many people that is choosing to not to display my number and not play by the rules. I can get away with it. I’ve been in the same spot for months since I acquired my boat. A CRT person will approach me and all I say is that I’m not in a position to move or pay. Nothing gets done. Many people around me have been here for multiple years and don’t even get approached now. Sorry but it’s the truth. I know as soon as I get a license/insurance/bss then I will be subject to enforcement. I’m happy squatting on the Lea, slowly working on my boat spending the little money I have getting my home in order whilst not moving. I would eventually love to get my boat legal and travel the network, and once I’m in the financial position to do so I will. There are others who are not so well inclined. 
If there does come a time, and I highly doubt it, when there is a genuine threat to remove my boat it will leave me adequate time to just move on. When I do apply for a license, I’ll put the boat in another name. This is me acting on good faith though. When my boat is liveable, there is still nothing stopping me from travelling the network ‘dark’, dodging inspections and constantly on the move. The ONLY thing that would force me to go legal is if checks were set up at locks, forcing me to explain myself. Or if marinas/chandleries/mechanics etc.. only served you if you could present a license. As long as I’m not causing a nuisance, squatting in King’s Cross or disturbing fancy moorings in central London, I can do this life for as long as I like. If the time comes where I risk losing my boat for real, then there are a myriad of ways I can manipulate the system to keep the boat, go legal or sell it. I’m a cheat, yes, but were residential squatters throughout the 80s/90s cheats? Maybe, but they are times looked back on with awe. Whole swathes of our popular culture stemmed from these squats, celebrated artists and musicians…. 
I am 30 years old, worked my whole life bon and bred in London, payed my taxes and got consumed by rent and the rat race. No chance in hell would I ever be able to buy a house. My friends who do have mortgages have all been helped out with an inheritance and have to work a full week in a job they HAVE to endure to keep up with payments. This is not the life for me. My generation is stuck in the loop. It’s a crises. I deem myself lucky. I’m able to be happy by sacrificing the luxuries of a flat and live on the water. It’s not for the faint hearted. This is my ‘f you’ to the world for now. I will build my home on the water in my own time, get myself in a position where I can live comfortably and then reassess my situation. 
I don’t need the stress of CRT telling me to move if I don’t have to, sorry. I chose to live like this and I will personally be better off for it. Until I see a benefit in playing by the rules I’ll continue the way I am. This is the loophole and I will take advantage of it

You are obviously a disgruntled licence paying boater who despises the none payers.

A bad actor at best.

[Gybe Ho]

On 13/03/2025 at 10:45, haggis said:

C&RT should adopt the policy of Scottish Canals. If a boat looks untidy or scruffy the owner is asked to sort it out or the boat will be removed from the waterway. They actually carry out the threat! 

 

The CRT is looking for a new CEO, should they be looking north of the border? 

 

Edited March 17, 2025 by Gybe Ho

[TheBiscuits]

12 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

The CRT is looking for a new CEO, should they be looking north of the border? 

 

 

Possibly, but not at Scottish Canals.  That's a rebranded name for what is left of British Waterways after CRT were hived off.

[haggis]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Possibly, but not at Scottish Canals.  That's a rebranded name for what is left of British Waterways after CRT were hived off.

Sort of.

When C&RT was formed British Waterways in Scotland became British Waterways trading as Scottish Canals and the finances were divided between the two organisations

 The Scottish Government  wanted to have control of Scotland's canals, hence the split. Both north and south of the border had their own staff and that remained the position. 

Over the years there has continued to be liaison between the two organisations although they operate independently.

 

 

[prof Bobajob]

On 29/12/2024 at 14:45, MtB said:

 

CRT, were you thinking of?

 

 

🤭

[MtB]

Well, September came and went, and no CRT Commission report was published AFAIK.

 

Or was it published and we were all to busy squabbling about whether LFPs exploded in an ABC day boat to notice?

 

 

On 16/12/2024 at 16:51, StevieN said:

The Commission will start its review in January and is expected to run until September 2025.

 

[Rob-M]

Now shows the following on CRT website...

 

When will the Commission run?

The Commission started its review in January and is expected to run until November

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Now shows the following on CRT website...

 

When will the Commission run?

The Commission started its review in January and is expected to run until November

do you think they’re milking the cow?

I take it the 3(?) trusted with the commission are paid. 
 

a bit of extra cash for Christmas 😃

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I think maybe they have seen some good suggestions** on canalworld forum, and are looking to investigate how these good ideas can be implemented into their proposals.

 

**

Fat boats should be limited to marinas only.

Liveaboards shall be limited to marinas only.

Any of the above boats seen outside of a marina immediately gets its licence revoked, and then prosecuted for having no licence,

Any boat that is abandoned and has not moved ithin 14 days is towed away and the owner prosecuted.

 

The Canal Bylelaws to be enforced, in full.

All (waterways) Acts of Parliament to be enforced in full.

CCers will be expected to comply with the movement requirements as listed by the commission, Failure will result in licence revocation.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Home Moorers will be expected to comply with the movement requirements as listed by the commission, Failure will result in licence revocation.

^^^ hopefully

 

😃😃

 

 

[magpie patrick]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

All (waterways) Acts of Parliament to be enforced in full.

 

 

Now there's an idea - they'd have to complete any sections of canal authorised but not constructed....

[MtB]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The Canal Bylelaws to be enforced, in full.

 

Including the one that says no living aboard?

 

Nearly all of CRT's enforcement problems appear to be caused by liveaboards.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Including the one that says no living aboard?

 

Nearly all of CRT's enforcement problems appear to be caused by liveaboards.

 

 

 

But, (see earlier) if they have to stay in marinas (off C&RTs waters) then its the best of both worlds - C&RT get the licence fee via the NAA rules and they don't get the hassle !

Edited October 5, 2025 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, (see earlier) if they have to stay in marinas (off C&RTs waters) then its the best of both worlds - C&RT get the licence fee via the NAA rules and they don't get the hassle !

 

So marina liveaboards are to be excepted from your proposed "The Canal Bylelaws to be enforced, in full" ?

 

Any other exceptions? 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

So marina liveaboards are to be excepted from your proposed "The Canal Bylelaws to be enforced, in full" ?

 

Any other exceptions? 

 

 

 

They are not on C&RT waters and not allowed to leave the marina, so, how could C&RTs rules be enforced ?

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

They are not on C&RT waters and not allowed to leave the marina, so, how could C&RTs rules be enforced ?

 

The Canal Byelaws are not "CRTs rules", they are the law! 

 

(I think!)

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

The Canal Byelaws are not "CRTs rules", they are the law! 

 

(I think!)

 

They Canal bylaws are for specific (listed) wateways - a private marina alongside a wateway is not covered by the Byelaws, it is governed by the contract (NAA) between C&RT and the marina owners, and, in turn between the marina owner and the boater.

 

C&RT have rules the marina oners must follow : ie all boats must be licenced.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

They Canal bylaws are for specific (listed) wateways - a private marina alongside a wateway is not covered by the Byelaws, it is governed by the contract (NAA) between C&RT and the marina owners, and, in turn between the marina owner and the boater.

 

C&RT have rules the marina oners must follow : ie all boats must be licenced.

In which case they could presumably also have 'no liveaboards' in the contract. (For consistency.)

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

They Canal bylaws are for specific (listed) wateways - a private marina alongside a wateway is not covered by the Byelaws, it is governed by the contract (NAA) between C&RT and the marina owners, and, in turn between the marina owner and the boater.

 

C&RT have rules the marina oners must follow : ie all boats must be licenced.

Back in January, I made an information request asking for information regarding prosecutions under BW Acts and by Byelaws. It seems to me that-

• CRT rarely if ever use the powers available to them
• They attempt to replace legal powers with conditions that boaters have to agree to. They attempt to withhold the licence if conditions are not agreed 
• They can't or don't enforce licence conditions

CRT have refused to provide the information requested and the matter was referred to the Information Commissioner over six months ago.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Peanut]

10 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Back in January, I made an information request asking for information regarding prosecutions under BW Acts and by Byelaws. It seems to me that-

• CRT rarely if ever use the powers available to them
• They attempt to replace legal powers with conditions that boaters have to agree to. They attempt to withhold the licence if conditions are not agreed 
• They can't or don't enforce licence conditions

CRT have refused to provide the information requested and the matter was referred to the Information Commissioner over six months ago.

It sounds a bit, pick n' mix, to me, we will if we want to, but not if we don't. I wonder what their obligations might be, as a Charity?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Peanut said:

It sounds a bit, pick n' mix, to me, we will if we want to, but not if we don't. I wonder what their obligations might be, as a Charity?

 

Charitable trust, I thought. Not a full-fat charity.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

25 minutes ago, Peanut said:

It sounds a bit, pick n' mix, to me, we will if we want to, but not if we don't. I wonder what their obligations might be, as a Charity?

No different to those of British Waterways in respect of the British Waterways Acts and Byelaws.

 

24 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Charitable trust, I thought. Not a full-fat charity.

No real difference. The key is being registered with the Charity Commission thus being subject to charitable law rather than the name.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Back in January, I made an information request asking for information regarding prosecutions under BW Acts and by Byelaws. It seems to me that-

• CRT rarely if ever use the powers available to them
• They attempt to replace legal powers with conditions that boaters have to agree to. They attempt to withhold the licence if conditions are not agreed 
• They can't or don't enforce licence conditions

CRT have refused to provide the information requested and the matter was referred to the Information Commissioner over six months ago.

 

Nigel Moore made comment on the subject a few years ago :

 

I response to a question as to why C&RT do not use the byelaws :

 

Nigel Moore 8/2/20

 

It was HH Judge Denyer QC in the judgment against George Ward of 20 December 2012 on the Bristol County Court :-

 

“Other than the removal of the boat the only sanction provided for in the legislation in respect of a contravention of the Rules by a person such as the Claimant is that of a derisory fine.  I think it has now reached the sum of £50.  If they are not entitled to take these steps i.e. removal of the boat from the river they are in truth substantially powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use the waterways.  I do not regard the ability to take debt recovery proceedings as being a sufficient alternative remedy.  Aside from anything else they would face problems of enforcement.  No doubt if they did obtain a money judgment the judgment debtor would seek to or could seek to pay at some derisory sum per week or per month.”

 

He overlooked, of course, the fact that the same would apply to any County Court judgment as to costs etc, and also that the seizure of the boat even if leading to a sale could never be used to pay off the debt, because the relevant statute specifically bars that. They can only (legally) retain from the profits of a boat sale, the costs of seizing, storing and selling it. However it may be that this judge (and others) was misled into believing that BW could use possession of the seized boat as a lien on monies owed to them. This was pre-Ravenscroft after all.

 

He was mistaken as to the level of fine which is £100 (plus, of course, costs, and nowadays ‘victim surcharges’). He was also off the mark about “problems of enforcement”. Having obtained a court order for fines and costs and charges, the collection could be left to court bailiffs, or payment could be sought for from central funds as respects costs at least. The judge also seems to be confusing pursuit of money judgments with prosecutions (pursuit of merely a money claim being a third option NOT, as the 1983 Act provides, preclusive of parallel criminal action.

 

If the convicted boater proved evasive and in breach of a court order, then a warrant for their arrest could be issued, and once caught they could be sent to prison for contempt of court. There is nothing “derisory” about such implications as attached to the prosecution process. If this judge was correct, then the EA could be considered “powerless to enforce the obligations of those who use” - their – waterways” – and clearly, that is very far from the truth.