CRT Commission

[Bod]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are three different definitions of houseboat (which are not the same)

 

1) The VAT definition

2) Local Authority planning requirements

3) C&RT definition

 

 

I'm not sure I agree that we only have two licence categories - we already have a 'Leisure' licence, a 'commercial' boat licence, a Rivers Only Licence. and now a 'Continuous Cruiser' (no home mooring) licence, but, if we assume you are correct, then we could have :

 

1) "Houseboat" licence (which definition ?) with 2 sub categories - "Non-Moving" & "Moving" (Liveaboards/CCers)

2) Leisure boat licence (Compulsory home mooring) with all the sub categories of length and beam.

Yup!

Definitions C&RT of Houseboat only, in this context.

"Houseboat" licence definition may have to have the legal C&RT definition altered by Parliment to allow.

Without writing reams of explanation there are only the two licences, with as you point out have various sub sections. ( As you know the "Rivers only licence" is not a licence at all it is a Certificate.)

Bod

[junior]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But it is so badly written it leaves itself open to various interpretations - for example (as highligted by a Judge)

 

You cannot use the same word in a piece of legislation that has 2 different meanings

 

"Place" in one paragraph is defined as being the space that the boat occupies (ie you have a place for your boat if it is on your front lawn) and in another paragraph it is a 'large area' - typically taken to be a 'Parish' or 'moving a couple of kilometres' would be moving to 'another place'

 

Who cares.

 

Buy a boat, move a bit every few weeks. Don't take the piss. 

 

Or get a home mooring, but when you leave that mooring still move a bit every few weeks.

 

I find it quite simple really.

 

I find it hilarious that week after week, month after month, year after year, the same people can still be bothered to debate their interpretation of 'parish', 'place', 'satisfy the board', 'bona fide', 'reasonable in the circumstances'. 

 

Yawn yawn. 

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by junior

[magnetman]

Although it is just a tick in a box the 'Contrinuous Cruiser' licence does effectively exist. 

 

I pointed out quite a while ago that the migration of the words 'Continuous Cruiser'  from colloquial slang used by boaters and the navigation authority to official wording on government websites was the beginning of big changes. 

 

Looks like it is just that. 

 

Too many people doing it = regulatons change to stop the growth. 

 

I wonder what actual problem has been identified as a likely outcome if nothing was changed. 

 

Is it just canals turning into linear housing estates or something more serious relating to larger number of people living non conventional lifestyles without the normal connections to society? 

 

I think this could be part of a slum clearance policy. 

 

 

[Tonka]

18 minutes ago, StevieN said:

Except for the fact that most leisure moorings are just that - for people to moor their boats to use occasionally. Most have little to no facilities that a liveaboard boater would need - access to water/elsan/electricity etc. Those are few and far between.

 

You will know, having seemingly admitting you avoided it for years, that a residential mooring requires you to pay council tax.

Making someone homeless is a bizarre statement to make and certainly does have to do with CRT when it comes to a liveaboard boater, and as I allude to, this is possibly an area that the Commission will be looking at with regards any legal complications and implications.

But van dwellers can be made homeless if their van is not taxed or MOT,d

So why not a boat dweller if they have no BSS or Licence

[magnetman]

 

 

Is it a fluke this is happening under Labour? Is there a Labour bigwig somewhere looking at a favela on their favourite bit of towpath? 

3 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But van dwellers can be made homeless if their van is not taxed or MOT,d

So why not a boat dweller if they have no BSS or Licence

 

I think there is a law saying living in a road vehicle is actually illegal in the first place. 

 

Might be wrong and happy to be corrected. 

 

Ah. Not quite illegal just more difficult. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has strengthened police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments, making it a criminal offense to reside on land without permission

Edited December 17, 2024 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Bod said:

Then approach the Local Authorities with the idea of more offical on line moorings, with residential planning permission, also more marina resdential PP.

These would of course attract Council Tax and mooring fees, both to be set at attractive costs.

 

Therin lies the problem - in the boaters survey a large percentage of CCers stated that they CC'd because they could not afford a mooring, particularly in the 'hot spots'.

 

52% Of liveaboards said that lower cost was the reason they became CCers

53% Of liveaboards said that a lower cost was the motivation for continuing boating

44% of CCers said that the current licemce fees were good value for money.

[junior]

2 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But van dwellers can be made homeless if their van is not taxed or MOT,d

So why not a boat dweller if they have no BSS or Licence

Really?

 

How?

[Bod]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

But van dwellers can be made homeless if their van is not taxed or MOT,d

So why not a boat dweller if they have no BSS or Licence

Section 7 1983 Act, yes they can.

Bod.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, junior said:

Buy a boat, move a bit every few weeks. Don't take the piss. 

 

Unfortunately, members of the human race tend to 'take the piss' at every opportunity if it results in personal benefit.

 

If everyone was sensible and considerate we wouldn't need laws.

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Therin lies the problem - in the boaters survey a large percentage of CCers stated that they CC'd because they could not afford a mooring, particularly in the 'hot spots'.

 

Supply and demand, innit.  There's probably a lot of (especially) the London boaters would be delighted to have a mooring if such a thing was available near where they need to be based.

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Therin lies the problem - in the boaters survey a large percentage of CCers stated that they CC'd because they could not afford a mooring, particularly in the 'hot spots'.

 

52% Of liveaboards said that lower cost was the reason they became CCers

53% Of liveaboards said that a lower cost was the motivation for continuing boating

44% of CCers said that the current licemce fees were good value for money.

 

If someone genuinely can not afford accommodation costs ie rent or a mooring the state will help. The housing element of Universal Credit will pay mooring fees if you can demonstrate eligibility and get a letter from the mooring operator. 

 

[IanD]

9 hours ago, LadyG said:

I anticipate it would take  four years or more to effect major changes, even if it were to happen. so im not too worried. 

I think weve been over the licence costs v the cost of keeping the network going.

Hiking the costs will reduce the numbers , so its not going to work any better than the current costing structure and could have adverse unintended consequences.

As for MtB with his unlimited wealth, i dont see why he thinks everyone is in that position. Looking around me, it is evident that those who cc all year round are genuine liveaboards. There may be people who drive 200 miles to move their boats, but they must be outliers, and wont be doing that for long, its not economic or pleasureable.

This is not a northern problem, its Londoncentric, and its a housing problem which will not be solved in the next ten years, if ever.

 

Boating license fees are like any other pricing or fee structure or tax, there's an optimum level which maximises income, and this usually involves differential charging -- see pricing for flights/trains, the Laffer curve for taxes and so on. As the price goes up, as the cost becomes more painful more and more people leave or find an alternative -- but if hardly anyone is actually leaving as opposed to moaning, the price is obviously too low.

 

I don't think anyone can realistically argue that CART license fees are already too high, given the number of people -- increasing every year -- who use it as a cheap lifestyle. If CART want to maximise their income from the license fee -- which they may be forced to do given their financial constraints -- then there's no doubt that they should increase the average fee significantly, and also increase the differential between different boaters so that those who use the system more or take more space up on it should pay more, this is a basic business principle (price differentiation).

 

@LadyG  is correct to say that this will reduce boater numbers, because if it doesn't the license fee is still too low -- but it will increase license fee income to CART, because the numbers leaving will be more than compensated for by the increased income from those who stay.

 

If by "unintended consequences" she means driving poorer boaters off the canals -- thought where they would go that's cheaper isn't obvious -- then this will happen to some extent because boating will become more expensive -- though there are ways to help out people like this such as age-related discounts (boats not people!).

 

The problem is that the system today is not working, so something must change -- and that seems to be what this commission is being set up to decide on, possibly with legal changes. Since so many boaters have been complaining for many years that the system is broken and CART are doing nothing to fix it, it seems silly to complain about this... 😉 

Edited December 17, 2024 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

There's probably a lot of (especially) the London boaters would be delighted to have a mooring if such a thing was available near where they need to be based.

 

No this was covered, a majority said that even if there were moorings available they could not afford them (at 'London rates).

We are regularly being reminded (by forum members) that a large number of boaters in 'London' are minimum wage 'service staff' who can only afford to live there if they CC (or claim to CC)

[magnetman]

Maybe the CRT should consider some alternative signage. 

 

Instead of 'Happiness may rise to explosive levels' 

 

They could have 

 

'If you live on a Boat you might fall in and drown in horrible freezing cold water full of rubbish' 

 

or

 

'If you live on a Boat on the towpath someone is going to break in and steal all your possessions and your fire, in winter'. 

 

Realistic rather than happy clappy trashy stuff. To put people off ! 

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No this was covered, a majority said that even if there were moorings available they could not afford them (at 'London rates).

We are regularly being reminded (by forum members) that a large number of boaters in 'London' are minimum wage 'service staff' who can only afford to live there if they CC (or claim to CC)

 

Yes, that's the supply and demand case.  There basically aren't any moorings in that Lunnon, so the odd hen's tooth that becomes available goes for silly money. 

 

Anyone on minimum wage can't even look at a mooring that's more than their annual income.  Charge them a tenner a day to not have to move the boat and you're in reasonable unserviced mooring charge range.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

If someone genuinely can not afford accommodation costs ie rent or a mooring the state will help. The housing element of Universal Credit will pay mooring fees if you can demonstrate eligibility and get a letter from the mooring operator. 

 

 

In my experience (admittedly only one LA) they also pay the licence fee and the BSS, as they are all costs that need to be paid to 'run a house'.

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

Charge them a tenner a day to not have to move the boat and you're in reasonable unserviced mooring charge range.

 

To someone who has a lot of month left at the end of their money an extra £300 per month /  £3650 pa is not easy to find 

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

 Charge them a tenner a day to not have to move the boat and you're in reasonable unserviced mooring charge range.

 

obvious issue with that is all the best towpath moorings would be taken within 5 seconds. 

 

OK... They are taken anyway so yes the tenner a day makes sense but it would add to the entitlement issue and just cause more problems.

 

Regional tolls based on the number of hours the Boat remains in a particular area would be interesting but difficult to enforce of course. 

 

It should cost more to use the Boat in areas of high demand. Basic economics. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you arrr getting a huge pile of Boats somewhere then it is obviously a desirable place and you should be able to charge more for it.

 

 

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, Bod said:

British waterways Act 1995

Section 17, para 3 (c)

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The only unclear part of this legislation is what it would take to "satisfies the Board" should  C&RT issue guidelines then all would be clear.

Should C&RT decide to use the Bylaws that are already in place then no other T&C's etc would be needed.

The guide to satisfy the Board, could state that all boats must be blue with yellow spots, the applicant would then know what is expected.  A distance of 27 miles must be covered each month.

 

Bod

 

 

 

The huge gap in the above is where a boater satisfies (i) but routinely moors for extended periods elsewhere. Note the 14 days strictly only applies to (ii). On its own, the statutory definition does not prevent the use of ghost moorings or multiple 'occupancy'. 

 

Another gap is if a boater contracts with a mooring operator on the basis that they will provide a mooring, but not specific one on the site and then, like most airlines, over-books, taking advantage of past experience of demand.

 

There are other  cases where folk have sought to push the limits. 

 

The larger problem is over enforcement and what CaRT (or any other navigation authority) can do in the event of transgression. I know of cases where a boater, knowing the loopholes, keeps an enforcement action going, unenforced, for years, even a decade. (Note that this not unknown in the case of bricks and mortar renting as well) One of the biggest issues is that action is hard when faced with a boater without means, short of actual possession. 

 

Another challenge is to find ways of bringing the costs of enforcement under control by permitting the use of technology to reduce - as has happened with road vehicle monitoring. (It might also bring benefits in cases like the Lord Gadbury)

[TheBiscuits]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

OK... They are taken anyway so yes the tenner a day makes sense but it would add to the entitlement issue and just cause more problems

 

If they are paying a tenner a day for a mooring then it's their mooring.  I'm not sure what the "entitlement issues" might be then - they would genuinely be entitled to stay there subject to T&C's.

 

Note that currently CRT are not legally allowed to do this for fully residential moorings.

[Mike Todd]

41 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Although it is just a tick in a box the 'Contrinuous Cruiser' licence does effectively exist. 

 

I pointed out quite a while ago that the migration of the words 'Continuous Cruiser'  from colloquial slang used by boaters and the navigation authority to official wording on government websites was the beginning of big changes. 

 

Looks like it is just that. 

 

Too many people doing it = regulatons change to stop the growth. 

 

I wonder what actual problem has been identified as a likely outcome if nothing was changed. 

 

Is it just canals turning into linear housing estates or something more serious relating to larger number of people living non conventional lifestyles without the normal connections to society? 

 

I think this could be part of a slum clearance policy. 

 

 

There have long been two types of slum clearance: the first stems from a social concern about people living in unsafe or insanitary conditions. This was the predominant reason in earlier parts of 20C and also post war.

 

The second is where one part of society thinks that someone else's life style is not to their taste and seeks to have people evicted on the bases of their homes being slums.

 

There are many boats on the network that would long ago have been declared a slum - and over-crowded. However. much of the current debate has its roots in the second strand above.

 

Discriminating between the two can drive public officials mad!

43 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Therin lies the problem - in the boaters survey a large percentage of CCers stated that they CC'd because they could not afford a mooring, particularly in the 'hot spots'.

 

52% Of liveaboards said that lower cost was the reason they became CCers

53% Of liveaboards said that a lower cost was the motivation for continuing boating

44% of CCers said that the current licemce fees were good value for money.

It would also open the way for towpath neighbours to object to the planning permission. (One element in the debate might lie in the provision of bsaic services, water, sewerage and electricity, especially if smokeless zones are involved)

[TheBiscuits]

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

To someone who has a lot of month left at the end of their money an extra £300 per month /  £3650 pa is not easy to find 

 

I agree, but not everyone living on a boat is a single person on minimum wage.  And that's just over a month's worth of flat rental in London if you don't want housemates, so a lot easier to find than £25k out of a £24k income!

[magnetman]

9 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There have long been two types of slum clearance: the first stems from a social concern about people living in unsafe or insanitary conditions. This was the predominant reason in earlier parts of 20C and also post war.

 

The second is where one part of society thinks that someone else's life style is not to their taste and seeks to have people evicted on the bases of their homes being slums.

 

There are many boats on the network that would long ago have been declared a slum - and over-crowded. However. much of the current debate has its roots in the second strand above.

 

Discriminating between the two can drive public officials mad!

It would also open the way for towpath neighbours to object to the planning permission. (One element in the debate might lie in the provision of bsaic services, water, sewerage and electricity, especially if smokeless zones are involved)

 

i had a Boat on a residential mooring below flats from 2012 to 2022. It was interesting to investigate the original planning permission. It specifically included a requirement that no smoke or dust was emitted from the Boats. All 3 Boats had multifuel stoves. We emitted more than a small amount of smoke and nothing happened. 

 

14 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

If they are paying a tenner a day for a mooring then it's their mooring.  I'm not sure what the "entitlement issues" might be then - they would genuinely be entitled to stay there subject to T&C's.

 

Note that currently CRT are not legally allowed to do this for fully residential moorings.

How would you select where people were allowed to moor? 

 

You seem to mean allowing people to occupy specific parts of the towpath for £10 a day. Its obvious this would cause a bias and when I say 'entitlement' I mean the attitude that it is their piece of towpath to the exclusion of others and difficulty removing them if and when policies change or they stop paying. 

 

You seem to be advocating creation of a lot more permanent moorings on the towpath. Interesting idea but how exactly do you prioritise who gets the best moorings ? 

 

 

 

I think a better approach would be to close the towpath moorings and create more marinas where people can live on their Boats. 

 

I know this is an old BW policy but it is actually quite sensible. People annexing part of what is in fact a permitted public right of way and blocking the mooring / view of the ducks is not in the interests of most canal users. Most canal users want to see Boats moving and wildlife. Not endless lines of moorings..

 

By all means do more offside moorings but the towpath is a public amenity not a housing estate. 

 

The towpath is actually quite a precious public resource especially in urban areas. 

 

[TheBiscuits]

23 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You seem to be advocating creation of a lot more permanent moorings on the towpath. Interesting idea but how exactly do you prioritise who gets the best moorings ? 

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.  As is the case everywhere else, more desirable and possibly serviced (water, elsan, bins) cost more so boaters would choose what worked best for them 

 

Personally I'd allocate them as first come first served at a fixed price rather than auction a very limited number of moorings as is done currently - add an element of luck and awareness rather than just the deepest pockets getting their own way.

[Alan de Enfield]

48 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

it would also open the way for towpath neighbours to object to the planning permission. (One element in the debate might lie in the provision of bsaic services, water, sewerage and electricity, especially if smokeless zones are involved)

 

Without going back and checking I seem to remember that part of the planning definition of a houseboat is a permanent connection to utilities (sewage, water and electricity).

[Ian Mac]

1 hour ago, junior said:

I never fail to be amazed that people still have the inclination to argue about the wording and interpretation of the 95 Act on here 😂

Thats because until a judge rules what the law actually is, the act is open for lawyers and others to discuss what the wordings actually mean. C&RT have been careful not to get judgements made, as the judge may make things more difficult. This is how English law operates. Parliament create or modify laws, lawyers interpret them, and judges rule on them. Only once they have gone through the whole process, can there be some certainly of what the law actually is, and even then there may be more discussion between the lawyers and the judges to provide firmer interpretation. 
Or Parliament may become involved and change the rules, and the starting position.