CRT Commission

[Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Trackers would be the obvious way.

 

(If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear from the trackers.)

Not true

@Alan de Enfield They do bully the CCers.

I have a complete GPS tagged log &

I'm currently trying to dispute a bogus Overstay Notice. CRT are being extremely evasive & uncooperative. My next step is the Waterways Ombudsman 

Edited December 24, 2024 by Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch

[magnetman]

the latter intended to

cover a small group of truly nomadic boaters who navigated continuously

around the network, typically carrying and delivering goods as their

predecessors had done for over 100 years,"

 

 

Err. No! 

 

I was a real continuous cruiser on the canals from 1995 until 2005. I did see quite a lot of other people doing it and very few of them were traders. 

 

Its basically something one can do if one is not tied to work or family. 

 

Yes there are roving traders but I really don't think they were 'typical' or following a traditional lifestyle.

 

Its rather ironic to protect people who are demonstrating financial independence from price rises while applying rises to those who 1.Need somewhere to live and 2. need to work. 

 

It should be the other way round ! 

 

 

 

 

To be fair BW did regularly send out warnings that having children or geolocated jobs would mean cc ing would not be feasible. There was a lot of literature about that. 

 

So its not that people have not been warned. Its a basically insecure lifestyle if you only have the Boat and nowhere to keep it permanently. 

 

It is obvious things will not stay the same forever. Risk taking is risk taking. 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Dave123 said:

Ah thanks, I had missed the link to that. So it does seems to be mostly about enforcement. If it is enforcement of the current rules (with presumably a specific minimum cruising range defined) then I would hope everyone is in agreement. 

 

If they seek to significantly increase the expected cruising range I can see a lot of objections, mostly on the Western K&A, as opposed to London. In London it's easy to go significantly further than the current ~20 miles that is bandied about as what CRT expect, and still be within the city or suburbs. On the K&A, a significant increase will mean many more boats going up Caen hill, as currently I believeit is just about possible to satisfy CRTs requirements by moving between Bristol and the bottom of Caen hill (Foxhangers). I'm not actually sure this is in anyone's interest. As an occasional summer visitor every 2 or 3 years, my observations of the Western K&A are: 1) this extra movement would be mostly in the summer, as the flight shuts most winters, and most summer there is barely enough water in the summit and long pound with the few boats that do use the flight.

2) the "long pound" also has limited moorings so can't really take a big influx of extra boats, it can already be pretty hard to get mooring here (the banks are generally too shallow for easy 'wild mooring').

 

Enforcement of 14 days or the shorter time limits achieves the same effect of making boats circulate and giving visiting boats a fair chance at prime moorings. Hopefully something they consider, (ie I hope CRT are thinking about the specifics of any changes they bring in...doubling or tripling the range in the midlands doesn't particularly change anything for anyone, or present any challenges, to be honest Birmingham needs a liveaboard community like London, to make the canals outside Gas street feel safe and look interesting 🤣)

 

But I believe it is partly due to the specific geography and infrastructure of the Western K&A, ie the popularity of Bath/Bristol combined with the "natural barrier" of Caen hill, that has caused the density of boats there. It's still easy enough getting moorings there provided you aren't expecting to arrive at 8pm outside the pub. More money for facilities is the main thing required, making all those boats go further along the K&A doesn't particularly solve anything (in my opinion as an unbiased outsider/visitor🤣)

You miss one important factor: if residential; boats are able to stay in one place for an extended period, not officially but through lack of enforcement, they tend as a matter of nature, to spread out onto the bank and towpath. One of the driving factors in the enforcement initiative two or three years back on the K&A was to establish sufficient movement that avoided this behaviour. Sometimes, in the off season (and in the main season but much less often) is to take up a labelled VM on an extended basis and then to use it as house people do with their garage or attic. I believe that, at least until now, CaRT have been less concerned about what distance constitutes bona fide navigation around the network than that boaters move from one mooring to another and take their belongings with them.

 

This is not a view regarding individual lifestyle choices - and some boats defy physics in their ability to stay afloat - but ensuring that all users can live together in reasonable harmony. For the most part, this is what happens and in a very sociable way, only the very few that go over an almost invisible barrier, create the tensions.

44 minutes ago, Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch said:

Not true

@Alan de Enfield They do bully the CCers.

I have a complete GPS tagged log &

I'm currently trying to dispute a bogus Overstay Notice. CRT are being extremely evasive & uncooperative. My next step is the Waterways Ombudsman 

I am really sorry that you are in this position. In my experience, most erroneous overstay notices are down to the fact that monitoring at a level really required to establish cruising patterns of every boat is very expensive and beyond the resources of CaRT, certainly without imposing costs or intrusion onto freedom of movement. I am aware of a good number of boaters who have received a notice that they consider inappropriate and in almost all cases, CaRT have been very willing to update their records and to withdraw any effect that the notice might have.

 

Equally, I know those who have been drifting ever closer to overstaying and the Notice is a useful wake up call. Whilst they are understandably upset they also recognise that they were at fault - but may contest that they 'were doing no-one any harm'. I did however, come across one case where someone was getting quite irate with a checker as he came around on a different day of the week from expected and clocked him staying that extra day!

 

Increasing use of IT to reduce coast and/or increase effectiveness, does mean that flexibility needs intervention from higher up the organisation. Pressure on space and resources will mean that the monitoring of moorings will become like car parks where punitive charges are issued without human intervention. At least we can be thankful that at the moment only Overstay Notices are issued like this.

 

What some folk do seem to think is that 14 days is a minimum stay not a maximum. There is noting preventing a boater moving every 10 days and making very sure that they do not come to the attention of an automated Notice procedure. If there is a real reason for an overstay, it does help if boaters accept the need to engage with CaRT at the earliest possible opportunity - but I know (and so to the Welfare Team) that doing this whilst at the same time coping with a personal trauma, is not easy. 

 

BTW, if you do receive an Overstay Notice that you believe is not justified, you can also make contact with the Waterways Chaplaincy who may be able to establish a more sympathetic reaction on both sides. Nothing beats personal contacts!

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch said:

Not true

@Alan de Enfield They do bully the CCers.

I have a complete GPS tagged log &

I'm currently trying to dispute a bogus Overstay Notice. CRT are being extremely evasive & uncooperative. My next step is the Waterways Ombudsman 

 

I meant for C&RT installation of trackers onto the boat - ones which could not be moved without destroying them.

 

I too would question (further) many boaters DIY tracking - why is it not a record of the GPS movement rather than the boat ?

Maybe it was loaned to another boater for a few weeks allowing the actual owner to not move, but 'be seen to move'.

 

Unfortunately there are boaters that operate 'on the edge' of both morality and legality which mean that 'honest' boaters will be hit by the same scrutiny as the 'freeloaders'.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch]

21 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

You miss one important factor: if residential; boats are able to stay in one place for an extended period, not officially but through lack of enforcement, they tend as a matter of nature, to spread out onto the bank and towpath. One of the driving factors in the enforcement initiative two or three years back on the K&A was to establish sufficient movement that avoided this behaviour. Sometimes, in the off season (and in the main season but much less often) is to take up a labelled VM on an extended basis and then to use it as house people do with their garage or attic. I believe that, at least until now, CaRT have been less concerned about what distance constitutes bona fide navigation around the network than that boaters move from one mooring to another and take their belongings with them.

 

This is not a view regarding individual lifestyle choices - and some boats defy physics in their ability to stay afloat - but ensuring that all users can live together in reasonable harmony. For the most part, this is what happens and in a very sociable way, only the very few that go over an almost invisible barrier, create the tensions.

I am really sorry that you are in this position. In my experience, most erroneous overstay notices are down to the fact that monitoring at a level really required to establish cruising patterns of every boat is very expensive and beyond the resources of CaRT, certainly without imposing costs or intrusion onto freedom of movement. I am aware of a good number of boaters who have received a notice that they consider inappropriate and in almost all cases, CaRT have been very willing to update their records and to withdraw any effect that the notice might have.

 

Equally, I know those who have been drifting ever closer to overstaying and the Notice is a useful wake up call. Whilst they are understandably upset they also recognise that they were at fault - but may contest that they 'were doing no-one any harm'. I did however, come across one case where someone was getting quite irate with a checker as he came around on a different day of the week from expected and clocked him staying that extra day!

 

Increasing use of IT to reduce coast and/or increase effectiveness, does mean that flexibility needs intervention from higher up the organisation. Pressure on space and resources will mean that the monitoring of moorings will become like car parks where punitive charges are issued without human intervention. At least we can be thankful that at the moment only Overstay Notices are issued like this.

 

What some folk do seem to think is that 14 days is a minimum stay not a maximum. There is noting preventing a boater moving every 10 days and making very sure that they do not come to the attention of an automated Notice procedure. If there is a real reason for an overstay, it does help if boaters accept the need to engage with CaRT at the earliest possible opportunity - but I know (and so to the Welfare Team) that doing this whilst at the same time coping with a personal trauma, is not easy. 

 

BTW, if you do receive an Overstay Notice that you believe is not justified, you can also make contact with the Waterways Chaplaincy who may be able to establish a more sympathetic reaction on both sides. Nothing beats personal contacts!

@Mike Todd

I do agree with you. What I find surprising is the lack of professionalism and an amazingly indifferent attitude.

Interestingly, I have been informed that CRT has  no processes that govern the issuing of Overstay Notices

 

 

[Dave123]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It rather depends what you're trying to solve. The simple fact is that over most of the system, and certainly over the congested bits, continuous cruisers rarely do anything that resembles continuous cruising. The majority either use the towpath for a series of short term moorings with movement calculated purely to avoid enforcement or with no movement at all.

There is no argument that some genuinely travel round the system, and I suspect CRT are trying to find a way to treat those fairly while significantly increasing the income from the rest. The blanket CC licence increase of course penalises everyone.

A residential licence, specifically allowing someone to live on their boat would be another blunt instrument, but at least would let CRT get rid of the mostly abandoned dumpers or force them into moorings. And, if those living on choose to do so on the leisure licence, CRT could remove their boats without bothering with the court order (that they don't really need) as the owner had de facto stated they weren't resident. Much cheaper.

Strict enforcement could then be targetted at the residential licence holders, with CRT making towpath mooring available for reasonable rent to those who wanted to stay in a restricted area.

Yes, "solving" this fact that the term "continously cruising " irks so many boaters from all walks, because to them it means 200+ miles a year, would be a start. Calling it a liveaboard licence maybe? Then people can get over the terminology. The reality is these boats exist and forcing them to all sell (which would happen if massive changes were introduced) isn't a win in my opinion.

 

The day places like Bradford on Avon or King's Cross are empty of boats outside the summer holiday seasons is a sad day for the canals. Better to just get enough more money off them that they can (mostly) afford it and get better powers to deal with those that are completely breaking the rules or being a nuisance with rubbish/anti social behaviour etc. Then there will be visitor moorings free for holiday boats and maybe even extra money for maintenance and services. 

 

Clarity of cruising requirements for those with no home mooring would be a good thing of course.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch said:

@Mike Todd

I do agree with you. What I find surprising is the lack of professionalism and an amazingly indifferent attitude.

Interestingly, I have been informed that CRT has  no processes that govern the issuing of Overstay Notices

 

 

 

 

Did you get the section 8 process documenst I emailed ?

[magnetman]

If there was a tick box on the licence application confirming whether the licence holder lives on the Boat as a primary residence I wonder how many would say Yes. 

 

It has advantages and disadvantages. I can't remember the detail but I think one does have to confirm cc or home mooring before a licence is issued. So presumably a similar requirement could be introduced to establish residential status. 

 

 

[Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Did you get the section 8 process documenst I emailed ?

Would you mind sending them again Alan. Nothing received 

[magnetman]

One effect of increasing CRT licensing costs will be a greater number of canal Boats blocking the Thames weirs as more and more people come on the River for the winters. 

Flood risk. Also a good opportunity for salvage companies. 

 

Its already happening. 

[Mike Todd]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Did you get the section 8 process documenst I emailed ?

I suspect there is a difference between a process regarding the issuing of an Overstay Notice and its subsequent enforcement and, on the other hand, a process for determining that an Overstay has occurred.

 

What constitutes sufficient evidence that a boater has not moved in the required number of days (remember that a significant number of liveaboards on the K&A and in London have an agreed adjustment under the Equalities legislation)? Simply seeing a boat in the same place 15 days apart is fraught with problems but, in my observations, does not often result in an immediate Overstay Notice (like it would in a CCTV monitored car park). 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I suspect there is a difference between a process regarding the issuing of an Overstay Notice and its subsequent enforcement and, on the other hand, a process for determining that an Overstay has occurred.

 

Indeed, but as C&RT outlined in their "K&A Project" in 2014/15 they do have a process for issuing notices ; they have letters

Pre CC1 (warning - you are being a bit naughty)

CC1 (last chance before we start formal enforcement)

CC2 (look - we warned you, if you don't start moving we will take your boat off you)

CC3 (we are coming next Monday to sieze your boat)

 

If you look back on C&RTs website for "K&A Project Final Report" you may find the details.

 

A summary table :

 

 

 

The report than shows how many boats :

Fell into line

Moved off C&RT waters

Were sold

etc etc.

 

 

 

 

Section 8 is a very similar process with 'staged' letters but these have a different content - but basically giving 

 

7 days 'grace'

14 days to comply

28 days notice of siezure

 

 

[Jonny P]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I suspect there is a difference between a process regarding the issuing of an Overstay Notice and its subsequent enforcement and, on the other hand, a process for determining that an Overstay has occurred.

 

What constitutes sufficient evidence that a boater has not moved in the required number of days (remember that a significant number of liveaboards on the K&A and in London have an agreed adjustment under the Equalities legislation)? Simply seeing a boat in the same place 15 days apart is fraught with problems but, in my observations, does not often result in an immediate Overstay Notice (like it would in a CCTV monitored car park). 

Being logged on successive occasions in the same place more than 14 days apart will lead to a “reminder to keep moving” letter. I suspect they are automated.

 

I’m wondering if that is what@Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch is referring to as an “overstay” notice or something that’s a stage further on.

 

I’ve had a couple of those letters - both correctly issued - but I’ve had what I considered to be legitimate reasons. One thing that isn’t obvious is who to contact when you realise you will end up overstaying. And when you do you’ll likely get passed around different people. CRT’s admin is a triumph of cock-up over conspiracy.

 

Personally I didn’t consider I was in the enforcement process, just the precursor to it if I didn’t move. Or as happened in both cases was able to ratify the overstay by responding to the contact given in the letter.

 

I also have an erroneous logging of my trade plate and despite mailing what I believe to be the relevant person to get it removed it still shows on my record. It does give me a very broad cruising range. 

 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

29 minutes ago, Jonny P said:

One thing that isn’t obvious is who to contact when you realise you will end up overstaying.

I phone the 

32 minutes ago, Jonny P said:

CRT’s admin is a triumph of cock-up over conspiracy.

that sums it up nicely

Something going wrong with this editing!

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, Dave123 said:

Yes, "solving" this fact that the term "continously cruising " irks so many boaters from all walks, because to them it means 200+ miles a year, would be a start. Calling it a liveaboard licence maybe? Then people can get over the terminology. The reality is these boats exist and forcing them to all sell (which would happen if massive changes were introduced) isn't a win in my opinion.

 

 

Clarity of cruising requirements for those with no home mooring would be a good thing of course.

Im 'up North' i bought a boat for the freedom of choice it gave me, simple rules. I dont really care about home mooring / no mooring. 

I potter along, moving every week to ten days doing my own thing. I could easily range 200m per annum, but at the monent its probably half that, does it matter.

If all the canals were open for navigation 24/7/365 i could potter.

Keep the rules simple 

Edited December 24, 2024 by LadyG

[Momac]

 

It seems to me C&RT have been far too nice for far too long about dealing with overstaying and dealing with unlicensed boats.

No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[magnetman]

A conspiracy theorist might surmise that this has all been arranged in advance. Like giving the kids free crack at the school gates. 

 

Make it attractive and relaxed to live on Boats on the towpaths. Pull in customers. People get used to it being fairly straightforward. 

 

Then you crank up the costs once you have a decent customer base who in a lot of cases may not have that many choices. 

 

If CRT licence was doubled people would probably pay up. 

[Gybe Ho]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

If CRT licence was doubled people would probably pay up. 

 

 

The Thames should be used as a test case.

[magnetman]

CRT is much better value. 2000 miles rather than about 150. 

For my 40x9ft Boat the Thames is about £850 per year and.most of the winter I can't move due to conditions. Not complaining..

A CRT licence would be about £1300 and allow plenty of winter cruising and far more than ten times the available waterway. 

 

 

 

CRT licences, if you do not also have to pay for a mooring and you like exploring, are ridiculously cheap. 

Bargain of the century. 

Having a little scan through the CRT licensing web page this bit was quite amusing. Has someone given the game away ? 

 

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

CRT is much better value. 2000 miles rather than about 150. 

For my 40x9ft Boat the Thames is about £850 per year and.most of the winter I can't move due to conditions. Not complaining..

A CRT licence would be about £1300 and allow plenty of winter cruising and far more than ten times the available waterway. 

 

 

 

CRT licences, if you do not also have to pay for a mooring and you like exploring, are ridiculously cheap. 

Bargain of the century. 

Having a little scan through the CRT licensing web page this bit was quite amusing. Has someone given the game away ? 

 

 

Lol, so just as I suggested upthread. The outcome has alread been decided, web pages written etc etc, and one of the pages published too soon, in error. The commission is being held to rubber-stamp the already-made decision.

[Gybe Ho]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

CRT is much better value. 2000 miles rather than about 150. 

For my 40x9ft Boat the Thames is about £850 per year and.most of the winter I can't move due to conditions. Not complaining..

A CRT licence would be about £1300 and allow plenty of winter cruising and far more than ten times the available waterway. 

 

 

Only partly true in view of the winter closures in CRT Land. However my point is that a pilot program to test your theory that boaters will tolerate a doubling of the license fee is best tested on a small sample because the consequences are smaller if the pilot program fails and net license income falls.

 

Anyhow I know this is all a game to the long-term regulars here, the most outlandish and punitive policy suggestions originate from those who would not be affected. Let's carry on and play fantasy CRT CEO.

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

Only partly true in view of the winter closures in CRT Land. However my point is that a pilot program to test your theory that boaters will tolerate a doubling of the license fee is best tested on a small sample because the consequences are smaller if the pilot program fails and net license income falls.

 

Anyhow I know this is all a game to the long-term regulars here, the most outlandish and punitive policy suggestions originate from those who would not be affected. Let's carry on and play fantasy CRT CEO.

Its the canals that are at risk not the Thames. There are issues on the River but nothing like as serious as the issues facing canals. There is a very real risk of some canals being declassified and ending up derelict. This can happen fast. User pays. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

 

Only partly true in view of the winter closures in CRT Land. However my point is that a pilot program to test your theory that boaters will tolerate a doubling of the license fee is best tested on a small sample because the consequences are smaller if the pilot program fails and net license income falls.

 

Anyhow I know this is all a game to the long-term regulars here, the most outlandish and punitive policy suggestions originate from those who would not be affected. Let's carry on and play fantasy CRT CEO.

 

In 2011 KPMG (who were brought in by DEFRA to evaluate the viability of C&RT taking over from BW) stated that they were only a viable business if they achieved the milestones in their business plans.

They have failed to do that every year since 2012, and now the chickens are finally coming home to roost, they find there is no chicken house for them, and, all the stable doors have been removed and the bolts recycled.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

 

It isn't fantasy CEO it is reality CEO. 

 

The CRT geyser Mr Parry has said on air on an interview that there is a funding crisis which may potentially lead to declassification of canals. 

 

Nobody who uses the canals and cares about them wants this to happen. 

[Gybe Ho]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Its the canals that are at risk not the Thames. 

 

 

The greater risk is the CCer jihad proposed on this forum. Once you have stormed the Winter Palace and have Tzar Parry in custody what is your next move? Is it internment camps for CMERs and CCers?