Moorings question - please help update my knowledge...

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's still tough on the genuine CCers , who aren't as rare as all that and some if whome have been pottering about for years. But that's the curse of those who try to game the system and bollocks it up for everyone else.

Agreed, but given how the number of CC licenses has increased massively in the last 10 years or so and that has coincided with the congestion from boats-that-don't-move in popular areas -- and all the "I saved so much money by moving onto a boat" lifestyle puff-pieces -- the inevitable conclusion is that most so-called CCers are now really CMers, and these far outnumber the "real CCers" who don't game the system... 😞 

 

Maybe CRT could find a way of separating out the two if they tried -- for example charge all of them the higher CMer fee, but then give a rebate to "real CCers" who can prove at the end of the year that they've travelled more than [insert distance here].

 

What annual distance travelled do you think would be needed to qualify as a "real CCer"? Or would this have to be "range" (furthest points?) not "distance" to stop CMers shuffling backwards and forwards a few miles every week qualifying? Does a CMer who stays still for 48 weeks of the year but then goes a long way (and back) in a 1-month summer holiday qualify?

 

As soon as you try categorising them it all gets difficult, if you want to identify all the "real CCers" but stop CMers figuring out how to -- well, game the system... 😞 

Edited July 31 by IanD

[LadyG]

4 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I'd suggest this would be unreasonable, but only if you used your boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence'.

 

The current arrangement grew out of the concession to moor occasionally for up to two weeks as part of the bona fide navigation. CMers seized on this and claimed the right to moor 

Restoring or enforcing the concept of bona fide navigation would fix the problem. I'd suggest maybe two or three 14-day stops per year would be more reasonable than 24 x 14 day stops per year currently accepted by CRT. Plus the odd one or two as reasonable under the circumstances, perhaps. Otherwise moving the boat every day would be necessary for CCing. No problem for those genuinely CCing. 

From your thoughts on cc 'rules' it tells us that its actually complex business, and there is likely no rule which will suit everyone.

I am cc, I just don't want to live in a marina. 

In summer Im fine with moving when it suits me, which will likely be about three or four times a fortnight. When  I find a nice mooring or i have a shore based reason to stay,  im not really willing to leave the next day, after all I've only just arrived!

Its not the journey that patricularly appeals, its the countryside locations.

This last twelve months I moved 26 times, hmmmm, but three months were on a marina mooring plus Ive had other reasons requiring sets of fourteen days in one location, and one (agreed) overstay during the heatwave, These things happen. I dont want to feel I am being harassed by some committee decision, or have to request regular overstays.

The rules currently in force caused me to move on to the cut, I dont think people like me have created any problems. 

I never move very far, and if " chased" it would likely mean covering further, but I can't see how that would benefit anyone. As it is I can usually avoid stoppages, plan bookings, arrange lockings, at my discretion. 

The 14 day rule requires a spotter to walk the towpath regularly, a two day rule would cost more, and fail to benefit anyone.

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So you agree that the CC licence should have a premium attached to it ....

The additional amount at the moment has been suggested as nowhere near enough.

Oh, who exactly suggested this?

Its nowhere near enough to pay for maintenence and upgrade, but neither can a few thousand boats fork out the  £30 million required....

Pricing boats out of existence is not a profitable strategy.

I dont want a Residential Mooring, but there could be forthcoming changes in Planning and Council Tax, and  CRT rules, which meant that a home moorer could claim from the Govt Benefits system. Making everything more complex and more expensive, a lot of pain, no gain.

Edited July 31 by LadyG

[LadyG]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Given that it seems that only a few CCers actually move round the system and make much use of locks etc -- the majority of CMers move hardly at all -- then this isn't really a valid reason for the "CC surcharge", at least not when most CCers are CMers 

Really?

I dont think I've ever seen bona fide navigation as moving round the whole system. If this were the case the CRT could refuse cc licences to all WB.

Edited July 31 by LadyG

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Really?

I dont think I've ever seen bona fide navigation as moving round the whole system. If this were the case the CRT could refuse cc licences to all WB.

Many wouldsay they should

[LadyG]

If every boat which is essentially a leisure boat but is moved every two weeks had to park up and pay a marina, there would be insufficient parking spaces available. 

Maybe the CRT would designate many more moorings,  charged. However this would, almost certainly target well used moorings, and leave the cc to find others, often less favourable moorings.

In the end, these changes may increase income, but not significantly, as part of the attraction of inland boating is its affordability. Annoying your existing customer base does not work.

 

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Many wouldsay they should

it’s broadly what the law expects too. 

[Arthur Marshall]

40 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Really?

I dont think I've ever seen bona fide navigation as moving round the whole system. If this were the case the CRT could refuse cc licences to all WB.

Not the whole system, no. But you certainly wouldn't expect a genuine continuous cruiser to be on the same canal at the end of the year as the one they started on. Maybe right at the other end of the long ones like the L&L or even the T&M, but even that's pushing it a bit.

I know for sure there are plenty of CCers on the Macc who have been here for years and have never tangled with more than the stop lock in the south, and the ones above Bosley have never been through a lock at all. One guy told me proudly he'd been living on board twenty years and had no idea how to work a lock. All legal, currently, but all pushing the boundaries. I do think a shock may be coming for them, as well as for the total refuseniks.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

Really?

I dont think I've ever seen bona fide navigation as moving round the whole system. If this were the case the CRT could refuse cc licences to all WB.

I never said "round the whole system".

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

I never said "round the whole system".

OK well half the the system, perhaps.

Others think a boat has to be on two canals to qualify!  I think we can see there is an issue ., a divergence of opinion.

Edited July 31 by LadyG

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

Annoying your existing customer base does not work.

Actually there is an argument that this is exactly what CRT should do. In recent years there has been a significant growth in boats licensed without a home mooring, yet the bulk of such craft are not making a continuous journey around a large part of the system, they are moving about in a relatively small area, relocating every 14 days, just far enough to avoid the attention of CRT enforcement.

If CRT wants the balance between home moorers and CCers to return to something like the situation of 20-30 years ago, then it has to make CCing (or at least CMing) sufficiently unattractive, that over time, current CMers will either take a home mooring or move off the waterways altogether, and newbies will be discouraged from taking up the CMing lifestyle. To achieve that will probably require some combination of making Ccing/CMing more expensive and a more rigorous enforcement regime. And the latter will almost certainly require legislation (otherwise it would already have been done). Note that such a cost increase for CMers should be set at a level to discourage the lifestyle, and need not be justified in terms of the extra cost of such boats to CRT.

Any such approach will inevitably annoy part of the existing customer base.

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Actually there is an argument that this is exactly what CRT should do. In recent years there has been a significant growth in boats licensed without a home mooring, yet the bulk of such craft are not making a continuous journey around a large part of the system, they are moving about in a relatively small area, relocating every 14 days, just far enough to avoid the attention of CRT enforcement.

If CRT wants the balance between home moorers and CCers to return to something like the situation of 20-30 years ago, then it has to make CCing (or at least CMing) sufficiently unattractive, that over time, current CMers will either take a home mooring or move off the waterways altogether, and newbies will be discouraged from taking up the CMing lifestyle. To achieve that will probably require some combination of making Ccing/CMing more expensive and a more rigorous enforcement regime. And the latter will almost certainly require legislation (otherwise it would already have been done). Note that such a cost increase for CMers should be set at a level to discourage the lifestyle, and need not be justified in terms of the extra cost of such boats to CRT.

Any such approach will inevitably annoy part of the existing customer base.

Already posts on FB that with the stoppages can people stay put and not move every 14 days 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

Maybe the CRT would designate many more moorings,  charged. However this would, almost certainly target well used moorings, and leave the cc to find others, often less favourable moorings.

The sensible thing would be for CRT to set up moorings where people want to moor and charge for them, forcing fake CCers to use them. Such moorings would need to be within reasonable distance of facilities, shops etc. If CCers who don't want to move much have to live on "less favourable" moorings, that's just the price they have to pay for their lifestyle. You can't claim to want a cruising lifestyle if you don't cruise.

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Any such approach will inevitably annoy part of the existing customer base.

 

In fact annoying the CMing section of the customer base in order to drive them off the cut would be the whole point of such an approach.

 

 

[Bod]

11 hours ago, Tentface said:

 

Without wanting to go off topic too much... We pay over £1K per month plus CT for a mortgage on a 3 bed Victorian house in a cheap town in Merseyside and feel wage trapped. Houses fill up with stuff! I used to move house with a rucksac on a train 20 years ago, and up until a few years ago, could fit everything I own in a Fiat Panda. When I lived in a 12 foot caravan during the lockdown, I was so much happier, even in winter when I had to walk across icy grass to the nearest toilet. My partner wants to quit his job and earn less, but we can't afford to with this mortgage. He can afford to if he moves into a housing co-op or lodges with a friend. Owning property hasn't given us any financial stability - quite the opposite. We are also trapped indoors every year from mid October to early January, because we never know when fireworks are going to go off in the street. We hate living on a street!

No. Except winter, perhaps? I understand that boats don't move in winter for practical reasons, and for closures. Largely depends on what job I do next. Currently work in retail part time over multiple sites and am a writer part time.

Looking into all options at the moment. Preference would be to buy a boat, CC for a while, while looking for a home mooring, then pounce. But this may not be the most sensible option, and that's why I'm researching it.

C&RT, like British Waterways before them, are a creature of Statue, meaning there are laws stating exactly what they can do, hence the Waterways Acts of 1971/84 etc, so any changes to the current situation will need a lot of parliamentary time to create a new Act.  Change in a hurry is unlikely to happen.

 Also there are current Bylaws (from 1966) governing the waterways, which should C&RT enforce, as the EA do on their waters, then many attitudes would change.  A breach of the Bylaws would put you in front of a magistrate, if found guilty, would give you a criminal record, any non payment of Court fines could be dealt with a Contempt of Court order leading to arrest.

In short, C&RT do have all the powers needed to run the waterways, but chose not to use many of them.

 

Bod. 

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Bod said:

C&RT, like British Waterways before them, are a creature of Statue, meaning there are laws stating exactly what they can do, hence the Waterways Acts of 1971/84 etc, so any changes to the current situation will need a lot of parliamentary time to create a new Act.  Change in a hurry is unlikely to happen.

 Also there are current Bylaws (from 1966) governing the waterways, which should C&RT enforce, as the EA do on their waters, then many attitudes would change.  A breach of the Bylaws would put you in front of a magistrate, if found guilty, would give you a criminal record, any non payment of Court fines could be dealt with a Contempt of Court order leading to arrest.

In short, C&RT do have all the powers needed to run the waterways, but chose not to use many of them.

 

Bod. 

 

 

While I approve of the general thrust of your post Bod, may I enquire which by-law(s) CRT could use but don't, to put the wind up the massive contingent of piss-taking CMers currently who ought to be CCing? 

[Bod]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

While I approve of the general thrust of your post Bod, may I enquire which by-law(s) CRT could use but don't, to put the wind up the massive contingent of piss-taking CMers currently who ought to be CCing? 

Bw Act 1995,part III section 18 (3)

Obstruction by vessels

(1)No person shall moor or otherwise leave a vessel on an inland waterway so as to cause obstruction or hindrance to navigation or to the free passage of persons or vehicles over and along the towing path beside the inland waterway.

(2)Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes subsection (1) above in such a way as to cause, or give rise to the risk of, injury to any person or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3)Any vessel moored or allowed to remoor in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be deemed to be a relevant craft for the purpose of section 8 (Removal of vessels) of the Act of 1983 or, in Scotland, a vessel for the purposes of section 19 (As to vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned) of the [1958 c. xliv.] British Transport Commission Act 1958.

 

 

In effect an overstaying boat on a mooring  could be deemed an "obstacle" then if the boat doesn't move  then a Section 8 Removal can be done.

50 hours on a 48hour mooring, and you've lost your boat, mate.  The power is there.

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Bod said:

Bw Act 1995,part III section 18 (3)

Obstruction by vessels

(1)No person shall moor or otherwise leave a vessel on an inland waterway so as to cause obstruction or hindrance to navigation or to the free passage of persons or vehicles over and along the towing path beside the inland waterway.

(2)Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes subsection (1) above in such a way as to cause, or give rise to the risk of, injury to any person or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3)Any vessel moored or allowed to remoor in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be deemed to be a relevant craft for the purpose of section 8 (Removal of vessels) of the Act of 1983 or, in Scotland, a vessel for the purposes of section 19 (As to vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned) of the [1958 c. xliv.] British Transport Commission Act 1958.

 

 

In effect an overstaying boat on a mooring  could be deemed an "obstacle" then if the boat doesn't move  then a Section 8 Removal can be done.

50 hours on a 48hour mooring, and you've lost your boat, mate.  The power is there.

 

 

Thanks.

 

So broadly, CRT could grow a pair and aggressively use the obstruction law in a similar way the Police do. In the way anyone making a PITA of themselves in public gets arrested for "obstruction" of the 1ft square of pavement they are being a PITA on. 

 

I very much support this idea. 

 

 

[Bod]

Have a read of the Bylaws, there’s not much that can't be dealt with, C&RT don't need T&C's the power is already there.

No registration number, no name, no displayed licence, the answer is there.

 

Bod.

[MtB]

35 minutes ago, Bod said:

Have a read of the Bylaws, there’s not much that can't be dealt with, C&RT don't need T&C's the power is already there.

No registration number, no name, no displayed licence, the answer is there.

 

Bod.

 

The one I liked in particular is the one that says no boat is to be used as a dwelling without permission.

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

The one I liked in particular is the one that says no boat is to be used as a dwelling without permission.

 

 

 

 

Permission given on receipt of £5000, renewable annually.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Permission given on receipt of £5000, renewable annually.

 

Really?

 

Half the price of renting a studio flat nowadays! 

 

 

Total bargain.

 

Not that CMers would even approach understanding this fact.

 

 

[Joe1959]

I am retired, the wife and I were thinking of buying a Narrowboat, well we are past the thinking, we are going to do it, don't want to be to far away from Burton upon Trent, so we can visit the grandkids, so were thinking of having mooring but cruising a lot as that makes sense, need to come back to a base to pick up insulin on a regular basis, so we are finding out all about moorings.

We will buy in January as we were going to buy in November and just stay in a boatyard and do what needed done in the boat before we start crusing in the spring, but then we found ,out the Boatyard we prefer will most likley have no place as there is a scramble for moorings after September.

Before we started looking into Narrowboats we assumed there would be plenty moorings available, now we are aware that finding a mooring is like finding a parking space in a Tesco carpark.

"all the best"

Joe

[LadyG]

3 hours ago, Joe1959 said:

I am retired, the wife and I were thinking of buying a Narrowboat, well we are past the thinking, we are going to do it, don't want to be to far away from Burton upon Trent, so we can visit the grandkids, so were thinking of having mooring but cruising a lot as that makes sense, need to come back to a base to pick up insulin on a regular basis, so we are finding out all about moorings.

We will buy in January as we were going to buy in November and just stay in a boatyard and do what needed done in the boat before we start crusing in the spring, but then we found ,out the Boatyard we prefer will most likley have no place as there is a scramble for moorings after September.

Before we started looking into Narrowboats we assumed there would be plenty moorings available, now we are aware that finding a mooring is like finding a parking space in a Tesco carpark.

"all the best"

Joe

You can arrange to have prescriptions issued to any pharmacy, if that is any help.

Its not clear from your post whether thus will be a full time liveaboard or a leisure craft. 

Keeping a boat in a marina is generally more convenient but also more expensive as the services are provided.

On 30/07/2026 at 15:44, Bee said:

Just a quick note. It is very difficult to comply with every byelaw, regulation and whim that is required. With the best will in the world you will be doing something wrong but don't worry, everybody else except the most pedantic and nitpicking know all will be doing the same. Keep it licenced and comply with the common sense stuff and you will be pretty much trouble free.

The rules are there to prevent selfish, reckless and illegal behaviour. It's not a pick n and mix situation.

Boats should be licenced and insured., with BSC.

To comply with terms and conditions of licence.

don't moor on the lock landing,

don't moor on the waterpoint,

one hour on the waterpoint

two day mooring notices

Which of these whims do you advise anyone to disregard?

Edited August 1 by LadyG

[LadyG]

10 hours ago, Bod said:

C&RT, like British Waterways before them, are a creature of Statue, meaning there are laws stating exactly what they can do, hence the Waterways Acts of 1971/84 etc, so any changes to the current situation will need a lot of parliamentary time to create a new Act.  Change in a hurry is unlikely to happen.

 Also there are current Bylaws (from 1966) governing the waterways, which should C&RT enforce, as the EA do on their waters, then many attitudes would change.  A breach of the Bylaws would put you in front of a magistrate, if found guilty, would give you a criminal record, any non payment of Court fines could be dealt with a Contempt of Court order leading to arrest.

In short, C&RT do have all the powers needed to run the waterways, but chose not to use many of them.

 

Bod. 

 

Probably it's not cost effective, not only losing the licence fee, if paid, but all the time spent on visits, making sure the owner / keeper gets all the legal paperwork,  paying for lawyers, barristers, to discover there is no financial recovery, more likely, further costs.

There also is the security aspect for staff engaging with these people, (there has been at least  one incident), and CRT have to ensure their own staff are not put in danger. These are not reasonable,  law abiding people.

Edited August 1 by LadyG

[Bee]

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

 

The rules are there to prevent selfish, reckless and illegal behaviour. It's not a pick n and mix situation.

Boats should be licenced and insured., with BSC.

To comply with terms and conditions of licence.

don't moor on the lock landing,

don't moor on the waterpoint,

one hour on the waterpoint

two day mooring notices

Which of these whims do you advise anyone to disregard?

As I said, Keep it licenced and comply with the common sense stuff. That is a list of the common sense stuff, I would also add , don't build a shed on the bank and keep a great big slavering hound on a chain that frightens the hell out of people on the towpath.  As for two day mooring notices I find them annoying, a polite request to people to move on and make space for others would probably be just as effective. 

Edited August 1 by Bee