Roving mooring licence

[sueb]

I haven't seen any discussions on the above topic as mentioned in the licencing consultation. Is it a good idea to charge £500ish to enable continuous moorers to stay in one area? What effect will this have on genuine CCers?

Sue

[dor]

What effect will it have on genuine moorers?

 

I moor on one of BW's cheaper moorings. It is still over £1000 per year. So can I pay £500 and move across the canal to the towpath?

[Continuous cruiser]

I haven't seen any discussions on the above topic as mentioned in the licencing consultation. Is it a good idea to charge £500ish to enable continuous moorers to stay in one area? What effect will this have on genuine CCers?

Sue

Roving Mooring Permit.

 

All boats already have the right to do what a roving mooring permit would allow. The 1995 British Waterways Act does not prohibit a boat from remaining within a defined length of waterway. The Act states that a boat must be genuinely used for navigation throughout the period of the licence and must not remain in the same place for more than 14 days. There is no specific definition of “place” in the Act that prevents a boat from remaining in a defined length of waterway as long as it moves to a different place after 14 days. The Act does not specify that navigation must consist of a “progressive journey”. To insist that a journey must be “progressive” is prescriptive and an interference with freedom of movement to an extent that is not compatible with Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights which confers the right to respect for one’s private life.

 

This is an extract from my post called "BW trying to hide this - respond by 7th Nov", see it below

[dccruiser]

I haven't seen any discussions on the above topic as mentioned in the licencing consultation. Is it a good idea to charge £500ish to enable continuous moorers to stay in one area? What effect will this have on genuine CCers?

Sue

 

 

isn't "roving mooring" a contradiction in terms? Seriously though whatever label you give it , it has been going on since the advent of 14 day moorings. It would be far more pertinent for bwb to start by ridding the system of the countless unlicenced uninsured boats that take up so many stretches of possible moorings that could be used for people such as yourself who want to remain in one area.

[carlt]

It would be far more pertinent for bwb to start by ridding the system of the countless unlicenced uninsured boats that take up so many stretches of possible moorings that could be used for people such as yourself who want to remain in one area.

Errr...isn't the idea to get unlicensed boats licensed?

 

 

And I hardly think a few hundred unlicenced boats quite amounts to "countless" unless you get lost when you run out of digits.

[Lady Muck]

Errr...isn't the idea to get unlicensed boats licensed?

 

 

And I hardly think a few hundred unlicenced boats quite amounts to "countless" unless you get lost when you run out of digits.

 

Are there any unlicensed boats near you? I don't think there are any near me? The ones that were have been sectioned towed and crushed a long time ago..

[carlt]

Are there any unlicensed boats near you? I don't think there are any near me? The ones that were have been sectioned towed and crushed a long time ago..

Well I owned one (don't panic, I reported it!) but the point I'm making is that, if the idea is to remove unlicensed boats, and destroy them, then this will not increase revenue for BW by one penny.

 

BW's aim is to persuade owners of unlicensed boats to get legal, not to destroy their property.

[dccruiser]

there are still unlicenced boats in my area mainly tarpauline covered wrecks .... going back to the mooring debate i pay for a berth in a marina and pay for a licence to use all the bwb facilities which includes the 14 day moorings if i couldnt find a fixed mooring i wouldnt have bought a boat . i was a livaboard in the past andsd paid hefty moorings asa i owned a 72 ' nb . icruise as many weeks a year asican but still have to pay formy berth whether i am there or not then iend up doing 2mph past lines of moored boats looking for somewhere prime to stop especially if i want to stop for longer than 24 hours or i pay again to use a marina visitor mooring

[carlt]

there are still unlicenced boats in my area mainly tarpauline covered wrecks .... going back to the mooring debate i pay for a berth in a marina and pay for a licence to use all the bwb facilities which includes the 14 day moorings if i couldnt find a fixed mooring i wouldnt have bought a boat . i was a livaboard in the past andsd paid hefty moorings asa i owned a 72 ' nb . icruise as many weeks a year asican but still have to pay formy berth whether i am there or not then iend up doing 2mph past lines of moored boats looking for somewhere prime to stop especially if i want to stop for longer than 24 hours or i pay again to use a marina visitor mooring

If all of these "tarpaulin covered wrecks" had discs, under their tarps (how would you know?) then, presumably, you wouldn't complain?

[sueb]

isn't "roving mooring" a contradiction in terms? Seriously though whatever label you give it , it has been going on since the advent of 14 day moorings. It would be far more pertinent for bwb to start by ridding the system of the countless unlicenced uninsured boats that take up so many stretches of possible moorings that could be used for people such as yourself who want to remain in one area.

I didn't say I wanted to stay in one area so why did you?

Sue

 

Can we discuss the topic rather than going on about unlicenced boats please? Responses have to be in by 7th Nov and this topic hasn't been discussed.

If a continuous cruiser wants to stay in one AREA for a month (moving every 14 days) will they be charged a mooring fee? They could then move to another area and be charged again and again. I also agree people could give up their permament moorings and just cruise the 10 or 20 mile area far cheaper.

Sue

[dccruiser]

I didn't say I wanted to stay in one area so why did you?

Sue

 

Can we discuss the topic rather than going on about unlicenced boats please? Responses have to be in by 7th Nov and this topic hasn't been discussed.

If a continuous cruiser wants to stay in one AREA for a month (moving every 14 days) will they be charged a mooring fee? They could then move to another area and be charged again and again. I also agree people could give up their permament moorings and just cruise the 10 or 20 mile area far cheaper.

Sue

 

firstly , appologise for making the asumption... yes i do know what assume makes!

 

As you say it is obviously far cheaper fees wise to c'c rather than take on a permanent mooring and pay for a licence so i dont think for the month someone wants to stop in one place it is too outlandish to ask for some form of mooring fees. As and when i become a c'cer again , should i choose to take a month out during the year i would accept paying for a mooring during that time. Conversely if i wanted to live on my boat and stay in one place i would find a suitable mooring to do that and accept the costs as part of the choice i would be making. I know it isn't a popular veiw but although the loophole exists to bridge hop i don't agree with it. I choose to own a boat and whatever purpose i put it to i pay for that choice. If it is too prohibitive financially for someone to pay their way to live on the water , then they should consider a different lifestyle.

[Lady Muck]

I didn't say I wanted to stay in one area so why did you?

Sue

 

Can we discuss the topic rather than going on about unlicenced boats please? Responses have to be in by 7th Nov and this topic hasn't been discussed.

If a continuous cruiser wants to stay in one AREA for a month (moving every 14 days) will they be charged a mooring fee? They could then move to another area and be charged again and again. I also agree people could give up their permament moorings and just cruise the 10 or 20 mile area far cheaper.

Sue

 

It's a question I was wondering about too - where do you draw the line? I wonder if there'll be another time limit for genuine cc? We have alot of boats here who stay within a 20 mile stretch of river and pay for a river only license. Will they be forced to pay for one of these roving mooring licenses?

[dccruiser]

It's a question I was wondering about too - where do you draw the line? I wonder if there'll be another time limit for genuine cc? We have alot of boats here who stay within a 20 mile stretch of river and pay for a river only license. Will they be forced to pay for one of these roving mooring licenses?

 

Personally i think it should be a simple one or the other , if you c'c in the true sense of the words then you get a licence to do just that , continually cruise.

If not you get a mooring and pay for it along with a standard cruising licence.

If you are on a c'c licence and decide to stay in an area rather than travelling through , you pay mooring costs for staying over 14 days.

I think people who genuinly c'c shouldnt keep being penalised financially for other people bending the rules, i think it should be encouraged as the use of the canals is what keeps them open.

 

Any use of the word you in my post is not directed at any individual.

 

I know there are some that will say they can't get a mooring, as anyone will advise you shouldnt consider buying a boat until you have a mooring in place.

 

I do feel sympathetic to those whose moorings were grabbed to be auctioned back by bwb and as such believe bwb moorings should be subject to the same laws as tenancies in housing.

 

As i have said in other threads , if you can't afford it don't do it , sell your boat to pay a deposit/bond and go rent ... then at least you can claim housing benefit.

[cotswoldsman]

Silly me I thought I had a Roving Mooring Licence think it is called a Boat Licence that I buy every year.

[carlt]

As you say it is obviously far cheaper fees wise to c'c rather than take on a permanent mooring

The boat licence is a tax, as is the mooring fee, if you choose to moor on BW managed moorings.

 

The propulsion fuel tax, is also a tax, therefore a continuous cruiser is paying as much, if not more, into the public purse, than a moorer (on BW moorings) and certainly more than the marina dweller, who never moves.

[Bones]

I haven't seen any discussions on the above topic as mentioned in the licencing consultation. Is it a good idea to charge £500ish to enable continuous moorers to stay in one area? What effect will this have on genuine CCers?

Sue

 

I dont think continnuous moorers or CCers should be lumped together or used in the same sentence. I do however think the idea is an interesting one, however, it will be no different to increasing the number of linear moorings in an area and renting them out as a roving arrangement - much like the Agenda 21s in Oxfordshire. I wonder whether those who moor for long periods of time on a non residential mooring would actually pay the extra 500pounds. If there is a requirement for more moorings (which is what this might suggest) then they should be provided, we all know that isn't going to happen.

[mayalld]

Roving Mooring Permit.

 

All boats already have the right to do what a roving mooring permit would allow. The 1995 British Waterways Act does not prohibit a boat from remaining within a defined length of waterway. The Act states that a boat must be genuinely used for navigation throughout the period of the licence and must not remain in the same place for more than 14 days. There is no specific definition of "place" in the Act that prevents a boat from remaining in a defined length of waterway as long as it moves to a different place after 14 days. The Act does not specify that navigation must consist of a "progressive journey". To insist that a journey must be "progressive" is prescriptive and an interference with freedom of movement to an extent that is not compatible with Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights which confers the right to respect for one's private life.

 

This is an extract from my post called "BW trying to hide this - respond by 7th Nov", see it below

 

It is also a prime example of why I, for one, find myself unable to support the continuous cruiser lobby.

 

I'm very comfortable with CCers per se, and whilst the definition chosen by BW may not be perfect, it is not manifestly unreasonable, and manages pretty well to draw the line between genuine CCers, and those for whom the epithet "Continuous Moorer" is more apt.

 

For just as long as Continuous Cruisers are prepared to sit back, and allow the Continuous Moorers to demand that anybody who wants can have an unfettered right to moor as they like, they will lose support.

 

If the CCers want to stand up, and distance themselves from the demands of the continuous moorers, they may find me more sympathetic.

[Chris Pink]

Personally i think it should be a simple one or the other , if you c'c in the true sense of the words then you get a licence to do just that , continually cruise.

If not you get a mooring and pay for it along with a standard cruising licence.

If you are on a c'c licence and decide to stay in an area rather than travelling through , you pay mooring costs for staying over 14 days.

I think people who genuinly c'c shouldnt keep being penalised financially for other people bending the rules, i think it should be encouraged as the use of the canals is what keeps them open.

 

Like a lot the people on 'your side' of the debate you are like Elmer Fudd looking for Bugs Bunny, you know who you hate - hippie livaboards – but are incapable of framing a law that targets them without getting a load of other 'innocent' people as well.

 

It seems to me obvious that if you charge people £500 to stay in a 20 mile region then you will find a lot of those people who see the canal as cheap housing, will say 'o well it's not as much as a month's rent' and pay it. Then they will expect, and have paid for, the right to monopolise the prime moorings on a stretch. Moving will become minimal and what you perceive as a lack of available moorings, and what someone else might see simply as a lot of boats, will be exacerbated.

 

There is a law, which manages to be quite clear without using the terms 'continuous cruiser', 'continuous moorer' or 'bridge-hopper', it is called the 1995 Waterways Act.

 

Not all liveaboards do it because it's cheap you will find most of them do it because they like the lifestyle. In my experience the ones who are after a cheap home don't last very long.

[tidal]

Without a sensible and legal ruling on what is considered to be CCing (not just bws variable interpretation on the subject) it is very hard to accurately draw a line between "hopping" and CCing.

 

And I am sorry but none of YOUR personal interpretations of the regulations are any more or less valid then any other

 

With great reluctance, I think that this is one of those rare areas where more legislation is required

 

For instance, I have friends who have been trundling round a certain ring for over 5 years now, mooring up quite happily for their week to 14 days and holding down regular jobs in a town roughly at centre of said ring.

 

BW have never had a problem with this since the first year when they were asked to show proof of CCing after they had, with BWs permission moored in one place for 8 weeks whilst dealing with a family illness.

 

They aren't using the whole system, (though they do wander out of the area for holidays).

 

So where IS the line drawn

 

I know they are very interested in this proposal as permanent moorings are hard to come by in the area, and as they say, they are getting a bit old to be moving all the time, especially at the beginnings and ends of the season.

 

IF this new permit/licence does allow for that sort of localised cruising, they would pay and happily too, and I suspect so would many others who are currently short distance movers.

 

It is surely better to get some more licenced and legal boaters?

[mayalld]

Without a sensible and legal ruling on what is considered to be CCing (not just bws variable interpretation on the subject) it is very hard to accurately draw a line between "hopping" and CCing.

 

And I am sorry but none of YOUR personal interpretations of the regulations are any more or less valid then any other

 

And all are less valid than BW's!

 

The 1995 act makes it clear that the Board must be satisfied that the applicant will engage in bona-fide navigation etc. etc.

[Jason Wilson and Family]

And all are less valid than BW's!

 

The 1995 act makes it clear that the Board must be satisfied that the applicant will engage in bona-fide navigation etc. etc.

 

Which is a vague and variable definition.

 

The more defined section of BW's rules sheds a clearer picture. As a boater without a mooring, regardless of status you cannot moor in one spot for more than 14 days (or whatever posted time). So here's a scenario. You're on the tow-path when two boats moor. You, being the great enforcer you are, check on them both boats leave the mooring before 14 days. Is there any difference between the two boats? Both displayed licences, both followed the rules of the moorings, both left a clean mooring spot for the next moorer, they were courteous and generally good boaters. What effect did the number of miles each cruised have on the moorings? If one of those boats only moved 15 miles what is the difference? If one comes back the same way 28 days later what is the issue? If both come back to the same spot in 5 days will you be able to tell which is CC-ing and which is 'hopping' without asking? No. One of those boats may well have come a hundred miles into the area for a visit and is on his way out.

 

The distance you cruise doesn't make a bloody bit of difference on anyone. It is just another scapegoat by BW to pull more profit they don't need.

[mayalld]

Which is a vague and variable definition.

 

The more defined section of BW's rules sheds a clearer picture. As a boater without a mooring, regardless of status you cannot moor in one spot for more than 14 days (or whatever posted time). So here's a scenario. You're on the tow-path when two boats moor. You, being the great enforcer you are, check on them both boats leave the mooring before 14 days. Is there any difference between the two boats? Both displayed licences, both followed the rules of the moorings, both left a clean mooring spot for the next moorer, they were courteous and generally good boaters. What effect did the number of miles each cruised have on the moorings? If one of those boats only moved 15 miles what is the difference? If one comes back the same way 28 days later what is the issue? If both come back to the same spot in 5 days will you be able to tell which is CC-ing and which is 'hopping' without asking? No. One of those boats may well have come a hundred miles into the area for a visit and is on his way out.

 

The distance you cruise doesn't make a bloody bit of difference on anyone. It is just another scapegoat by BW to pull more profit they don't need.

 

OK, fair question.

 

The difference is that (in theory) the boater with a home mooring will return to that home mooring at some point, and will spend some time moored there.

 

If he doesn't, then he is paying somebody for a "paper mooring", that effectively means that he can get away with not playing by the BW rules for cc-ers on a genuine progressive journey by paying somebody some money for a fake mooring.

 

A roving mooring permit would mean that BW got that money instead.

 

And yes, it is a blunt instrument, but unless somebody can come up with a better way of ensuring that moorings in honeypot locations are available to all, rather than being overwhelmed by CC-ers....

[Chertsey]

If you want to make people pay to use visitor moorings, then why not just charge for visitor moorings?

 

I pay for a permanent mooring but I can't for the life of me see what's supposed to be wrong with people who don't. What I'm paying for with my mooring is convenience and security, not any more or fewer rights than anyone else. My licence still entitles me to cruise the system 365 days a year should I want to.

 

For example, I come to a visitor mooring and it's full. What the hell difference does it make to me whether it's full of licence dodging bridgehoppers or shiny fully paid up semitrads? I still have to find somewhere else.

 

If there are too many boats and too few moorings on the system, then THAT is the problem, not the behaviour of any individual boater.

 

This whole debate also suggests that in encouraging the provision of more and more marina moorings and presenting this as a solution to the problem, BW are assuming that people will stay on those moorings and not clutter up the system. This is a big assumption, and it's boaters who will get the flak if it turns out to be wrong.

Edited November 3, 2008 by WarriorWoman

[Jason Wilson and Family]

OK, fair question.

 

The difference is that (in theory) the boater with a home mooring will return to that home mooring at some point, and will spend some time moored there.

 

If he doesn't, then he is paying somebody for a "paper mooring", that effectively means that he can get away with not playing by the BW rules for cc-ers on a genuine progressive journey by paying somebody some money for a fake mooring.

 

A roving mooring permit would mean that BW got that money instead.

 

And yes, it is a blunt instrument, but unless somebody can come up with a better way of ensuring that moorings in honeypot locations are available to all, rather than being overwhelmed by CC-ers....

 

Why? They're both CC-ers. Odds are neither of them pay for a home mooring unless some emergency comes up that forces them to stop. As BW doens't own all moorings it doesn't matter if BW gets paid for that temporary mooring or not. BW gets paid the CC licence that BW agreed to in both cases. And again, there are no BW rules mandating a 'progressive journey'.

 

A roving mooring permit would me BW makes CC-er pay twice for not fitting a loose definition.

 

As for CC-ers overwhelming moorings a better way would be for boats with moorings to get out more. If boaters with home moorings are upset about CC-ers using moorings specifically meant for those travelling then perhaps they should travel. If CC-ers are not overstaying the time limit then there is no reason for anyone to complain.

 

Another example, one boat leaves a 14 day mooring after 13 days, a couple of hours another boat pulls in and stays for 14 days. Does the distance the boat travelled make any difference? If the first boat only moved 15 miles to get to that mooring but the next three moved more than 50 does it make any difference to other people who wanted to moor there?

 

Temporary moorings are first-come first-serve someone with a permanent mooring wants to moor in a certain spot I suggest they cast off their lines and cut the engine in.

[mayalld]

Why? They're both CC-ers. Odds are neither of them pay for a home mooring unless some emergency comes up that forces them to stop. As BW doens't own all moorings it doesn't matter if BW gets paid for that temporary mooring or not. BW gets paid the CC licence that BW agreed to in both cases. And again, there are no BW rules mandating a 'progressive journey'.

 

A roving mooring permit would me BW makes CC-er pay twice for not fitting a loose definition.

 

As for CC-ers overwhelming moorings a better way would be for boats with moorings to get out more. If boaters with home moorings are upset about CC-ers using moorings specifically meant for those travelling then perhaps they should travel. If CC-ers are not overstaying the time limit then there is no reason for anyone to complain.

 

Another example, one boat leaves a 14 day mooring after 13 days, a couple of hours another boat pulls in and stays for 14 days. Does the distance the boat travelled make any difference? If the first boat only moved 15 miles to get to that mooring but the next three moved more than 50 does it make any difference to other people who wanted to moor there?

 

Temporary moorings are first-come first-serve someone with a permanent mooring wants to moor in a certain spot I suggest they cast off their lines and cut the engine in.

 

The point that I am trying to make is that there are a number of "honeypot" sites around the country.

 

Continuous moorers tend to pick on such a site, and create a cruising pattern that involves spending as much time as possible on this mooring.

 

The genuine continuous Cruiser, making a progressive journey, even if he seeks out honeypot sites, will spend more time on less popular moorings.

 

The end result is that a Continous moorer is more likely to obstruct another user from using a popular mooring than a continuous cruiser is.