Ditch mooring permits and increase the licence fee

[mayalld]

So are you saying, behind your droll mumblings, that the number of boats on the canal should be decreased by increasing the cost of licences?

 

No, do try again though

[Chris Pink]

o my gawd.

 

Ganged up on by both the Barnsley Chavette and Da Rules Mayall.

 

ok ok i give up

 

lets purge the canal of all hippies, boats that overstay on moorings should be seized after one day, all boats must be painted lime green and water is rationed to 12 litres per foot per month.

 

did i miss anything?

 

now is the time for the Final Solution.

[Naughty Cal]

o my gawd.

 

Ganged up on by both the Barnsley Chavette and Da Rules Mayall.

 

Sheffield

[ThePiglet]

Simply because the canal system is a publically owned resource and should be accessible to all and it is wrong to restrict access (if access needs to be restricted) on the grounds of ability to pay.

 

I should be able to go swimming in a publicly owned pool without paying!

I should be able to use a publicly owned carpark without paying!

I should be able to keep a car on a public road without paying road fund!

 

But I keep waking up.

[Chris Pink]

I should be able to go swimming in a publicly owned pool without paying!

I should be able to use a publicly owned carpark without paying!

I should be able to keep a car on a public road without paying road fund!

 

But I keep waking up.

 

 

Yes but, my porcine friend, swimming pools are not priced with the express intention of keeping people out.

 

And where, exactly, does it say that I advocate using the canals without paying?

 

Do keep up.

[mayalld]

Yes but, my porcine friend, swimming pools are not priced with the express intention of keeping people out.

 

And where, exactly, does it say that I advocate using the canals without paying?

 

In most of your posts.

[Chris Pink]

In most of your posts.

 

uh uh

 

Read them again Mr Mayall.

 

For the hard of reading I will reiterate;

 

I like my licence I pay it willingly and with a smile. I find it very good value. I have no sympathy for those who don't pay their licence, i think they are fools to themselves.

 

Clear enough?

[ThePiglet]

And where, exactly, does it say that I advocate using the canals without paying?

 

You weren't advocating the use of canals without paying, you said that they should be available to be used without paying.

 

I've kept up. Maybe even a little ahead

[GUMPY]

uh uh

 

Read them again Mr Mayall.

 

For the hard of reading I will reiterate;

 

I like my licence I pay it willingly and with a smile. I find it very good value. I have no sympathy for those who don't pay their licence, i think they are fools to themselves.

 

Clear enough?

 

Indeed but how would you feel if asked to pay £10 a day for mooring somewhere for longer then 14days

Edited August 6, 2009 by idleness

[AlanH]

Yes but, my porcine friend, swimming pools are not priced with the express intention of keeping people out.

Can you point me to the BW policy statement that states that their intention is to keep people from boating? What nonsense!

[magpie patrick]

Well the exalted Mrs T. would say so, most would say no, it is not wrong.

 

I say a licence fee dependent on the length x breadth of your boat then there is a fairer system.

 

BW are already, by increasing the licence way above inflation, going down this route.

 

My licence would have been £40 in 1972 when the fees were set be parliament, translates as £400 now using an inflation calculator but is, before discount, over twice that.

 

I think this is unfair, it would be interesting to know if it is lawful.

 

The idea that BW is overcharging is not the same argument as saying that it is okay to evade payment if you can't afford it. It clearly isn't okay, for example to own a car and not tax, MOT and insure just because you can't afford to. If you can't afford these things, you can't afford a car.

 

If you live aboard your boat, and do not have a mooring, the lifestyle is actually very economical. Ripple costs £1,000 a year to float less moorings. I'd estimate I could continuously cruise for another £2,000 at most, including gas etc, which is the cost of my marina mooring. Compare that to the cheapest land based accomodation (I'm currently in Radstock, where you can rent a room for about £300 or a house for about £600 pcm: £3600 pa for the room and £7200 for the house, and you'd still have bills). Only social housing or you mates sofa is cheaper than living on a boat.

 

clearly you have to finance the purchase of a boat, but the same is true of a house, and boats are generally a lot cheaper than houses.

 

If you wish to live the most economic lifestyle, i.e. no mooring, is it that unreasonable to ask you to stick to the rules that go with it? You can park your car for free in Bath by parking near my house and walking in, or you can park centrally and pay £12 a day. What you can't do is park centrally for nothing, so if you want to save 12 quid then take a twenty minute walk each way, not pitch up at Avon Street car park and demand to park free coz you can't afford it.

[Naughty Cal]

Well put

[Chris Pink]

ok, ok it's humid today, i can understand why you'll are being stupid (as in stupor) so i'll try again (hopefully without being too rude)

 

1. Piglet / Mayalld: I am not saying that any canal should be used without payment.

 

2. Magpie Patrick: I am not saying it is ok to evade payment of licences

 

I have no sympathy for those who don't pay their licence, i think they are fools to themselves.

 

The thread, correct me if I am wrong, is about adding to the licence a mooring charge (however you disguise it). I oppose that.

 

The thread postulated that BW could refuse a licence on the grounds of non-payment of overstaying charges. I hold that this is not so.

 

The thread digressed into the implication that there are too many boats and one way of reducing this is to charge more. I oppose that.

 

How clear is that?

 

I also postulated that BW were already overcharging because the demand is so high. Whether the corporate mind is capable of the other interpretation that this is intended to reduce demand is moot.

 

I do not moor a car in central Bath. I think to drive in central Bath is a stupid thing to do.

 

I oppose any idea that the moorings in Bath should be managed in the same way. I already think that mooring in central Bath is not desirable so it would have no effect on my patterns of navigation.

 

I understand that all Continuous Moorers would like to pay less. I hold different views, I do not want to pay less, either for my mooring or my license. I am happy with the price that it is.

[Smelly]

The thread postulated that BW could refuse a licence on the grounds of non-payment of overstaying charges. I hold that this is not so.

 

arguably so as the licence Ts & Cs refer to a fee that is "published and revised each April" so apparently not subject to overstaying charges

 

The thread digressed into the implication that there are too many boats and one way of reducing this is to charge more. I oppose that.

 

I;m glad you said that, I've been itching to all afternoon

 

How clear is that?

 

very i would hope

 

I also postulated that BW were already overcharging because the demand is so high. Whether the corporate mind is capable of the other interpretation that this is intended to reduce demand is moot.

 

I read the KPMG consultation due to my work thing that's trundling on elsewhere and the implication is that they simply were covering costs until the DEFRA cuts. I can see some sense in what you're suggesting but can't see it written down there, in any consultations with RBOA, all of which I skimmed, or anywhere else in what little is available online.There is an apparent political motivation in not saying it too loudly though.

 

However the not too wild assumption that licence/mooring fees increasing way above inflation pre-dates the overpopulation of the canals would go to undermine your suspicions.

[mayalld]

ok, ok it's humid today, i can understand why you'll are being stupid (as in stupor) so i'll try again (hopefully without being too rude)

 

1. Piglet / Mayalld: I am not saying that any canal should be used without payment.

 

2. Magpie Patrick: I am not saying it is ok to evade payment of licences

 

 

 

The thread, correct me if I am wrong, is about adding to the licence a mooring charge (however you disguise it). I oppose that.

 

The thread postulated that BW could refuse a licence on the grounds of non-payment of overstaying charges. I hold that this is not so.

 

The thread digressed into the implication that there are too many boats and one way of reducing this is to charge more. I oppose that.

 

How clear is that?

 

I also postulated that BW were already overcharging because the demand is so high. Whether the corporate mind is capable of the other interpretation that this is intended to reduce demand is moot.

 

I do not moor a car in central Bath. I think to drive in central Bath is a stupid thing to do.

 

I oppose any idea that the moorings in Bath should be managed in the same way. I already think that mooring in central Bath is not desirable so it would have no effect on my patterns of navigation.

 

I understand that all Continuous Moorers would like to pay less. I hold different views, I do not want to pay less, either for my mooring or my license. I am happy with the price that it is.

 

You choose to put a certain slant on it, which suits your view.

 

This isn't about adding a mooring charge to the licence. It is about recognising that the EOG element of our mooring charges is nothing more than a disguised extra bit of licence (much as NI is a disguised bit of extra tax).

 

The EOG fee that I pay to BW isn't paying for security or facilities (I pay the landlord for them). It is an additional licence that I pay for the priviledge of NOT being a CCer.

 

Now, the usual suspects are quick to cry foul if it is suggested that CCers should pay a higher licence, and I'm afraid we are looking at sauce for the goose here. It isn't fair that those with a permanent mooring should pay a higher licence for the priviledge. Those with a mooring should pay the landowner (BW or private), but that is as far as it should go.

 

The suggestion that charges are held deliberately high so as to limit the number of boats isn't supported by any evidence that I can see, it's just unthinking rhetoric.

 

There is also the question of whether BW can withold a licence on the basis of non-payment of charges. You suggest that they can't and that they shouldn't be able to. I would suggest that it is desirable that they should be able to do so, and that it is possible that they do have a legal right to do so.

 

Let me explain!

 

Suppose my licence is £600 per annum, and suppose that in the past year, BW have issued me with overstay charges amounting to £100.

 

Come licence renewal time, I send them £600. I would contend that they have a legal right to apply that payment to the sums owed to them, so as to pay off the sums that have been outstanding longest. So, they use £100 of the money I have sent to clear the overstaying payment. That leaves £500 which is not enough to pay for a licence, so they don't issue one.

 

As the meercat would say;

 

Simples!

[debbifiggy]

its mentioned in his Blog

 

http://keepthinkingbutch.blogspot.com/

 

Specifically here

http://keepthinkingbutch.blogspot.com/2009...ic-servant.html

 

But only his side of it

 

Indeed, he might have possibly had some of that tasty shiraz he mentions on board his boat. Many things on the internet should be taken with a hefty large dose of reality (conspiracy theories, alien abductions, dogs being nicer than cats etc) as sometimes it is not the whole truth. Makes entertaining reading though and he has quite a fun blogging style.

 

Good night fellow boaters, enjoy your debate, I'm going to bed for a more soothing soporific of rain on the roof and the soothing trickle of water down the side of the boat into the cut.

[Smelly]

There is also the question of whether BW can withold a licence on the basis of non-payment of charges. You suggest that they can't and that they shouldn't be able to. I would suggest that it is desirable that they should be able to do so, and that it is possible that they do have a legal right to do so.

 

Let me explain!

 

Suppose my licence is £600 per annum, and suppose that in the past year, BW have issued me with overstay charges amounting to £100.

 

Come licence renewal time, I send them £600. I would contend that they have a legal right to apply that payment to the sums owed to them, so as to pay off the sums that have been outstanding longest. So, they use £100 of the money I have sent to clear the overstaying payment. That leaves £500 which is not enough to pay for a licence, so they don't issue one.

 

As the meercat would say ;

 

Simples!

 

I don't think that would work. If they say "give us 600 quid for your licence" and you duly give them 600 quid with a licence agreement then that liability is addressed unless there is a right to distraint; which I don't believe exists, especially when in their ts & cs BW state that they've already advertised the fee to be charged.

 

There'd need to be the modification to the licence terms for them to get away with it but considering the possible legislative complications that would involve it's unlikely unless they privatise and rescind the 71 and 95 acts in the process. Probably the 83 act would need to go but then, considering the ECJ's decision in the Connors case (cheers Carl) then there'd need to be an adjudicatorial process in the removal of the boat and hence refusal of it's licence, otherwise articles 6 & 8 ECHR would be engaged in deprivation of one's choice of lifestyle without an appropriate right of redress.

 

connors

[mayalld]

I don't think that would work. If they say "give us 600 quid for your licence" and you duly give them 600 quid with a licence agreement then that liability is addressed unless there is a right to distraint; which I don't believe exists, especially when in their ts & cs BW state that they've already advertised the fee to be charged.

 

There'd need to be the modification to the licence terms for them to get away with it but considering the possible legislative complications that would involve it's unlikely unless they privatise and rescind the 71 and 95 acts in the process. Probably the 83 act would need to go but then, considering the ECJ's decision in the Connors case (cheers Carl) then there'd need to be an adjudicatorial process in the removal of the boat and hence refusal of it's licence, otherwise articles 6 & 8 ECHR would be engaged in deprivation of one's choice of lifestyle without an appropriate right of redress.

 

connors

 

It would, indeed, require things to be done properly, but it could be done, and in my view it should be done.

[Chris Pink]

It would, indeed, require things to be done properly, but it could be done, and in my view it should be done.

 

So you would like your EOG fees (on which subject i agree with your position, have you thought of not paying it and re-fighting BW on their right to charge) to go to paying for the endless court cases it would take to enforce such a course of action?

[Guest steve jenkin]

Is really simple this, if you want a more permanent mooring, feel free to pay extra, if you want to cc, don't subsidize the person who wants to moor up permanently. If you believe BW does not manage OUR waterways in a suitable manner, do something about it. Start a committee of some sort, (tho this would involve you not arguing amongst yourselves). However, i have noticed there are some very intelligent people on this site, start a committee and let yourselves be heard by the relevant Party (BW) oops

[carlt]

It would, indeed, require things to be done properly, but it could be done, and in my view it should be done.

Only trouble is BW are not attempting to address the issue in any meaningful way.

 

It's easy to make up rules with only scant regard to Waterways legislation, let alone the other laws, protecting people's rights.

 

The problem comes when someone has the balls to challenge the enforcement.

 

With regard to travellers and illegal encampments, Local Authorities have spent a great deal of time formulating policy that not only complies with the law but also takes into consideration the concerns of all the parties involved.

 

Having attended meetings that have ended in stand-up screaming matches, between colleagues that have differing views, on the subject, I can assure you that the spats on this forum are mild, in comparison. It wasn't an easy process.

 

BW need to do the same (or, perhaps adopt the policies already put together).

 

BW reinterpreting the 14 day law, claiming that removing someone's home does not contravene the HRA because they still have their boat but not the location and not ensuring the welfare of families through consultation is not the way it should be done.

 

Oh and before anyone says it's not BW's job to do this, I was a civil engineer whose job it was to fix holes in roads.

 

When we were given the "job" and argued that we weren't qualified to look after the welfare of families, the response from Social services, education dept. and the legal dept. was "They're on the Public Highway, you deal with it!"

[sueb]

Is really simple this, if you want a more permanent mooring, feel free to pay extra, if you want to cc, don't subsidize the person who wants to moor up permanently. If you believe BW does not manage OUR waterways in a suitable manner, do something about it. Start a committee of some sort, (tho this would involve you not arguing amongst yourselves). However, i have noticed there are some very intelligent people on this site, start a committee and let yourselves be heard by the relevant Party (BW) oops

There already are several 'committees' Nabo; Rboa; Awcc; IWA plus several more. You can join & help

Sue

[carlt]

There already are several 'committees' Nabo; Rboa; Awcc; IWA plus several more.

Sue

Proving the futility of Steve's suggestion

 

If all those committees are doing zilch, to address the issue, what's the point in starting another?

[Guest steve jenkin]

The committees you have mentioned are not for me, i was a member of one, i found that in my own opinion, the committee did not deal with real day to day issues, i believe the system BW has in place is adequate, i believe we should all pay a license, i believe if you cant afford to pay, you should look at other ways to live within your means. Living for free in this day and age is a no go, cant be done. so pay up or b****R off. My license at the moment is 750 a year, i have to pay it. Rates for a house on average are 1200, you have to pay it. If you are intent to live for free, go ahead, do so, but accept the consequences, dont look to blame others

[carlt]

i believe the system BW has in place is adequate,

Why suggest forming a committee, then?