BW Mooring consultation

[Chris Pink]

It is however an attempt to solve a problem if it suceeds it will in my opinion benifit most boaters.

 

Come on Ken, Again. What problem?

 

O i know, it will stop boater's cars obstructing the emergency services.

 

 

...and if you think that there will not be mass individual protest in the form of responses to the consultation you are so very wrong.

 

 

Bathampton Parish Council has shot itself firmly in the foot.

 

 

And you keep banging on about the consultation that has already happened - i assume you refer to the series of secret meetings that Sally Ash et al held in Wiltshire and Somerset?

 

There are complaints about that as there will be complaints against each and every illegal action BW are taking. The boaters are fed up with being help up as a scapegoats for the moaning of a small majority.

[tomandsophie]

I must say that I don't really see what the 'problem' is. There are a lot of boats between Bradford and Bath, but surely that's a good thing?! I can't help but think that all this ticket-giving and changing the moorings structure and other rubbish is all just stuff done to justify the money that BW pay their employees. If somebody is paid a salary then they have to be given a job to do to justify getting paid... if there isn't a job to do then make one up!

We recently went on a cruise from Bradford-on-Avon to Semington, intending to moor in several places along the way. We hadn't previously been past Bradford as we usually cruise locally in the winter and we have a mooring on the river in the summer. So we were looking forward to exporing some new places. However, we found that we couldn't get close enough to the bank in order to moor all the way from Bradford to Semington, so we ended up having to moor on the visitor moorings there and then return to Bradford. Even the visitor moorings in Bradford and Hilperton were useless as the bankside was in such a poor state and the canal was so shallow that we couldn't even moor for the night on the 24hr moorings!

I would suggest (and yes I have said this to BW) that they spend their (our) money on maintaining the waterways so that we can moor in more places rather than setting up more problems for themselves.

One other issue is that we have tried to get a mooring between Bath and Bradford, but there are very rarely any on BW's website. So even those people who want to get a mooring can't get one because BW don't make them available, even though there is masses of space on the designated long-term mooring sites.

We did consider a winter mooring, but then found out that it would cost us around £220 a month! For what?! And before anybody says "oh yes but compare that to the price of renting a flat in the area blah blah blah", what do you get when you rent a flat? A place to live with walls and a roof, services, etc. What do get when you rent a winter mooring? A place to tie up your boat. If the winter mooring came with a boat to live on with all the service connected, then perhaps you could charge the equivalent rate as that for a flat.

Oops, sorry, seem to have had a rant that went a little off topic.

With regards to the mooring consultation - I have written to BW to tell them my views (i.e. it's all a load of unnecessary rubbish, the canal is great as it is, bugger off, etc.), and I would urge others to do the same. Without our input it is not a 'consultation' but a 'dictation'.

 

Interestingly, I had a phonecall from Martin Skinner (the guy in charge on enforcing the CC guidelines - how you can 'enforce' GUIDELINES I do not know!) who said that in order to satisfy BW that we were complying with the guidelines we should increase our cruising area to the area between Bath and Hilperton. I then emailed him asking to confirm this in writing. He wrote back saying, and I quote: "I do not believe it is for me to dictate to you, where you should cruise to comply with the terms of your licence." Hmmm.

Edited November 5, 2009 by tomandsophie

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Do forum members want to discuss the proposals? Are they reasonable or are BW exceeding their powers?

Doing this on pda so can someone else provide linky to cosultation document. Thanks

Sue

 

Well you did ask Sue! You now have 100 posts (with some off topic and a bit of mud slinging).

 

The debate has established that NABO has made a formal complaint that BW are exceeding their powers which, although no mention is made of BW's consultation document, obviously impinges on it. Whilst public opinion has a part to play, it is up to NABO to consider BW's response and take the matter further. Ultimately it will be up to the Waterways Ombudsman to decide the matter with her ruling being binding on BW but not NABO.

 

Having said that, I believe a number of issues exist that BW should have addressed -

 

• BW should have acknowledged in its consultation document that the only boating organisation that can claim to represent all boaters had made a complaint (I acknowledge that this would have required NABO's consent but as they have published details of the complaint it would not have been withheld)
  
• BW should have stated in its document why the consultation should not have been held in abeyance pending resolution of the complaint.
  
• BW should not have misled the public regarding pilots. In this thread we have discovered that a pilot is under way but boaters affected were excluded.
  

I hope Sue is appointed to NABO council and congratulate her for asking for views on this issue outside of NABO.

 

Any boater not supporting NABO's stance on this issue will only have themselves to blame in future years when they have to pay three times over for mooring - permanent mooring, temporary mooring included in licence fee and mooring charges imposed as a result of the consultation.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Allan(nb Albert)

[sueb]

If they think they're going to extract £10 a night off me for mooring on an empty towpath they can fuck right off tbh. I don't know a single person who'll pay it.

People do at Llangollen surprisingly. This was the first trial of charging for visitor moorings

Sue

[sueb]

Well you did ask Sue! You now have 100 posts (with some off topic and a bit of mud slinging).

 

The debate has established that NABO has made a formal complaint that BW are exceeding their powers which, although no mention is made of BW's consultation document, obviously impinges on it. Whilst public opinion has a part to play, it is up to NABO to consider BW's response and take the matter further. Ultimately it will be up to the Waterways Ombudsman to decide the matter with her ruling being binding on BW but not NABO.

 

Having said that, I believe a number of issues exist that BW should have addressed -

 

• BW should have acknowledged in its consultation document that the only boating organisation that can claim to represent all boaters had made a complaint (I acknowledge that this would have required NABO's consent but as they have published details of the complaint it would not have been withheld)
  
• BW should have stated in its document why the consultation should not have been held in abeyance pending resolution of the complaint.
  
• BW should not have misled the public regarding pilots. In this thread we have discovered that a pilot is under way but boaters affected were excluded.
  

I hope Sue is appointed to NABO council and congratulate her for asking for views on this issue outside of NABO.

 

Any boater not supporting NABO's stance on this issue will only have themselves to blame in future years when they have to pay three times over for mooring - permanent mooring, temporary mooring included in licence fee and mooring charges imposed as a result of the consultation.

Thank you Allan. If anyone wants to come to the Nabo agm get in touch. I can give a lift from the Hillmorton/Rugby area. If you don't get a reply start a new thread as I am not having much luck with the pms

 

Sue

[journeyperson]

People do at Llangollen surprisingly. This was the first trial of charging for visitor moorings

Sue

 

It's £6 a night at Llangollen and includes electricity and water. It's worth it for such a lovely location. Not quite such good value if you end up on one of the towpath moorings.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thank you Allan. If anyone wants to come to the Nabo agm get in touch. I can give a lift from the Hillmorton/Rugby area. If you don't get a reply start a new thread as I am not having much luck with the pms

 

Sue

 

Hi Sue

 

I think the date may be wrong in the last NABO News so you might wish to correct it on this forum.

 

Being severely deaf, I tend to avoid meetings but I am minded to attend the NABO AGM just so I can vote for you! Anyone who wants to represent boaters and takes the trouble to ascertain views prior to taking up the role must be encouraged.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It's £6 a night at Llangollen and includes electricity and water. It's worth it for such a lovely location. Not quite such good value if you end up on one of the towpath moorings.

 

 

When I first moored in Llangollen in 1970 it was free. True my 13' 6" cabin cruiser did not require water or electricity in 1970 but I would suggest that most narrowboats today have large water tanks and the ability to generate electricity.

 

So the question is why are boaters being charged who do not require these facilities?

[journeyperson]

When I first moored in Llangollen in 1970 it was free. True my 13' 6" cabin cruiser did not require water or electricity in 1970 but I would suggest that most narrowboats today have large water tanks and the ability to generate electricity.

 

So the question is why are boaters being charged who do not require these facilities?

 

All I can say is that most boats take advantage of the hook up.

 

My first visit to Llangollen by boat was in 1963 and we didn't have anything to plug in! We must have needed water because there were six of us on a 25ft boat and we stayed several days. It was a different world though, nothing was expected and very little was provided. I still boat with the same philosophy and I'm frequently impressed with how much is provided for the boater these days.

Moored above Chainbridge Hotel. No water or electricity in sight.

 

I know, this is but any excuse

[cotswoldsman]

People do at Llangollen surprisingly. This was the first trial of charging for visitor moorings

Sue

 

Llangollen basin is free in the winter for visitors.

[PeterScott]

Lots of entertaining merry banter in all of this. Would anyone like to comment on the fundamental BW assertion of a RIGHT and a DUTY to regulate/manage/sort-out mooring on their waterways. There are some suggestions that NABO question the mechanisms for doing this (complaints, ombudsman, courts or whatever). What would this be attempting to achive?

 

Is it that the moorings are in no need of management/regulation/sorting-out?

That they are self-regulating by boaters?

That there is no 'public-interest' in managing/regualting/sorting-out moorings for people who appreciate/use the canal but don't live on it?

 

And if none of those, if not BW to do the job, who would do it?

Boaters, again?

Local councils?

Nobody?

 

If you're with me this far, and BW do have a DUTY to manage/regulate/sort-out,

how do we give them the tools to do it: what is wrong, then, with them being able to (with consultation etc) set some standards and rules?

[Lady Muck]

Lots of entertaining merry banter in all of this. Would anyone like to comment on the fundamental BW assertion of a RIGHT and a DUTY to regulate/manage/sort-out mooring on their waterways. There are some suggestions that NABO question the mechanisms for doing this (complaints, ombudsman, courts or whatever). What would this be attempting to achive?

 

Is it that the moorings are in no need of management/regulation/sorting-out?

That they are self-regulating by boaters?

That there is no 'public-interest' in managing/regualting/sorting-out moorings for people who appreciate/use the canal but don't live on it?

 

And if none of those, if not BW to do the job, who would do it?

Boaters, again?

Local councils?

Nobody?

 

If you're with me this far, and BW do have a DUTY to manage/regulate/sort-out,

how do we give them the tools to do it: what is wrong, then, with them being able to (with consultation etc) set some standards and rules?

 

 

Of course they have as right to regulate moorings, but what I find infuriating is the way they have completely failed to regulate the moorings over the years. (I moor on one of these so-called problem stretches of waterways) and now they seem to be using this total failiure to regulate the moorings situation as an excuse for MORE charges that none of us want.

 

I can't believe that some boaters are defending this creep of charges that will probably end up driving alot of us off the canals. :facepalm: I just hate this mentality of charging for everything that is seen as a problem.

 

The other thing is that they have slashed enforcement almost in half, do they really expect volunteers or LA traffic wardens to pick up the slack? (We know what the council on the K and A said to that). The team was overstretched in the first place, before the redundancies. To me it shows not only a total disrepect for us, the boaters, but also for their own employees. <deep breath>

Edited November 6, 2009 by Lady Muck

[KenK]

Lots of entertaining merry banter in all of this. Would anyone like to comment on the fundamental BW assertion of a RIGHT and a DUTY to regulate/manage/sort-out mooring on their waterways. There are some suggestions that NABO question the mechanisms for doing this (complaints, ombudsman, courts or whatever). What would this be attempting to achive?

 

Is it that the moorings are in no need of management/regulation/sorting-out?

That they are self-regulating by boaters?

That there is no 'public-interest' in managing/regualting/sorting-out moorings for people who appreciate/use the canal but don't live on it?

 

And if none of those, if not BW to do the job, who would do it?

Boaters, again?

Local councils?

Nobody?

 

If you're with me this far, and BW do have a DUTY to manage/regulate/sort-out,

how do we give them the tools to do it: what is wrong, then, with them being able to (with consultation etc) set some standards and rules?

 

I'd agree totally, it is BW's job to manage the waterway network and it makes sense for them to set out a clear framework. They have consulted with a number of organisations and have now opened that consultation up to everyone. If you don't like the proposals take the opportunity and tell them.

 

Ken

[KenK]

Of course they have as right to regulate moorings, but what I find infuriating is the way they have completely failed to regulate the moorings over the years. (I moor on one of these so-called problem stretches of waterways) and now they seem to be using this total failiure to regulate the moorings situation as an excuse for MORE charges that none of us want.

 

I can't believe that some boaters are defending this creep of charges that will probably end up driving alot of us off the canals. :facepalm: I just hate this mentality of charging for everything that is seen as a problem.

 

The other thing is that they have slashed enforcement almost in half, do they really expect volunteers or LA traffic wardens to pick up the slack? (We know what the council on the K and A said to that). The team was overstretched in the first place, before the redundancies. To me it shows not only a total disrepect for us, the boaters, but also for their own employees. <deep breath>

 

BW's problem as they put it is just how can they control mooring, at the moment if someone refuses to move when requested the only option is a Section 8 procedure, it has been done but it takes a long time, and something which should only be used as a last resort.

 

I'm not in favour of increasing charges either but I can see why BW have proposed it, boaters would have a choice stay longer and pay or move on. If they stay and refuse to pay then it is a clear breach of the rules and BW have said that could result in a refusal to renew their licence.

 

Ken

[KenK]

Alan's letter re NABO's complaint is now available on Narrowboatworld, should anyone be prepared to go over to the darkside.

 

Ken

[tomsk]

Alan's letter re NABO's complaint is now available on Narrowboatworld, should anyone be prepared to go over to the darkside.

 

Ken

 

 

Fantastic.

 

I normally would not deign to visit what I term 'The Boaters Daily Mail' however in this case I am glad I did. The main thrust of the piece seems to be (at last) a legal challenge to BW's self-claimed right to 'Be The Law' rather than be led by the Law, something many CW members have been banging on about for some time as being a wholly incorrect posture for a well run and fair minded organisation charged with the stewardship of a public resource.

 

I am somewhat at a loss as to why one of the most vocal supporters of BW's stance regarding their self-appointed right to implement The Law as they see fit without any form of due process has chosen not to comment on this exciting new development. Dave, are you and your lime green boat out there? I for one am on the edge of my seat slavering at the mouth in anticipation of your considered Expert Legal View of this astounding challenge to BW's legal omnipotence which you have been assuring us for some time was wholly in order and unchallengable in Law.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Alan's letter re NABO's complaint is now available on Narrowboatworld, should anyone be prepared to go over to the darkside.

 

Ken

 

You beat me to it, Ken!

 

It's here

 

As stated previously, Narrowboatworld asked BW to comment on the article. BW's comments are at the bottom.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Lots of entertaining merry banter in all of this. Would anyone like to comment on the fundamental BW assertion of a RIGHT and a DUTY to regulate/manage/sort-out mooring on their waterways. There are some suggestions that NABO question the mechanisms for doing this (complaints, ombudsman, courts or whatever). What would this be attempting to achive?

 

Is it that the moorings are in no need of management/regulation/sorting-out?

That they are self-regulating by boaters?

That there is no 'public-interest' in managing/regualting/sorting-out moorings for people who appreciate/use the canal but don't live on it?

 

And if none of those, if not BW to do the job, who would do it?

Boaters, again?

Local councils?

Nobody?

 

If you're with me this far, and BW do have a DUTY to manage/regulate/sort-out,

how do we give them the tools to do it: what is wrong, then, with them being able to (with consultation etc) set some standards and rules?

 

NABO states that it has always been supportive of strong and well understood licence terms and conditions, underwritten by legislation. I think most of us would agree with that!

 

Perhaps, it would be better to ask why BW does not want to introduce legislation to clarify its legal powers.

[Chris Pink]

Lots of entertaining merry banter in all of this. Would anyone like to comment on the fundamental BW assertion of a RIGHT and a DUTY to regulate/manage/sort-out mooring on their waterways. There are some suggestions that NABO question the mechanisms for doing this (complaints, ombudsman, courts or whatever). What would this be attempting to achive?

 

Is it that the moorings are in no need of management/regulation/sorting-out?

That they are self-regulating by boaters?

That there is no 'public-interest' in managing/regualting/sorting-out moorings for people who appreciate/use the canal but don't live on it?

 

And if none of those, if not BW to do the job, who would do it?

Boaters, again?

Local councils?

Nobody?

 

If you're with me this far, and BW do have a DUTY to manage/regulate/sort-out,

how do we give them the tools to do it: what is wrong, then, with them being able to (with consultation etc) set some standards and rules?

 

Once again, you can put whatever spin on this issue you like - from what i know of your posts in the past you are an honourable man so this is not a pop at you per se - but of course mooring has to be managed.

 

The issue is not about management of moorings, it has become one group of people telling another group of people that what they do is a problem to be sorted out.

 

I don't like lime green boats but i am not lobbying for their removal.

 

If BW have licenced 35,000 boats then they have to be somewhere (laws of physics), if 3,500 are lived on in a nomadic way then they have to be somewhere (laws of physics). To go sideways from this and calling 'management' a series of measures that is specifically designed (and i have proof of this) to remove those people from certain stretches of the system that are as popular to them as to anyone else (no more no less) is not only immoral it is illegal.

 

 

and...

 

I tend to take your last question literally and I would love a BW run by boaters but dream on.

 

(but why not?)

 

 

 

 

I normally would not deign to visit what I term 'The Boaters Daily Mail' however in this case I am glad I did.

 

 

I am somewhat at a loss as to why one of the most vocal supporters of BW's stance regarding their self-appointed right to implement The Law as they see fit without any form of due process has chosen not to comment on this exciting new development. Dave, are you and your lime green boat out there? I for one am on the edge of my seat slavering at the mouth in anticipation of your considered Expert Legal View of this astounding challenge to BW's legal omnipotence which you have been assuring us for some time was wholly in order and unchallengable in Law.

 

This forum is the Daily Mail (maybe Telegraph because of its tenuous grasp of reality) to Narrowboatworld's Socialist Worker these days, o how that worm has turned.

 

And Dave agrees completely with BW's reply to NABO: we can do whatever we want whenever we want to whoever we want..... because we can.

 

but yes, his amusing if surreal solipsisms are noticeably absent from this thread. I am sure he is saving up a one liner to knock us all dead.

[PeterScott]

...you are an honourable man ...

It'll be coming from Sheffield that does it ...

 

Cue for ...

[tomsk]

Once again, you can put whatever spin on this issue you like - from what i know of your posts in the past you are an honourable man so this is not a pop at you per se - but of course mooring has to be managed.

 

The issue is not about management of moorings, it has become one group of people telling another group of people that what they do is a problem to be sorted out.

 

I don't like lime green boats but i am not lobbying for their removal.

 

If BW have licenced 35,000 boats then they have to be somewhere (laws of physics), if 3,500 are lived on in a nomadic way then they have to be somewhere (laws of physics). To go sideways from this and calling 'management' a series of measures that is specifically designed (and i have proof of this) to remove those people from certain stretches of the system that are as popular to them as to anyone else (no more no less) is not only immoral it is illegal.

 

 

and...

 

I tend to take your last question literally and I would love a BW run by boaters but dream on.

 

(but why not?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

This forum is the Daily Mail (maybe Telegraph because of its tenuous grasp of reality) to Narrowboatworld's Socialist Worker these days, o how that worm has turned.

 

And Dave agrees completely with BW's reply to NABO: we can do whatever we want whenever we want to whoever we want..... because we can.

 

but yes, his amusing if surreal solipsisms are noticeably absent from this thread. I am sure he is saving up a one liner to knock us all dead.

 

 

Good Grief Man! Surely not???? I must have fallen asleep politically.... I'll revisit with an open mind.....

[mayalld]

Fantastic.

 

I normally would not deign to visit what I term 'The Boaters Daily Mail' however in this case I am glad I did. The main thrust of the piece seems to be (at last) a legal challenge to BW's self-claimed right to 'Be The Law' rather than be led by the Law, something many CW members have been banging on about for some time as being a wholly incorrect posture for a well run and fair minded organisation charged with the stewardship of a public resource.

 

I am somewhat at a loss as to why one of the most vocal supporters of BW's stance regarding their self-appointed right to implement The Law as they see fit without any form of due process has chosen not to comment on this exciting new development. Dave, are you and your lime green boat out there? I for one am on the edge of my seat slavering at the mouth in anticipation of your considered Expert Legal View of this astounding challenge to BW's legal omnipotence which you have been assuring us for some time was wholly in order and unchallengable in Law.

 

There is no "legal challenge" as the term is normally understood.

 

NABO have wasted some money of getting a lawyer to write to BW making alegations that they are acting ultra-vires. BW refute the claims, and their counsel's opinion supports that stance.

 

Unless and until somebody challenges BW in court on a specific case, it is all so much hot air.

[tomsk]

There is no "legal challenge" as the term is normally understood.

 

NABO have wasted some money of getting a lawyer to write to BW making alegations that they are acting ultra-vires. BW refute the claims, and their counsel's opinion supports that stance.

 

Unless and until somebody challenges BW in court on a specific case, it is all so much hot air.

 

 

Are you saying that following the investment in qualified legal advice that found merit in NABO's position no further action will be instigated further to BW's obvious and probably legally advised flat denial?

[mayalld]

Are you saying that following the investment in qualified legal advice that found merit in NABO's position no further action will be instigated further to BW's obvious and probably legally advised flat denial?

 

NABO is not in a position to launch a legal action. It is not an agrieved party.

[tomsk]

NABO is not in a position to launch a legal action. It is not an agrieved party.

 

 

Thank you Lord Mayall...