Live-aboard but no residential moorings.

[Naughty Cal]

OK,

lets be truthful here,

BW ......when I came to renew my Licence on the 31st Dec, said they only accept certain cards, but not Maestro or Maestro Delta, even though these are accepted worldwide by anyone who takes money.

 

I went through the application, after phoning and being told everyone had 2 weeks holiday.

I tried my Credit card, wouldn't work, tried to ring, answer machine, .....

 

eventually put my maestro details through, just as a last resort, even though it kept telling me I couldn't.

 

Money taken, licence received 24th Jan.

so my little white lie about my permanent mooring can be brushed under the same table.

 

Until someone phones the snitch line

[Macca61]

Hi folks,

 

I'm a complete newbie to the forums though I've seen a number of threads on similar issues but wondered if there was any advice people could give for my particular instance?

 

I'm needing to stay near Oxford (within a few miles north, or anywhere on the Thames between Oxford and Reading), and I have to get to work on a daily basis. I have a car and I'm fine with cycling so don't mind an hour's ride here and there to move vehicle etc.

 

Now I don't really have to tell people that there are no residential moorings anywhere near Oxford that have come up in recent weeks and so I was wondering what my options might be? Are there even many places with residential moorings in this area - I would certainly consider a marina if there are any around.

 

Continuous Cruising sounds fantastic and is the real reason for me getting onto the canals and things in the long run, but with the 14day rules and no-return clauses, this is going to be rather difficult I would imagine whilst I need to stay near work and keep my car?

 

Lastly, do any others have 9 to 5 jobs that they manage to run alongside being a live-aboard? Is it even possible without ridiculous stress levels!? (I'm not bothered by emptying a loo, stacking firewood etc etc, but it's the commute I hate. Unfortunately it's not the time to be giving up a job though, no matter what it is!

 

Many thanks for your patience,

 

 

Mark

Hi Mark

 

We live aboard although i dont have a 9 to 5 job as such, i need to get to my van or get to an airport as i work all over the world really.

We are on the Thames and dont generally have any problems. We moored at a private mooring for the winter and a first for us was electricity, what a difference!, previously on a line mooring on Cranfleet Cut. In April we will head off and travel anywhere from Abingdon to Limehouse i just make sure if i am away for a week it is a reasonable mooring so Mrs Skipper is safe. If you want to stay near Oxford there are plenty of places around Henley and Reading but be warned 99% you will have to pay, maybe a fiver.I Henley you can pay for the week at a reduced rate although last year i never saw anyone checking if you paid.

We normally manage to move weekends or more if i have no work and use buses and trains to go back and pick up vehicles.

Its a bit of a faff but we wouldnt change it for the world.

I would add that we are a 21.5mtr Dutch barge and normally find a mooring quite easily.

Regards

Gordon

[Looby Loo]

Hello,

 

I'm hoping to live aboard in the future. I accept that I am unlikely to find a proper residential mooring in the area I would like. Would it be within the rules to take up a leisure mooring say at a marina either in that area or much further north where there seems to be less of an availability problem but live mainly on the canal in the area I want to be. Would the fact that I am contributing by paying for a berth somewhere mean that as long as I abided by the mooring time limits and moved on as necessary, albeit not very far, I wouldn't fall foul of the CC rules. I'm a naturally law abiding person and have no wish to break or even bend the rules. I would feel deeply uncomfortable pretending to be a CC'er when I'm clearly not so that would never be an option for me. I would welcome any guidance you could give me.

[Chris Pink]

. I'm a naturally law abiding person and have no wish to break or even bend the rules.

 

Given that statement I would have thought British Waterways were the ones to ask. One might not agree with the answer but they are certainly the first place to seek an opinion.

[carlt]

Hello,

 

I'm hoping to live aboard in the future. I accept that I am unlikely to find a proper residential mooring in the area I would like. Would it be within the rules to take up a leisure mooring say at a marina either in that area or much further north where there seems to be less of an availability problem but live mainly on the canal in the area I want to be. Would the fact that I am contributing by paying for a berth somewhere mean that as long as I abided by the mooring time limits and moved on as necessary, albeit not very far, I wouldn't fall foul of the CC rules. I'm a naturally law abiding person and have no wish to break or even bend the rules. I would feel deeply uncomfortable pretending to be a CC'er when I'm clearly not so that would never be an option for me. I would welcome any guidance you could give me.

It's tricky because, according to the law, the 14 day rule only applies to continuous cruisers.

 

If you have a permanent mooring then Section 17(3)©(i) exempts you from Section17(3)©(ii), of the British Waterways Act 1995.

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

 

(a) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

 

( an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

 

© either—

 

(i) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

Others will come along and disagree, of course....

[mayalld]

I hate 'visitor moorings' so I don't use them for long stays, they aren't nice spots to me. I don't overstay anywhere, so what's your point?

 

You have suggested that there are places where the time limit on mooring at a particular location is (or might be under new proposals), insufficient to allow you to "visit a place properly".

 

Do you have the slightest evidence that there is any intention of introducing a general 24/48 hour limit on the towpath generally?

 

If you don't want to moor in the spots where mooring spots are in short supply, you won't even notice the change.

 

It's tricky because, according to the law, the 14 day rule only applies to continuous cruisers.

 

If you have a permanent mooring then Section 17(3)©(i) exempts you from Section17(3)©(ii), of the British Waterways Act 1995.

 

Others will come along and disagree, of course....

 

I will and I won't.

 

If you have a permanent mooring you are exempt from the requirements of 17(3)©(ii)

 

You are still subject to the limit that BW set of 14 days casual mooring to their land, but you could (for example) take a short term private mooring for a month away from your permanent mooring.

[FadeToScarlet]

The other half and I continuously cruised around the Fenland waterways, which is a good deal harder in many ways than the canals. You can only stop on recognised visitor moorings, when there's space, and you have only 48 hours on each mooring, with many being no-return within 7 days.

 

It is perfectly possible to do it, but meant cruising for an hour and a half to two hours every other day; andbeing reliant on unreliable busses, and more reliable trains, to get into work. It was expensive, too, we were spending a fortune on just getting to work.

 

For example, you have four days in Cambridge (2 lots of seperate 48-hour visitor moorings), 2 days in Clayhithe (2 hours by boat away, 5 mins by train), 2 days at Little Thetford (taking the bus in to work), 2 days in Ely, then either onwards along the trainline or back towards Cambridge.

 

Even then, we did occasionally go further afield- but if you had a car, it would be easy to head further onto the Middle Level, or down the Ouze towards Bedford. Even limiting ourselves to feasible public transport commuting distances to Cambridge, we could fulfil all the navigation authorities' obligations about staying, and keep on moving.

 

But it wasn't easy!

 

It's an absolute doddle to do it on the canals in comparison!

Edited January 26, 2010 by FadeToScarlet

[carlt]

I will and I won't.

 

If you have a permanent mooring you are exempt from the requirements of 17(3)©(ii)

 

You are still subject to the limit that BW set of 14 days casual mooring to their land, but you could (for example) take a short term private mooring for a month away from your permanent mooring.

But then we get back to the question of whether or not BW have the right to arbitrarily change the "rules" when their actions and responsibilities are set down by government legislation, which tells them how they are to manage the publicly owned property that they are responsible for.

[mayalld]

But then we get back to the question of whether or not BW have the right to arbitrarily change the "rules" when their actions and responsibilities are set down by government legislation, which tells them how they are to manage the publicly owned property that they are responsible for.

 

Indeed we do.

 

It seems to me quite clear that the Transport Act permits them to regulate casual moorings (and indeed to charge for them if they choose to).

 

The only difference in the 14 day rule as I see it is that if you are a CCer, then breaking it gives them a VERY easy path to revoking your licence, whilst for those with a permanent mooring the path is more complex.

[Chris Pink]

The only difference in the 14 day rule as I see it is that if you are a CCer, then breaking it gives them a VERY easy path to revoking your licence, whilst for those with a permanent mooring the path is more complex.

 

Surely not, in the first instance (and for lack of insurance or safety certificate) there is a lengthy procedure as outlined in 1995 Act Section 17 (4), whereas for everybody else BW state that they will take your licence away if you break their terms and conditions.

[Lady Muck]

Do you have the slightest evidence that there is any intention of introducing a general 24/48 hour limit on the towpath generally?

 

The Lee (along with the K&A) is one of the waterways where they wish to trial mooring zoning and charging for it. It's in the consultation document. There are no 24/48 hour moorings on the Lee at the moment (TICR), but there are hundreds of moored boats.

 

So, yes it could affect us, but I hope not. As I said before, BW clearly want to cash in on boaters mooring at those popular tourist destinations -Tottenham, Hackney and Clapton.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Lady Muck

[Chris Pink]

Do you have the slightest evidence that there is any intention of introducing a general 24/48 hour limit on the towpath generally?

 

If you don't want to moor in the spots where mooring spots are in short supply, you won't even notice the change.

 

Yes there are maps, in the public domain through FOI requests, that show swathes of proposed 48 hour moorings in areas where BW have made no formal assessments of use or need.

[alan_fincher]

There are no 24/48 hour moorings on the Lee at the moment (TICR), but there are hundreds of moored boats.

TICR ?

 

Please translate - clearly not "Training in Clinical Research" which is the most common answer Google seems to want to give!

 

There are no 24/48 hour moorings on the Lee at the moment

Not what BW think on Boaters Guides on Waterscape, by the way....

 

Visitor moorings

River Lee

Ware: Maximum 14d.

Hertford Town: Maximum 14d.

Stanstead Abbotts: Maximum 48h.

Feilde's Weir: Maximum 14d.

Carthagena Lock: Maximum 14d.

Broxbourne: Maximum 24 hours.

Cheshunt: Maximum 14d.

Rammey Marsh Lock: Maximum 14d.

Enfield Lock: Maximum 48h.

[mayalld]

The Lee (along with the K&A) is one of the waterways where they wish to trial mooring zoning and charging for it. It's in the consultation document. There are no 24/48 hour moorings on the Lee at the moment (TICR), but there are hundreds of moored boats.

 

So, yes it could affect us, but I hope not. As I said before, BW clearly want to cash in on boaters mooring at those popular tourist destinations -Tottenham, Hackney and Clapton.

 

But you've already said you don't want to moor at the popular spots.

 

It really is starting to look like some people are objecting to the proposals for no other reason than that they always object to BW proposals.

 

Had Pavlov been alive today, he would find rich pickings for his research here.

[carlt]

It seems to me quite clear that the Transport Act permits them to regulate casual moorings (and indeed to charge for them if they choose to).

"Services and Facilities" may be a valid argument, if services and facilities are provided.

 

If a boat is moored in one spot, with no services or facilities, then it is difficult to see how they can insist on the boat being moved to an identical spot, elsewhere, with the same (lack of) services and facilities.

 

Section 43(3) allows regulation of moorings if they are providing a service or facility. I would have thought this would require the bare minimum of rings.

[Naughty Cal]

"Services and Facilities" may be a valid argument, if services and facilities are provided.

 

If a boat is moored in one spot, with no services or facilities, then it is difficult to see how they can insist on the boat being moved to an identical spot, elsewhere, with the same (lack of) services and facilities.

 

Section 43(3) allows regulation of moorings if they are providing a service or facility. I would have thought this would require the bare minimum of rings.

 

Does providing the water to float the boat not count as a service?

[magpie patrick]

TICR ?

 

Please translate - clearly not "Training in Clinical Research" which is the most common answer Google seems to want to give!

 

 

Not what BW think on Boaters Guides on Waterscape, by the way....

 

Think I Correctly Recall

[carlt]

Had Pavlov been alive today, he would find rich pickings for his research here.

Possibly not in that particular post, of yours, Dave, but your thoughts do demonstrate admirably, BW's reliance on conditioned reflexes to stop people questioning their misinterpretations.

[magpie patrick]

But you've already said you don't want to moor at the popular spots.

 

It really is starting to look like some people are objecting to the proposals for no other reason than that they always object to BW proposals.

 

Had Pavlov been alive today, he would find rich pickings for his research here.

 

I think LM was being ironic, the places listed are not exactly tourist hotspots

[carlt]

Does providing the water to float the boat not count as a service?

Paid for with the licence fee.

 

It is where the boat floats that is open to question.

[soldthehouse]

But you've already said you don't want to moor at the popular spots.

 

It really is starting to look like some people are objecting to the proposals for no other reason than that they always object to BW proposals.

 

Had Pavlov been alive today, he would find rich pickings for his research here.

What happened to Pavlovs dog?..

[mayalld]

"Services and Facilities" may be a valid argument, if services and facilities are provided.

 

If a boat is moored in one spot, with no services or facilities, then it is difficult to see how they can insist on the boat being moved to an identical spot, elsewhere, with the same (lack of) services and facilities.

 

Section 43(3) allows regulation of moorings if they are providing a service or facility. I would have thought this would require the bare minimum of rings.

 

That would be an interesting argument, but Section 43(8) says;

The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

 

So, taking this into account, Section 43(3), which says;

Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority shall have power to demand, take and recover or waive such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

cannot be read other than to indicate that;

BW shall have the power to make charges and impose conditions as they see fit for the use of the waterways by a boat.

 

Paid for with the licence fee.

 

It is where the boat floats that is open to question.

 

Yes, paid for with a licence fee.

 

The act doesn't give BW a right to charge OR regulate.

 

It allows them to charge and regulate.

[carlt]

That would be an interesting argument, but Section 43(8) says;

The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

 

So, taking this into account, Section 43(3), which says;

Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority shall have power to demand, take and recover or waive such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

cannot be read other than to indicate that;

BW shall have the power to make charges and impose conditions as they see fit for the use of the waterways by a boat.

...which is covered by the licence fee. If you think it is ok for BW to charge twice, for the same service then I would suggest you are closer to Pavlov's dogs than I previously thought.

 

[casper ghost]

The Lee (along with the K&A) is one of the waterways where they wish to trial mooring zoning and charging for it. It's in the consultation document. There are no 24/48 hour moorings on the Lee at the moment (TICR), but there are hundreds of moored boats.

 

So, yes it could affect us, but I hope not. As I said before, BW clearly want to cash in on boaters mooring at those popular tourist destinations -Tottenham, Hackney and Clapton.

 

I'd like to see all London and other city moorings free, maybe that'd encourage boats there and keep the nice quite spots for ME...

[carlt]

Yes, paid for with a licence fee.

 

The act doesn't give BW a right to charge OR regulate.

 

It allows them to charge and regulate.

If that regulation means charging twice, for the same service, then it is no wonder they've never attempted to test it in court.