CCing and BW's interpretation of the law

[mayalld]

You keep ignoring what I'm saying. BW mooring spots are public property - they have a responsibility to maximise the benefit to the public. Moving unused boats into marina spots that noone else wants allows others to use the facilities that people do want, and increases total revenues to canal-based businesses by increasing the number of mooring spots taken up. It's nothing to do with what I want - it's everything to do with effective allocation of publicly owned resources.

 

As far as I can see, in your scenario, BW will have provided a benefit to exactly the same number of people as it did before, but will have substituted Person B, whose use of his boat you approve of for person A whose use you don't approve of.

 

We must be truly thankful that such actions would undoubtedly fall foul of the HRA.

 

I am not understanding the analogy. A better one would be council housing. Someone in a council house that is larger than they need is encouraged to move to a smaller property to make way for those that need the space. Doing the same with mooring spots is an entirely unoriginal and non-controversial proposal.

 

Given that several people are taking issue with it, I fail to see that you can claim it to be non-controversial!

 

Yes, people in Council houses are encouraged to move, but they are not compelled to do so. What encouragement will you offer to get these unworthy individuals to move, and who will fund the incentives.

 

Or are you suggesting that people wanting a towpath mooring could pay people who have them to move to a marina?

[romarni123]

Is there only a few thousand boats on the cut???

[ymu]

As far as I can see, in your scenario, BW will have provided a benefit to exactly the same number of people as it did before, but will have substituted Person B, whose use of his boat you approve of for person A whose use you don't approve of.

 

We must be truly thankful that such actions would undoubtedly fall foul of the HRA.

That's not true. The struggling marina benefits from getting mooring fees that would otherwise have gone to BW. CCers who want moorings in a popular area benefit because more spots come free. Everyone benefits from fewer CCers using visitor moorings spots. BW still gets the mooring fees and has fewer headaches dealing with CCers who want to moor in one area and less complaints from people about CCers abusing the rules.

 

Given that several people are taking issue with it, I fail to see that you can claim it to be non-controversial!

These seem to be people who are unfamiliar with the way that public property is generally managed. If they don't know how allotments and council housing works - and even give an analogy which uses private housing (!) - they probably haven't thought about the fact that BW mooring spots are not privately owned.

 

Yes, people in Council houses are encouraged to move, but they are not compelled to do so. What encouragement will you offer to get these unworthy individuals to move, and who will fund the incentives.

Security of tenure for council housing tenants is a great deal more important than security of tenure for an abandoned boat. I would suggest that the appropriate procedure would be to locate an underused marina willing to take them for comparable fees and give them a year to find somewhere else or get towed there.

 

Or are you suggesting that people wanting a towpath mooring could pay people who have them to move to a marina?

No. That would be an enterprising approach for someone wanting a tasty online mooring, and it might even work in some cases if they had a means of contacting the owner of the boat - but they won't have a means of contacting the owner because they're never there and BW can't release the details. However, even if they could get in touch and persuade them to go to a marina, it would be BW auctioning the spot, not just handing it over to them. It's BWs responsibility and would have to remain so.

[mayalld]

These seem to be people who are unfamiliar with the way that public property is generally managed. If they don't know how allotments and council housing works - and even give an analogy which uses private housing (!) - they probably haven't thought about the fact that BW mooring spots are not privately owned.

 

Ah, so its the sort of non-controversial where lots of people object, but the proponent dismisses the objections as being from people who just don't understand.

[Naughty Cal]

That's not true. The struggling marina benefits from getting mooring fees that would otherwise have gone to BW. CCers who want moorings in a popular area benefit because more spots come free. Everyone benefits from fewer CCers using visitor moorings spots. BW still gets the mooring fees and has fewer headaches dealing with CCers who want to moor in one area and less complaints from people about CCers abusing the rules.

 

Where are these struggling marinas?

[magpie patrick]

There's only a few thousand boats on the cut as it is - a few hundred would make a massive difference.

 

You didn't understand the analogy because it was based on you wanting a mooring

 

With the above quote I can see you've lost the plot. At the last count there were around 26,000 boats on BW waters, well over half of which moor online, and the number of boats on the system grew at a rate of around 3-4% per annum for several years, and will do so again once the recession is over.

 

Do you really think, a few years ago, BW would have embarked on a programme to provide 10,000 marina moorings over ten years if there were not considerably more than 10,000 boats out on the cut?, they've so far provided about 4,000, which includes the three turkeys I mentioned earlier

[ymu]

Ah, so its the sort of non-controversial where lots of people object, but the proponent dismisses the objections as being from people who just don't understand.

No, it's the sort of non-controversial where it is standard practice in the management of public property which is leased to individuals for their exclusive use, and has been for decades.

[Pretty Funked Up]

This thread works better than Nytol

[GUMPY]

No, I'm a CCer and I don't want a mooring.

 

Are you really?

Been round much of the system have you?

or do you just inhabit the 20miles local to where you want to be?

 

 

Lets have some truthful answers

[Redeye]

:lol: :lol: ;)

[ymu]

Are you really?

Been round much of the system have you?

or do you just inhabit the 20miles local to where you want to be?

 

 

Lets have some truthful answers

Blimey, what is it about moorers that makes them assume no CCer can possibly be sticking to the rules. Is it just jealousy?

 

We CC between Birmingham, Oxford, London and Keynsham. My work is based in Oxford, so we naturally like to move slowly in that area, but I work from home so anywhere within an hour and a half's commute is easy to manage. My partner's family are in London, we used to live in Birmingham, and much of my family are in Keynsham, so we move between these areas.

 

Now, is there anyone who wants to focus on the issue of how public property is used and scarce resources allocated, or are we going to be stuck with irrelevant personal attacks?

[Naughty Cal]

Blimey, what is it about moorers that makes them assume no CCer can possibly be sticking to the rules. Is it just jealousy?

 

We CC between Birmingham, Oxford, London and Keynsham. My work is based in Oxford, so we naturally like to move slowly in that area, but I work from home so anywhere within an hour and a half's commute is easy to manage. My partner's family are in London, we used to live in Birmingham, and much of my family are in Keynsham, so we move between these areas.

 

Now, is there anyone who wants to focus on the issue of how public property is used and scarce resources allocated, or are we going to be stuck with irrelevant personal attacks?

 

I think you have a bee in your bonnet over nothing. Folks keep pointing this out to you and you keep ignoring them. There isnt a problem with the current online mooring situation. Moorings become avaliable and people are free to bid on them as they see fit. If moorings are not avaliable in your chosen location you look elsewhere.

 

The moorings are being paid for, so BW are happy.

[Redeye]

I think you have a bee in your bonnet over nothing. Folks keep pointing this out to you and you keep ignoring them. There isnt a problem with the current online mooring situation. Moorings become avaliable and people are free to bid on them as they see fit. If moorings are not avaliable in your chosen location you look elsewhere.

 

The moorings are being paid for, so BW are happy.

 

 

Thanks Phylis that was exactly the point I was trying to make about 2 hours ago, why would BW possible have any interesting in or right to evict someone from a mooring if the bills are being paid and the rules are being adhered to.

 

Redeye

[mayalld]

No, it's the sort of non-controversial where it is standard practice in the management of public property which is leased to individuals for their exclusive use, and has been for decades.

 

Ah, the classic last refuge of the class-warrior.

 

Once backed into a corner, simply redefine what words mean.

 

non-controversial means that something is accepted by an overwhelming consensus. It doesn't mean something that is standard practice, but to which a number of people object.

 

Neither does it mean something that is done in another area that you draw a parallel to.

 

You said;

 

Doing the same with mooring spots is an entirely unoriginal and non-controversial proposal.

That is clearly unmitigated crap.

[GUMPY]

Now, is there anyone who wants to focus on the issue of how public property is used and scarce resources allocated, or are we going to be stuck with irrelevant personal attacks?

 

Wasn't a personal attack you would know if I did that.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just curious to establish where you were coming from.

[ymu]

Thanks Phylis that was exactly the point I was trying to make about 2 hours ago, why would BW possible have any interesting in or right to evict someone from a mooring if the bills are being paid and the rules are being adhered to.

 

Redeye

They would have every right to do so, if they could be bothered - and it would likely improve the canal-based economy, so there is an incentive to do so even if there's no short-term financial gain for them. Council's regularly take out possession orders on privately owned properties which have been abandoned - if they can take over property which belongs to someone else for these reasons, BW most certainly can refuse to renew the lease on a publicly owned mooring spot which isn't being used for its intended purpose.

[ymu]

Why so ridiculous, is it not the case that you moor up against British Waterways Towpath every night?

 

I might only moor against their infrastructure for 60 to 80 nights a year, if I don't use my boat I might never moor against their infrastructure. Why would British Waterways get rid of all the online moorings, the cash has to come from somewhere to maintain the infrastructure that CCers use 365 days per year it has to pay for the refuse disposal, the sewerate and the water as well as ensuring that the canals are kept full of water and the locks are maintained.

 

As far as telling me to bugger off, are you really trying to argue that you are getting a raw deal, around £1.80 per day for a place to moor every night free water, free rubbish disposal, free sewage disposal (I'm assuming you are a sh*t carrier and not a Sh*t pumper) use of thousands of miles of free waterway and a different view out of your window every night.

 

Get a grip or try and get out more!

You seem to have forgotten what you wrote in the post I responded to.

 

What is ridiculous is suggesting that CCers should pay more on the grounds that moorers pay for their mooring spots. We all pay for the facilities we use and we all have the right to use them 365 days a year. Those who want the convenience of a home mooring are free to pay for it, but that is what they are paying for. If they think they're paying too much, they're free to give up the mooring and become CCers.

 

You're still mooring a boat on the canal 365 days/year - even if you're on a marina mooring, unless it is in a private basin you're required to have a licence because you are on BW waters even if the land is owned by the marina. What you're paying for is the right to keep it in one location, and it will inevitably be a prime location because mooring spots are always located near to roads, parking and taps, and often near Elsan and pump-out points.

 

I don't think we're getting a raw deal at all - I've no idea where you got that from. What would be a raw deal is charging CCers more whilst denying them use of 90% of the best mooring spots. If you want the convenience of a permanent mooring, you have to pay for it. If not, you pay what everyone else does for the use of the canals.

[Duchess Omnium]

and haven't seen one come up south of Heyford yet. One boat on the BW Hythe Bridge moorings came onto apolloduck for sale with its mooring permit. That's it. If we wanted a mooring in that area, we would be waiting years for one to come up and face a lot of competition when it did.

 

I know you don't want a mooring, but what you say is not correct. Moorings south of Oxford don't come up a lot, and they do go for a lot of money, but since the auction system was introduced there has been 1 mooring at Heyford, 2 at Enslow (for relatively small boats), 1 at Shipton (again for smallish -- 45 feet I think), 1 at Gunpowder Wharf and 3 or 4 Agenda 21 moorings in Oxford.

 

I know this because I very much DO want a permanent mooring and bid on every one that could fit my boat, until I got a "berth sitting" spot (with BW's permission) on someone else's mooring. Now that is a system I really think is dodgy, though I have benefitted...

 

I think BW should license more mooring spots and collect the revenue. I know this is not popular with people who grumble about slowing down past moored boats, but my boat wouldn't take up any less space wherever it was on the system.

[ymu]

I know you don't want a mooring, but what you say is not correct. Moorings south of Oxford don't come up a lot, and they do go for a lot of money, but since the auction system was introduced there has been 1 mooring at Heyford, 2 at Enslow (for relatively small boats), 1 at Shipton (again for smallish -- 45 feet I think), 1 at Gunpowder Wharf and 3 or 4 Agenda 21 moorings in Oxford.

 

I know this because I very much DO want a permanent mooring and bid on every one that could fit my boat, until I got a "berth sitting" spot (with BW's permission) on someone else's mooring. Now that is a system I really think is dodgy, though I have benefitted...

 

I think BW should license more mooring spots and collect the revenue. I know this is not popular with people who grumble about slowing down past moored boats, but my boat wouldn't take up any less space wherever it was on the system.

Then either my prowess with the search facility needs a lot of improving, or it's because I've only been looking for 65'+ moorings.

 

How have Agenda 21 moorings come up for auction? They have the right to sell them with their boats, don't they? Or do BW manage to get the permits back if they section 8 someone?

 

I don't know about 'berth sitting' being dodgy - although I'm not familiar with the system they're using. I think it's a great idea - there's no reason to leave mooring spots empty whilst the occupants are off cruising.

 

Good luck with getting the mooring. I was at Alchemy today and they have one coming up near Duke's Lock - not sure of the details. Call Steve on 0780 886 4662.

Edited August 20, 2010 by ymu

[Duchess Omnium]

Then either my prowess with the search facility needs a lot of improving, or it's because I've only been looking for 65'+ moorings.

 

How have Agenda 21 moorings come up for auction? They have the right to sell them with their boats, don't they? Or do BW manage to get the permits back if they section 8 someone?

 

I don't know about 'berth sitting' being dodgy - although I'm not familiar with the system they're using. I think it's a great idea - there's no reason to leave mooring spots empty whilst the occupants are off cruising.

 

Good luck with getting the mooring. I was at Alchemy today and they have one coming up near Duke's Lock - not sure of the details. Call Steve on 0780 886 4662.

 

Oh, yes, I forgot, there have also been two at Duke's Lock recently and I hear there are more, as you say. So I guess you have missed a few moorings up for auction -- my boat is 62 ft so most spots that would fit me would fit you.

 

Maybe some Agenda 21 moorings are sold with the boat; I don't know. But I have definitely bid on Agenda 21 moorings twice and a couple more have been up for auction since that I haven't bid on.

 

Thanks for the info, but I am not currently bidding because my "berth sitting" position suits me just fine for the moment. But I do not think it is fair. I don't want to ruin my comfortable position, but let's just say I have been here rather a long time. The official moorer doesn't want to give up her rights to it.

[ymu]

Thanks for the info, but I am not currently bidding because my "berth sitting" position suits me just fine for the moment. But I do not think it is fair. I don't want to ruin my comfortable position, but let's just say I have been here rather a long time. The official moorer doesn't want to give up her rights to it.

Oh, right. Yeah, that is a bit shit. I don't have any problem with you taking advantage of the situation, but why are BW allowing this to happen?

[Duchess Omnium]

Oh, right. Yeah, that is a bit shit. I don't have any problem with you taking advantage of the situation, but why are BW allowing this to happen?

 

Because that's the rule. Berth sitting is allowed. And yes, it is nice for me. I am not really in a position to be a CCer (though I was initially forced into this position by the the rules). Now I am taking advantage of the rules.

 

Of course, at any moment I can be evicted, as soon as the legit owner wants to come back. That's a big downside. Not that she would throw me out at a moment's notice, but everyone is clear who "owns" the mooring.

 

The irony is that there is plenty of room behind this mooring for another boat or two, even allowing lock moorings and a visitor spot or two before or after the lock. I have never known it to be full even in mid summer. BW could collect extra mooring fees.

 

That is what I am saying. License more spots, collect more fees. We are all better off, really. My boat is going to take up space somewhere...

[ymu]

Because that's the rule. Berth sitting is allowed. And yes, it is nice for me. I am not really in a position to be a CCer (though I was initially forced into this position by the the rules). Now I am taking advantage of the rules.

 

Of course, at any moment I can be evicted, as soon as the legit owner wants to come back. That's a big downside. Not that she would throw me out at a moment's notice, but everyone is clear who "owns" the mooring.

 

The irony is that there is plenty of room behind this mooring for another boat or two, even allowing lock moorings and a visitor spot or two before or after the lock. I have never known it to be full even in mid summer. BW could collect extra mooring fees.

 

That is what I am saying. License more spots, collect more fees. We are all better off, really. My boat is going to take up space somewhere...

OK - I wasn't aware of that rule. I've always been told that sub-letting BW mooring spots is not allowed and has to be done in a clandestine fashion. I'm a bit shocked that it is the rule actually - makes a mockery of the old waiting list system, and the new auction system.

 

I agree that more moorings are needed, but not if they take away too many good visitor spots (sounds like that's not an issue where you are). We've never had a problem finding a mooring (apart from on the BCN where every good mooring spot we saw was restricted to 1/24/48 hours without a single boat moored on them), but that's partly because we're happy to moor in the middle of nowhere. The more convenient places are often close to full, and it would only give the continuous whingers who have lost the use of their legs a bigger excuse to moan.

[Duchess Omnium]

Sub-letting is not allowed. Berth sitting is.

 

It's all in a name.

[Lady Muck]

Sub-letting is not allowed. Berth sitting is.

 

It's all in a name.

 

Ahh but it is - we sublet last year for five months while we were away. It isn't allowed indefinately and it's at your mooring wardens discretion.