Moorings Management Proposals

[Chris Pink]

I agree - say you buy a second hand boat which is already licensed, you're not necessarily going to be reading and signing any declaration until you re-license it, like the boater I spoke to this morning, she didn't know about the cc guidelines.

 

Yes some boaters realise it's not as cushty as the vendor said it would be and they move back to the bankside, possibly selling the boat onto someone else who is also going to find out the hard way.

 

What has happened a few times here is that someone makes a 'killing' on a boat, say sells £10K boat for £25K (or more) -cheap for housing after all - the next owner (inexperienced) is unwilling to sell for less so they wait and wait until someone else comes along who also knows not very much, eventually the boat falls apart/sinks and the last person in the chain walks away in tears. If the boat is salvageable then there are a few people waiting who refloat/buy for peanuts, tart it up and the whole sorry cycle starts again otherwise BW are left to pick up the pieces (literally).

Edited February 23, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Lady Muck]

What has happened a few times here is that someone makes a 'killing' on a boat, say sells £10K boat for £25K (or more) -cheap for housing after all - the next owner (inexperienced) is unwilling to sell for less so they wait and wait until someone else comes along who also knows not very much, eventually the boat falls apart/sinks and the last person in the chain walks away in tears. If the boat is salvageable then there are a few people waiting who refloat/buy for peanuts, tart it up and the whole sorry cycle starts again otherwise BW are left to pick up the pieces (literally).

 

Yes I have seen no end of £30k 'leaky buckets' up here. Does anyone remember us all trying to talk a forum member out of paying £50k for a knackered 1970's nb a few years ago? They said, 'oh it's so quaint, just like a cottage inside and so cheap compared to a flat in Victoria Park.' We said, 'it's a bucket, it's knackered, it'll need overplating, don't do it'. They 'fell in love' and bought it with their life savings. *sigh* And don't get me onto the, 'new shell ready to go' that someone was selling for £20k that was really a 1970's springer stripped down to nowt, reblacked and red oxided. There's been a few of those.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Lady Muck

[deletedaccount]

The phrase "perfectly suited to a couple with no boat experience" sends shivers down my spine

[Sven...]

I see that a lot of our energy goes into discussing among ourselves how badly BW are managed and to which degree BW have a right to interpret the law, charge money, etc. May I suggest that this is a waste of precious time and energy now at an important crossroads.

The legal details and framework could change anyway – the whole situation is in flux with BW converting to a charity etc. What is certain is that BW is and will be a heavyweight. Whatever rules and guidelines BW draw up are going to be important one way or another in the future. Moreover, the proposals which now apply only to the Lea Valley are likely to soon spread to the whole country.

So I suggest that instead of discussing legal theory, we should focus on the material proposals which are on the table and work towards getting them tweaked towards becoming as acceptable as possible for all boaters.

[carlt]

Any more Hansard references to readings of the BIll gratefully received. (I have had a look but not found much else)

Enjoy!

Clicky

 

I see that a lot of our energy goes into discussing among ourselves how badly BW are managed and to which degree BW have a right to interpret the law, charge money, etc. May I suggest that this is a waste of precious time and energy now at an important crossroads.

The legal details and framework could change anyway – the whole situation is in flux with BW converting to a charity etc. What is certain is that BW is and will be a heavyweight. Whatever rules and guidelines BW draw up are going to be important one way or another in the future. Moreover, the proposals which now apply only to the Lea Valley are likely to soon spread to the whole country.

So I suggest that instead of discussing legal theory, we should focus on the material proposals which are on the table and work towards getting them tweaked towards becoming as acceptable as possible for all boaters.

I'm discussing this because it's interesting, not for any other reason.

 

If this is a waste of time and energy, in your opinion, then fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

If you want to discuss something else then start another thread and, If I find it interesting, then I will discuss that, as well.

 

 

Edited to add: What's a heavyweight?

Edited February 23, 2011 by carlt

[Chris Pink]

Enjoy!

Clicky

 

 

Yes, I got that far, though I prefer, this as a little more intelligent.

 

though i should, I suppose, be grateful you didn't send me a lmgtfy.com link

[carlt]

Enjoy!

Clicky

 

This is a mountain of rubbish, by the way, but some random sifting produces some interesting snippets:

 

British Waterways

HC Deb 17 December 1992 vol 216 c500W 500W

Ms. Walley To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy for moneys raised from the sale of British Waterways properties to be spent on improvements to the waterway system.

 

Mr. Maclean: Moneys raised from the sale of British Waterways' properties are reinvested for the benefit of the waterways.

 

Wonder when that changed then?

[Ronni]

I see that a lot of our energy goes into discussing among ourselves how badly BW are managed and to which degree BW have a right to interpret the law, charge money, etc. May I suggest that this is a waste of precious time and energy now at an important crossroads.

The legal details and framework could change anyway – the whole situation is in flux with BW converting to a charity etc. What is certain is that BW is and will be a heavyweight. Whatever rules and guidelines BW draw up are going to be important one way or another in the future. Moreover, the proposals which now apply only to the Lea Valley are likely to soon spread to the whole country.

So I suggest that instead of discussing legal theory, we should focus on the material proposals which are on the table and work towards getting them tweaked towards becoming as acceptable as possible for all boaters.

I completely agree and am working towards soing just that. :0)

[Sir Nibble]

I completely agree and am working towards soing just that. :0)

What, ALL boaters? even ones who applaud the whole initiative?

[sueb]

What, ALL boaters? even ones who applaud the whole initiative?

The joys of representing boaters

Sue

[canaldrifter]

The joys of representing boaters

Sue

 

I am certain that the ones who support this scheme are those who it won't apply to. They may live to regret it if it is included in future legislation that affects the entire system (or what's left of it).

 

Thus far Aunt Sally is doing a great job of divide and rule.

 

Tone

[LoneEcho]

I maybe wrong but from the eyes of a new boater, would it not be better to have clarified how far and how often you need to travel to qualify as a cc'er. I am not saying this is the answer, but as someone who bought a boat last year, I would have liked to have known exactly what was expected, rather than "you will be ok on xxxx stretch, they never bother you there". I was given advice by quite a few boaters who said "don't worry about a mooring", and was not sure what to believe. If I was to buy a boat now, and had these guidelines, I could make the decision as to whether a liveaboard was a viable concept. If these guidelines were also made clear to any prospective buyer, then would this not be better for those who think "hmmm 20k and I can live beside Victoria Park".

 

As I said, this may not be the solution, but there does need to be some clarity for new boaters. I have trawled the net for over a year now, and still can't find a definition of CC'ing that people agree on.

[Mick]

As the rules will vary from canal to canal how will continuous cruisers, who cruise the system, know what the rules are in each area? can see that summer cruising is going to be a nightmare.

Sue

 

I can see this is just the start, if They BW, get the rules changed on the Lee & Stort it will be easy to make it apply all over the system/

[canaldrifter]

I have trawled the net for over a year now,

 

 

Wow! You have a trawler and go fishing on canals?

 

 

 

and still can't find a definition of CC'ing that people agree on.

 

In very general terms (under the act) a CCer can only be a boater who holds a boat licence, but not a home mooring, and who is prepared to move onwards from 'place' to 'place' without overstaying in any one 'place' for more than 14 days.

 

Anyone without a home mooring who does not comply with the above is better described as a Continuous Moorer or a squatter.

 

IMHO

 

Tone (CCer with a home mooring off BW waters. In BW's eyes yet another category; a Visiting Boater.)

 

Edited for finger trouble

Edited February 23, 2011 by canaldrifter

[ymu]

As I said, this may not be the solution, but there does need to be some clarity for new boaters. I have trawled the net for over a year now, and still can't find a definition of CC'ing that people agree on.

There isn't much of a problem with BW's current guidance. I don't think they'll be able to take this 'mega-neighbourhood' concept right around the network when they have already been very clear on how they interpret the word 'place' in the 1995 Act. The only thing it doesn't do is clarify what a 'significant' part of the system means to them (apart from explicitly excluding shuttling between two adjacent places).

 

This isn't really a problem - just do what you think is reasonable given the law and the guidance, and it's a discussion you can have with a mooring warden if they ever challenge you on it. They'll usually try to talk to you before they slap a notice on the boat, and most of them are great - although a little under-trained on boating when they first start (IME), so take every opportunity you can to explain our world to the new ones.

[Cosmic]

And the word 'place' is used in the 1995 Act. They can't change that - only what their guidance decides is a 'place'. The full transcript from Hansard would likely be useful for anyone wanting to persuade a court of law that BW had overstepped the mark when it came to interpreting the meaning.

I find this quote:

I emphasise that nothing in the Bill alters the general rule that boats are free to moor against a towpath in any one place for up to 14 days except where that would cause a navigational hazard. Restrictions are necessary in the interests of securing safety and preventing congestion. They will apply only at permanent mooring sites, at water points and at certain popular sites which have special conditions, such as time limits to be fair to all users. Those will be clearly signposted.

from that link interesting. It seems to state clearly that there is a general right to moor for 14 days without moving. That means there is no need for a definition of "place", as BW repeatedly insist that there is, because the assumption is that it is fine to spend two weeks "in any one place" - i.e. without moving at all - except at certain popular sites where it clearly signposted that this is not allowed.

 

Or have I missed something here?

[GUMPY]

I am certain that the ones who support this scheme are those who it won't apply to. They may live to regret it if it is included in future legislation that affects the entire system (or what's left of it).

Just as some of us now regret supporting removing the requirement to have a home mooring bit in the 95 act

That was a bad move getting the home mooring bit taken out of the act for what was then a relatively small number of people.

Edited February 23, 2011 by idleness

[LoneEcho]

Wow! You have a trawler and go fishing on canals?

 

 

 

In very general terms (under the act) a CCer can only be a boater who holds a boat licence, but not a home mooring, and who is prepared to move onwards from 'place' to 'place' without overstaying in any one 'place' for more than 14 days.

 

Anyone without a home mooring who does not comply with the above is better described as a Continuous Moorer or a squatter.

 

IMHO

 

Tone (CCer with a home mooring off BW waters. In BW's eyes yet another category; a Visiting Boater.)

 

Edited for finger trouble

Trawled & net, well spotted, no pun intended.

 

Yes I know the "general terms", but still can't find more than a handful who agree on the interpretation

 

Laurie

 

There isn't much of a problem with BW's current guidance. I don't think they'll be able to take this 'mega-neighbourhood' concept right around the network when they have already been very clear on how they interpret the word 'place' in the 1995 Act. The only thing it doesn't do is clarify what a 'significant' part of the system means to them (apart from explicitly excluding shuttling between two adjacent places).

 

This isn't really a problem - just do what you think is reasonable given the law and the guidance, and it's a discussion you can have with a mooring warden if they ever challenge you on it. They'll usually try to talk to you before they slap a notice on the boat, and most of them are great - although a little under-trained on boating when they first start (IME), so take every opportunity you can to explain our world to the new ones.

Thanks for the advice, I ended up taking a mooring, because of what I perceived to be a very grey area.

[romarni123]

Does anyone know what is a significant part of the system is

[carlt]

Does anyone know what is a significant part of the system is

not something that is mentioned in the Act.

[ymu]

I find this quote:

 

from that link interesting. It seems to state clearly that there is a general right to moor for 14 days without moving. That means there is no need for a definition of "place", as BW repeatedly insist that there is, because the assumption is that it is fine to spend two weeks "in any one place" - i.e. without moving at all - except at certain popular sites where it clearly signposted that this is not allowed.

 

Or have I missed something here?

You may have missed the fact that the term 'continuous cruiser' is not to be taken literally? Most of us move for an hour or three every 1-2 weeks and probably travel less in a year than the average holiday-maker.

 

The problem is defining the next 'place' you have to move to after your 2 weeks is up, and how frequently you may return to the old 'place' (ie how short your circuit can be). There are at least 10 legal 'places' between Oxford and Banbury so, if I set off from Banbury and turned around at Oxford, it would be 10*2*2 = 40 weeks, or 9 months before we were back in Banbury. This isn't what we do, but it seems perfectly in accordance with the guidance.

 

Just as some of us now regret supporting removing the requirement to have a home mooring bit in the 95 act

That was a bad move getting the home mooring bit taken out of the act for what was then a relatively small number of people.

If you read the transcript of the debate, this was non-negotiable from Parliament's point of view. BW come in for heavy criticism for sending in such a half-arsed bit of legislation, and there's a lot of suspicion about their motives. There's no way they were going to get the original bill passed.

[Scratch]

Just as some of us now regret supporting removing the requirement to have a home mooring bit in the 95 act

That was a bad move getting the home mooring bit taken out of the act for what was then a relatively small number of people.

 

Do you get some sort of cheap thrill out of being incredibly pompous?

[sueb]

Just as some of us now regret supporting removing the requirement to have a home mooring bit in the 95 act

That was a bad move getting the home mooring bit taken out of the act for what was then a relatively small number of people.

a) it was a small number of people

There was a cronic shortage of moorings at that time.

Sue

[Cosmic]

The problem is defining the next 'place' you have to move to after your 2 weeks is up, and how frequently you may return to the old 'place' (ie how short your circuit can be). There are at least 10 legal 'places' between Oxford and Banbury so, if I set off from Banbury and turned around at Oxford, it would be 10*2*2 = 40 weeks, or 9 months before we were back in Banbury. This isn't what we do, but it seems perfectly in accordance with the guidance.

But that's my point. They were pointing out that there is a positive right to stay put for 14 days (or more), not a requirement to move a specified distance. That means there's no need to define a place, and no minimum distance to move at the end of the 14 days, and no restriction on returning to the original location.

[GUMPY]

If you read the transcript of the debate, this was non-negotiable from Parliament's point of view. BW come in for heavy criticism for sending in such a half-arsed bit of legislation, and there's a lot of suspicion about their motives. There's no way they were going to get the original bill passed.

 

Thats because many people, including me, and organisations lobbied like hell to get the clause taken out.

 

Hindsight however.....