cc-ers

[cazz]

hi

Im new here and have been reading all the topics and have found them interesting and very helpful.

What i dont understand is the problem most have about cc-ers.

If you wish to live in a marina then that is fine.

If you wish to be a cc-er then surley that is fine.

And if you cannot get a mooring and have your name on a list with bw as i have and until then ( we get our boat this month) we will have to cc then surely that is fine.

Even bridge hopping i still carnt see what the problem is, each to there own as far as i see things.

We will be paying our licence just the same as everyone else to use the canals.

So could someone put me straight as to what the problem actually is would be much appreciated.

 

Cazz

[nbtafelberg]

OK

 

I am a mooring warden with BW. CCers are wonderful people - I know a lot of them and many are good freinds.

 

I think the problem has been actually bad feeling caused where people have been paying £1800 a year for instance and a boat next door moored for free with no license and people abuse the visitor mooring rights on some sites.

 

People generally are, because of lack of enforcement in the past, unaware of the rules regarding moorings and many will now find a hefty bill winging its way to them!

 

1. Mooring in a winding hole/lock moorings.

 

Under Section 18 of the British Waterways Act 1995 you may find that your boat could be removed and you could receive up to £1000 fine for "blocking the navigation" this is particularly true where you have moored in a winding hole and a 70 foot boat is trying to turn.

 

2. Overstaying on moorings

 

If you overstay you are probably generating (certainly when a mooring warden is there) a £25 a night overstaying charge. Now, in reality I'm not sure how many people get levied this charge, however if your boat is section 8'd then you may find that charge will be applied. In future it is probably I think (and this is my opinion) that in some areas enforcement will be much heavier so that visitor moorings are kept free.

 

Anyway - thats what I think....

[dor]

Ho hum - here we go again.

 

There is nothing wrong with genuine CCers. they cruise the system enjoying life, and any resentment felt towards these genuine people is rooted in jealousy.

 

Bridge hoppers however are a different matter. These people are trying to buck the system by not paying. Why should boater A pay say £1000 for his mooring, only to see boater B shuffling a few hundred yards up & down the towpath every couple of weeks?

 

Compare it to council tax or car road tax. Are you happy to pay yours, knowing your neighbour sticks up two fingers and doesn't pay his?

[alan_fincher]

Even bridge hopping i still carnt see what the problem is, each to there own as far as i see things.

We will be paying our licence just the same as everyone else to use the canals.

 

Cazz

I'll risk the usual tirade of abuse that comes with expressing a view on what seems to be the most controversial topic on the forum.

 

If you are, for example, in the South East, and your boat is of reasonable size, the true costs of most moorings are generally higher than the arbitrary £1000 number that DOR has used to back his argument.

 

To keep a 17 metre boat (non residential) on the nearest linear BW moorings to me, would currently seem to cost over £1,550 per annum, whereas the licence fee (if you take advantage of the prompt payment discount), is around £550.

 

So the licence in this case is little more than a quarter of the overall cost paid to BW, with the moorings almost 3 times the cost of the licence.

 

A regular crop of boats, classing themselves as continuous cruisers regularly moor up for long periods of time on the visitor moorings on the same stretch of canal as these linear moorings and enjoy the same location and facilities, (which beyond water and elsan point and the services of a nearby boatyard are not a great deal - although the location is very pleasant). Few of these boats ever move even 5 miles from this location.

 

I fully accept that there are many people who will come back on this, and say they are completely unconcerned that they might be one of the people who is following the rules, and paying BW £2,100 plus per annum, and couldn't give a **** that the boat owner opposite has only forked out around a quarter of that amount.

 

But BW is quite clear on the rules for continuous cruising, which certainly don't allow spending the majority of the year at only a handful of locations, separated by only a few miles.

 

I do accept that there is a bit of a "catch 22" if you want to buy a boat, and ultimately to put it on a BW mooring, (in that you can't get a mooring from them for a boat you don't yet have).

 

But none-the-less, the BW position remains that anybody not following their definition of continuous cruising must have a mooring. So, if you buy a boat, with no mooring, and can't stick within the CC guidelines, then whilst I accept you may be causing nobody any problems, (and might be trying hard to find, and pay for, a mooring), then unfortunately you are still breaking the rules.

 

Whether that's going to upset someone else who knows what you situation is is will depend entirely upon that individual, of course, (as the fiercely argued views on this topic already must surely demonstrate )

 

Good luck with the boat when you get it, anyway!......

 

(Head down, and await 'incoming'....)

 

Alan

[Sir Nibble]

So could someone put me straight as to what the problem actually is would be much appreciated.

A few months ago I had a really weird experience.going along a stretch of canal I had cruised dozens of times in the last few years I found myself lost! nothing looked familiar, the towpath side was all built up wharf and I didn't recognise it at all. It took only a few seconds to realise what had happened. BW had carried out a "sweep" to deal with licence evaders and over stayers, all the cheats using cc licences but never moving had fled and this was the first time I had seen the towpath on this stretch. Effectively these people had stolen about 2 miles of canal and turned it into their marina. One person marking time by bridge hopping whilst waiting for a mooring to come up is not a problem, dozens or hundreds are. Oddly, they do not choose to moor miles from anywhere but instead clog up those areas close to facilities and access to the rest of civilisation, and deny those areas to others by their long term presence.

For me at least the idea that these people aren't paying as much as me is unimportant, what does matter is that long stretches of canal are unusable for anything other than making passage because the banks have been STOLEN by CHEATS!

[Baron & Mrs Boater]

Oddly, they do not choose to moor miles from anywhere but instead clog up those areas close to facilities and access to the rest of civilisation, and deny those areas to others by their long term presence.

 

I would agree with this point - I have no problem with people mooring in the middle of nowhere, but why do they have to moor on visitors moorings in towns and villages for months on end ?

 

I know of at least one boat in Brewood on the Shroppie, that has been on the 48hr moorings for months - incidentally I don't know whether it is licensed because I don't bother to check everyone elses boat.

 

It would be nice (in this popular location) to be able to stop and moor up, and not at 2pm so to guarantee a space.

[nbtafelberg]

If you do see boats like this contact your local BW office.

 

They probably don't have a mooring warden at the site.

[Stephen Fulcher]

How can BW have a mooring warden at one site, but not at another?

[Sir Nibble]

How can BW have a mooring warden at one site, but not at another?

I don't know anything about this, it is all anecdotal and I would love for it to be untrue. From a member of BW's towpath staff.

Mooring wardens are volunteers, no one comes forward, no warden. An elderly mooring warden on the western K&A approached a live aboard immobile overstaying without a licence, the boater refused to accept a penalty notice and assaulted the warden. The warden has been traumatised by this and withdrawn his services, now no warden. The police have said they can "talk to" the offender and BW staff have refused to go near him. Result, this guy now "owns" a piece of the K&A by right of conquest.

Like I said, I have no personal knowledge of this, it's just a story told to me by a blue T shirt. I really really hope it aint true.

[nbtafelberg]

Okay

 

I think the story goes that BW stopped replacing Mooring Wardens. There are a few horror stories.

 

Wardens are NOT volunteers, some are paid by BW on contract (modern ones) others get free moorings in return for their services.

 

There are wardens some places and not others simply because BW have not been replacing them. Thats the impression I've got and its not from BW themselves. I don't know if anyone from BW can confirm/deny this?

Edited June 13, 2006 by clevett

[Richard Bustens]

I think, IF, you get free moorings , you have the thin end of the wedge.

[cazz]

It would seem that BW arnt geared up to run a canal network .

Are there any new canals being cut out anywhere ?

Perhaps soon there will be no where to continually cruise to.

I think perhaps everyone should pay a yearly fee equivelant to average mooring fees, whether they have a mooring or not,this would generate income for bw,obviously if your in a marina with all the comforts and facilities at hand then you get what you pay for if you want to pay the extra to the get rich quick business guys.

I think then bw could pay for real wardens and see that opening more canals and digging would generate more profits for them.

[DHutch]

It would seem that BW arnt geared up to run a canal network .

[Richard Bustens]

Well put CAZZ

 

I think that is a bit harsh, the full amount, but 1/2 would be about right,..... i have been suggesting something similar for at least 2 years....... and guess what........... The CCers don't like it.

[bottle]

Well put CAZZ

 

I think that is a bit harsh, the full amount, but 1/2 would be about right,..... i have been suggesting something similar for at least 2 years....... and guess what........... The CCers don't like it.

 

And nor would you Richard, all this sugestion is, is a rise in licence rates, those in a marina would still have to pay it as well plus their marinas fees.

 

Or are you suggesting that ccers should be penalised for making use of something that all boaters use and 'you' should get special treatment just because you are in a marina.

 

I cannot understand all this argument about ccers and marina based boaters,

 

There is a canal system, for the use of the system a fee (licence) is payable.

 

Now it is up to 'you' how you use the system (within certain rules) now if you choose to moor your boat in a marina that is 'your' choice but for that privilige there is another fee.

 

Personally I have made a decision to be a CC because I do not, at this time, wish to live in a village of boats.

 

My attitude/health may change and I will decide then, if it would be acceptable to move into a marina.

 

Everyone has the choice the rules/fees are there make your own choice if they are unfair (which at the moment I think they are not) try to get them changed.

 

No one is forced to become a boater.

 

Rant over.

[Richard Bustens]

No you miss the point Bottle

 

No one minds the GENUINE CCers, but for everyone that is genuine there are 10+ that are not.

 

Perhaps it could be done in such a way that everyone pays then if you can supply proof that you have been a genuine CCer for the year you get it back same thing for people with moorings they get it back.

 

I know that you move about a lot, but can you say you never overstayed anywhere in the last 12 months. probably not, but lots do.

[DHutch]

I cannot understand all this argument about ccers and marina based boaters.

- There is a canal system, for the use of the system a fee (licence) is payable.

Yeah, i too have never understood the need for two liecenses, CC and Marina based.

- As you say, there should just be 'the' liecense to cover the cost of the upkeep of the system.

- Then people who wish to CC can CC, as long as they dont flaunt the mooring limitions, overstay etc.

- And the people who want a marina mooring can do that, paying for the seperate mooring, seperetly.

- And Finaly, thos that want to do a combineation of both, like us, can do that that as well. Sorted?

 

And to harp back to compairing the canals with the roads, you dont get two tax disks do you?

- One tax disk for Garage-Based weekend cars, and one tax disk for continuasly driving cars?

 

Just my thoughts...

 

 

Daniel

[Richard Bustens]

That would be ok Dan, but what about the vast majority that do overstay on 48hr moorings and the lines of moored boats that have no mooring permits etc and stay all year in the same place, then there is the bridge hoppers that just move about a bit so as not to be noticed, they all claim to be CCers but are not they are pretending to be just to avoid paying there dues.

 

And that means that everyone else has to pay more to makeup the shortfall.

[bottle]

I think we may be confusing the matter.

 

Daniel as far as I am aware there are two licences for the use of the canals, private and business.

 

There is no such item as a CCers licence but if 'you' do not have a home mooring then 'you' have to decalre that 'you' understand and will comply with the rules for being a CCer.

 

Richard I may have missed your point and for that I apoligise, I agree there has to be found a way for the non-payers to caught and made to pay or to get off the system.

[Richard Bustens]

Bottle

I think the main problem is that we class everyone into two classes when there should be three or more.

 

Normal boater with mooring

 

Then the rest are classed as CCers.

 

Which they are not, there is Genuine CCers, then the rest, it is the rest that cause all the heated arguments and with no official classification of there own get classed as CCers, for no other reason than that is what they pretend to be.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Richard Bustens

[bottle]

Richard

 

I totally agree.

 

We have the two, more are not needed (I think) just that those who do not fit into these two should perhaps be called 'outsiders' (outside the rules) but the problem is not the name.

 

Catching them is and then they should be either fined or got off the cut.

[Moley]

i too have never understood the need for two liecenses, CC and Marina based.

And to harp back to compairing the canals with the roads, you dont get two tax disks do you?

One tax disk for Garage-Based weekend cars, and one tax disk for continuasly driving cars?

Daniel, it's exactly the same as comparing with roads.

 

If you want to use the roads you must pay your road tax.

If you want to use the canals you must pay your licence.

 

There are private and business licences. Trucks pay more than cars.

 

Your licence fee is proportional to boat length, road tax is banded by engine size.

 

The road sign outside your house says parking limited to 30 minutes / 2 hours, whatever, no return within X period of time.

The signs on the canal say mooring limited to 24hours / 2 weeks, whatever, ‘no return’ period is not specified (maybe this is part of the problem, maybe it should say “no return within 6 months”, but the wardens are scarce or lax and can't issue penalties).

 

If you want to return home regularly you need a private drive or a garage.

This means buying a house with an extra bit of land or renting a garage.

If you drive around the country and stay in hotels or B&Bs you don't have to pay for a garage.

 

The problem is people who don't have a garage but persist in parking in the same street outside someone else's property for more than the time indicated. And if they dared to use your garage without your permission you'd get seriously upset.

 

Where's the difference?

Edited June 14, 2006 by Moley

[Sir Nibble]

I think it is probably fair to say that a genuine ccer never sees the problem, they just see boats. The "weekender" who reapeatedly cruises the same stretch will see that the same boats are in the same place week after week and month after month (sometimes year after year).

The problem for the ccer is the "tarred with the same brush" syndrome. I can see a situation arising where BW will charge ccers for a mooring they don't have and ditch the 14 day rule, it wouldn't be fair to the genuine ccer but it would be easier than enforcing existing regulations (enforcing! that's a laugh). These people are cheats, plain and simple, and by going disguised as ccers they make themselves the genuine ccers enemy and invite rules and charges detrimental to the law abiding canal dwellers.

[DHutch]

That would be ok Dan, but what about the vast majority that do overstay on 48hr moorings and the lines of moored boats that have no mooring permits etc and stay all year in the same place, then there is the bridge hoppers that just move about a bit so as not to be noticed, they all claim to be CCers but are not they are pretending to be just to avoid paying there dues.

Well, obvously any system is only as good as the way its policed, That would have to be taken into consderation, but amongst otherthing, i thing the main solution is to get a little tougher on the rules.

 

Daniel

[Maffi]

Yeah, i too have never understood the need for two licenses, CC and Marina based.

- As you say, there should just be 'the' license to cover the cost of the upkeep of the system.

- Then people who wish to CC can CC, as long as they don't flaunt the mooring limitations, overstay etc.

- And the people who want a marina mooring can do that, paying for the separate mooring, separately.

- And finaly, those that want to do a combination of both, like us, can do that that as well. Sorted?

 

It may have escaped your notice, but that is exactly the situation that exists at present.

 

Every one pays the same! The difference is that a CCer has to abide by a given set of rules.

 

Those that want to stay on a mooring pay for that.

 

 

Signed Maffi (who may not be a boater but as of this morning has a floater which more than qualifies him to comment).

Edited June 14, 2006 by Maffi