SET THEM BOATS ADRIFT

[n.b.Goldie]

I do not know what the size of the unlicensed boat problem is but one is one too many.

 

I cannot help but equate this issue with how unlicensed cars are dealt with, i.e. they are confiscated then crushed. It cannot be beyond the wit of the 'authorities' to amend the rules 'law'? to enable enforcement of licensing rules. I do not condone the crushing of cars and would prefer they were sold on if suitable to recover some of the costs and this would be my preferred way of dealing with unlicensed boats.

 

I do not however under any circumstances condone the setting adrift of any boat unlicensed or not. I am sure Mr.Ponting would not dare to set a boat adrift if it was occupied lest he be set upon and given a 'seeing-to'. Therefore I conclude that he is probably a coward.

 

Off topic somewhat I am interested to read that the chair of the IWA has in his recent column is calling for action over 'continuous moorers' and recognising that this issue is now out of control.

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

[nbfiresprite]

Isn't he the guy with the hots for Penelope Pitstop in Wacky Races?

 

Richard

 

That was Peter Perfect

[Tony Brooks]

I do not know what the size of the unlicensed boat problem is but one is one too many.

 

I cannot help but equate this issue with how unlicensed cars are dealt with, i.e. they are confiscated then crushed. It cannot be beyond the wit of the 'authorities' to amend the rules 'law'? to enable enforcement of licensing rules. I do not condone the crushing of cars and would prefer they were sold on if suitable to recover some of the costs and this would be my preferred way of dealing with unlicensed boats.

 

I do not however under any circumstances condone the setting adrift of any boat unlicensed or not. I am sure Mr.Ponting would not dare to set a boat adrift if it was occupied lest he be set upon and given a 'seeing-to'. Therefore I conclude that he is probably a coward.

 

Off topic somewhat I am interested to read that the chair of the IWA has in his recent column is calling for action over 'continuous moorers' and recognising that this issue is now out of control.

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

 

 

 

I agree but fear that it is not felt to be in the governments' interests (governments plural) to amend or enact the laws required to allow summary confiscation of unlicensed boats. If it was the CART legislation would have included it. If CART is given the powers to confiscate unlicensed boats in the same way as cars then the local councils will be faced with an even larger demand for housing so it is easier to ignore the problem and leave the majority of boaters to suffer the consequences.

 

The same goes for the non-enforcement of time limits on visitor moorings despite the threat of financial consequences for overstaying. Personally I think the 24 hour limits on the K&A are too short but I still tried to comply. With the shortage of anything resembling a sensible mooring I was not best pleased to find a 90ft dutch barge on a 48 hour mooring some 3 days later with no signs that it had moved. However I was grateful that CART told me that they were no enforcing the Oxford time limits when we were trapped there by the Thames red boards. I think it all boils down to an under supply of visitor moorings and a perception that CART are ignoring the CM and mooring abuse problems for the majority of boaters.

 

There needs to be a way of displaying official CART "dispensation" notices on boats that are "overstaying" by agreement with CART but it is now clear that the majority of ordinary boaters are a very long way down the priorities for CART.

[Guest wanted]

I can honestly say that all of the boats I have cruised, walked or cycled past, I have never looked to see if they are licensed or not. I do however appreciate a nice hull shape or paint job.

[benfordboy]

I suggest finding out when Mr Pontings licence expires , then when he is only displaying a receipt & moored so such receipt is waterside setting him adrift !

[carlt]

...I have never looked to see if they are licensed or not. I do however appreciate a nice hull shape or paint job.

Do you seethe inside, whenever you see an ugly hull, until your anger boils over and you find yourself setting aesthetically challenged boats adrift and writing angry articles about them in NBW?

Edited August 4, 2012 by carlt

[Harnser]

I saw an interesting way of dealimg with unlicensed craft the other day whilst I was passing thtough Reading, on the Thames.

 

One of those scruffy fraggles boats which plague the area had been towed on to a piece of EA property adjacent the lock and securely chained up. One of those "Documents Enclosed" stickers was attached to the exterior of the boat, no doubt containing legal papers for seizure of the boat. No doubt it could be sold at a knock down price to recover costs and unpaid licence fees. Properly fumigated, cleaned and painted up it could make a nice little cheap boat for somebody.

 

Easy!

[magpie patrick]

I want to know how they can take a boat with no licence surely the only way they can take your boat from you is if the dept reaches the value of the boat .If a bailiff comes to your house they only take enough to cover the bill so to me them takin your boat is theft

 

Do you think the DVLA wait until the unpaid tax disc and insurance reaches the value of the car? For a new Mercedes they may have a long wait. No, they seize your car.

 

Anyone who takes the law into their own hands to the extent of setting boats adrift is beneath contempt, not least because they are creating extra work for an already overstretched navigation authority which then has to secure said boat.

[Guest leeparkinson]

Do you think the DVLA wait until the unpaid tax disc and insurance reaches the value of the car? For a new Mercedes they may have a long wait. No, they seize your car.

 

Anyone who takes the law into their own hands to the extent of setting boats adrift is beneath contempt, not least because they are creating extra work for an already overstretched navigation authority which then has to secure said boat.

 

The thing is under the rules of a section 8 which they seem to forget to tell people is that before they can take a boat first they have to try contact you and if that don't work they are supposed to put an add in the local paper then national paper and then impound the boat but these days they think once the sticker is on they have the right to steal it And that's in the laws they set out in the 1980's

[FadeToScarlet]

I do not know what the size of the unlicensed boat problem is but one is one too many.

 

I cannot help but equate this issue with how unlicensed cars are dealt with, i.e. they are confiscated then crushed. It cannot be beyond the wit of the 'authorities' to amend the rules 'law'? to enable enforcement of licensing rules. I do not condone the crushing of cars and would prefer they were sold on if suitable to recover some of the costs and this would be my preferred way of dealing with unlicensed boats.

 

I do not however under any circumstances condone the setting adrift of any boat unlicensed or not. I am sure Mr.Ponting would not dare to set a boat adrift if it was occupied lest he be set upon and given a 'seeing-to'. Therefore I conclude that he is probably a coward.

 

Off topic somewhat I am interested to read that the chair of the IWA has in his recent column is calling for action over 'continuous moorers' and recognising that this issue is now out of control.

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

 

Ok, picture this:

 

The Guardian, June 2015

 

Reading couple sue CaRT after their home is seized

 

Joe Bloggs, 32, and his wife Joanna, have commenced legal action against the Canals and Rivers Trust after their narrowboat home of 10 years was forcibly seized by bailiffs operating on behalf of the waterways Trust. The couple have an 18 month old daughter, Joan, and are now living in emergency hostel accommodation having been made homeless. Joe said, "it's awful. These big blokes came round at 5am and forced their way into my home. I called the police, but when they arrived they said that a boat wasn't, legally, a dwelling and they couldn't do anything. They said they were going to tow my boat away. I asked what was going to happen to us?" Joanna, 27, says she was terrified by the experience. "They started throwing the baby's things, cot, highchair, blankets, onto the bank. The dog got let out onto the road, things got broken- they have wrecked my home!"

 

The couple, and baby, were left on the towpath with a small pile of possessions, no cash, and nowhere to go. Joe continues, "they said the boat wasn't licenced. Thing is, I can't afford to pay all of it. I'm disabled and my wife cannot work. The benefits systerm is rubbish, I'm a square peg for their round hole, so I send them as much as we can. We paid most of it, but when it's a choice between that and letting your baby eat, well, it's no choice, really".

 

A CaRT spokesman denied criticism from boater's groups that this amounted to "a holocaust". She said, "new, robust procedures have been put in place to deal with the issue of unlicenced boats. I can confirm a number of boats were seized in the Reading area, but cannot comment on individual cases."

[cotswoldsman]

 

The same goes for the non-enforcement of time limits on visitor moorings despite the threat of financial consequences for overstaying.way down the priorities for CART.

 

Firstly to do this would mean a CaRT employee visiting every restricted mooring every day, I would rather the money was spent on the system than paying staff to check every visitor mooring every day. Also some restricted moorings are never used I am presently on a 48 hour mooring in Ripon with plenty of room for other boaters to moor (not seen another boat for 4 days) so why would I need to move after 48 hours? As far as I am aware (but wait to be corrected) there are no financial penalties for overstaying on a restricted mooring. The first thing CaRT has to do is give you 14 days notice to move.

[Tuscan]

Ok, picture this:

 

The Guardian, June 2015

 

Reading couple sue CaRT after their home is seized

 

Joe Bloggs, 32, and his wife Joanna, have commenced legal action against the Canals and Rivers Trust after their narrowboat home of 10 years was forcibly seized by bailiffs operating on behalf of the waterways Trust. The couple have an 18 month old daughter, Joan, and are now living in emergency hostel accommodation having been made homeless. Joe said, "it's awful. These big blokes came round at 5am and forced their way into my home. I called the police, but when they arrived they said that a boat wasn't, legally, a dwelling and they couldn't do anything. They said they were going to tow my boat away. I asked what was going to happen to us?" Joanna, 27, says she was terrified by the experience. "They started throwing the baby's things, cot, highchair, blankets, onto the bank. The dog got let out onto the road, things got broken- they have wrecked my home!"

 

The couple, and baby, were left on the towpath with a small pile of possessions, no cash, and nowhere to go. Joe continues, "they said the boat wasn't licenced. Thing is, I can't afford to pay all of it. I'm disabled and my wife cannot work. The benefits systerm is rubbish, I'm a square peg for their round hole, so I send them as much as we can. We paid most of it, but when it's a choice between that and letting your baby eat, well, it's no choice, really".

 

A CaRT spokesman denied criticism from boater's groups that this amounted to "a holocaust". She said, "new, robust procedures have been put in place to deal with the issue of unlicenced boats. I can confirm a number of boats were seized in the Reading area, but cannot comment on individual cases."

[Pykebird]

At a user meeting earlier on in the year, the evasion figures for the grand union south was at an all time low of 1%. I cant remember the figres for rest of the country.

[Tuscan]

Ok, picture this:

 

The Guardian, June 2015

 

Reading couple sue CaRT after their home is seized

 

Joe Bloggs, 32, and his wife Joanna, have commenced legal action against the Canals and Rivers Trust after their narrowboat home of 10 years was forcibly seized by bailiffs operating on behalf of the waterways Trust. The couple have an 18 month old daughter, Joan, and are now living in emergency hostel accommodation having been made homeless. Joe said, "it's awful. These big blokes came round at 5am and forced their way into my home. I called the police, but when they arrived they said that a boat wasn't, legally, a dwelling and they couldn't do anything. They said they were going to tow my boat away. I asked what was going to happen to us?" Joanna, 27, says she was terrified by the experience. "They started throwing the baby's things, cot, highchair, blankets, onto the bank. The dog got let out onto the road, things got broken- they have wrecked my home!"

 

The couple, and baby, were left on the towpath with a small pile of possessions, no cash, and nowhere to go. Joe continues, "they said the boat wasn't licenced. Thing is, I can't afford to pay all of it. I'm disabled and my wife cannot work. The benefits systerm is rubbish, I'm a square peg for their round hole, so I send them as much as we can. We paid most of it, but when it's a choice between that and letting your baby eat, well, it's no choice, really".

 

A CaRT spokesman denied criticism from boater's groups that this amounted to "a holocaust". She said, "new, robust procedures have been put in place to deal with the issue of unlicenced boats. I can confirm a number of boats were seized in the Reading area, but cannot comment on individual cases."

 

 

 

 

 

The article no doubt went on to say that more and more people had in recent years moved onto boats thinking it would be a cheap alternative to living ashore with no means of paying for the upkeep of the boat or of the financial obligations of licensing, insurance or moorings. The numbers of licensed boat owners had in the lasdt 3 years fallen by 20% and was forecast to drop by a further 15% forcing marinas to close and C&RT to declare certain canals as remainders and residential only as the locks and facilities fuad fallen into disrepair due to lack of funding.

[pmms]

Mr Peter Ponting has stated elsewhere that boaters he speaks to are of the opinion that boats with no valid licence on display should be set adrift , he states he is now in Lancashire sailing his narrowboat PEEWEE so i imagine the other boaters he claims share his opinions about setting boats adrift are also in Lancashire and on the Leeds & Liverpool canal , i have not come across any people who hold such opinions as this on the Leeds & Liverpool or indeed any of the other canals or rivers i have cruised on , i have met people who would gladly give a good hiding to people who think its ok to set boats adrift , is this fella for real ? do lots of boaters feel such vile feeling of hatred against boats not showing an up to date licence that they would set them adrift.

I will be keeping a look out on our moorings as it seems he is heading this way ,suggest others watch out boats near them dont get set adrift.

I was told by an Abingdon based PC whose patch included the river thereabouts that to cast adrift a "British ship" was a criminal offence under the merchant shipping act (I forget the section but 20 sticks in my mind). The ship only has to be British owned for the act to apply, as he had successfully done in the past. So is Mr PP is inciting people to break the law?

 

Paul M

[Chris Pink]

As I have promised to never again refer to Peter the Pompous Prat as Peter the Pompous Prat (whoops) I could easily recycle the epithet for mr Ponting.

[FadeToScarlet]

The article no doubt went on to say that more and more people had in recent years moved onto boats thinking it would be a cheap alternative to living ashore with no means of paying for the upkeep of the boat or of the financial obligations of licensing, insurance or moorings. The numbers of licensed boat owners had in the lasdt 3 years fallen by 20% and was forecast to drop by a further 15% forcing marinas to close and C&RT to declare certain canals as remainders and residential only as the locks and facilities fuad fallen into disrepair due to lack of funding.

 

Maybe so, but there's a difference between section 8-ing a smashed-up Dawncraft that's never used, and a 60' Springer which is aomeone's home.

 

I'm not saying I condone licence evasion, or say it shouldn't be enforced. I am saying that it's all very well saying these things in the forum, but in real life boats are often home for vulnerable people on the fringes of society, and treating people's homes in a Draconian "licence it or lose it" manner isn't appropriate, or, I feel, particularly ethical.

[blackrose]

At a user meeting earlier on in the year, the evasion figures for the grand union south was at an all time low of 1%. I cant remember the figres for rest of the country.

 

So looking at the issue more positively, 99% of boaters in this area do comply with licencing rules. Withouth wishing to be complacent about getting evaders to licence their boats, if that figure is representative of the waterways as a whole then I reckon some people might be overstating the extent of the problem.

[Tuscan]

Maybe so, but there's a difference between section 8-ing a smashed-up Dawncraft that's never used, and a 60' Springer which is aomeone's home.

 

I'm not saying I condone licence evasion, or say it shouldn't be enforced. I am saying that it's all very well saying these things in the forum, but in real life boats are often home for vulnerable people on the fringes of society, and treating people's homes in a Draconian "licence it or lose it" manner isn't appropriate, or, I feel, particularly ethical.

 

 

 

 

Agree these guys need support and should be helped to live within the wider community not allowed to drop below the radar abandoned often in unsafe and unhygienic conditions on a boat. Just as there are gypsy parks now with facilities etc maybe there should be the canal equivalent in each county.(a good topic for your next banter)

[n.b.Goldie]

So looking at the issue more positively, 99% of boaters in this area do comply with licencing rules. Withouth wishing to be complacent about getting evaders to licence their boats, if that figure is representative of the waterways as a whole then I reckon some people might be overstating the extent of the problem.

 

 

You might have a point here, on her last visit to our club (where she always gets a warm welcome) our local patrol officer told us that license evasion on her stretch was now almost eliminated and the focus is now on overstayers (continuous moorers). She has got her work cut out in our area, from Fenny Stratford to Cosgrove the canal is just a free boat park. Same boats in the same places time after time. One of our club members has recently moved his boat elsewhere because he is so fed up with it. (We still have a healthy waiting list for membership however).

 

Regards

Ditchsdabbler

[RLWP]

I was told by an Abingdon based PC whose patch included the river thereabouts that to cast adrift a "British ship" was a criminal offence under the merchant shipping act (I forget the section but 20 sticks in my mind). The ship only has to be British owned for the act to apply, as he had successfully done in the past. So is Mr PP is inciting people to break the law?

 

Paul M

 

Can you show that that particular law applies on a canal in the midlands?

 

Richard

[bottle]

I can honestly say that all of the boats I have cruised, walked or cycled past, I have never looked to see if they are licensed or not. I do however appreciate a nice hull shape or paint job.

 

You're weird.

[koukouvagia]

At a user meeting earlier on in the year, the evasion figures for the grand union south was at an all time low of 1%. I cant remember the figres for rest of the country.

 

Five years ago the evasion rate for the Southern GU was 12.8%. This has steadily dropped to the present figure of 1.9%. Five years ago there were 800 unlicensed boats in the region. This year it's down to 125.

 

National figures are:

5.3%(2009)

5.9%(2010)

4.9%(2011)

3.4%(2012).

 

Jeff Whyatt, at a User Group Meeting in April, said that there were only 10 unlicensed boats on the Oxford. He now reckons he's got the figure down about as low as it's possible to get. His beefed up enforcement team is now going to concentrate on what he calls "non-moving overstayers".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2012 by koukouvagia

[carlt]

The thing is under the rules of a section 8 which they seem to forget to tell people is that before they can take a boat first they have to try contact you and if that don't work they are supposed to put an add in the local paper then national paper and then impound the boat but these days they think once the sticker is on they have the right to steal it And that's in the laws they set out in the 1980's

That is completely incorrect.

[Guest wanted]

Do you seethe inside, whenever you see an ugly hull, until your anger boils over and you find yourself setting aesthetically challenged boats adrift and writing angry articles about them in NBW?

Funny enough, only the other day I found myself cutting the ropes of a home built clonecraft. Did you not see my exclusive article about it?

 

You're weird.

 

Watch yer ropes matey.....