IWA Calls For Action On 'Continuous Moorers'

[Chris Pink]

Well it's a question of words.

 

Whatever the end motive, and I tend to agree with your analysis Alan, CRT's actions are dishonest and this is corrupt.

 

There is more than one meaning to the term than just trying to make money.

[MtB]

Dishonesty is different from corruption.

 

I wonder if the reduction in mooring times is to make enforcement easier. To enforce the 14 day limit, a CRT bod needs to observe the boat more or less continuously for 14 days to prove they overstayed, and this is pretty onerous and time consuming. Needing to observe a boat on a VM for only two days makes enforcement one helluvalot quicker and easier, with far less wriggle room available to the transgressor.

 

MtB

[larkshall]

Why dont we all just leave things as they are. Some areas have it good. Some areas have it bad. That will never change. As boaters perhaps we should just all just live with the canals exactly as they are. My experience (in the north) has been that there is zero change needed. People own boats, people live in marina estates, people cruise, people hire, people drink and drive, people cruise alone, people cruise in packs of 50, people live in rural towpaths, people use gennies, people burn the wrong wood, people struggle with locks, people all leave the same marina on hot weekends, people obey the rules, people dont obey the rules, people love CRT, people shout at CRT, there is no "big answer" to suit everybody. All we should really be after is:

 

1. Lovely canals

2. As many working facilities as possible

3. Good maintenance

4. Developing more pubs and "nice areas" to encourage boaters to stop for a meal etc

5. Less bickering

Item 4 pubs, no need for any more, those that exist are going out of business so fast proves that no more are required.

[alan_fincher]

Dishonesty is different from corruption.

 

I wonder if the reduction in mooring times is to make enforcement easier. To enforce the 14 day limit, a CRT bod needs to observe the boat more or less continuously for 14 days to prove they overstayed, and this is pretty onerous and time consuming. Needing to observe a boat on a VM for only two days makes enforcement one helluvalot quicker and easier, with far less wriggle room available to the transgressor.

 

MtB

Yes,

 

That is fair comment, although you'll not get them to admit that as a reason either.

 

They continually tried to sell this as a case of "genuine need", rather than anything around either making enforcement easier, or indeed trying to stop live-aboards bothering to ever try using certain moorings in the first place. Both are probably actuallly reasons that have gone into what I believe is a flawed and dishonest approach, but we have at least managed under duress to get them to very heavily water it down - a lot better IMO than not having tried.

 

I agree there are multiple meanings of "corrupt" but I'm happy to stick with "dishonest" - people can choose their own word, of course.

 

I think it is worth saying that along with all the negativity, much good work is still actively going on in certain areas. Although I am now only peripherally involved, other people (forum members) are still very much on the case with CRT in trying to find equitable solutions to some long-standing problems, which in my view neither BW/CRT, or some of the boat owners now caught up in them are solely responsible. CRT appear to be being fairly sensible in negotiations, admitting their own past poor handling has contributed to problems, and, although the likely outcomes will certainly not please everybody, (about the only guaranteed fact in anything like this!), I am deeply hopeful that news about some new initiatives will start formally emerging over the next few weeks.

 

To get anywhere though, you have to hang on to the hope that it is possible, or it would all be too soul destroying. - well it would for me, anyway! If you just dismiss everybody in CRT as a bunch of dishonest rogues carrying on from BW days as if nothing has changed, I can't see you will ever change anything, or hope to heal old differences. Thank goodness some, including some in CRT, are starting to appear to make some progress towards doing things better, although I feel certain the occasional setback is an almost inevitable consequence of these kind of negotiations, and one sometimes has to take the rough with the smooth.

[MtB]

And as no-one seems to say it much on here, I think you, Jenlyn, Cotswoldman and everyone else involved deserve the utmost credit and respect for opening and maintaining negotiations with CRT, and holding them to account as you do.

 

Equal credit should go to the CRT peeps too who could, I suspect, just hand down their new rules with no negotiation should they so choose.

 

 

MtB

[sueb]

I should also like to thank the people in RBOA & Nabo who have and are tirelessly working on this. This doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the work others are doing

[Tuscan]

I think Alan is broadly correct I do not think this is a money making exercise indeed if carried out in full (daily inspections and trying to enforce collection of £25 penalty/service charge) it would IMO most certainly cost more than currently. What is clear is that in the couple of years before the consultation no sampling took place to identify if there was a problem and if so who was the likely cause. Instead it looks like they followed the IWA's lead and just assumed that the unavailability of Visitor Moorings was caused by overstaying continous cruisers. What most boaters see is that outside the summer season there is no shortage of VM's regardless of any overstaying. In the high season there is a shortage of space availability on VM's most of us who have been boating for a few years recognise this as a pattern that has been with us for a while. If they changed all VM's to 24hours and rigerously enforced them there would still be a shortage at the main honey spots.

 

There has been a substantial increase in boats on the system in the last 10 years but little or no increase in Visitor Moorings or facilities isn't this the answer?. I am not against a spread of mooring availability at the very popular spots in high season but they must cater for all boaters not just the hire boat passing through.

 

Socially cleansing is an emotive word and doesnt help the principle overstayers in my area are in fact mainly two very nice boats one less so all of whom hover in the immediate area (as well as boats from the nearby marinas) as they like the local pub and community for them its not about work or schools so its wrong to lump everybody together.

 

I dont share Alan's optimism that because of the hard work of a few boaters and boating organisations that CRT are going to pull away from this, agreed they seem to give in very easily when pressed at the workshops to only allow a few changes to the durations at the pilot schemes. However they did not give way at all on the other key points 1) the introduction of a £25 charge for overstaying and 2) the introduction of the "no return principle". Once incorporated I fear these will be rolled out further and I believe create real problems for boaters whether marina dwellers or continous cruisers. I am sure that CRT will use the 50% in favour arguement to support their case.

 

They are showing a willingness to communicate more with boaters and have meetings however I wonder whether the end result may in itself cause more problems with different agreements proposed perhaps in different areas we will have to wait and see. CRT or BW as was contributed to many of the issues of overstaying but many of these would have been avoided if they had increased the number of long stay and visitor moorings together with facilities in line with demand caused by the increased number of license paying boaters.

[Chris Pink]

Has anyone done an independent analysis of the consultation returns?

[nicknorman]

Has anyone done an independent analysis of the consultation returns?

One does wonder if it was one man one vote, or one man voting on behalf or a large organisation and claiming the votes of all its members.

[matola]

I have an outstanding £125 overstay charge from Islington. We always try to abide by the rules, but in this case we were broken down and could not move along on Friday as planned, we had to stay until Monday when the parts arrived. We telephoned Stacey and told her of the situation, "that'll be fine, said she", also left a message on her answer phone.

 

Regardless of the situation, research shows there is very shaky legal ground from which to make these overstay charges, so although crt are currently considering the case, In fact I hope they decide to press on with the case as I have a small army of various lawyers in my family to release on them should they decide they wish to test this in court.

I'll let you know how it goes.

[cotswoldsman]

I have an outstanding £125 overstay charge from Islington. We always try to abide by the rules, but in this case we were broken down and could not move along on Friday as planned, we had to stay until Monday when the parts arrived. We telephoned Stacey and told her of the situation, "that'll be fine, said she", also left a message on her answer phone.

 

Regardless of the situation, research shows there is very shaky legal ground from which to make these overstay charges, so although crt are currently considering the case, In fact I hope they decide to press on with the case as I have a small army of various lawyers in my family to release on them should they decide they wish to test this in court.

 

I'll let you know how it goes.

Can I ask why you have not yet released your army of lawyers? I do not think they are on shaky ground I think they can not do it full stop..........I normally do not overstay but will do so on the first mooring I get to that says there is a £25 charge.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Has anyone done an independent analysis of the consultation returns?

Hi Chris

 

I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act on the 18th March.

 

 

 

Dear Canal & River Trust,

 

I refer to the S.E.V.M. Consultation -

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/libr...

 

- and note that it says 'We will publish a short report summarising

the changes we have made to the proposals in the light of the

consultation.'

 

However, it does not say that CaRT will publish responses to the

consultation.

 

I also note that the consultation document says 'If you are

discussing the consultation with friends within the boating

community and you all reach the same conclusions, it would help us

if you’d together submit a single response, mentioning if you wish

that it represents the views of X boaters'

 

To this end certain boaters, including myself, have responded via

petition, as follows -

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

To:

Canal and River Trust

Stop in the whole, the south east vm proposals.

Sincerely,

[Name]

+++++++++++++++++++++

 

I am also aware that NABO and RBOA have responded to the

consultation on behalf of boaters that they represent.

 

Please provide the following information -

 

1. Copies of all responses to the consultation.

 

2. The number who have responded collectively saying 'Stop in the

whole, the south east vm proposals' (i.e. via petition.

 

3. The numbers of members associated with any collective response

on behalf of NABO and RBOA.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, this request is made under FOIA and EIR

as appropriate.

 

(I would also point out that within the last few days, a CaRT

trustee has said 'I encourage people to seek information' but has

suggested that this be done informally. As such, I express my

willingness to withdraw this request should the information be

placed in the public domain via CaRT's website within 20 working

days.)

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Allan Richards

CaRT have not responded within 20 days as required by the FOIA. Neither have they confirmed that they will hold an internal review to determine the cause of the failure to respond appropriately.

 

CarT have said, however, that they do intend to publish a subset of the information requested sometime in the future in the form of redacted responses.

 

A complaint has been made to the information commissioner.

 

Hopefully CaRT will publish the responses together with the short report. However, I am not holding my breath.

 

***** Edited to add that the request was made because of the apparent discrepancy between the markers perception regarding 'for' and 'against' responses compared with those of CaRT (as discussed on CWDF well over a month ago).

Edited April 23, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[nicknorman]

Can I ask why you have not yet released your army of lawyers? I do not think they are on shaky ground I think they can not do it full stop..........I normally do not overstay but will do so on the first mooring I get to that says there is a £25 charge.

But do we really want to prove publicly that they can't enforce it? Surely that leads to mayhem where some sections of boating community will decide to totally ignore the time limits on VMs and laugh at the patrol wardens tapping on their windows content in the knowledge that they can stay there as long as they jolly well please? Not the best outcome I would have thought.

[Tuscan]

One does wonder if it was one man one vote, or one man voting on behalf or a large organisation and claiming the votes of all its members.

At the workshop CRT stated that they were only taking one response as one response regardless of whether that was an organisation or indeed whether as was the case feedback forms were sent in representing the views of a group of boaters. They also promised to publish the results shortly thereafter.

[carlt]

But do we really want to prove publicly that they can't enforce it?

Being able to pick and choose which laws to break, based on personal preferences is a far worse outcome than someone knowing their rights.

 

There are laws in place which deal with overstaying and procedures available to enforce those laws.

 

Just because that enforcement procedure doesn't suit their time frame doesn't mean that they are entitled to make up new ones with no authority to do so.

[matola]

Can I ask why you have not yet released your army of lawyers? I do not think they are on shaky ground I think they can not do it full stop..........I normally do not overstay but will do so on the first mooring I get to that says there is a £25 charge.

I have notified them of them of the circumstances and that if they wish to proceed we will answer in court, they are considering their response.

 

[cotswoldsman]

I have notified them of them of the circumstances and that if they wish to proceed we will answer in court, they are considering their response.

 

Ok so you are working on the fact that you spoke to CRT and they said ok, not on the fact that you think they are on shaky ground?

[matola]

Ok so you are working on the fact that you spoke to CRT and they said ok, not on the fact that you think they are on shaky ground?

 

For me the circumstances of the "fine" are in doubt, but not really significant in comparison with the legal ability to issue the fine.

 

[cotswoldsman]

For me the circumstances of the "fine" are in doubt, but not really significant in comparison with the legal ability to issue the fine.

 

Ok I will continue to be confused.

[matola]

Ok I will continue to be confused.

Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer.

I would fight this in court not to prove that my specific claim against the fine is valid, as I made an (admittedly verbal) agreement with them.

The basis of my complaint would the the legality of the issuing authority.

[cotswoldsman]

Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer.

I would fight this in court not to prove that my specific claim against the fine is valid, as I made an (admittedly verbal) agreement with them.

The basis of my complaint would the the legality of the issuing authority.

So why not wait until they take you to court to recover the money? Surely your Army of Lawyers would have advised you the only way to test the legality is in court.

[Chris Pink]

That is the only way surely?

[matola]

So why not wait until they take you to court to recover the money? Surely your Army of Lawyers would have advised you the only way to test the legality is in court.

Yes that's the current status.

[Chris Pink]

I think you're both saying the same thing in different ways.

 

You can't sue CRT for sending an invoice. All you can do is sit tight. I can't see their tame debt collectors being enormously keen so it will be down to Johnson's successor to press any action.

[cotswoldsman]

I have notified them of them of the circumstances and that if they wish to proceed we will answer in court, they are considering their response.

 

 

 

Yes that's the current status.

 

What is confusing me is why you did not just wait until they take you to court for non payment. They know they are on as you say "shaky ground" and for that reason they will not try to recover and will therefor not pursue you so you will not get your day in court. I was not having a go at you just disappointed that you have given them the chance to walk away on the basis that they had already agreed not to charge you and will put it down to clerical error.