IWA Calls For Action On 'Continuous Moorers'

[Tam & Di]

 

I feel that many CC'ers here are the retired and slightly more well off boaters, who are the ones that often will speak so harshly about so called CM'ers. It is worth remembering there is also a large group of very much less well off liveaboards, where often one person needs to be working. They perhaps can't afford a floating village marina mooring, but still need to be within striking distance of work. Or need to get children into some kind of stable schooling. Or have medical needs and require continuing care from a single team.....and so forth.

Personally I have sympathy for such people. I appreciate CM'ers can cause mooring difficulties in the higher populated areas, and I also appreciate it is 'against the rules' currently, but either way such people exist and have needs, who are we to say they may not live their lives in such a manner.

Most liveaboards love their boats...we all live under different circumstances....lets have some understanding for our fellow liveaboards, who's circumstances we rarely know fully, rather than supporting a witch hunt of CM'ers for the sake of it.

 

So why bother to move at all? You've (non-specific "you") got the boat, got the free mooring, got the job, kids etc, and got the continuous CRUISER licence (or whatever the proper name is). The reason presumably is to make some vague gesture to comply with the rules that "you" knew were in existence when you entered into this, but find a bit of a drag.

 

This category of licence was agreed when the 1995 BW Bill was in committee in Parliament to make provision specifically for a group who do cruise and who have no requirement of a permanent mooring. It was poorly thought out, and has been subject to abuse ever since. Your argument (as put more overtly by Lady Muck) is that you came onto the canal as cheapo accommodation, and "the government" should legitimise this or make housing more affordable (whatever "affordable" is - that would quickly give rise to a group which held that affordable for them was zilch).

[George94]

So why bother to move at all? You've (non-specific "you") got the boat, got the free mooring, got the job, kids etc, and got the continuous CRUISER licence (or whatever the proper name is). The reason presumably is to make some vague gesture to comply with the rules that "you" knew were in existence when you entered into this, but find a bit of a drag.

 

This category of licence was agreed when the 1995 BW Bill was in committee in Parliament to make provision specifically for a group who do cruise and who have no requirement of a permanent mooring. It was poorly thought out, and has been subject to abuse ever since. Your argument (as put more overtly by Lady Muck) is that you came onto the canal as cheapo accommodation, and "the government" should legitimise this or make housing more affordable (whatever "affordable" is - that would quickly give rise to a group which held that affordable for them was zilch).

 

All true, but should chasing CCers who don't move much be a priority?

 

Chasing is unlikely to achieve any financial benefit - perhaps even the reverse if such people are forced off the cut altogether, and no longer pay a licence fee.

 

It could well have the effect of lowering second-hand boat prices, which will do further damage to an already struggling boat-building industry.

 

By all mean chase people off popular mooring spots, but in my experience most of these people try to moor where they won't invite harassment from BW/C&RT. They are not completely stupid!

 

It's largely a victimless "crime".

[matty40s]

Your post seems to suggest that the IWA is only concentrating on this CC/CMer issue and nothing else. The IWA has many programmes and plans. In my area (Northampton) it is doing several practical things to help the system such as helping with volunteers for certain maintenance and litter clearing tasks to take care of the waterways. It is campaigning for other key things too and via WRG funding and getting stuck into new restoration projects. A very high proportion of members are boaters so if the IWA do not act in the interests of the membership they will lose membership subs.

 

IWA is not the enemy here. For some the idea of tackling CC/CMers is offensive and for others there is concern over an increasing problem in certain places.

 

Personally I don't see it as a big problem in my area but I might think differently if I was on the K&A for example. I also think more needs to be done for those who are in a poverty trap where they find themselves outside the system living on boats, they need help. I have no sympathy for CMers who ignore the rules and have an attitude of won't pay rather than can't pay.

Hi , it is not my suggestion, it is Iwa's announcement. I have no doubt on a local basis, a lot happens, however, on a national basis , the headline stands. It also doesnt help the iwa image when prominent members spout half baked (and illegal) ideas on NBW.

Edited August 31, 2012 by matty40s

[oarfish]

As a newbie liveaboard who has been pretty extensively cruising the northwest this year (100s of miles) I really haven't seen much of a problem at all with our less mobile brethren . The really hardcore overstayers tend to keep a good distance from visitor moorings and if its not crowded and they are not making a mess who actually cares? The only time it has bothered me was passing a fews boats that had obviously been dumping the portapotty overboard.

 

SWMBO and I are lucky to work in a city centre and I am a contractor, so transport from our cruising range is nicely offset against tax. Others are not so lucky and i could see the temptation to stay in an area you needed to work with poor transport links.

 

We are moving our cruising range to Oxford this month, I intend to keep a paper mooring to avoid harassment when I occasionally overstay in an area if I can't find a nice on line mooring round there. Not going to pay 4K and council tax for a marina spot I use for 3 months of the year and I don't believe I can fulfil the letter of the CC regulations.

[Cosmic]

So why bother to move at all? You've (non-specific "you") got the boat, got the free mooring, got the job, kids etc, and got the continuous CRUISER licence (or whatever the proper name is). The reason presumably is to make some vague gesture to comply with the rules that "you" knew were in existence when you entered into this, but find a bit of a drag.

 

This category of licence was agreed when the 1995 BW Bill was in committee in Parliament to make provision specifically for a group who do cruise and who have no requirement of a permanent mooring. It was poorly thought out, and has been subject to abuse ever since. Your argument (as put more overtly by Lady Muck) is that you came onto the canal as cheapo accommodation, and "the government" should legitimise this or make housing more affordable (whatever "affordable" is - that would quickly give rise to a group which held that affordable for them was zilch).

My understanding is that it was not poorly thought out at all but deliberately made to be vague to protect people without a mooring. BW wanted to be able to impose a fine on anyone who stayed anywhere for fifteen days but they were not allowed to do this. The wording was chosen that anyone without a mooring should use their boat "bona fide for navigation", which was defined as meaning that they should not stay in one place for more than 14 days, unless it was reasonable to stay longer in the circumstances.

[alan_fincher]

So why bother to move at all? You've (non-specific "you") got the boat, got the free mooring, got the job, kids etc, and got the continuous CRUISER licence (or whatever the proper name is). The reason presumably is to make some vague gesture to comply with the rules that "you" knew were in existence when you entered into this, but find a bit of a drag.

 

This category of licence was agreed when the 1995 BW Bill was in committee in Parliament to make provision specifically for a group who do cruise and who have no requirement of a permanent mooring. It was poorly thought out, and has been subject to abuse ever since. Your argument (as put more overtly by Lady Muck) is that you came onto the canal as cheapo accommodation, and "the government" should legitimise this or make housing more affordable (whatever "affordable" is - that would quickly give rise to a group which held that affordable for them was zilch).

A good point, well made.

 

Whilst I try to take a laid back attitude about all who want to share the canals, I am not convinced that (in the South at least) a never ending increase in the number of boats that are clearly primarily homes, and where the owners have little interest in moving them on very much, is actually "a good thing".

 

We have just been out for a month, and returning through the Milton Keynes area, (for example), many of the boats not on permanent moorings were in exactly the same formations as they were on the way up, (and I do mean exactly!). Of course I can't prove they have not all been somewhere else in the meantime, but the large stores on the towpath seem to make it unlikely, in many of the cases.

 

Normally I live and let live, but having had a couple of cynical "where is the fire mate!" type shouts boating past these communities, even though I was at a crawl and their ill tied mooring ropes strings not so much as even tightened, I fear many involved would rather no real boating actually took place.

 

Use of the canals to provide low cost housing should in my view not further impact genuine canal enthusiasts ability to actually go boating on them. We are getting to that stage at many places in the South East - something that can probably not be understood by those who only do their boating further North, where there are nothing like the same densities of "largely residential" boats tied up on line.

 

As a newbie liveaboard who has been pretty extensively cruising the northwest this year (100s of miles) I really haven't seen much of a problem at all with our less mobile brethren .

Having just travelled from Buckinghamshire to Manchester and back, (via Birmingham), I can assure you that once out of the South East the "problem", (assuming of course one views it as such!), is far less acute.

 

I think people with no experience of the South East and London may find it hard, based on their experience elsewhere, to understand why the topic is much more emotive to many people who regularly try and boat (say) into London as visitors.

Edited August 31, 2012 by alan_fincher

[duztee]

I too have to agree with Alan,s view, it is not just about canals, it is about life, there are rules and laws which apply for usually good reason and do need to be followed to ensure we ALL can live in a reasonable harmonious way.

If you can't or chose not to obey the rules then be prepared for the consequences, and if you don't agree with the rules then work to get them changed legitimately.

[oarfish]

there are rules and laws which apply for usually good reason and do need to be followed to ensure we ALL can live in a reasonable harmonious way.

 

Yes but they are pretty ambiguous, it's obvious enough when someone is taking the piss but I am not sure my last couple of months of going up & down the macclesfield and peak would qualify as CCing. I intend to use a cheap or paper mooring so I don't need to worry. This is staying within the rules but could also be used to behave terribly badly by hopping between a couple of visitor moorings.

Edited August 31, 2012 by oarfish

[Higgs]

We are moving our cruising range to Oxford this month, I intend to keep a paper mooring to avoid harassment when I occasionally overstay in an area if I can't find a nice on line mooring round there. Not going to pay 4K and council tax for a marina spot I use for 3 months of the year and I don't believe I can fulfil the letter of the CC regulations.

 

And your point is?

[Lady Muck]

but I am not sure my last couple of months of going up & down the macclesfield and peak would qualify as CCing.

See, I would hate it if the rules fetishists outlawed this type of boating, many ccers I know pick a canal and spend a good few months on it before moving on. If the Lee and Stort proposals had come in, it would've stopped this from happening which would've been a shame. It would've affected me, even though I have a mooring, stopping me from spending more than a fortnight exploring the canal in the summer, which I often like to do.

[oarfish]

And your point is?

 

I like to cruise, I have to work so paying for a mooring that I do not or rarely use allows me to do so without breaking the rules.

[BEngo]

As a newbie liveaboard who has been pretty extensively cruising the northwest this year (100s of miles) I really haven't seen much of a problem at all with our less mobile brethren . The really hardcore overstayers tend to keep a good distance from visitor moorings and if its not crowded and they are not making a mess who actually cares? The only time it has bothered me was passing a fews boats that had obviously been dumping the portapotty overboard.

 

SWMBO and I are lucky to work in a city centre and I am a contractor, so transport from our cruising range is nicely offset against tax. Others are not so lucky and i could see the temptation to stay in an area you needed to work with poor transport links.

 

We are moving our cruising range to Oxford this month, I intend to keep a paper mooring to avoid harassment when I occasionally overstay in an area if I can't find a nice on line mooring round there. Not going to pay 4K and council tax for a marina spot I use for 3 months of the year and I don't believe I can fulfil the letter of the CC regulations.

 

 

I think your cruising range has rather restricted your view of the problem. Further south there are major stretches where the canal has ceased to be a medium mainly for moving a boat along and become more of a linear housing estate. The GU in Milton Keynes and south of Tring, anywhere/everywhere inside the M25, The Oxford from about Kidlington and The K&A from Bradford-on-Avon to Bath are the main areas. In these areas there is little room or movement on longer-term visitor moorings and very few other stretches where there is more than about 5 minutes without a moored boat.

 

You will be lucky to find an empty space anywhere near Oxford that is not already a limited-time visitor mooring and if, as you appear to intend, you overstay on these you will be depriving someone else of their opportunity to moor, albeit briefly, near Oxford. Such is the problem down South.

 

CART are not a Housing Association, nor should they be. They are constituted to run the canal system for the reasonable enjoyment of all. The principle that boating users must navigate in good faith or have a permanent mooring is a legal requirement and an enabler for reasonable enjoyment for all. The problem arose because BW were incompetent and did nothing to enforce the law or stop the problem arising. It has now become one of cheap housing and the answer lies with local Government and with changing the attitude of a few who wish to have the benefits of a mooring but not to pay for it. C&RT will not solve the problem , but they may put enough pressure on LA's to make them start to solve it. If they do nothing or back-slide further the consequences will spread further North.

 

IWA's call is well-timed in my view, particularly since CART trustees are due to review their moorings policy soon.

 

N

[Higgs]

See, I would hate it if the rules fetishists outlawed this type of boating, many ccers I know pick a canal and spend a good few months on it before moving on.

 

I think you are trying to avoid dealing with problems. Nobody is talking about undercrowded areas.

[oarfish]

I think your cruising range has rather restricted your view of the problem.

 

Quite probably, I have not cruised further south than Stockton.

 

You will be lucky to find an empty space anywhere near Oxford that is not already a limited-time visitor mooring and if, as you appear to intend, you overstay on these you will be depriving someone else of their opportunity to moor, albeit briefly, near Oxford. Such is the problem down South.

 

I do not intend to overstay on visitor moorings or exploit a small range of them, I will have a mooring and attempt to figure out a cruising range in the oxford / reading / MK area that works with public transport and doesn't take the piss. With the regulation as it stands, that isn't actually a requirement for boats with a home mooring.

[keble]

'Oi, Mate. You going up to the end of the cut? Take me tracker with you, would ya?'

 

Richard

No need for a tracker device - drones will do the job. See BBC news story.

They cost as little as £200, so CaRT or whoever could buy a few and patrol the skies!

Maybe they already do ...

[Tam & Di]

My understanding is that it was not poorly thought out at all but deliberately made to be vague to protect people without a mooring. BW wanted to be able to impose a fine on anyone who stayed anywhere for fifteen days but they were not allowed to do this. The wording was chosen that anyone without a mooring should use their boat "bona fide for navigation", which was defined as meaning that they should not stay in one place for more than 14 days, unless it was reasonable to stay longer in the circumstances.

 

Not quite correct. The BW Bill had a clause requiring every boat owner to have an approved mooring. This was an attempt to deal with the growing number of people who were living on the towpaths. Representations were made at the Committee stage in the Lords that there were many people who cruised slowly and leisurely around the system and who therefore had no requirement of a permanent mooring. The Lords asked BW to revise the Bill with this in mind, and the wording BW came up with was immediately obvious to ourselves and others going to give them a lot of grief. The ongoing arguments about "bona fide for navigation" and the use of a cheap "paper" mooring to allow someone to sidestep the rules are evidence of this poor wording. BW's inability to deal effectively with those who've said "sud you" and either move as little as they feel they can get away with, or not at all, have only exacerbated the problem.

 

Largely victimless? Maybe so, as the main victims are the people who do enjoy cruising and get stick from the endless lines of moorers (see e.g. Alan's post), those who walk the towpaths and feel threatened by the lines of houseboats with yapping dogs, bags of coal and rubbish on the bank, the hire companies who get feedback from customers about this, and marina owners who have invested considerable monies and pay BW large sums to operate only to see lines of boats moored free on the nearby towpaths.

 

 

I guess maybe IWA now feel that the majority of their membership do require some action on the problem. By the way, are those who are writing to say that IWA obviously do not represent boating interests actually IWA members? I'm not aware that IWA ever has viewed "continuous moorers" favourably (they used to be called towpath dossers, but that seems to be non-pc now, so there have obviously been some changes in the past 20 years )

Edited August 31, 2012 by Tam & Di

[Ally]

Firstly, people who DO CM, are not necessarily on benefits, I know there are many who work and earn just enough to live on, but do not wish to get into the benefit system...and I imagine many would applaud that. However, it does mean they often can't ALSO afford a mooring, but are trapped needing work and therefore one area of cruising. Why bother moving? Because many do actually enjoy moving and that is part of the reason they are on a boat...they may not be able to move a long distance for whatever reason keeps them to one area, but may still enjoy a cruise and change every week or two.

I actually DO have a permanent mooring, but am effectively CM'ing at the moment, because although I have a mooring, I hate being within a marina all the time. So, I am within the rules (and yes, I have a licence) but doing the dreaded CM'ing....I work so need to be local, but we enjoy being on the cut, AND moving around as and when we can. The marina fees are a huge part of my wage, and with the licence, that is over a quarter of our total income. We claim no benefits. This year has been very hard due to the engine re-build and various other items I have had to renew. Then I have all the normal other bills...insurances, vets, food, fuel, you name it, as most of us do. If we couldn't pay the moorings...should I close my business and claim benefits in order to CC, or live on the marina, or should I CM, in a mobile manner but within a drive range of work, and continue to be a responsible and self supporting person?

Things are not always clear cut you see. CM'ers are NOT all dirty scrounging layabouts, many are good honest folk caught in a trap that may have occurred since they joined the waterway life, unexpectedly. Be it for medical/social/work/financial/family etc reasons, god knows there are many of us affected by the recession in all kinds of ways. Plenty of us are 'outside the box' (and for many of us that is the appeal of life on the cut!!).

 

Edited to add: BTW, we move between a week- two weeks, we do NOT have anything on the towpath whilst moored,(lovely tug deck! ) we pick up our dog poo and are generally sociable and helpful to other boaters....we don't even tell people to slow down!

Edited August 31, 2012 by Ally

[Cosmic]

Not quite correct. The BW Bill had a clause requiring every boat owner to have an approved mooring. This was an attempt to deal with the growing number of people who were living on the towpaths. Representations were made at the Committee stage in the Lords that there were many people who cruised slowly and leisurely around the system and who therefore had no requirement of a permanent mooring. The Lords asked BW to revise the Bill with this in mind, and the wording BW came up with was immediately obvious to ourselves and others going to give them a lot of grief. The ongoing arguments about "bona fide for navigation" and the use of a cheap "paper" mooring to allow someone to sidestep the rules are evidence of this poor wording. BW's inability to deal effectively with those who've said "sud you" and either move as little as they feel they can get away with, or not at all, have only exacerbated the problem.

My understanding is that the arguments about "bona fide for navigation" stem from the belief that this is a separate requirement from the "14 day rule". However the dialogue quoted in this link seems quite clear that the 14 day rule is meant to specify exactly what "bona fide for navigation" means. (I don't think there's a copy of the proceedings of committees available online). It sounds as if you were there, so is this the impression you got of this?

Largely victimless? Maybe so, as the main victims are the people who do enjoy cruising and get stick from the endless lines of moorers (see e.g. Alan's post), those who walk the towpaths and feel threatened by the lines of houseboats with yapping dogs, bags of coal and rubbish on the bank, the hire companies who get feedback from customers about this, and marina owners who have invested considerable monies and pay BW large sums to operate only to see lines of boats moored free on the nearby towpaths.

I don't think anyone is condoning this. However, the overwhelming response to the L&S mooring proposals from non-boating towpath users was that the presence of liveaboards makes the towpath a safer place.

I guess maybe IWA now feel that the majority of their membership do require some action on the problem. By the way, are those who are writing to say that IWA obviously do not represent boating interests actually IWA members? I'm not aware that IWA ever has viewed "continuous moorers" favourably (they used to be called towpath dossers, but that seems to be non-pc now, so there have obviously been some changes in the past 20 years )

One of our big tactical errors in opposing the L&S mooring proposals was to tell the IWA how strongly we objected to their draft response. Some may recall that, amongst other things, it portrayed CCers as having unsightly boats and conducting their affairs in a rubbish tip. If we had kept quiet, then they might have taken the opportunity to make a permanent record of their nasty, vitriolic bigotry. So I don't think much has changed.

[Thorfast]

Firstly, people who DO CM, are not necessarily on benefits, I know there are many who work and earn just enough to live on, but do not wish to get into the benefit system...and I imagine many would applaud that. However, it does mean they often can't ALSO afford a mooring, but are trapped needing work and therefore one area of cruising. Why bother moving? Because many do actually enjoy moving and that is part of the reason they are on a boat...they may not be able to move a long distance for whatever reason keeps them to one area, but may still enjoy a cruise and change every week or two.

I actually DO have a permanent mooring, but am effectively CM'ing at the moment, because although I have a mooring, I hate being within a marina all the time. So, I am within the rules (and yes, I have a licence) but doing the dreaded CM'ing....I work so need to be local, but we enjoy being on the cut, AND moving around as and when we can. The marina fees are a huge part of my wage, and with the licence, that is over a quarter of our total income. We claim no benefits. This year has been very hard due to the engine re-build and various other items I have had to renew. Then I have all the normal other bills...insurances, vets, food, fuel, you name it, as most of us do. If we couldn't pay the moorings...should I close my business and claim benefits in order to CC, or live on the marina, or should I CM, in a mobile manner but within a drive range of work, and continue to be a responsible and self supporting person?

Things are not always clear cut you see. CM'ers are NOT all dirty scrounging layabouts, many are good honest folk caught in a trap that may have occurred since they joined the waterway life, unexpectedly. Be it for medical/social/work/financial/family etc reasons, god knows there are many of us affected by the recession in all kinds of ways. Plenty of us are 'outside the box' (and for many of us that is the appeal of life on the cut!!).

 

Edited to add: BTW, we move between a week- two weeks, we do NOT have anything on the towpath whilst moored,(lovely tug deck! ) we pick up our dog poo and are generally sociable and helpful to other boaters....we don't even tell people to slow down!

 

You DO have a permanent mooring, BUT you are not using it and admit to CM'ing.

Do I agree with you doing this? No

I happen to think you should use the permanent mooring that you are paying for.

You say you are within the rules. I think you are bending the rules to suit.

I do not think we will ever agree

[Ally]

I use my mooring when I need or want to. I pay for a full years mooring. I choose to cruise locally. How can that be wrong? I never overstay anywhere. There are no 'rules' that say a person with a full mooring must make continuous progress.

Do you also disagree with people who just sit in marinas all year I wonder???

Edited August 31, 2012 by Ally

[Thorfast]

I use my mooring when I need or want to. I pay for a full years mooring. I choose to cruise locally. How can that be wrong? I never overstay anywhere. There are no 'rules' that say a person with a full mooring must make continuous progress.

Do you also disagree with people who just sit in marinas all year I wonder???

Whilst "there are no 'rules' that say a person with a full mooring must make continuous progress" I feel you are breaking the spirit of the 'rules' and it depends on your definition of 'cruise locally'.

I happen to think it should be much simpler - You either have a home mooring that is paid for (on-line or marina) or you are a continuous cruiser making continuous progress.

If you are 'cruising locally' because of work, then get a home mooring in that area.

[Higgs]

It would be undesirable to have every action stitched up by a regulation. Some common sense has to apply to the way we use the canal and its mooring resources.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Higgs

[BEngo]

I use my mooring when I need or want to. I pay for a full years mooring. I choose to cruise locally. How can that be wrong? I never overstay anywhere. There are no 'rules' that say a person with a full mooring must make continuous progress.

Do you also disagree with people who just sit in marinas all year I wonder???

 

 

The key is in "I never overstay anywhere". If all those without permanent moorings or those with moorings and cruising locally but extensively did this, and avoided forming new linear moorings, there would be no noticeable problem.

 

Unfortunately there are those who appear to want to take the mick. They exist in every field. The answer is to make clear and reasonable rules and enforce them- that's how societies work. BW chose not to do this, but CART don't have that luxury. They need to stop what is currently a regional problem turning into a national one. If the law is uncertain than the courts will have to determine precisely what it is.

 

N

[Ally]

Whilst "there are no 'rules' that say a person with a full mooring must make continuous progress" I feel you are breaking the spirit of the 'rules' and it depends on your definition of 'cruise locally'.

I happen to think it should be much simpler - You either have a home mooring that is paid for (on-line or marina) or you are a continuous cruiser making continuous progress.

If you are 'cruising locally' because of work, then get a home mooring in that area.

I DO have a home mooring in that area!! I have a paid for annual mooring in a marina 5 miles from where I work, as that is the nearest point of the canal to my work. I cruise outside that distance, but within the 'shire'...occassionally the next 'shire' also. I don't see your problem.

Are we only allowed to be EITHER CC'ers OR constant moorers in a marina? Surely there is room in the world for such as us!

 

It would be undesirable to have every action stitched up by a regulation. Some common sense has to apply to the way we use the canal and its mooring resources.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Ally

[Tuscan]

The key is in "I never overstay anywhere". If all those without permanent moorings or those with moorings and cruising locally but extensively did this, and avoided forming new linear moorings, there would be no noticeable problem.

 

Unfortunately there are those who appear to want to take the mick. They exist in every field. The answer is to make clear and reasonable rules and enforce them- that's how societies work. BW chose not to do this, but CART don't have that luxury. They need to stop what is currently a regional problem turning into a national one. If the law is uncertain than the courts will have to determine precisely what it is.

 

N

 

 

Have a greeni thing. It is a spreading problem, I dont want CRT to turn into a housing association or a political pressure group for social housing. We need reasonable enforceable rules that are then enforced with a common sense attitude. I do not think that all CM'ers have special needs or financial issues any different from the majority of society.