number of boats on the system going up or down

[Pentargon]

There is a lot more "private water" connected to the CaRT / EA system than people know about...most of the people that moor there keep very quiet! What ever CaRT says, I would think that there has been an increase in the number of unlicenced boats, probably lost in the increasing amount ownership transfers that have occurred in the last couple of years.

Nice one Neil. This has been my observation also voyaging down the GU, across London and now going up the Lea. My observations would include a representative cross section of t'cut in the SE region. Empirical evidence of evasion is all over the place. One of the better indicators of potential evasion is the numbers of boats which do not clearly show their name or number as required by the 1971 Act.

 

9. (1) Every powered pleasure boat registered under this part of this Act shall have its name OR number conspicuously painted or otherwise displayed on the outside thereof in letters of such colour, character and size as will be clearly legible at all times, and shall also have similarly displayed the mark and number which the Board shall have assigned in respect of such pleasure boat

 

I've spoken with people whose boats do not clearly display the name eg because they are painting the boat or getting a new screen made so spare me the Red Herrings on such situations and look at the bigger picture. When I see boats with ID numbers inside windows with some of the numerals covered by the out of date licence and/or no identifiable identity clearly visible, I'm entitled to apply the 'duck' test. (If it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a ... ) When I see boats with no clearly identifiable markings according to the 1971 Act, I am entitled to suspect evasion. I am also entitled to advise CaRT of my observations if I so desire. That desire will become very focussed when I see CaRT ask me for even more for my annual licence, because it cannot get on top of 'evasion' by ne'er-do-wells and leeches.

 

When I see a boat with a name unclearly displayed in amateurish and messy 'sign-writing' scrawled on with an indelible pen, or as in one case CHALK, I see a guy who is TRYING to stay legal and he will not be subjected to my 'duck' test. It is time to get real. There is widespread evasion rather than avoidance. Let's face up to it and stop playing around with 1%er exceptions. CaRT is trying to get on top of the problem but there are less wardens than users and not enough rogues being set upon the rogues. I'm on the side of CaRT. If CaRT knows there are SAY 32000 boats registered but records show SAY 28000 current licences, CaRT is entitled to apply the 'duck' test and go on the offensive, because 12.5% of registered boats may be unlicenced. So maybe all 4000 boats thus exampled are in places where a licence is not needed (this is avoidance and avoidance is not evasion). But I suspect not as there is in statistics a device called the bell jar test which never failed me. I am shortly to be craned out (for a month) and will be [legally] avoiding licence paying during that month. I have already visited the place where I will be avoiding having a licence and looked at the boats already out of the water there. Numbers of them are legally licenced. Once again spare me the red herrings. I hope to be dropped back into the wet sometime in January with a gold licence to continue cruising for all of 2013 Deo Vero.

 

Those of us who actually buy and display licences and pay our lawful dues need to become totally intransigent and intolerant of wasters and avoiders. Let us stop pointing to the very small number of canal users who are in genuine and uncalled for financial distress, bad health, or inability to cope. Indeed let us strive to protect such people as our needy neighbours and blitz the wasters and ne'er do well leeches who are sucking us dry. Because unless we all work together to eradicate this carry-on CaRT may have to look to us payers to pay even more.

 

I am totally pissed off with the 'naval gazing' and harping about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". We've got a new organisation. BW and all the crass stupidity of that failed entity is either going or gone. There is a new broom and canal user have the right to hold its handle AND sweep with it. Let's start sweeping now and stop talking bollox.

 

Have I made myself reasonably clear?

Edited November 28, 2012 by Pentargon

[GoodGurl]

Figures for that, anything you can point me to that I can use as evidence? Would be grateful.

 

 

 

Are there still marinas where you can moor without needing a license?

simple answer to thisd is YES redhill for example on the soar just below radcliffe lock on the backwater classed as UN-navigable.

[Tiger 1057]

Those of us who actually buy and display licences and pay our lawful dues need to become totally intransigent and intolerant of wasters and avoiders.

Now there is a man with whom I am in total agreement! Have a greenie.

Perhaps there should be a system similiar to vehicle excise duty. If your boat is on CaRT waterways without a licence or a type of SORN then a significant fine or confiscation should be imposed. No ifs or buts.

[kevinl]

Those of us who actually buy and display licences and pay our lawful dues need to become totally intransigent and intolerant of wasters and avoiders. Let us stop pointing to the very small number of canal users who are in genuine and uncalled for financial distress, bad health, or inability to cope. Indeed let us strive to protect such people as our needy neighbours and blitz the wasters and ne'er do well leeches who are sucking us dry. Because unless we all work together to eradicate this carry-on CaRT may have to look to us payers to pay even more.

 

I am totally pissed off with the 'naval gazing' and harping about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". We've got a new organisation. BW and all the crass stupidity of that failed entity is either going or gone. There is a new broom and canal user have the right to hold its handle AND sweep with it. Let's start sweeping now and stop talking bollox.

 

Have I made myself reasonably clear?

 

I found myself humming the theme music to the dambusters as I read this bit

[carlt]

I found myself humming the theme music to the dambusters as I read this bit

 

Indeed because clearing up the now very few licence dodgers is just as important a task as the job 617 squadron had to carry out.

 

 

Sheesh.

[Guest]

Those of us who actually buy and display licences and pay our lawful dues need to become totally intransigent and intolerant of wasters and avoiders. Let us stop pointing to the very small number of canal users who are in genuine and uncalled for financial distress, bad health, or inability to cope. Indeed let us strive to protect such people as our needy neighbours and blitz the wasters and ne'er do well leeches who are sucking us dry. Because unless we all work together to eradicate this carry-on CaRT may have to look to us payers to pay even more.

 

I am totally pissed off with the 'naval gazing' and harping about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". We've got a new organisation. BW and all the crass stupidity of that failed entity is either going or gone. There is a new broom and canal user have the right to hold its handle AND sweep with it. Let's start sweeping now and stop talking bollox.

 

Have I made myself reasonably clear?

 

I found myself humming the theme music to the dambusters as I read this bit

 

Why is this post identical to the latter part of post #51 - were you just saving a bit of effort?

[jenlyn]

BW and all the crass stupidity of that failed entity is either going or gone

 

Really???

[n.b.Goldie]

Indeed because clearing up the now very few licence dodgers is just as important a task as the job 617 squadron had to carry out.

 

 

The" very few licence dodgers" are a minority and therefore must be protected and given special privileges.

 

Any one seen my coat?

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

[John V]

Now there is a man with whom I am in total agreement! Have a greenie.

Perhaps there should be a system similiar to vehicle excise duty. If your boat is on CaRT waterways without a licence or a type of SORN then a significant fine or confiscation should be imposed. No ifs or buts.

 

 

Your comment about a type of SORN, it would be useful if there was something of the sort, as even when off the (then) BW waters I was chased about a license in spite of them being informed (twice in writing). This winter my present cruiser is off C&RT waters and will be on other authorities waters for about a year, I wait to see what happens this time around.

[carlt]

The" very few licence dodgers" are a minority and therefore must be protected and given special privileges.

 

No, C&RT should carry on with their enforcement efforts and get all boaters legal and licensed.

 

I find it difficult to get worked up personally about such a tiny amount of revenue evasion, compared to corporate, vat, income and other tax evasion which amounts to billions stolen from the public purse.

 

Perhaps I don't eat enough sugar.

 

If your boat is on CaRT waterways without a licence or a type of SORN then a significant fine or confiscation should be imposed. No ifs or buts.

I suspect that the majority of registered boats without a licence are nowhere near C&RT waters but still get counted.

 

I own three, all with C&RT index numbers and none on C&RT waters.

[jenlyn]

No, C&RT should carry on with their enforcement efforts and get all boaters legal and licensed.

 

I find it difficult to get worked up personally about such a tiny amount of revenue evasion, compared to corporate, vat, income and other tax evasion which amounts to billions stolen from the public purse.

 

Perhaps I don't eat enough sugar.

 

 

I suspect that the majority of registered boats without a licence are nowhere near C&RT waters but still get counted.

 

I own three, all with C&RT index numbers and none on C&RT waters.

 

Haribos! Temper in a bag...........

[alan_fincher]

One of the better indicators of potential evasion is the numbers of boats which do not clearly show their name and number as required by the 1971 Act.

 

9. (1) Every powered pleasure boat registered under this part of this Act shall have its name or number conspicuously painted or otherwise displayed on the outside thereof in letters of such colour, character and size as will be clearly legible at all times, and shall also have similarly displayed the mark and number which the Board shall have assigned in respect of such pleasure boat

 

I've spoken with people whose boats do not clearly display the name eg because they are painting the boat or getting a new screen made so spare me the Red Herrings on such situations and look at the bigger picture. When I see boats with ID numbers inside windows and some of the numerals covered by the out of date licence and/or no identifiable identity clearly visible, I'm entitled to apply the 'duck' test. (If it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a ... ) When I see boats with no clearly identifiable markings according to the 1971 Act, I am entitled to suspect evasion. I am also entitled to advise CaRT of my observations if I so desire. That desire will become very focussed when I see CaRT planning to ask me for even more for my annual licence, because it cannot get on top of 'evasion'.

 

This may be your view, but if you speak to anybody associated with licensing and enforcement in modern day BW/CRT, they really have no interest whatsover it boat names, and will happily tell you they do not. Absolutely none at all - ask them!

 

They work entirely off the allocated Index Number, (which is unique), rather than the fact it may be called "Kingfisher", thereby kind of identifying it as maybe one of 40 or more Kingfishers.

 

BW/CRT do not even require you to tell them if you change the name of a boat until the next licence renewal.

 

Provided you are clearly displaying an Index Number CRT are more than happy, so why do you set yourself up as some kind of judge on the integrity of the many boaters who do not have a name painted on the side of their boat.

 

And I admit, one of our boats has never managed to get its sign-writing redone, since a repaint first started in 2007, and still never fully completed. I imagine any number of other people may well be in an entirely similar situation.

 

If CRT don't like the lack of a painted name, they can ask me to do something about it, but as they can fully identify my boat, I can't see them bothering. If CRT aren't interested, I really don't see it as anybody else's concern.

[Dekazer]

This may be your view, but if you speak to anybody associated with licensing and enforcement in modern day BW/CRT, they really have no interest whatsover it boat names, and will happily tell you they do not. Absolutely none at all - ask them!

 

They work entirely off the allocated Index Number, (which is unique), rather than the fact it may be called "Kingfisher", thereby kind of identifying it as maybe one of 40 or more Kingfishers.

 

Or, y'know, 215 http://www.jim-shead.com/waterways/boatnames.php

 

We're quite a crowd

[Chris Pink]

talking bollox.

 

Have I made myself reasonably clear?

 

You're talking crap and you can't even be bothered to read the numbers right because you want them to say something they simply don't.

 

Somehow you think that you know more about boats than then people whose job it is to keep track.

 

Maybe people should display their boat name and licence in words 12" high so you can see them, or perhaps they don't give a monkey's toss what you think because it's none of your business.

 

It's the relationship between a boater and CRT that matters not that of some ranting curtain twitcher.

[kevinl]

Hi All

 

Calm down a bit, please no need to argue.

 

Mr/Mrs Pentargon said" One of the better indicators of potential evasion is the numbers of boats which do not clearly show their name and number as required by the 1971 Act."

But then supplies the relevant regulation (below) which clealy states "name OR number" so no need to have your name on your boat, name or number.

 

9. (1) Every powered pleasure boat registered under this part of this Act shall have its name or number conspicuously painted or otherwise displayed on the outside thereof in letters of such colour, character and size as will be clearly legible at all times, and shall also have similarly displayed the mark and number which the Board shall have assigned in respect of such pleasure boat

 

Anyway for the third time of asking, does anyone know the answer to my original question, is the number of boats is going up or down? I'll amend this to read Licenced Boats, so over the past few years has BW/CaRT been losing licence payers or gaining them, is the licenced number of boats on the system going up or down. Unlicenced figures are pretty much speculation I'm only counting the licenced ones, up or down?

[Paul C]

Please can you link to your original article/email!!!! I'd suggest, if you have a real issue with the figures in that, then the person to ask would be its author. Discussion here is good but is kinda secondhand.

 

For example, did the original article mention number of boats, or number of licensed boats?

[Chris Pink]

 

 

Mr/Mrs Pentargon said" One of the better indicators of potential evasion is the numbers of boats which do not clearly show their name and number as required by the 1971 Act."

But then supplies the relevant regulation (below) which clealy states "name OR number" so no need to have your name on your boat, name or number.

 

9. (1) Every powered pleasure boat registered under this part of this Act shall have its name or number conspicuously painted or otherwise displayed on the outside thereof in letters of such colour, character and size as will be clearly legible at all times, and shall also have similarly displayed the mark and number which the Board shall have assigned in respect of such pleasure boat

 

Anyway for the third time of asking, does anyone know the answer to my original question, is the number of boats is going up or down? I'll amend this to read Licenced Boats, so over the past few years has BW/CaRT been losing licence payers or gaining them, is the licenced number of boats on the system going up or down. Unlicenced figures are pretty much speculation I'm only counting the licenced ones, up or down?

 

Mrs Pentargon also 'quoted' a FOI request posted earlier in this thread, unfortunately she got her sums wrong, or didn't read carefully enough.

 

This is only a snapshot of now though and doesn't contain comparative data.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Chris Pink

[jenlyn]

 

 

Anyway for the third time of asking, does anyone know the answer to my original question, is the number of boats is going up or down? I'll amend this to read Licenced Boats, so over the past few years has BW/CaRT been losing licence payers or gaining them, is the licenced number of boats on the system going up or down. Unlicenced figures are pretty much speculation I'm only counting the licenced ones, up or down?

Do some research, it's easily found

[kevinl]

Sorry Paul, I can't find it, but it's not important it was simply in a e-mail somebody wrote to Narrow Boat World about some issue or another of no relevance. It was only after I read the comment and when I thought about it I wondered if as this person was correct when they said the number of boats on the cut was going down, so is it true or not? It doesn't matter who said it or why don't know, don't care, simply are they right? I thought it would be an easy thing to check on the net but I couldn't find the answer so I thought if I asked here someone would instantly produce the figures and satisify my idle curiosity. So far I've had 1,400 views and 66 replies but no answer to my question up or down?

K

[Tinally]

There are quite a few cruisers round my way that have spent the summer at home on their trailers instead of afloat. Once upon a time these may have been sold, but prices are so low at the moment many owners will just park them and hope for better times!

[alan_fincher]

Lets stop guessing!

 

Licence Figures - BW's own numbers

 

Taken from the 2011/12 Annual Report

 

We are actually talking about a decrease of just 191 out of a total of nearly 35,000 overall, actually less than 0.7%, so hardly a lot is it!

 

England & Wales

_______________________________________________________2011/12__________ 2010/11____Change %

 

Private pleasure boats – canals & rivers**_____________ 27,016____________27,566______-2%

Private pleasure boats – rivers__________________________4,873_____________4,856_______0%

Houseboats__________________________________________________85________________78_______9%

Business craft___________________________________________2,709_____________2,374______14%

 

Total long-term licences________________________________34,683_____________34,874______-1%

 

I note that there is a significant fall in the number of pleasure boat licences that doesn't come far from matching the increase in business craft licences. I think it is probably reasonable to guess that a certain number of the many small traders may have moved in the numbers from one sub-total to another, possibly because of recent changes to the way BW/CRT handle people of this type - but that is purely a guess.

 

So far I've had 1,400 views and 66 replies but no answer to my question up or down?

K

See above.....

 

Does it help at all ?

 

Presumably if you dig back through earlier BW Annual Reports, (all published online), you could look at the trend over a longer period than the two accounting years I have just extracted the data for.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

Just looked quickly at (for example) 2008/2009. Total number of licences was 33,831, versus latest figure of 34,683.

 

So in the three years between 2009 and 2012, there has been an overall increase of licences of 832, or about 2.5%.

 

(Don't believe everything you read on NBW!)

Edited November 27, 2012 by alan_fincher

[kevinl]

Thank-you Alan, that's all I wanted to know, I can go and look up the rest for myself. So the original asertion I read that the number of boats on the system is going down is true, only just, a gnat's whatever, but true none the less. I really didn't think it was correct but 0.7% deccrease it is.

Thanks again

[alan_fincher]

Thank-you Alan, that's all I wanted to know, I can go and look up the rest for myself. So the original asertion I read that the number of boats on the system is going down is true, only just, a gnat's whatever, but true none the less. I really didn't think it was correct but 0.7% deccrease it is.

Thanks again

Be careful how you read the reports, and ideally double check with the one that follows.

 

In some they admit to getting the numbers wrong at the first attempt at reporting them, then having to adjust them later!

 

I'm prepared to believe this comes from genuine mistakes, rather than deliberate attempts to deceive, but no doubt some of those constantly looking for "cloak and dagger" stuff will choose to see it as the latter!

[jenlyn]

Be careful how you read the reports, and ideally double check with the one that follows.

 

In some they admit to getting the numbers wrong at the first attempt at reporting them, then having to adjust them later!

 

I'm prepared to believe this comes from genuine mistakes, rather than deliberate attempts to deceive, but no doubt some of those constantly looking for "cloak and dagger" stuff will choose to see it as the latter!

 

MI5 ;-)

[onionbargee]

I have puzzled over this too for ages. NBs never seem to be scrapped no matter how bad the get. For example trhe burned out boat boat which PJ gallantly raised only the other day seems a total write-off and a prime candidate for scrapping yet someone just paid over £4k for it on eBay. I cant imagine they want it for just the engine. Or is scrap steel really worth that much nowadays?

 

 

MtB

why would it be a write off Mike ? the hull is sound, though it may be distorted, it looked quite straight to me, though when you cut the cabin off it releases all the pent up distortion, and springs all over the place, whap a ply cabin on and you have the basis of a cheap starter boat. Though it was a high price for a burn out, the end result would be worth just enough to make it worth doing.