CCer' meetings/ problems

[Lady Muck]

ok my mistake...

[alan_fincher]

Unfortunately, in some cases, it appears that it suits the CMer to squeal that people are "anti-CCer" to deflect attention from their failure to CC.

 

Equally.....

 

Unfortunately, in some cases, it appears that it suits the "non-CCer" overstayer to squeal that the canals are full of CM-ers to deflect attention from their overstaying.

[alan_fincher]

Yes, you may.

 

Licences have a code on them that indicates where the home mooring is. The code is based on the Asset Coding that CRT use, and looks like;

 

XX-001-001

 

XX is the code for the canal where the mooring is (so for the Peak Forest where we moor "PF")

the first numeric block represents the kilometrage from the start of the canal

the second numeric block is a numeric identifier for a particular location in that 1km section

 

So, PF-003-020 described our old mooring on the lower PF

 

Codes starting BW indicate no mooring, with most CCers having a code of BW-065-007

 

We have been told in the past there is more to it than this, so this is in danger of categorising people into a category they are not.

 

For example we were told that someone who does have a permanent marina mooring, but on the Bridgewater, has a dual licence that allows them unrestricted access to CRT waters.

 

That we were told was coded BW-007-003

 

So perhaps "BW" means no home mooring on CRT waters (?), but it seems the "BW" on its own doesn't automatically mean no home mooring anywhere.

 

Also, as you say, whilst most licences for those making a "no home mooring" declaration may be coded BW-065-007, not all are.

 

Many of our local CCers actually do not have BW-xxx-xxx numbers, but have GU-xxx-xxx numbers, because they have given up expensive marina berths to join the CC-ing community, and still have a licence implying a permanent home mooring on the GU - even after renewal in many cases. Whether in time BW/CRT will get them over to a BW number though, I have no idea.

 

CRT's head of enforcement told us on Thursday they would like to move to a situation where there is no requirement to display licences. She says the actual licence plays no part whatsover in their checking process, provided the boats index number is independently displayed. All their systems work on index number, and they would prefer that that is all that can be seen on the boat.

 

Now how that would stack up with their "Licence It" "snitch line", I didn't have the opportunity to ask! Presumably you would have to key in the numbers of all possible "offenders" based on your hunch that they kind of look illegal!

[pearley]

CRT's head of enforcement told us on Thursday they would like to move to a situation where there is no requirement to display licences. She says the actual licence plays no part whatsover in their checking process, provided the boats index number is independently displayed. All their systems work on index number, and they would prefer that that is all that can be seen on the boat.

 

Now how that would stack up with their "Licence It" "snitch line", I didn't have the opportunity to ask! Presumably you would have to key in the numbers of all possible "offenders" based on your hunch that they kind of look illegal!

 

Does that mean they will crack down on boats who no number and or name displayed?

 

Pete

[alan_fincher]

Does that mean they will crack down on boats who no number and or name displayed?

 

Pete

They have absolutely no interest in boat names from a licencing or enforcement viewpoint.

 

The only thing they need to know about a boat is its index number, and after that everything else can come from their hand held devices.

 

So yes, they would need to take action on boats where an index number is not displayed.

 

Technically BW bye-laws require a name is present to, but that is a bit of history, and they are unlikely to enforce that.

[Tuscan]

We have been told in the past there is more to it than this, so this is in danger of categorising people into a category they are not.

 

For example we were told that someone who does have a permanent marina mooring, but on the Bridgewater, has a dual licence that allows them unrestricted access to CRT waters.

 

That we were told was coded BW-007-003

 

So perhaps "BW" means no home mooring on CRT waters (?), but it seems the "BW" on its own doesn't automatically mean no home mooring anywhere.

 

Also, as you say, whilst most licences for those making a "no home mooring" declaration may be coded BW-065-007, not all are.

 

Many of our local CCers actually do not have BW-xxx-xxx numbers, but have GU-xxx-xxx numbers, because they have given up expensive marina berths to join the CC-ing community, and still have a licence implying a permanent home mooring on the GU - even after renewal in many cases. Whether in time BW/CRT will get them over to a BW number though, I have no idea.

 

CRT's head of enforcement told us on Thursday they would like to move to a situation where there is no requirement to display licences. She says the actual licence plays no part whatsover in their checking process, provided the boats index number is independently displayed. All their systems work on index number, and they would prefer that that is all that can be seen on the boat.

 

Now how that would stack up with their "Licence It" "snitch line", I didn't have the opportunity to ask! Presumably you would have to key in the numbers of all possible "offenders" based on your hunch that they kind of look illegal!

 

 

 

Rather than drip feeding us information from the recent meeting which you have done a couple of times now is it possible that someone could give a summary of what was said. This is not a criticism i think the meeting was a great start but if you are party to information which others are not it kinda means that the discussion is perhaps off the real topic that should be debated - dependant upon what was said of course.

[alan_fincher]

Rather than drip feeding us information from the recent meeting which you have done a couple of times now is it possible that someone could give a summary of what was said. This is not a criticism i think the meeting was a great start but if you are party to information which others are not it kinda means that the discussion is perhaps off the real topic that should be debated - dependant upon what was said of course.

Peter MacDonald is preparing meeting notes, which he will presumably agree with John Dodwell before circulation.

 

I wasn't trying to drip feed stuff from the main discussions, and this kind of stuff is actually very peripheral to the main thrust of the meeting.

 

Whilst I have no idea how detailed any meeting notes will be, I'm not sure they will go to the detail of saying CRT Enforcement Staff have a long term aspiration to get rid of paper licences, because it is not a proposal that is actually on the table right now, nor very relevant to the meeting where it happened to get mentioned.

 

I must admit I'm losing the plot though - where did the suggestion of an instantly recognisably different licence for CC-ers first make an appearance in this debate? It sounds like not as a result of any proposal from CRT, but there are now to many new threads that I'm going to go looking!

[pearlygeoff]

What is clear is that the 'rules' are not clear and easy to understand. They are ambiguous and overly, and absurdly, complex.

 

Even those who claim to have a 'correct' interpretation admit that ambiguity.

 

A public body/public authority should not have rules that are not a reasonable interpretation of the law and are not easily understandable by those who are subject to them. Particularly when a breach of those rules can lead to dire consequences, such as, seizure/theft of one's boat/home and the prospect of enforced homelessness which would, clearly, be 'disproportionate' to say the least.

 

Their 'rules are unreasonable. They are, therefore, unlawful. Their enforcement is, therefore, criminal.

 

BW/CART should be removed from office and prosecuted.

 

Perhaps then those of who live on boats as our sole dwelling can be left in peace to get on with our, quite difficult but chosen, way of life without undue, i.e systematised and discriminatory, interference subject only to enforcement action when an individual is committing a genuine offence in the same way that everyone else is.

 

The 'intent' of the boater to navigate appears to have become a key factor. What about the 'intent' of BW/CART in, relentlessly, pursuing people to take non existent or unlawful moorings or be subject to, ever changing, punitive (and unlawful) rules and acceptance of the status of a 'pariah'?

 

Continue your journey.

[PiRSqwared]

I must admit I'm losing the plot though - where did the suggestion of an instantly recognisably different licence for CC-ers first make an appearance in this debate? It sounds like not as a result of any proposal from CRT, but there are now to many new threads that I'm going to go looking!

 

Council discussion in response to La Ash's CC document:

 

Discussion

In the discussion, Council members made a number of key points:

 Users perceive a growing problem and enforcement on visitor moorings is a priority. It was noted that this is a large problem caused by a minority - 2,000 out of 35,000 boats

 Resources available for enforcement will always be limited. It will be important to get to a point where peer pressure/self-policing makes significant contribution

 Clearer communication of stay duration and return periods on site and in other communication channels will build peer pressure, underpin any remedial strategy

 New Continuous Cruisers should “sign up to navigation” with a summary plan for the year and licences clearly distinguished from those with registered moorings

 There is scope for greater use of technology to log boat movements, linked to a Continuous Cruising Licence

 It was suggested that there should be a graduated scale of charges with an allowance of, say, 20 days pa on specified moorings, graded charges and penalties for excess periods

 There is potential for volunteers to help in identifying problems/hot spots if not serious enforcement

 The adequacy of legislation was questioned. Nigel Johnson explained that securing new legislation is a very lengthy, costly and uncertain process. It was not practical to base controls on measures such as fit and proper person, or environmental considerations other than those already available

 There was support for affordable community/longer-term moorings paralleling the provision of affordable housing, subject to local authority support – with the potential for income generation for the Trust and Local Authorities. Concern though that permitting longer stays deferred rather than resolved the problem

 Non-compliant Continuous Cruisers take mooring space, car parking space and turn off local communities. Negative perceptions and problems risk alienating Local Authorities who have a key role in funding long term. Authorities will only provide funds if there is public support for the canal (eg, K&A)

 The formation of the Canal & River Trust created an opportunity to “reboot” the issue and draw a line under previous approaches

 The problem requires an elevated response with strengthened policy, greater use of technology, use of bailiffs to demonstrate credible civil enforcement. Action by Trustees would be required to enable and support such an approach

 

Interestingly, while the head cheese of enforcement thinks that displaying a licence is outdated, the council seem to think it needs an added layer.

[DeanS]

What is clear is that the 'rules' are not clear and easy to understand. They are ambiguous and overly, and absurdly, complex.

 

I tend to agree.

Could someone tell me what would happen if C&RT told me I was staying too long in one area, and I said, "my kid cycles to college in this city so we have to keep travelling around this area...and I have a widebeam, and there are no moorings for widebeams in this area...because the canals that have marinas are mostly on narrow canals.

 

What would they do to me? According to the very ambiguous laws, I would be illegal, but in reality, I would have no other choices available to me. Would they take our boat/family home, away? Would they tell me my kid has to choose a different profession. Am I legal, or illegal. WHO KNOWS I would be trying to remain inside the law, but wouldnt actually know what the law is...which is rediculous.

 

ps...I am actually moored in a marina, but I would prefer not to be

[cotswoldsman]

Council discussion in response to La Ash's CC document:

 

Discussion

In the discussion, Council members made a number of key points:

 Users perceive a growing problem and enforcement on visitor moorings is a priority. It was noted that this is a large problem caused by a minority - 2,000 out of 35,000 boats

 Resources available for enforcement will always be limited. It will be important to get to a point where peer pressure/self-policing makes significant contribution

 Clearer communication of stay duration and return periods on site and in other communication channels will build peer pressure, underpin any remedial strategy

 New Continuous Cruisers should "sign up to navigation" with a summary plan for the year and licences clearly distinguished from those with registered moorings

 There is scope for greater use of technology to log boat movements, linked to a Continuous Cruising Licence

 It was suggested that there should be a graduated scale of charges with an allowance of, say, 20 days pa on specified moorings, graded charges and penalties for excess periods

 There is potential for volunteers to help in identifying problems/hot spots if not serious enforcement

 The adequacy of legislation was questioned. Nigel Johnson explained that securing new legislation is a very lengthy, costly and uncertain process. It was not practical to base controls on measures such as fit and proper person, or environmental considerations other than those already available

 There was support for affordable community/longer-term moorings paralleling the provision of affordable housing, subject to local authority support – with the potential for income generation for the Trust and Local Authorities. Concern though that permitting longer stays deferred rather than resolved the problem

 Non-compliant Continuous Cruisers take mooring space, car parking space and turn off local communities. Negative perceptions and problems risk alienating Local Authorities who have a key role in funding long term. Authorities will only provide funds if there is public support for the canal (eg, K&A)

 The formation of the Canal & River Trust created an opportunity to "reboot" the issue and draw a line under previous approaches

 The problem requires an elevated response with strengthened policy, greater use of technology, use of bailiffs to demonstrate credible civil enforcement. Action by Trustees would be required to enable and support such an approach

 

Interestingly, while the head cheese of enforcement thinks that displaying a licence is outdated, the council seem to think it needs an added layer.

 

Yes well that says more about the Council that just represent certain boating groups and other interest groups than it says about what CaRT think. We have unfortunately ended up with boater representatives that have no interest in representing boaters but just interested in the Boating Groups they represent.

[DaveC]

Hey Dean, when are you going to add to your blog?

 

Dave

[DeanS]

Hey Dean, when are you going to add to your blog?

 

Dave

 

when my kids clean their rooms enough to take photos ;-)

[PiRSqwared]

I tend to agree.

Could someone tell me what would happen if C&RT told me I was staying too long in one area, and I said, "my kid cycles to college in this city so we have to keep travelling around this area...and I have a widebeam, and there are no moorings for widebeams in this area...because the canals that have marinas are mostly on narrow canals.

 

What would they do to me? According to the very ambiguous laws, I would be illegal, but in reality, I would have no other choices available to me. Would they take our boat/family home, away? Would they tell me my kid has to choose a different profession. Am I legal, or illegal. WHO KNOWS I would be trying to remain inside the law, but wouldnt actually know what the law is...which is rediculous.

 

ps...I am actually moored in a marina, but I would prefer not to be

No, they'd send Dave round to tell you you knew the rules before you bought the boat/had children/selected the college, so sort y'selves out!!

 

Ironically, certain rule quoters are now offereing their support to Tiller Bikes, who has been told he isn't compliant with the terms of his licence.

 

Maffi blog - Tiller Cycles

Edited November 30, 2012 by PiRSqwared

[jenlyn]

No, they'd send Dave round to tell you you knew the rules before you bought the boat/had children/selected the college, so sort y'selves out!!

 

Ironically, certain rule quoters are now offereing their support to Tiller Bikes, who has been told he isn't compliant with the terms of his licence.

 

Maffi blog - Tiller Cycles

The thing is, it's not about what the rules mean now. CART have decided the way forward, and wish boaters to help construct that way forward. You can all either input towards that, or sit on here with Dave debating over word meanings. Don't go moaning though when some of us have helped and moved forward.

[carlt]

Ironically, certain rule quoters are now offereing their support to Tiller Bikes, who has been told he isn't compliant with the terms of his licence.

 

Maffi blog - Tiller Cycles

I wonder if his boat will fit in the yard of his land based workshop, thus providing him with a "place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left....whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere." thus exempting him from the ccing requirements....

[Guest]

when my kids clean their rooms enough to take photos ;-)

 

Mine were 22 and 25 respectively when they left....the rooms were only clean when they removed what they owned..

 

So don't hold your breath...

[CathyC]

i think that might be a bit unfair as these proposals are still in the consultation stage and CaRT did make their thinking available so that people could give feed back. Anyone can write or talk to CaRT to give their views.

Late reply, but if you're talking about the plans for 24 and 48-hour moorings, that's not the case. Steve on Jenlyn had to do a FoI request before he could get the details ov of BW, and I believe this was after he'd been told by someone at CaRT that nothing was happening. It was only his hunch and dogged persistence that brought the meeting report into the light of day.

I can happily state that I have never once been consulted by CaRT/BW on any of their policy changes or initiatives around CCing.

[jenlyn]

Late reply, but if you're talking about the plans for 24 and 48-hour moorings, that's not the case. Steve on Jenlyn had to do a FoI request before he could get the details ov of BW, and I believe this was after he'd been told by someone at CaRT that nothing was happening. It was only his hunch and dogged persistence that brought the meeting report into the light of day.

I can happily state that I have never once been consulted by CaRT/BW on any of their policy changes or initiatives around CCing.

Whoa!! I found the 24-48hr stuff from minutes of a CART meeting. The other incident your referring to was a request I sent to ivor Caplan asking for confirmation.

[Wild Is The Wind]

The thing is, it's not about what the rules mean now. CART have decided the way forward, and wish boaters to help construct that way forward. You can all either input towards that, or sit on here with Dave debating over word meanings. Don't go moaning though when some of us have helped and moved forward.

 

 

I would still like to help. Although my circumstances are changing due to work commitments I still hope to CC. I have a little less time and some evening meetings might be difficult but I have some ideas on positive ways forward and ways CRT can reach boaters with information and consultation. I am working all day tomorrow but will give you a call in the next couple of days if that is ok?

[jenlyn]

I would still like to help. Although my circumstances are changing due to work commitments I still hope to CC. I have a little less time and some evening meetings might be difficult but I have some ideas on positive ways forward and ways CRT can reach boaters with information and consultation. I am working all day tomorrow but will give you a call in the next couple of days if that is ok?

There's a meeting at the malt shovel Cowley lock Friday evening from 7pm. I've invited all, so possibly could get rowdy.

[sueb]

Late reply, but if you're talking about the plans for 24 and 48-hour moorings, that's not the case. Steve on Jenlyn had to do a FoI request before he could get the details ov of BW, and I believe this was after he'd been told by someone at CaRT that nothing was happening. It was only his hunch and dogged persistence that brought the meeting report into the light of day.

I can happily state that I have never once been consulted by CaRT/BW on any of their policy changes or initiatives around CCing.

BW used to put details of their consultations on their web site, I assume Cart do the same. It is really up to us to keep ourselves informed as I don't see how Cart can ask everyone for their opinion. On past performance only a very small percentage of boaters would reply anyway.

[churchward]

 

 

Their 'rules are unreasonable. They are, therefore, unlawful. Their enforcement is, therefore, criminal.

 

 

 

This is not correct. A judge as gone through the CRT interpretation and found it to be consistent with the act. They are not unlawful. Confusing for many quite possibly but not unlawful such a statement doesn't do anybody any favours.

[Smelly]

OK... let's give this a bit of reality! I have been living on the water for more than a decade and over the last year due to the austerity push have found myself bouncing around the country.

 

I now find myself on a stretch where moorings are scarce but I have a 60 mile cruising range.

 

I have overstayed on 3 moorings so far, none have been anywhere near capacity nor has it been a possibility.

 

I will be compelled to move significant distances, over 3 or 4 canals to keep the bog empty, yet stay within a commutable distance of work.

 

What's wrong with that other than an aversion to pointless kowtowwing to arbitrary mooring restrictions that serve no purpose?

[Jerra]

Does C&RT know about it

 

If you read the "General terms and conditions for boat licences" on their website they appear to agree with him.