South East Mooring Proposals - As Discussed At The Midlands Meeting

[churchward]

I suspect however they will send a penalty charge to those moorers with a registered address who will probably pay it not realising that CRT would not pursue so many will pay so this will start yet another lot of them and us type discussions

I don't think that was what she said or at least it is not in context.

 

That kind of talk came out of Sally Ash saying they were not doing this to raise money and would be happy not to have to collect any £25 charges.

 

I think what she was getting at though was that CRT did not want to make this into a legal issue where they were chasing a lot of £25 charges in court. That does not mean they would not in some cases or indeed they would not chase by other means.

 

I also think that if the meetings and the approach of boaters in them are to succeed there needs to be a change in tone from the boaters side. It is no good if everything comes from a point of aggression and accusation to CRT. They will simply stop engaging or listening if that is what appears to be happening.

[Tuscan]

This latest statement (below) from the IWA is hardly an unconditional endorsement of the South East Visitor Mooring proposals in their current form, is it? Despite the fact that we we have been told they had a major input to the original South East consultation, which has resulted in proposals for 22 sites, this statement doesn't seem to say to me that they are even now agreeing that these are the highest priority sites in the SE region!

 

And yet I heard Sally Ash say at a meeting where she gave an impromptu briefing to journalists for the waterways press that "the IWA is pressuring CRT to be seen to have something in place at some of these sites for the start of the Summer season".

 

I'm finding it harder and harder to find any facts at all about what "data" has been used to formulated the detailed proposals in the consultation document.

 

IWA News Linky

 

 

So there is little support, few if any supporting evidence , no major organisation in favour apart from the hire industry. Looks like a done deal for CRT then.

[churchward]

This latest statement (below) from the IWA is hardly an unconditional endorsement of the South East Visitor Mooring proposals in their current form, is it? Despite the fact that we we have been told they had a major input to the original South East consultation, which has resulted in proposals for 22 sites, this statement doesn't seem to say to me that they are even now agreeing that these are the highest priority sites in the SE region!

 

And yet I heard Sally Ash say at a meeting where she gave an impromptu briefing to journalists for the waterways press that "the IWA is pressuring CRT to be seen to have something in place at some of these sites for the start of the Summer season".

 

I'm finding it harder and harder to find any facts at all about what "data" has been used to formulated the detailed proposals in the consultation document.

 

IWA News Linky

That seems a reasonable statement from the IWA to me and is more in line with the IWA people I have spoken to on the phone. I think it is true in some areas at least there has been input from the IWA branches although from what I have seen not all of it has been taken notice of.

 

If Sally's statement you quoted had "hire company" rather than "IWA" "is pressuring CRT" then I think it would make more sense particularly if it needs to be in place for the start of the "season" However, I think it is true that the IWA national committee does want CRT to do more about overstaying in general which although related to mooring on VMs isn't the same thing.

Edited February 18, 2013 by churchward

[matty40s]

I don't think that was what she said or at least it is not in context.

 

That kind of talk came out of Sally Ash saying they were not doing this to raise money and would be happy not to have to collect any £25 charges.

 

I think what she was getting at though was that CRT did not want to make this into a legal issue where they were chasing a lot of £25 charges in court. That does not mean they would not in some cases or indeed they would not chase by other means.

 

 

That comment came in response to Dan's question on whether people would be happy paying licence fees and contributing donations to CaRT if they were pursuing £25 tickets in court with the associated costs.

[churchward]

That comment came in response to Dan's question on whether people would be happy paying licence fees and contributing donations to CaRT if they were pursuing £25 tickets in court with the associated costs.

Indeed which is why I said

 

I think what she was getting at though was that CRT did not want to make this into a legal issue where they were chasing a lot of £25 charges in court. That does not mean they would not in some cases or indeed they would not chase by other means.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This latest statement (below) from the IWA is hardly an unconditional endorsement of the South East Visitor Mooring proposals in their current form, is it? Despite the fact that we we have been told they had a major input to the original South East consultation, which has resulted in proposals for 22 sites, this statement doesn't seem to say to me that they are even now agreeing that these are the highest priority sites in the SE region!

 

And yet I heard Sally Ash say at a meeting where she gave an impromptu briefing to journalists for the waterways press that "the IWA is pressuring CRT to be seen to have something in place at some of these sites for the start of the Summer season".

 

I'm finding it harder and harder to find any facts at all about what "data" has been used to formulated the detailed proposals in the consultation document.

 

IWA News Linky

 

Certainly both IWA and the trade have been pushing for action on 'continuous moorers' for over six months now.

 

A much welcomed U-turn from those at the top who now seem to be listening to what boaters are saying.

[churchward]

Certainly both IWA and the trade have been pushing for action on 'continuous moorers' for over six months now.

 

A much welcomed U-turn from those at the top who now seem to be listening to what boaters are saying.

The issue of "continuous moorers" as you out it is a different (but related) subject to the SE VMs proposal isn't it? I believe the policy from the IWA has not changed on the matter of overstaying but the statement Alan linked to relates to the SE VM proposal.

[Ray]

I wonder if the proposals are CRT's attempt to avoid the need to admit that they have not been administering/monitoring the existing restrictions correctly. They possibly expected the objections and can now reply to the original complainants indicating that they have had a quantifiable number of objections to their proposals and plan to re-think their solution options (and hope the problem goes away in the interim).

[churchward]

I wonder if the proposals are CRT's attempt to avoid the need to admit that they have not been administering/monitoring the existing restrictions correctly. They possibly expected the objections and can now reply to the original complainants indicating that they have had a quantifiable number of objections to their proposals and plan to re-think their solution options (and hope the problem goes away in the interim).

To my ear at least they said that BW and they to date have not been managing VMs and overstaying on moorings in general as they would like to going forward and correctly enough to deter overstaying.

 

I don't think though that they hope the problem goes away. They seem to want a clear policy on VMs that can be administered. OF course the question of the proposal being the answer is another matter.

[cotswoldsman]

I don't think that was what she said or at least it is not in context.

 

That kind of talk came out of Sally Ash saying they were not doing this to raise money and would be happy not to have to collect any £25 charges.

 

I think what she was getting at though was that CRT did not want to make this into a legal issue where they were chasing a lot of £25 charges in court. That does not mean they would not in some cases or indeed they would not chase by other means.

 

I also think that if the meetings and the approach of boaters in them are to succeed there needs to be a change in tone from the boaters side. It is no good if everything comes from a point of aggression and accusation to CRT. They will simply stop engaging or listening if that is what appears to be happening.

 

I think you will find the one thing they do not want to do is to go to court over this. They might be happy pursue what they see as a debt in a magistrates court as a debt but doubt they would take it to a higher court. I for one would be happy to challenge this in a Court of Law and I know a lot of other boaters would be happy to go to court on a £25 per day service charge.

Edited February 18, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[Chris Pink]

Although there is some weight that section 43 entitles them to charge for facilities. There are three major arguments against this form of charging, none of which have been tested in court.

 

1. That mooring is already included in the license fee

2. That £25 has already been extensively described as a penalty and attempts to rebrand it a facility charge as transparent

3. That the right to stop for 14 days is enshrined in the 1995 Act and an older law cannot be used to override this.

 

Until these assertions are overturned by authorative courts CRT have no chance of making them stick except against those who would rather pay than 'make a fuss'. This doesn't seem to be a description of any of the target group.

[cotswoldsman]

Although there is some weight that section 43 entitles them to charge for facilities. There are three major arguments against this form of charging, none of which have been tested in court.

 

1. That mooring is already included in the license fee

2. That £25 has already been extensively described as a penalty and attempts to rebrand it a facility charge as transparent

3. That the right to stop for 14 days is enshrined in the 1995 Act and an older law cannot be used to override this.

 

Until these assertions are overturned by authorative courts CRT have no chance of making them stick except against those who would rather pay than 'make a fuss'. This doesn't seem to be a description of any of the target group.

 

I agree chris but surely the argument that a restricted mooring on say a 48 hour mooring no longer remains a 48 hour mooring if you can pay to stay longer, or is that what you mean by your first point?

[churchward]

I think you will find the one thing they do not want to do is to go to court over this. They might be happy pursue what they see as a debt in a magistrates court as a debt but doubt they would take it to a higher court. I for one would be happy to challenge this in a Court of Law and I know a lot of other boaters would be happy to go to court on a £25 per day service charge.

and I think you will find that you did not read my post correctly. I was not suggesting they would wish to just that is different to saying they would not chase for payment.

 

Although there is some weight that section 43 entitles them to charge for facilities. There are three major arguments against this form of charging, none of which have been tested in court.

 

1. That mooring is already included in the license fee

2. That £25 has already been extensively described as a penalty and attempts to rebrand it a facility charge as transparent

3. That the right to stop for 14 days is enshrined in the 1995 Act and an older law cannot be used to override this.

 

Until these assertions are overturned by authorative courts CRT have no chance of making them stick except against those who would rather pay than 'make a fuss'. This doesn't seem to be a description of any of the target group.

Mooring is included in the license but it doesn't necessarily mean you can moor anywhere for 14 days where you like becuse of this clause in the licence terms and conditions.

 

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies. The Licence

does not permit mooring for any longer period. Daily charges may be applied for staying longer than

the maximum time allowed.

 

Having bought a license you will have done so in agreement with these terms.

Edited February 18, 2013 by churchward

[cotswoldsman]

and I think you will find that you did not read my post correctly. I was not suggesting they would wish to just that is different to saying they would not chase for payment.

 

 

Mooring is included in the license but it doesn't necessarily mean you can moor anywhere for 14 days where you like becuse of this clause in the licence terms and conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

They would have to chase for payment via the courts, if you challenge their right to charge at magistrate level they would have to go to a higher court.

Your second point is where you have a problem IMO if you can pay to stay longer it is no longer restricted to the time set on the mooring and that as you point out is already paid for in my licence.

[churchward]

They would have to chase for payment via the courts, if you challenge their right to charge at magistrate level they would have to go to a higher court.

Your second point is where you have a problem IMO if you can pay to stay longer it is no longer restricted to the time set on the mooring and that as you point out is already paid for in my licence.

I fundamentally think your point is incorrect. charging for overstaying the VM limit does not suddenly make it anything other than what the licence terms say and does not make it already paid for. But I guess it would need to be tested in court although we already have had a judgement on CRTs licensing terms.

 

The quoted licence terms are clear to me and does not allow for the interpretation you take.

 

Of course you can chase payment without going to court. The courtroom may be the action of last resort but there are other things that can be done.

Edited February 18, 2013 by churchward

[matty40s]

 

 

Of course you can chase payment without going to court. The courtroom may be the action of last resort but there are other things that can be done.

Ah, the nasty threatening letters from the private parking companies (with a solicitors offices at the same address). 1st letter threatening court action if not paid within X time, 2nd letter stating it is now being passed to our solicitors unless you pay NOW, 3rd letter from the solicitors at the same address threatening court action and costs.....

 

ignore em all and walk away.

[Kiwidad]

ignore em all and walk away

 

What about me boat?

[matty40s]

you've seen the old footage, grab the rope and pull it along.

 

Who needs an enjun.

[Kiwidad]

you've seen the old footage, grab the rope and pull it along.

 

Who needs an enjun.

 

 

They should charge less if you don't have an enjun...you would save some money.

How are the plans coming to convert your enjun room to a stable?

[Tuscan]

They should charge less if you don't have an enjun...you would save some money.

How are the plans coming to convert your enjun room to a stable?

 

 

Slight delay due to the rising price of horse meat....

[jenlyn]

I fundamentally think your point is incorrect. charging for overstaying the VM limit does not suddenly make it anything other than what the licence terms say and does not make it already paid for. But I guess it would need to be tested in court although we already have had a judgement on CRTs licensing terms.

 

The quoted licence terms are clear to me and does not allow for the interpretation you take.

 

Of course you can chase payment without going to court. The courtroom may be the action of last resort but there are other things that can be done.

The thought that you can charge for overstaying at a vm is silly. If you overstay at a vm, your breaking the rules. You get fined for breaking rules. The fact there is no real service provided for such an over the top charge is also silly, and I have no doubt CRT would lose substantial ground if they tested it in court and lost. Also, perhaps if the licence terms are so clear to you, CRT should come to you rather than shoesmiths.

[Martin37]

I have been boating now for over 50 years and 50 years ago there were so few boats it did not matter where you moored as long as you were not too close to a bend, bridge or lock where you could be hit by a loaded boat. Things are different now and the two things that have changed is the dramatic increase in the number of boats and linear moorings and the ever increasing number of people living on boats without having a mooring often using some of the best tow path moorings. We must support the IWA and the Trade in promoting 'a waterways for all' and not a waterway for a 'privileged few' who want to live on a boat without a mooring or cruising so as to avoid council tax amongst other things. If you are paying for a mooring when you go boating you want to be sure that when you pass the local village, shop, pub or other attraction that you will be able to moor and visit the area even if only for 24/48 hours. What we need is many more visitor moorings which will not only make cruising more enjoyable but greatly boost the local economy. Apart from one stretch of visitor moorings at the very south end of Milton Keynes at Fenny Stratford there are no CRT visitor moorings in the whole of Milton Keynes (The Parks Trust do have a few at Campbell Park and two at Great Linford). For a town that is to be the size of Birmingham I find this extraordinary. Generally speaking continuous moorer's are responsible people and do not overstay on 24/48 hour moorings but if we have no visitor moorings of course all the best moorings will always be taken by continuous moorers so the simple solution is to have moor visitor moorings which in principle is what the SE moorings review is all about. Do we want MK to end up a no go area for visiting boats like parts of London and the Kennet and Avon canal? We are very lucky to have over 4000 vacant berths in marinas. Is it not reasonable to expect that when you take your boat out of your marina you should expect to find visitor moorings? This will make no difference to 7 and 14 day moorings as they will remain either side of visitor moorings. The whole length of the towpath being 14 day anyway.

[Grace and Favour]

According to 2011 Census figures, the population of Milton Keynes is about 248,800

and the population of Birmingham is about 1,073,000

 

How quickly will Milton Keynes be the size of Birmingham, please?

 

[jenlyn]

I have been boating now for over 50 years and 50 years ago there were so few boats it did not matter where you moored as long as you were not too close to a bend, bridge or lock where you could be hit by a loaded boat. Things are different now and the two things that have changed is the dramatic increase in the number of boats and linear moorings and the ever increasing number of people living on boats without having a mooring often using some of the best tow path moorings. We must support the IWA and the Trade in promoting 'a waterways for all' and not a waterway for a 'privileged few' who want to live on a boat without a mooring or cruising so as to avoid council tax amongst other things. If you are paying for a mooring when you go boating you want to be sure that when you pass the local village, shop, pub or other attraction that you will be able to moor and visit the area even if only for 24/48 hours. What we need is many more visitor moorings which will not only make cruising more enjoyable but greatly boost the local economy. Apart from one stretch of visitor moorings at the very south end of Milton Keynes at Fenny Stratford there are no CRT visitor moorings in the whole of Milton Keynes (The Parks Trust do have a few at Campbell Park and two at Great Linford). For a town that is to be the size of Birmingham I find this extraordinary. Generally speaking continuous moorer's are responsible people and do not overstay on 24/48 hour moorings but if we have no visitor moorings of course all the best moorings will always be taken by continuous moorers so the simple solution is to have moor visitor moorings which in principle is what the SE moorings review is all about. Do we want MK to end up a no go area for visiting boats like parts of London and the Kennet and Avon canal? We are very lucky to have over 4000 vacant berths in marinas. Is it not reasonable to expect that when you take your boat out of your marina you should expect to find visitor moorings? This will make no difference to 7 and 14 day moorings as they will remain either side of visitor moorings. The whole length of the towpath being 14 day anyway.

I live on my boat, NOT TO AVOID council tax, but BECAUSE I ENJOY THE LIFESTYLE. Do you get that? Do you make a habit of stereotyping folk?

I don't have to pay council tax because I doubt very much I use any of the services. I paid ni and tax all my life plus plenty of council tax. I now have private healthcare and am very environmentally conscious. Just how much blood do you want from this stone, eh?

As an afterthought, can you ask the chap of the hire business up your way to give consideration to other users of the canal on change over days? Several times I have come that way and found the canal obstructed. :-)

Edited February 19, 2013 by jenlyn

[matty40s]

According to 2011 Census figures, the population of Milton Keynes is about 248,800

 

half of them are concrete....