CM'ers - hogging services

[Chris Pink]

OP = "Original Poster" - the poster that started a thread.

 

CMer = "Continuous Moorer" (aka "Non Compliant Continuous Cruiser" in CRT parlance).

 

(aka = "also known as"! )

 

I can't find the thread where you asked me to explain why I thought it unrealistic that CRT should charge £4,000 to CM.

 

Maybe you are right, maybe it's you in the real world not me. I just don't think CRT can make a statement like "we are not a housing authority" and then charges a price for somewhere to leave a boat which has only one of two possible customers; the wealthy or the person wanting cheap housing.

 

And, for your information, I have a mooring that costs less than a 10th of that, with electric, water and rubbish disposal, OK I had to repair my own pontoon but i enjoyed that and it only cost me a handful of screws and some reclaimed wood.

 

This is the reason there is the potential for conflict over the use of a (i repeat ) a publicly owned resource. It is not right to let 'market forces' govern access to it. It excludes far more people than it allows in.

 

I can't imagine many families in the medium income brackets that can afford to moor a boat on Britain's canals any more.

[alan_fincher]

I can't find the thread where you asked me to explain why I thought it unrealistic that CRT should charge £4,000 to CM.

 

Maybe you are right, maybe it's you in the real world not me. I just don't think CRT can make a statement like "we are not a housing authority" and then charges a price for somewhere to leave a boat which has only one of two possible customers; the wealthy or the person wanting cheap housing.

 

And, for your information, I have a mooring that costs less than a 10th of that, with electric, water and rubbish disposal, OK I had to repair my own pontoon but i enjoyed that and it only cost me a handful of screws and some reclaimed wood.

 

This is the reason there is the potential for conflict over the use of a (i repeat ) a publicly owned resource. It is not right to let 'market forces' govern access to it. It excludes far more people than it allows in.

 

I can't imagine many families in the medium income brackets that can afford to moor a boat on Britain's canals any more.

Chris,

 

I don't think I specifically asked you to explain why you think it is unrealistic that CRT can charge £4000 for a marina mooring, (although clearly the fact that people will bid that amount establishes they can).

 

Without hunting the thread, I think I asked (something like) how you would go about establishing much more affordable moorings in the same area. And, (although I didn't perhaps add that), how you would then establish who was entitled to have a mooring at (say) £1000 pa, rather than £3000 pa, because clearly if it were possible everybody would like one, (even thouse who can manage to find £3,000 pa currently).

 

I don't know what the solution is, but it is certainly the problem that "Jenlyn", "Cotswoldman" and others (not necessarily forum members), continue to grapple with in their discussions with CRT. How do we find a way of providing acceptable mooring solutions to those unable to fund marina rates, and hence get them of CRT's enforcement radar if they are unable to meet the increasing demands being placed on them by CRT in their interpretation of "navigation".

 

If anybody knows the answers, please feed them in to John and Steve, because you can be fairly confident that some of those who currently say NCCCers are free-loading and getting something for nothing may still not change their tune if they learn they are now paying for a mooring, but at a rate far lower than the "commercial" rate for the popular areas they are in.

[Joshua]

Chris,

 

I don't think I specifically asked you to explain why you think it is unrealistic that CRT can charge £4000 for a marina mooring, (although clearly the fact that people will bid that amount establishes they can).

 

Without hunting the thread, I think I asked (something like) how you would go about establishing much more affordable moorings in the same area. And, (although I didn't perhaps add that), how you would then establish who was entitled to have a mooring at (say) £1000 pa, rather than £3000 pa, because clearly if it were possible everybody would like one, (even thouse who can manage to find £3,000 pa currently).

 

I don't know what the solution is, but it is certainly the problem that "Jenlyn", "Cotswoldman" and others (not necessarily forum members), continue to grapple with in their discussions with CRT. How do we find a way of providing acceptable mooring solutions to those unable to fund marina rates, and hence get them of CRT's enforcement radar if they are unable to meet the increasing demands being placed on them by CRT in their interpretation of "navigation".

 

If anybody knows the answers, please feed them in to John and Steve, because you can be fairly confident that some of those who currently say NCCCers are free-loading and getting something for nothing may still not change their tune if they learn they are now paying for a mooring, but at a rate far lower than the "commercial" rate for the popular areas they are in.

 

Alan, how about indexing the price of a mooring to the value of a boat?

 

£100,000 boat – Mooring fee = market rate (it is after all the wealthy that set the market value)

 

£90,000 boat – Mooring fee = 90% of market rate

 

£80,000 etc. etc

 

Easy enough to tune the system to avoid silly anomalies.

 

 

[Berengaria]

Here's a question...

 

I'm a CC'er, at least I hoped I would be. Me and the missus try to move the boat once a week, or if that's not possible with job commitments and/or family stuff, every fortnight. Recently the boat broke down so I contacted CaRT to let them know I'd be overstaying but it was getting looked at.

 

After realising that it isn't always practical for us to move the boat, I've decided to reserve a mooring at the yet-to-be opened Cropredy Marina...I felt pretty guilty that I wasn't 'navigating the network' as I should be, but was rather covering an 18 mile or so stretch of the Oxford. I again contacted CaRT to inform them that as of April 1st, I'd have a permanent mooring and would no longer be CC'ing.

 

Now the boats moving again, and last weekend I couldn't move it very far because of absolutely terrible weather. The same weather that has meant the marina opening has been postponed.

 

I got an email a few days ago from CaRT telling me I hadn't moved the boat far enough since my previous journey, and I've tried to explain that I'm making a 'bona fide' journey now as I have a destination - the Marina on opening day.

 

Unfortunately I'm going to end up going past the Marina if they keep insisting I move it 'adequately' and I really don't want to stray too far away. I'd hoped telling them that I was waiting for my berth to be ready would be enough but it seems not...I never moor at 'facilities' and always away from the busier areas...so do you ladies and gents think this counts as 'bona fide' if I don't move as far as I normally would each cruise?

 

Thanks

[bowten]

Here's a question...

 

I'm a CC'er, at least I hoped I would be. Me and the missus try to move the boat once a week, or if that's not possible with job commitments and/or family stuff, every fortnight. Recently the boat broke down so I contacted CaRT to let them know I'd be overstaying but it was getting looked at.

 

After realising that it isn't always practical for us to move the boat, I've decided to reserve a mooring at the yet-to-be opened Cropredy Marina...I felt pretty guilty that I wasn't 'navigating the network' as I should be, but was rather covering an 18 mile or so stretch of the Oxford. I again contacted CaRT to inform them that as of April 1st, I'd have a permanent mooring and would no longer be CC'ing.

 

Now the boats moving again, and last weekend I couldn't move it very far because of absolutely terrible weather. The same weather that has meant the marina opening has been postponed.

 

I got an email a few days ago from CaRT telling me I hadn't moved the boat far enough since my previous journey, and I've tried to explain that I'm making a 'bona fide' journey now as I have a destination - the Marina on opening day.

 

Unfortunately I'm going to end up going past the Marina if they keep insisting I move it 'adequately' and I really don't want to stray too far away. I'd hoped telling them that I was waiting for my berth to be ready would be enough but it seems not...I never moor at 'facilities' and always away from the busier areas...so do you ladies and gents think this counts as 'bona fide' if I don't move as far as I normally would each cruise?

 

Thanks

It just means you have had the computer written letter.

[Berengaria]

It just means you have had the computer written letter.

 

This was a personal email from the looks of it from my enforcement officer...but it's my first so I don't know the format of them...

[ditchcrawler]

This was a personal email from the looks of it from my enforcement officer...but it's my first so I don't know the format of them...

Try speaking to them if you have their contact details.

[MtB]

I'm not sure that a destination that doesn't exist yet ought to count, frankly!

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

Try speaking to them if you have their contact details.

 

 

Cropedy is a very popular area and I suspect you have built up a history of just bridge hopping back and forth in their eyes. You can get quite a way in a weekend why not have a cruise away from the area and leave the boat somewhere else for a while then you will be off here radar and everybody should be happy

[Tuscan]

 

If anybody knows the answers, please feed them in to John and Steve, because you can be fairly confident that some of those who currently say NCCCers are free-loading and getting something for nothing may still not change their tune if they learn they are now paying for a mooring, but at a rate far lower than the "commercial" rate for the popular areas they are in.

 

 

judging by the feedback from the recent consultation and pub chat in areas outside the concentration of NCCers I would say there is a substantial number of boaters maybe even the majority who believe in pretty simplistic terms that boats either should have moorings or move on a regular basis as opposed to bridge hop. This is I am sure driving the introduction of the 'no return' rule and increased use of he £25 penalty (sorry service charge). As you intimate I doubt they would approve of subsidised moorings either. So CRT have a dilemma whatever they do.

 

If CRT was able to "find" available moorings at near normal rates that they could ring fence in some way would not those eligible for housing benefits etc get them which would pay for the mooring thus be a win win for both boater and CRT. Those that are not eligible for these benefits presumably like the rest of us should pay. Probably far too simplistic and I don't understand the system but if I was a local council this would be something I might also want to look at.

[Chris Pink]

Chris,

 

I don't think I specifically asked you to explain why you think it is unrealistic that CRT can charge £4000 for a marina mooring, (although clearly the fact that people will bid that amount establishes they can).

 

Without hunting the thread, I think I asked (something like) how you would go about establishing much more affordable moorings in the same area. And, (although I didn't perhaps add that), how you would then establish who was entitled to have a mooring at (say) £1000 pa, rather than £3000 pa, because clearly if it were possible everybody would like one, (even thouse who can manage to find £3,000 pa currently).

 

I don't know what the solution is, but it is certainly the problem that "Jenlyn", "Cotswoldman" and others (not necessarily forum members), continue to grapple with in their discussions with CRT. How do we find a way of providing acceptable mooring solutions to those unable to fund marina rates, and hence get them of CRT's enforcement radar if they are unable to meet the increasing demands being placed on them by CRT in their interpretation of "navigation".

 

If anybody knows the answers, please feed them in to John and Steve, because you can be fairly confident that some of those who currently say NCCCers are free-loading and getting something for nothing may still not change their tune if they learn they are now paying for a mooring, but at a rate far lower than the "commercial" rate for the popular areas they are in.

 

 

Not got much time, sorry not to give you answer you deserve.

 

I am not trying to propose something that makes cheap housing cheaper. Most of the small area liveaboards wouldn't want to be in a marina (certainly) or in a fixed spot (almost certainly) and if it is cheap housing they're after I have no problems with vast marinas with moorings at £4,000.

 

What I don't see any more is the middle rank of boats, that you will remember, smaller, cheaper family boats that used to abound on the system.

 

I propose (as strongly as is my wont) a drastic reduction in licence fees for smaller boats (£550 is ridiculous for 25 foot boat) and cheap short moorings (at most the price of a licence). This will bring a whole tranche of boaters and canal enthusiasts back to the canals and - most importantly - bung that huge divide between the liveaboards, the cheap housing boats and the wealthy boaters.

 

Do you think it's right that the canals should be reserved for those two groups? Wealthy leisure boaters and cheap housing?

[luctor et emergo]

Continously Cruising.

 

Hmm, why not turn the argument upside down?

 

Nevermind distances traveled, because you can not possibly decree the minimum distance that somebody must move, to be compliant. There are after all short busy stretches, and long deserted ones. A minimum distance of say ten miles would mean having to move from Bath to Bejond Bradford on Avon. Missing out Bathampton, Claverton, Brassknocker Basin and Dundas Aquaduct, the Limpley Stoke Valley and Avoncliff. Then your next move sees you in Devizes, having locked up the Caen Hill flight, having missed Trowbridge (well, that is not so bad.. ),

 

On the other hand, you could argue with equal zest, that to comply as a Continously Cruising, you should cruise daily. If you stop for two weeks, you are no longer Continously Cruising. Continous means ' without interuption' , after all.

[Chris Pink]

So speaks the Flying Dutchman of the Kennet and Avon.

 

[Smelly]

judging by the feedback from the recent consultation and pub chat in areas outside the concentration of NCCers I would say there is a substantial number of boaters maybe even the majority who believe in pretty simplistic terms that boats either should have moorings or move on a regular basis as opposed to bridge hop. This is I am sure driving the introduction of the 'no return' rule and increased use of he £25 penalty (sorry service charge). As you intimate I doubt they would approve of subsidised moorings either. So CRT have a dilemma whatever they do.

 

If CRT was able to "find" available moorings at near normal rates that they could ring fence in some way would not those eligible for housing benefits etc get them which would pay for the mooring thus be a win win for both boater and CRT. Those that are not eligible for these benefits presumably like the rest of us should pay. Probably far too simplistic and I don't understand the system but if I was a local council this would be something I might also want to look at.

 

I have long suspected that BW /CRT wish to discourage Housing Benefit claimants from living aboard as most; certainly those with no capital, are only a breakdown away from inability to afford the lifestyle. That will become a more pressing concern with the discretionary social fund having been abolished recently.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Smelly

[bespin]

Is that boat still there that started this thread ? Just wondered

[matty40s]

Is that boat still there that started this thread ? Just wondered

last spotted two days ago on the 48 hr moorings at Great Haywood

[bowten]

Here's a question...

 

I'm a CC'er, at least I hoped I would be. Me and the missus try to move the boat once a week, or if that's not possible with job commitments and/or family stuff, every fortnight. Recently the boat broke down so I contacted CaRT to let them know I'd be overstaying but it was getting looked at.

 

After realising that it isn't always practical for us to move the boat, I've decided to reserve a mooring at the yet-to-be opened Cropredy Marina...I felt pretty guilty that I wasn't 'navigating the network' as I should be, but was rather covering an 18 mile or so stretch of the Oxford. I again contacted CaRT to inform them that as of April 1st, I'd have a permanent mooring and would no longer be CC'ing.

 

Now the boats moving again, and last weekend I couldn't move it very far because of absolutely terrible weather. The same weather that has meant the marina opening has been postponed.

 

I got an email a few days ago from CaRT telling me I hadn't moved the boat far enough since my previous journey, and I've tried to explain that I'm making a 'bona fide' journey now as I have a destination - the Marina on opening day.

 

Unfortunately I'm going to end up going past the Marina if they keep insisting I move it 'adequately' and I really don't want to stray too far away. I'd hoped telling them that I was waiting for my berth to be ready would be enough but it seems not...I never moor at 'facilities' and always away from the busier areas...so do you ladies and gents think this counts as 'bona fide' if I don't move as far as I normally would each cruise?

 

Thanks

I am quoting from an article in Towpath talk,hope that is ok on here."Kenneth Dodd,BW marketing and communications officer, was cross-examined by the House of Commons Select Committee on the British Waterways Bill on July 1st,1993.He told the Select Committee that staying for one month in an isolated spot would not result in a boaters licence being terminated 'because you would only have difficulty renewing your licence if the waterway manager had put a black cross against your boat for wilfully causing a problem in exercising this'.Mr Dodd said that "assuming that there was no signing and you were not on a water point and so on,then you would be quite at liberty under the 14 days or such other reasonable period to stay for a month".He was responding to a question from the chair of the committee that produced the final wording of the 1995 British Waterways Act.George Mudie MP had asked him:"I am a bona fide traveller but I have a month off work and I have the school holidays,so I throw the kids on the boat,I go and look for a secluded spot and think this will do me for the month'....do you chase me from that because I am going to stay a month?""NO" replied Kenneth Dodd.