Continuous cruisers???????

[bigste]

Can somebody clear this up and explain. I've be reading the CC saga for some time and am not quite getting to grips with the rules of being a legal ccer.

I understand that a leisure mooring can be had in a marina for any set period but you must provide a home land based address.

Assuming you have done the above how is the following affected.

1. Can you then CC and ignore the 14 day limits.

2. Can you live onboard within a marina cos I know almost all the T&C's from marinas say you cannot live onboard.

3. If the answer to 2 is no how can you legally moor up for the winter as there are very very few residential moorings.

[Arthur Marshall]

As far as I'm aware, if you've got a home mooring, you aren't a Continuous Cruiser, so the rules that define one don't apply. You still can't stay at one spot for more than 14 days because that's a general rule, but you don't have to shift out of the area completely.

2 Some marinas let you live on, some don't. Some don't care, same as linear moorings!

And as for 3, you're only on a residential mooring if you've got one, if you see what I mean. If you're a continuous cruiser, you won't have one! You have a winter mooring agreed with CART, just carry on cruising, or stop where no-one's bothered about you.

[Doug Scullery]

1. Can you then CC and ignore the 14 day limits.

Legally no, but in practice many do so yes.

 

2. Can you live onboard within a marina cos I know almost all the T&C's from marinas say you cannot live onboard.

Same.

TBH questions like this are a can of worms and this thread will now turn into another multi page argument much the same as the ones you've already been reading.

[Paul C]

You say "the" 14 day limits. There's 2 subtly, but important, different rules

 

a) A CCer (ie one who declares no home mooring on their licence application) cannot stay in one place for more than 14 days

b ) The time limit for temporarily mooring anywhere Is 14 days unless otherwise signed.

 

A CCer has to obey both rules. A non-CCer only has to obey b. Therefore a non-CCer can remain in one place for more than 14 days, so long as they physically move the boat to a different mooring position (which might be in the same place....) every 14 days or less if signed as such.

 

Sorry, can't help you with 2 or 3.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Paul C

[junior]

Legally no, but in practice many do so yes.

 

 

 

Same.

 

TBH questions like this are a can of worms and this thread will now turn into another multi page argument much the same as the ones you've already been reading.

 

And to that end I am off to the shop to get some popcorn.

[bottle]

1. No

 

2. No, unless it is an official residential mooring

 

3. You pay for 'winter mooring' either in a marina or on the towpath.

 

 

Anything else is 'bending' the rules and the consequences are your own fault.

[bigste]

Sounds like rules are made to be broken everywhere. I can't see for the life of me why a ccer without a mooring should be treated different to one who has a home mooring but hardly uses it.

[MHS]

Sounds like rules are made to be broken everywhere. I can't see for the life of me why a ccer without a mooring should be treated different to one who has a home mooring but hardly uses it.

Because they pay a higher licence fee maybe???

[MtB]

I can't see for the life of me why a ccer without a mooring should be treated different to one who has a home mooring but hardly uses it.

 

Because that's what the law says.

 

To understand why the law says what it says, you need to look up the parliamentary debates in Hansard, IIRC.

 

If you simply aren't that interested, then you'll have to accept the regulations at face value.

 

 

MtB

[Ange]

Sounds like rules are made to be broken everywhere. I can't see for the life of me why a ccer without a mooring should be treated different to one who has a home mooring but hardly uses it.

I'm thinking this thread is a result of one member stating that they'd decided that because they had a job they couldn't cc so therefore found themselves the cheapest mooring on the system and bought it without any intention of visiting it. And were quite proud of themselves for making the "right" choice. Great idea, let's get a mooring on a less popular part of the system and then "legitimately" bridge hop on the K&A or the Regents Canal.

 

It's late/early. I've probably got something wrong. I know what I mean though

 

Because they pay a higher licence fee maybe???

No difference in licence fees between people with home moorings and those without.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Ange

[dor]

 

 

I'm thinking this thread is a result of one member stating that they'd decided that because they had a job they couldn't cc so therefore found themselves the cheapest mooring on the system and bought it without any intention of visiting it. And were quite proud of themselves for making the "right" choice. Great idea, let's get a mooring on a less popular part of the system and then "legitimately" bridge hop on the K&A or the Regents Canal.

 

I think they may be getting wise to this one. There was someone near me that had a cheap mooring near Chester that they never used - preferring to hang around Nantwich. BW refused to renew their mooring permit as it was not being used.

[Guest]

Because they pay a higher licence fee maybe???

 

Since when??

 

Your licence fee is currently based on boat length, not whether you have a home mooring or not.

[Old Son]

Sounds like rules are made to be broken everywhere. I can't see for the life of me why a ccer without a mooring should be treated different to one who has a home mooring but hardly uses it.

 

Them is the rules. If you don't like/accept them then don't buy a boat!

[MHS]

 

Since when??

 

Your licence fee is currently based on boat length, not whether you have a home mooring or not.

I was sure that at one time CC's paid less than those with moorings. Is that not the case?

[BruceinSanity]

 

Them is the rules. If you don't like/accept them then don't buy a boat!

Hear, hear. Greenie from me.

I was sure that at one time CC's paid less than those with moorings. Is that not the case?

No, never, ever as far as I can recall. The difference is that those of us who pay for a marina mooring will also be contributing to CRT via the connection fee the marina pays. Because the size of that fee varies from marina to marina for historical reasons, there is an argument that that should be done away with and everyone's licence fees increased to recover the same amount of revenue, thereby removing one source of disgruntlement with CCers. (Which I was for six years, so I've seen this from both sides of the fence/line/yawning gulf.)

 

Oh grief, I've been drawn into this one again. Junior, can I share your popcorn?

[cotswoldsman]

 

No, never, ever as far as I can recall. The difference is that those of us who pay for a marina mooring will also be contributing to CRT via the connection fee the marina pays. Because the size of that fee varies from marina to marina for historical reasons, there is an argument that that should be done away with and everyone's licence fees increased to recover the same amount of revenue, thereby removing one source of disgruntlement with CCers. (Which I was for six years, so I've seen this from both sides of the fence/line/yawning gulf.)

 

Oh grief, I've been drawn into this one again. Junior, can I share your popcorn?

As connection to the Canal System is fairly important to a Marina surely this is an overhead. Should all licence holders also pay the Marina's rates? Electricity? Those on EOG Moorings are also contributing to CRT on the basis that they need the water to float on.

[luctor et emergo]

...

 

 

 

[shakes head, and pickes up a copy of Exchange and Mart..]

[Guest]

I was sure that at one time CC's paid less than those with moorings. Is that not the case?

 

I cannot say what may have gone on in the past, but no it is not currently the case at all. Nor has it been in recent past as far as I know.

 

Of course in terms overall boating costs those with a mooring generally pay more (including boaters like us who pay for a long term mooring) but then we are getting an additional service (in our case from the Trust as they are CRT moorings) so that justifies the additional costs.

 

The actual licence fee however is currently identical irrespective of whether you declare you have a home mooring or not.

[BlueStringPudding]

As far as I'm aware, if you've got a home mooring, you aren't a Continuous Cruiser, so the rules that define one don't apply. You still can't stay at one spot for more than 14 days because that's a general rule, but you don't have to shift out of the area completely.2 Some marinas let you live on, some don't. Some don't care, same as linear moorings!And as for 3, you're only on a residential mooring if you've got one, if you see what I mean. If you're a continuous cruiser, you won't have one! You have a winter mooring agreed with CART, just carry on cruising, or stop where no-one's bothered about you.

Is that why some boaters who want to overstay down south, buy a cheap middle of nowhere mooring up north that they never visit - because it means CaRT won't ticket them when they're down south?

 

I've met one boater who does that and was bragging about it in the pub to other boaters. Didn't know it was widespread knowledge that you can hang around an area as long as you like as long as you pay for a mooring somewhere on the system. No wonder there aren't enough on line moorings to go round.

[Doorman]

...

[shakes head, and pickes up a copy of Exchange and Mart..]

Lol!

[Tuscan]

...

[shakes head, and pickes up a copy of Exchange and Mart..]

And wonders why auto trader is now on line only, puts on slippers and picks up pipe.

[Dave_P]

This discussion highlights a problem with the rules if people are taking the cheapest mooring they can find anywhere in order to bridge-hop in another part of the country. I imagine that as non-compliant cc'ers find increasing levels of enforcement against them from CaRT, more and more will start to do this. At that point, I presume CaRT will look at changing the rules to prevent it.

 

Personally, I'd like to see CaRT commissioning a proper external review, looking at the whole picture of canal usage, moorings etc. This simply can't be done by CaRT because it's impossible for them to be objective about what needs to be done and what's best for all stakeholders. CaRT are just one of the stakeholders in this so can't be trusted to make the best decision for others. Their first priority is the network itself, the users of the network are of secondary importance to them.

 

I know it might cost some money in the short term but I'd like to see a sustainable model for the waterways lasting (at least) decades.

 

Obviously, I'm aware that this is never going to happen (who would pay for it, for example?) and we'll all just muddle on; bickering about the people who we perceive as getting something better than us and bitching about the authorities who don't care about us.

[alan_fincher]

I was sure that at one time CC's paid less than those with moorings. Is that not the case?

You really have researched this thoroughly before passing comment, haven't you?

Is that why some boaters who want to overstay down south, buy a cheap middle of nowhere mooring up north that they never visit - because it means CaRT won't ticket them when they're down south?

I'm sorry,

 

I actually think that whilst there may be the occasional case of people exploiting cheap "paper moorings" they never use, in order to "stay out of bovver" whilst hanging around in popular areas, that actual real cases of it are very rare, and that the claim is largely anecdotal.

 

.........Unless you can list a significant number of boats doing this, in which case their licences would display a code for their declared home mooring, not the one for "no home mooring declared".

This discussion highlights a problem with the rules if people are taking the cheapest mooring they can find anywhere in order to bridge-hop in another part of the country.

 

Are they though? Can you supply evidence of it, or is it largely a popular story?

 

I imagine that as non-compliant cc'ers find increasing levels of enforcement against them from CaRT, more and more will start to do this. At that point, I presume CaRT will look at changing the rules to prevent it.

It's possible they might, I suppose, and equally possible if CRT thought it was happening they might do something. But at this stage it is just a theory about what might happen if enforcement is stepped up, and it is simply not possible to say if it would in any significant way, (is it?).

[Dave_P]

 

Me - This discussion highlights a problem with the rules if people are taking the cheapest mooring they can find anywhere in order to bridge-hop in another part of the country.

 

Alan - Are they though? Can you supply evidence of it, or is it largely a popular story?

 

I really don't know. That's why I put the all important "if" in my sentence. "If" people aren't doing it, there's clearly no problem. BSP and others seemed to be indicating that it is happening though.

 

My home mooring is leisure only but that's fine because I'm often away from it. The longest has been 9 months and I'd hate to have CaRT trying to take my mooring off me just because I'm away from it a lot of the time.

[MtB]

You really have researched this thoroughly before passing comment, haven't you?

I'm sorry,

 

I actually think that whilst there may be the occasional case of people exploiting cheap "paper moorings" they never use, in order to "stay out of bovver" whilst hanging around in popular areas, that actual real cases of it are very rare, and that the claim is largely anecdotal.

 

.........Unless you can list a significant number of boats doing this, in which case their licences would display a code for their declared home mooring, not the one for "no home mooring declared".

 

Are they though? Can you supply evidence of it, or is it largely a popular story?

 

It's possible they might, I suppose, and equally possible if CRT thought it was happening they might do something. But at this stage it is just a theory about what might happen if enforcement is stepped up, and it is simply not possible to say if it would in any significant way, (is it?).

 

 

It must be happening often enough for CaRT to have written this in answer to a boater's question:

 

Q: I know of boaters who declare a home mooring but never use it – so this is a loophole isn’t it?

A: Yes and no. If we never observe your boat on the mooring you’ve declared, or we see you repeatedly on the towpath in an area distant from the declared mooring, we will contact you and ask you to confirm your mooring status. We may use powers under the data protection legislation to ask the mooring operator to confirm that you do hold the mooring you’ve declared. But either way, if you never use the mooring, it amounts to a false declaration which makes the licence invalid. We are just starting to apply this approach where a ‘ghost’ mooring is suspected.

 

Here is the original document: http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2305.pdf

 

See page 4 of the PDF in the link.

 

 

MtB