Dispute at Pillings

[Alan de Enfield]

...... the help of C&RT subsidising the event and ensuring the access to the canal was kept open. Thanks again !!

[NigelMoore]

As I understand it, as a private landowner CRT would not be **obliged** to allow a free access to their property by someone building an independent commercial activity next door without a commerical contract to 'buy' the right of access. Even electricity companies have to buy a wayleave for poles. Canals have an arcane legal history (pace Nigel Moore) . . .

 

I don’t recall denying the arcane nature of some canal legislation. In fact, in this instance the situation you describe is not quite as simple as your understanding would have it, by reason of all-but-forgotten principles governing creatures of statute, that have most often been upheld - even in modern litigation - by reference to 19thC canal case law.

 

You are of course correct that a private landowner is not obliged to allow free public access across their property, but CaRT cannot rely on the rights of a private landowner. Control of land within its jurisdiction is governed by statute rather than common law. Statutory Bodies [as the original canal companies were and as their successors are] can only claim the powers expressly granted to them; common law rights do not avail them.

 

The classic case most often cited to that end [but far from being the only one] is that of Stourbridge Canal v Wheeley (1831) 2 B & Ad 792.

 

Specifically, as successor to the canal companies who were obliged to allow access [not necessarily free] across their property, CaRT remain bound by those terms. This was recognised by BW in the course of arguing for extra powers to cope with more modern legislation such as the Dock Regulations 1988.

 

During examination of the 1990 Bill, Mr White for BW, in explaining why they needed powers of consent to canalside structures, for example, had to explain that even on their own land, in order to protect their landlord interests and cover their liabilities in complying with the new regulations that affected them, they needed to have the ability to consent to such activities as public pedestrian access across their property to and from the public highway.

 

 

 

They were successful in this instance, and s.21 was incorporated into the 1995 Act. Curiously, it requires the Board to appoint sections of waterway for the purpose of implementing the power [it is not a blanket grant], and they never did subsequently see any need to, so it remains a wholly non-implementable power as things stand.

 

I’m not quite sure why BW raised the point of their inability to exercise common law rights of landowners in this instance; I can’t see the relevance to what they were asking for. I’m also dubious as to whether this would affect Pillings – style commercial situations, but thought I’d illustrate my acceptance that elements of the canals’ legal history can indeed tend to the esoteric.

 

p.s. this was the bit I was looking for, when coming across the other snippets of these minutes I posted a bit earlier.

Edited May 9, 2014 by NigelMoore

[George94]

I see that you have omitted your standard disclaimer. Perhaps it sounds a bit hollow when you refuse to accept perfectly reasonable arguments in favour of a NAA.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Not at all. I just haven't heard a perfectly reasonable one yet.

 

If you think Mr Mayall's argument was perfectly reasonable, have a look at my response to it, and then tell me where I am wrong.

 

But I suspect that if you (or he) could do that, you would have done so. The fact that you prefer to just throw stones from the sidelines suggests to me that the hollowness is all on your side.

 

Toodle pip.

[George94]

 

Then why waste every ones time by asking the same questions again and again - do you expect a different answer ?

 

Alledgedy said by Benjamin Franklin :

 

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different"

 

I am not awaiting an answer. I have stated my case that the NAA only exists because CART has a monopoly, and it is unfair in its application - both because it is imposed on some marinas and not others, and because marina berth-holders end up paying for it and CCers don't.

 

And I don't like large fixed charges that don't bring a proportional benefit. Just increasing a business's fixed costs is not good in principle.

 

Nobody has been able to produce any countervailing argument, and most of you are just content to hurl insults, which is the usual ploy of those who don't have an argument.

 

BTW, old chap, if you feel I am wasting your time, please put me on ignore. But if you do, make sure you ignore me totally, unlike a certain boilermaker who can't resist reading everything I write, despite claiming that the forum would be much nicer if he didn't have to read my posts.

[matty40s]

Some of us gave up with countervailing arguments with you several thousand posts ago George.

Why do you keep mentioning CC-ers - someone who wishes to put their boat in a marina (for whatever reason) has made that choice.

They then become part of that marinas financial equation.

[Mike Todd]

The bit of my quote you omitted - I thought - indocated much the same as you suggest, albeit rather less fully.

 

I don’t recall denying the arcane nature of some canal legislation. In fact, in this instance the situation you describe is not quite as simple as your understanding would have it, by reason of all-but-forgotten principles governing creatures of statute, that have most often been upheld - even in modern litigation - by reference to 19thC canal case law.

 

You are of course correct that a private landowner is not obliged to allow free public access across their property, but CaRT cannot rely on the rights of a private landowner. Control of land within its jurisdiction is governed by statute rather than common law. Statutory Bodies [as the original canal companies were and as their successors are] can only claim the powers expressly granted to them; common law rights do not avail them.

 

 

[SoosieQ]

 

A huge thank you to all who made the event such a massive success and if you are a marina that didn't take part this year shame on you! Get yourself organised for 2015, this is where our future business is coming from

 

 

AHH - warning CRT staff and financial controller readers , he is encouringing everyone else to take the piss next year.

 

It was also interesting that a few people selling boats in the local area saw how busy we were and have subsequently brought their boats here for us to broker the vessels

 

So ABNB have resumed their sales from Pillings Lock.

 

Over the three days we carried over 1, 000 boat trippers on our free boat rides, out along the canal outside the Marina & a few hundred yards into the Soar. This was a feat that would not have been possible without our fleet of four day-boats and our team of volunteer berth holders who skippered the majority of the boat trips

 

So 4 trip boats/3 days - 71 passengers...

 

 

It is good to see that NBW allowing such accurate and focussed journalism onto our canal network by such reputable journalists.

 

Victor - I do hope you know that Paul Lillie has failed to pay £180K to the guardians of our networks which are faling apart - and is actively now campaigning that is still too much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

edited to add, sorry RoyRollings, I forgot you, please feel free to add your informed opinion, I know you have exams coming up, but don't forget your directors responsibilities.

 

Hope they held skippers licences & relevant insurances to carry the public?

Edited to add: Sorry, see this was asked a page back

Edited May 10, 2014 by SoosieQ

[NigelMoore]

The bit of my quote you omitted - I thought - indocated much the same as you suggest, albeit rather less fully.

 

Perhaps it did – but I understood the latter part of that post to be suggesting [correctly] that the authority might be under an obligation to deal ‘reasonably’, which is a quite different thing to whether they can deal or not in the first place.

 

I also may have misunderstood your use of the word ‘pace’, which I took to imply that you disagreed with my probable views as to the lucidity and accessibility of canal legislation. My response was intended to demonstrate a measure of agreement that some of it was indeed betimes obscure, and rather outside the public’s general knowledge. Certainly this particular topic of a Creature of Statute's rights under common law is not straightforward.

[NigelMoore]

ETA: It seems that the Select Committee, as evidenced by Nigel M's contribution, were also concerned about BW's monopolistic position.

 

I was waiting to see how long it would take for you to spot that!

 

In fairness - to make certain that the situation is accurately portrayed - although the SC were concerned at the all but unchallengeable position BW held, the particular quotation you refer to [using "monopoly"] comes from the cross-examination of BW by one of the boaters who had filed objections, rather than from one of the Committee members.

 

It was Lord Burton, who was one of the Committee members, who used the term "stranglehold" to carry the same implication.

[George94]

 

I was waiting to see how long it would take for you to spot that!

 

In fairness - to make certain that the situation is accurately portrayed - although the SC were concerned at the all but unchallengeable position BW held, the particular quotation you refer to [using "monopoly"] comes from the cross-examination of BW by one of the boaters who had filed objections, rather than from one of the Committee members.

 

It was Lord Burton, who was one of the Committee members, who used the term "stranglehold" to carry the same implication.

 

Indeed. I used monopoly because this is the word that my esteemed colleagues are having such trouble with, but stranglehold describes the position much better.

Some of us gave up with countervailing arguments with you several thousand posts ago George.

Why do you keep mentioning CC-ers - someone who wishes to put their boat in a marina (for whatever reason) has made that choice.

They then become part of that marinas financial equation.

 

I don't keep mentioning CCers, but since some people here seem unsure of my position, I restated it.

 

And thank you for telling me that you think it is OK for CART to charge CCers less than marina-dwellers. Given that CCers spend much more time on the cut than marina-dwellers do, some people might expect them to pay more, not less.

 

What a topsy-turvy world it is to be sure.

[johnthebridge]

 

Indeed. I used monopoly because this is the word that my esteemed colleagues are having such trouble with, but stranglehold describes the position much better.

 

I don't keep mentioning CCers, but since some people here seem unsure of my position, I restated it.

 

And thank you for telling me that you think it is OK for CART to charge CCers less than marina-dwellers. Given that CCers spend much more time on the cut than marina-dwellers do, some people might expect them to pay more, not less.

 

What a topsy-turvy world it is to be sure.

 

I've read a lot of what you've posted on this subject, and I have to say I generally agree with your viewpoint. Like it or not, the C&RT do have a stranglehold (call it a monopoly if you wish) on those parts of England's waterways that concern the majority of narrowboat owners. Yes, of course there are other parts of the system that are not controlled by that organisation, but it seems to me that even those are fast becoming the subjects of ever more rules and regulations.

Your penultimate sentence above I find interesting. Despite having been a boat owner for nearly fifty years, and being employed by BW for twenty years, I've long thought that those boaters who choose to declare themselves continuous cruisers, not taking up a formal mooring of whatever sort, are getting off lightly with regard to cost, compared to those who do so. Each time they stop and tie up on theC&RT's property, in a manner not dissimilar to those who have a formal bankside mooring, they are being provided with a facility. Ultimately, what's the difference? The C&RT are providing that "place" to tie up against, and with all the howls heard on here for more and better funding for the C&RT, why not charge for that "place" in the form of a licence that includes an element to allow for that?

[EmmaB]

Deleted.

Edited May 11, 2014 by EmmaB

[Bod]

Yes, it does seem a strange anomaly, that those who use the system most, pay less.

 

Bod

[costalot]

Both my neighbour and I have cars. I'm retired and drive my car a lot, whilst he works 5 days a week and commutes by train He pays to keep his in a garage whilst I just hunt for a parking spot on the street each night. He thinks this is most unfair and because I'm using the roads more than him and don't have a garage I should be paying more to license my car!

 

But I don't want to turn this into a CC debate!

[George94]

 

You are of course correct that a private landowner is not obliged to allow free public access across their property, but CaRT cannot rely on the rights of a private landowner. Control of land within its jurisdiction is governed by statute rather than common law. Statutory Bodies [as the original canal companies were and as their successors are] can only claim the powers expressly granted to them; common law rights do not avail them.

 

I find that absolutely fascinating. Given that the Creature of Statute is a legal person, I should expect it to be treated the same way under the law as any other legal person. Is there another statute specifically limiting (or extending) the rights of such creatures, and if not, why the difference in treatment?

Both my neighbour and I have cars. I'm retired and drive my car a lot, whilst he works 5 days a week and commutes by train He pays to keep his in a garage whilst I just hunt for a parking spot on the street each night. He thinks this is most unfair and because I'm using the roads more than him and don't have a garage I should be paying more to license my car!

 

But I don't want to turn this into a CC debate!

 

Nor do I. As a former CCer myself (now on a non-CART waterway), I am not trying to start an argument which nobody can win, and which will just lead to more unpleasantness.

 

But the fact remains that the NAA does act to extract more from marina-dwellers, some of whom, as we all know, seldom set foot (or hull) upon the canal. I see this as a fault with the whole concept of the NAA, rather than a reason to bash CCers.

 

I've read a lot of what you've posted on this subject, and I have to say I generally agree with your viewpoint.

 

Thank you. Stand by to be accused of insanity, and worse!

[Jerra]

 

Like it or not, the C&RT do have a stranglehold (call it a monopoly if you wish) on those parts of England's waterways that concern the majority of narrowboat owners.

Personally I can see no way round the "monopoly/strangle hold" you can't have the same piece of water under the control of two organisations. Imagie if two authorities were responsible for the upkeep of a streatch of motorway.

 

Edit to insert a space.

Yes, it does seem a strange anomaly, that those who use the system most, pay less.

 

Bod

Is there any evidence that CCers actually use the canal as opposed to being on the water more than say a share boat or a very enthusiastic leisure boaters.

 

I may have it wrong but CCers seem to visit a place, stay often for a good number of days and then go and visit somewhere else. Share boats and enthusiastic leisure boaters don't have the time to amble along stopping for a few days.

 

How do we prove which type of boater uses the canal most?

Edited May 11, 2014 by Jerra

[OldGoat]

Personally I can see no way round the "monopoly/strangle hold" you can't have the same piece of water under the control of two organisations. Imagie if two authorities were responsible for the upkeep of a stretch of motorway.

 

......

 

 

 

Well, yes you can - The Environment Agency (at least on the Thames)

 

on the non tidal Thames the EA "own" the water and some structures (locks, weirs, etc) and a whole host of folks and organizations own the banksides.

 

Total chaos when it comes to mooring and other issues.

[Jerra]

 

Well, yes you can - The Environment Agency (at least on the Thames)

 

on the non tidal Thames the EA "own" the water and some structures (locks, weirs, etc) and a whole host of folks and organizations own the banksides.

 

Total chaos when it comes to mooring and other issues.

Which more or less underlines what I say. Also the canals aren't in the position of having multiple owners on one side at least, and the water would all be under their jurisdiction which appears to be where those who believe there shouldn't be a monopoly have a problem.

[johnthebridge]

 

 

Thank you. Stand by to be accused of insanity, and worse!

 

Aah, but at my age, insanity appears to be the favoured option.

Or should that be insanitary?

[costalot]

.

 

But the fact remains that the NAA does act to extract more from marina-dwellers, some of whom, as we all know, seldom set foot (or hull) upon the canal. I see this as a fault with the whole concept of the NAA, rather than a reason to bash CCers.

 

I disagree that it is a "fact". Rather, I would argue that it is your opinion!

 

It is a fact that some marinas have to pay an annual NAA charge. How they chose to fund this is their decision. It is a fact that they have to compete with other marinas for boaters wanting a marina mooring. In order to be competitive, the marina with an annual NAA fee must either be smarter in managing their income steam or accept a lower return on their investment.

 

[OldGoat]

 

Aah, but at my age, insanity appears to be the favoured option.

Or should that be insanitary?

 

Both, I reckon....

[Paul G2]

This document is CRT's "Trustees’ Report and Accounts For the period 12 October 2011 to 31 March 2013". Starting on page 27 there are some graphs and other financial information that give a fairly good idea of of the basic ins and outs of CRT finances.

 

There are, however, a few things that seen to pop out and . I thought CRT was originally given a property grant from the federal government valued at £500m Everything else in the investment world has gone up, why is the value of CRT's investment portfolio down, showing a current value of £468.7m? Is CRT selling hard assets that are intended to produce income?

 

On investment income of £31.1m, CRT paid £12.6m for investment management. That seems like a pretty hefty fee for such a paltry return. It seems obvious that CRT is suffering poor asset management and poor real estate management. However, even if the real estate and investments are managed properly, for a reasonable fee, there really are insufficient assets to provide the income CRT needs.CRT needs a larger property endowment from the federal government. When you think about it, a property transfer is probably more politically feasible than additional cash support. Politicians could declare the whole project a success, only acknowledging that a one-time adjustment was needed in the asset allocation equation - necessitated, no doubt, by unforeseeable circumstances beyond anyone's control.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but, when assets are disappearing in an up market, and management fees are approaching 40% of income, it just seems like it's time to take a closer look at exactly what is going on.

[George94]

 

.

 

But the fact remains that the NAA does act to extract more from marina-dwellers, some of whom, as we all know, seldom set foot (or hull) upon the canal. I see this as a fault with the whole concept of the NAA, rather than a reason to bash CCers.

 

I disagree that it is a "fact". Rather, I would argue that it is your opinion!

 

It is a fact that some marinas have to pay an annual NAA charge. How they chose to fund this is their decision. It is a fact that they have to compete with other marinas for boaters wanting a marina mooring. In order to be competitive, the marina with an annual NAA fee must either be smarter in managing their income steam or accept a lower return on their investment.

 

 

 

In any competitive situation (and marinas do compete with each other, at least to some degree), the price of the commodity or service being offered will be the cost of supplying it, plus enough profit to persuade the seller to continue in business.

 

Therefore, any increase in the supplier's costs will tend to have the effect of raising the price of the commodity, or forcing the seller out of business.

 

So the NAA charge will generally be reflected in the marina's prices (unless it closes down).

This document is CRT's "Trustees’ Report and Accounts For the period 12 October 2011 to 31 March 2013". Starting on page 27 there are some graphs and other financial information that give a fairly good idea of of the basic ins and outs of CRT finances.

 

There are, however, a few things that seen to pop out and . I thought CRT was originally given a property grant from the federal government valued at £500m Everything else in the investment world has gone up, why is the value of CRT's investment portfolio down, showing a current value of £468.7m? Is CRT selling hard assets that are intended to produce income?

 

On investment income of £31.1m, CRT paid £12.6m for investment management. That seems like a pretty hefty fee for such a paltry return. It seems obvious that CRT is suffering poor asset management and poor real estate management. However, even if the real estate and investments are managed properly, for a reasonable fee, there really are insufficient assets to provide the income CRT needs.CRT needs a larger property endowment from the federal government. When you think about it, a property transfer is probably more politically feasible than additional cash support. Politicians could declare the whole project a success, only acknowledging that a one-time adjustment was needed in the asset allocation equation - necessitated, no doubt, by unforeseeable circumstances beyond anyone's control.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but, when assets are disappearing in an up market, and management fees are approaching 40% of income, it just seems like it's time to take a closer look at exactly what is going on.

 

Paul, countries like Brazil, Australia, Canada, and the USA have federal governments. The UK is a kingdom, not a federation, and has Her Majesty's government, or "the government".

 

We all know CART is under-funded. That's the great problem.

[costalot]

 

In any competitive situation (and marinas do compete with each other, at least to some degree), the price of the commodity or service being offered will be the cost of supplying it, plus enough profit to persuade the seller to continue in business.

 

Yes...!

 

Therefore, any increase in the supplier's costs will tend to have the effect of raising the price of the commodity, or forcing the seller out of business.

 

I believe your logic is flawed. Competition means that the supplier cannot just increase their price. They will either have to be more innovative in absorbing the increase; or offer something additional to compensate for the increase in price. In a competitive environment one supplier raising their price above the market price will likely create financial difficulty for them.

 

Apparently PLM/QMP/QMH were charging moorers a competitive rate. It was their business model and customer service that was the problem.

[StarUKKiwi]

 

Thank you....... Perhaps he who likes FOIs will oblige.

Except FOI requests do not apply to non govt companies/trusts etc. You can request a copy of your information as per the,Data Protection Act, but FOI only applies to the Public Sector