Another down in a lock

[Tony Dunkley]

However, as has been show time and again on here they do take people to court and have not really heard of them not doing so as routine.

 

But ho hum there is no possible sensible debate with you so

 

They take boatowners to Court only when needing sanction from the Courts for using the powers they have under the 1983 Act in a way they were never intended to be used, . . . it's called PR arse covering.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

I have seen CRT "number checkers" at many locations over the past 9 months or so. Most of them well away from visitor moorings or convenient road access. A fair number of them were using mountain bikes.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

And what do these 'number checkers' do when they find a boat displaying neither Licence nor Index Number ?

[NigelMoore]

Interesting figures published by CaRT in March 2013 –

 

Each year, in March, our enforcement team carries out our National Boat Check (during the month checks are made everywhere - linear canal, rivers, marinas boatyards etc.). Here are the number of unlicensed boats sighted during our national boat check on each of these years:

 

2010 = 1306
2011 = 1363
2012 = 948

 

We also hold the following numbers of enforcement notifications for unlicensed boats over the same period. These are notifications created when an unlicensed boat is sighted by a member of the enforcement team (any notifications created in error, duplicated, on trade plates or in an unenforceable area have been removed)

 

2010 = 5170
2011 = 4419
2012 = 4027

 

Roughly quadruple the number of enforcement notifications from boat sightings throughout the year, as the number of unlicensed boats sighted in the once a year national surveys.

[Paul G2]

 

If this is true, then it's rather difficult to understand why they are failing to find at least a good proportion of the 4.3% [unlicensed boats] at a density of around one for every mile and a half of waterway . . . in reality, a greater density than that if the mileage of river navigation bank where its impossible to moor is excluded.

 

I suppose it depends on what they consider "patrolled". Driving by at 60mph could be called "patrolling", it just wouldn't be very efficient.

 

Then again, remember the recent thread about the girl from Oxford who was cruising only 14 miles each year and was upset because CRT had approved of her practice as legitimate CCing but wanted her to send proof of where she had been moored? Wouldn't the fact that they could not keep track of a single boat in a 14 mile stretch of canal tend to make their claim that "every mile of CaRT's waterways is patrolled every two weeks" pretty much balderdash?

 

Someone should do a comprehensive study of what it would cost to bring back lengthsmen and CRT employee repair/maintenance personnel. and submit it to CRT. If the lengthsmen were responsible for cutting the grass, along with their other duties, it could probably be proved that the canals could be maintained in better order, for less money, using CRT employees as opposed to contractors.

[Tony Dunkley]

Still, even by your measure there are costs.

 

However, as has been show time and again on here they do take people to court and have not really heard of them not doing so as routine.

 

I just can't see how if it is as easy as you suggest why any organisation would not do it even if they are a poor management team.

 

But ho hum there is no possible sensible debate with you so I guess I will stop wasting our time.

 

Funnily enough, I had noticed they do that.

[NigelMoore]

. . . they do take people to court and have not really heard of them not doing so as routine.

 

The number of boats seized and removed from their waterways in the first 4 months since CaRT took over -

 

1 Fossdyke Navigation

1 Grand Union Canal ‐ Leicester Line

2 Grand Union Canal (Midlands)

3 Grand Union Canal (South East)

2 Grand Union Canal (Uxbridge)

1 Kennet & Avon Canal

4 Lancaster Canal

5 Leeds & Liverpool Canal

1 Llangollen Canal

2 Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal

1 Nottingham & Beeston Canal

1 Peak Forest Canal

1 River Ouse

2 River Witham

1 Sheffield & South Yorkshire Navigation

1 Shropshire Union Canal

2 South Oxford Canal

1 Staffordshire & Worcester Canal

2 Trent & Mersey Canal

1 Trent Navigation (Upper)

 

TOTAL: 35

 

Within that time frame, only 5 court Orders were obtained authorising removal. It follows that 30 of the 35 boats were seized without getting court Orders to do so. Roughly twice a week counts as routine to me.

[adam1uk]

The drop in boat numbers through disaffection with the authority is no new thing; I recall it happening on the upper Thames some years ago, when licence fees were hiked.

 

Just because you say something confidently doesn't make it true. So what evidence do you have that the drop on boat numbers caused by disaffection with the authority? I'd suggest that the economic downturn probably had far more to do with it -- and also has a lot in common with the other example you quote, ie people couldn't afford the hiked licence fee.

[Murflynn]

I have seen CRT "number checkers" at many locations over the past 9 months or so. Most of them well away from visitor moorings or convenient road access. A fair number of them were using mountain bikes.

 

 

so the best place to hide is on a stretch of river with no decent cycle path. Try the Avon between Bath and Bristol.

[cotswoldsman]

I have seen CRT "number checkers" at many locations over the past 9 months or so. Most of them well away from visitor moorings or convenient road access. A fair number of them were using mountain bikes.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I don't buy into the every 14 day all over the system scenario myself I will go with the maybe every 21 days if you are moored close to a VM or near a bridge

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Just because you say something confidently doesn't make it true. So what evidence do you have that the drop on boat numbers caused by disaffection with the authority? I'd suggest that the economic downturn probably had far more to do with it -- and also has a lot in common with the other example you quote, ie people couldn't afford the hiked licence fee.

I suspect it has more to do with increases in mooring costs over the long term rather than licence costs.

 

As has been stated earlier the average cost of a licence was £580 last year. The average cost of one of CaRT's directly managed moorings last year was about about three times the licence cost (i.e £1740). The average for other mooring providers will be significantly higher.

 

 

[churchward]

 

The number of boats seized and removed from their waterways in the first 4 months since CaRT took over -

 

1 Fossdyke Navigation

1 Grand Union Canal ‐ Leicester Line

2 Grand Union Canal (Midlands)

3 Grand Union Canal (South East)

2 Grand Union Canal (Uxbridge)

1 Kennet & Avon Canal

4 Lancaster Canal

5 Leeds & Liverpool Canal

1 Llangollen Canal

2 Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal

1 Nottingham & Beeston Canal

1 Peak Forest Canal

1 River Ouse

2 River Witham

1 Sheffield & South Yorkshire Navigation

1 Shropshire Union Canal

2 South Oxford Canal

1 Staffordshire & Worcester Canal

2 Trent & Mersey Canal

1 Trent Navigation (Upper)

 

TOTAL: 35

 

Within that time frame, only 5 court Orders were obtained authorising removal. It follows that 30 of the 35 boats were seized without getting court Orders to do so. Roughly twice a week counts as routine to me.

That is an interesting statistic. I thought they nearly always took people to court first. Thanks for the info.

 

Does this mean though that CRT did not get a licence payment and CRT paid the costs of removal?

 

See Mr Dunkley a counter point can be with real information and without your sarcasm and sneers.

Edited November 17, 2014 by churchward

[furnessvale]

 

And what do these 'number checkers' do when they find a boat displaying neither Licence nor Index Number ?

I have no idea, but that is a totally different point you are now making. I was simply responding to your accusation that CRT were lying when they said they did national checks.

 

I do know of one boat which, when purchased, had a beautiful paint job. The new owner immediately obliterated the entire boat with one colour covering all names and numbers and proceeded to live as a hermit in any backwater he could find. What a way to live. It reminds me of "The Fugitive" always looking over your shoulder.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Guest]

That is an interesting statistic. I thought they nearly always took people to court first. Thanks for the info.

 

Does this mean though that CRT did not get a licence payment and CRT paid the costs of removal?

 

See Mr Dunkley a counter point can be with real information and without your sarcasm and sneers.

The one stat. I found interesting is the relatively high number for the Leeds/Liverpool, compared to other canals.

 

I cant work out why that might be.

[Jerra]

The one stat. I found interesting is the relatively high number for the Leeds/Liverpool, compared to other canals.

 

I cant work out why that might be.

What is the comparative length of the L/L compared to the others? Just a thought.

[churchward]

The one stat. I found interesting is the relatively high number for the Leeds/Liverpool, compared to other canals.

 

I cant work out why that might be.

Indeed it does stand out a bit

[Robbo]

The one stat. I found interesting is the relatively high number for the Leeds/Liverpool, compared to other canals.

 

I cant work out why that might be.

 

It's the longest tho,

 

Lancaster canal is 42 miles - 4 - average 1 per 10 mile

Grand Union is 137 - 8 - average 1 per 17 mile

L&L is 127 miles - 5 - average 1 per 25 mile

Edited November 17, 2014 by Robbo

[cuthound]

Because its the longest canal?

[Guest]

Of course!

 

Eureka moment.

[alan_fincher]

As has been stated earlier the average cost of a licence was £580 last year. The average cost of one of CaRT's directly managed moorings last year was about about three times the licence cost (i.e £1740). The average for other mooring providers will be significantly higher.

 

Where does the £1,740 come from, please?

 

The number I can see in the annual report is £1,549?

 

I must admit, I find even that lower number surprisingly high. It feels like too much for the average of all directly managed moorings.

 

However, the report says berths available is 3,637 with 89% occupancy, which I make 3,237 let. Total income they give as £5M, so per berth that is £1,544. Allowing for roundings that agrees, but it surprises me, (though not as much as the claimed 89% occupancy! )

[Graham Davis]

I have seen CRT "number checkers" at many locations over the past 9 months or so. Most of them well away from visitor moorings or convenient road access. A fair number of them were using mountain bikes.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Of course they do, George, as has been reported on here innumerable times, but those facts don't fit into Tony's usual bias against CaRT

[cotswoldsman]

 

It's the longest tho,

 

Lancaster canal is 42 miles - 4 - average 1 per 10 mile

Grand Union is 137 - 8 - average 1 per 17 mile

L&L is 127 miles - 5 - average 1 per 25 mile

I think it might also be that the L&L always seems to have a lot of abandoned plastic boats. Just a thought

 

Of course they do, George, as has been reported on here innumerable times, but those facts don't fit into Tony's usual bias against CaRT

Ok then here is a non bias thought based on my print out in 24 months I was checked 27 times 21 of those were on or close to visitor moorings if they were covering to complete system every 14 days I should have been checked 48 times there are gaps of months the longest being 10 weeks

[NigelMoore]

Does this mean though that CRT did not get a licence payment and CRT paid the costs of removal?

 

They would not get the arrears in licence fees for boats summarily seized, although I see no real reason why they could not file a money claim for those - but they are not entitled [so far as I can see] to deduct those sums from any subsequent sale of the boats. The '83 Act entitles them to recovery of the removal and storage costs [and a few boats are restored to owners on payment of those charges. From July 2012 to the present, of boats seized, 9 were returned upon payment of the charges, 8 were disposed of].

 

So far as the court Orders are concerned, for ‘Melmar’ on 9 July 2012, costs were awarded, to be assessed with consideration for the defendant’s financial status [Legal Aid was involved]; for ‘Shuna’ on 13 August 2012, costs of £995 were awarded; for ‘Tiffin’ on 17 September, costs of £1,000 were agreed to be paid to CaRT [the case was resolved by Consent Order without a hearing, in the interests of costs]; for ‘Aston’ on 12 October 2012, the opportunity was given to the boat owner to pay arrears in licence fees to avoid seizure, and costs were awarded of £1,147; for ‘California’ on 24 October 2012, costs were awarded of £1,375.

 

As no court Orders were sought for the summary removal of the other 30 boats in the period July to November, there were obviously no awards for costs, but where owners could be identified, there would doubtless have been money claims, or else simple demands for the costs of removal, as per their authority under the ’83 Act. Failure to cough up would have meant sale under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, as in the 8 cases mentioned in my first paragraph.

 

As of November that year, there were 1,124 boats currently within the enforcement process respecting licence defaults. That was a pretty good whittling down of the over 4 thousand as at March that year. It would appear that most, even of the 1,124, were resolved outwith either court action or summary seizure [although some of those could well have entered the court process later – or indeed, have been seized, post November 2012].

 

It might be of interest to note that not a single one of those latter, thousand plus licence evasion cases, involved CC licensed boats – all were home moorers.

[NigelMoore]

I should perhaps add, that we are having to work only with the information as provided, and the 5 Boats against which court Orders were obtained between July and November 2012 may not necessarily have been subsequently seized, even though court approval was obtained. The boats could have been taken away by the owners, and in the one instance obviously, the owner was prepared to cough up the arrears in order to keep the boat on the system.

 

With that in mind, the proportion of seizures sans court action could even be greater.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I suspect that a proportion of seized boats are ones that are unlicenced having been abandoned by an owner who can not be traced.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I find it surprising that you have not taken the trouble to check what you call 'the facts'.

 

The article quotes figures from BW and CaRT annual reports.

 

Fact 1 - BW's Annual Report for 2010/11 page 29 - 35,241 (England and Wales).

Fact 2 - CaRT's Annual Report for 2013/14 page 49 - 32,018.

 

As such, a reasonable person might be led to believe that the number of boats on CaRT's waterways are in decline.......

 

CaRT are not blamed in the article 'for making life on the cut so intolerable that everyone is leaving' as you suggest but rather for suggesting that there has been a slight increase in the number of boats.

 

I also took CaRT to task for still claiming 35,000 boats -

 

 

I am pleased to say that, since the article, CaRT has reduced it claims from 35,000 to 33,000. This is one of several examples -

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/plug-pulled-to-start-vital-repairs-on-the-regents-canal

 

However, this figure appears not only to be higher than the 32,018 boats with a twelve month licence but also higher than the number of boats with twelve,six and three month licences as well!

I wasn't questioning the source of the data, I was questioning the accuracy which is a bit of a different question. Even had I gone to the source I don't think that it would have given me the methodology of how the data was obtained and since ALL statistics have a degree of error I would have liked to have known the degree of error on these (otherwise known as the accuracy!). The quote from Narrowboatworld that I was looking at was,"....CaRT has consistently failed to acknowledge that the number of boats on its waterways is in decline and is still clinging to the figure of 35,000. Worse still, it has restated and obscured figures in its reports in an attempt to hide the problem....". What exactly is the problem that some people choose to leave the canal system? If there is a mass exodus then possibly, but a 9% drop during a period of national austerity? am I supposed to be surprised? My curiosity was where these boats were going and there seem to have been a number of suggestions made, none of which seem to have identified it as a problem.

 

 

And what do these 'number checkers' do when they find a boat displaying neither Licence nor Index Number ?

They must be doing something with the information if the numbers of boats siezed according to Nigel's numbers are anything to go by

 

I think it might also be that the L&L always seems to have a lot of abandoned plastic boats. Just a thought

Ok then here is a non bias thought based on my print out in 24 months I was checked 27 times 21 of those were on or close to visitor moorings if they were covering to complete system every 14 days I should have been checked 48 times there are gaps of months the longest being 10 weeks

I think we'd need to know more about your mooring habits before offering criticism of the checkers. Do the boat checkers check everything they see (moving and moored) or do they just check the moored boats? If they just check moored boats, how many times are you moored on (or close to) Visitor Moorings compared to the number of times that you aren't? If you moor away from Visitor Moorings four times as many times as you moor on (or near) them, you have a valid point. If however you moor more often on (or near) Visitor Moorings then the statistics may be valid and prove nothing to the detriment of the checkers.

 

 

They would not get the arrears in licence fees for boats summarily seized, although I see no real reason why they could not file a money claim for those - but they are not entitled [so far as I can see] to deduct those sums from any subsequent sale of the boats. The '83 Act entitles them to recovery of the removal and storage costs [and a few boats are restored to owners on payment of those charges. From July 2012 to the present, of boats seized, 9 were returned upon payment of the charges, 8 were disposed of].

 

So far as the court Orders are concerned, for ‘Melmar’ on 9 July 2012, costs were awarded, to be assessed with consideration for the defendant’s financial status [Legal Aid was involved]; for ‘Shuna’ on 13 August 2012, costs of £995 were awarded; for ‘Tiffin’ on 17 September, costs of £1,000 were agreed to be paid to CaRT [the case was resolved by Consent Order without a hearing, in the interests of costs]; for ‘Aston’ on 12 October 2012, the opportunity was given to the boat owner to pay arrears in licence fees to avoid seizure, and costs were awarded of £1,147; for ‘California’ on 24 October 2012, costs were awarded of £1,375.

 

As no court Orders were sought for the summary removal of the other 30 boats in the period July to November, there were obviously no awards for costs, but where owners could be identified, there would doubtless have been money claims, or else simple demands for the costs of removal, as per their authority under the ’83 Act. Failure to cough up would have meant sale under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, as in the 8 cases mentioned in my first paragraph.

 

As of November that year, there were 1,124 boats currently within the enforcement process respecting licence defaults. That was a pretty good whittling down of the over 4 thousand as at March that year. It would appear that most, even of the 1,124, were resolved outwith either court action or summary seizure [although some of those could well have entered the court process later – or indeed, have been seized, post November 2012].

 

It might be of interest to note that not a single one of those latter, thousand plus licence evasion cases, involved CC licensed boats – all were home moorers.

Are you going all soft on CRT? I've read that line several times and cannot see any means of reading it that CRT are rubbish! Is that really what you meant to say? am I reading it correctly??