Another down in a lock

[Mike Todd]

It's interesting how far this discussion has gone in the absence of facts. The original point made by Narrow Boat World was that the numbers of boats on the system were in decline (and they blame CRT, presumably for making life on the cut so intolerable that everyone is leaving!). We on the other hand seem to have gone down the road of 'the numbers are much the same but more people are evading the licence fee and CRT need to get its act together', so once again CRT get a kicking. It seems that whatever the reason for the alleged change in numbers it must all be CRT's fault!

 

Firstly I'd want to know what the accuracy level of these figures are before anyone starts jumping to conclusions. Secondly I can see the arguement for the law of diminishing returns for enforcement since with a 10% evasion figure you would statistically find an unlicensed boat for every 10 you checked, if the alleged evasion rate is now 4% then statistically you will only find an unlicensed boat in every 25 you check and as the percentage goes down you have to check even more boats to get any return.If you take a densely populated area like London with, on average, a boat every 300 feet you will still have to cover about 1.5 miles for every unlicensed boat but then if you are avoiding the licence the likelihood will be that you will hide out in the sticks somewhere. The third point about getting all excited about enforcement is it is all very well finding the unlicensed boat, what you do next becomes the issue. Can CRT immediately impound the boat and disable it to prevent it from moving off? Probably not (but I'm willing to be corrected). If they leave a Patrol Notice on the boat the unlicensed owner now knows he's been spotted and, if he has half a brain will be back on the move down the cut. What facilities have CRT got for chasing a boat that has been seen unlicensed around the cut? This is why I can see them trying to deal with overstayers since, by their very nature, they know where they will be, but catching and dealing with a licences evaders, with their current powers is more problematic. The Police addressed this problem quite nicely with their use of SOCAP to deal with uninsured vehicles on the road, they simply take the car off you and leave you to walk home, it may be draconian but it certainly concentrates the mind of the offenders.

Bit it is reasonable to assume that a car is not someone's home. In the case of boats this may be the case and the law then changes.

 

Not a large amount, and all recoverable if they use and apply the appropriate powers and statutes. This feeble excuse for inaction has been aired before and it just doesn't wash. Suggest a little time reading up on the relevant legislation . . . far more productive and useful than ill informed Posts.

Not necessarily recoverable - only a possibility of the person has the means and its location can be identified.

[NigelMoore]

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??

 

Why were you seeking to find a means of reading it in any particular way? As is my wont, I report the facts and comment accordingly. It is usually best to read my posts at face value, without seeking to identify a pigeon-hole to cram them into, nor seeking to conform them to a pre-supposed agenda.

 

You are to be commended for seeing no way that it could be read in any other way than it was written; not everyone is thus capable.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Bit it is reasonable to assume that a car is not someone's home. In the case of boats this may be the case and the law then changes.

 

So if I'm living in my car but can't be bothered to insure it that should make me immune to such police action, is that the case?

 

I'm afraid that my view is that no-one is being forced to live on the cut against their will. After the purchase of the boat, the only three things that they need are a boat safety certificate, insurance and a licence. If they cannot be bothered to do that then go and live somewhere else. If you can't pay your rent in housing you get evicted, if you can't pay your mortgage you get repossessed, if you aren't going to pay for a licence then you should get turfed off. The handbook on life I got didn't say anywhere that I should be entitled to whatever I wanted,some things you have to pay for!

[matty40s]

 

 

 

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.

Could I just repeat that.......

 

Is that accepted by the IWA, or is that file under "doesn't fit with present policy" so lets ignore it ,keep calm, and carry on....

[Alan&sue]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-29870376

Good link once again top dog x

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So, at any one time 4%+ are unlicensed for more than a month. They have lost the 10% discount and are fined £150. I wish I could get 10% let alone (560 +150)/504 = 40% pa !

 

On topic, CRT management are not fit to run a business.

I suspect that the management approved of the raising of the sunken boat when they received a detailed plan from a contractor.

My understanding is that the £150 is not a fine but a late payment charge.

 

BW/CaRT justify the charge as covering costs of chasing up late payers.

 

With regard the the delay in raising the boat you may well be right and has been pointed out earlier (Mike Todd?) legislation dictates that this sort of activity takes longer than needed.

 

However, with cillings/sinkings in locks being a reasonably common occurrence, one would have thought that procedures would be in place such that a stoppage would only last 24-48 hours.

 

 

[matty40s]

Good link once again top dog x

It is also interesting to note that is the boat had been acted on in that position, or the paddles left so no water ingress was allowed, minimal damage would have been caused to the boat. Therefore cruise could have recommenced next day, as happened just a few weeks earlier at the very deep Kegworth Lock with a Wyvern boat similarly caught....but crucially not abandoned, or left for CRT to piss around.

[MtB]

Do we know what method was used to re-float it, sans crane?

 

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

Do we know what method was used to re-float it, sans crane?

 

 

MtB

 

Yes, I know someone who does.

[GillianOlcay]

Just because you say something confidently doesn't make it true.

 

Good observation – applies to all sources of comment.

[matty40s]

 

Yes, I know someone who does.

and I am quite sure that somebody knows that if it had been dealt with swiftly, it would have been a much cheaper, and easier job.

[GillianOlcay]

 

Could I just repeat that.......

 

Is that accepted by the IWA, or is that file under "doesn't fit with present policy" so lets ignore it ,keep calm, and carry on....

 

Do the IWA claim that most licence evasion cases are CC’ers, or do they rather claim the overstayers are mostly CC’ers?

[Tony Dunkley]

and I am quite sure that somebody knows that if it had been dealt with swiftly, it would have been a much cheaper, and easier job.

 

The cost of raising the boat would have remained the same, but if it had been dealt with immediately [ie. without the lock being allowed to re-fill and totally submerge the boat ] the repair costs would have been minimal and no-one would have been held up for 10 days or left moored in a rising river.

[NigelMoore]

 

Do the IWA claim that most licence evasion cases are CC’ers, or do they rather claim the overstayers are mostly CC’ers?

 

Don't know what the IWA believe, but figures for overstayer enforcement current as at November 2012, were given by CaRT as involving 110 boats, of which 42.7% were CC’ers. So by a moderate margin, as of that date, home moorers were the bigger offenders.

[matty40s]

 

Do the IWA claim that most licence evasion cases are CC’ers, or do they rather claim the overstayers are mostly CC’ers?

Both, but mainly that the CC'ers are similar to the antichrist....sorry, Tony deals in facts, I deal with opinions and beliefs.

[Sabcat]

Both, but mainly that the CC'ers are similar to the antichrist....sorry, Tony deals in facts, I deal with opinions and beliefs.

 

By antichsrist they mean scruffy, the wrong sort for their canals.

[Tony Dunkley]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Giving consideration to what's said in the above two Posts, it would seem that, in consequence of C&RT's boat checking procedures, compliant CC'ing whilst avoiding stops on VM's may be a good formula for successful Licence evasion.

[J R]

Do we know what method was used to re-float it, sans crane?

 

 

MtB

 

Langton was simply, with hard work, secured with ropes, a diver went in and sealed the windows and doors plus putting expanding foam in the mushroom vents. With the help of pumps on the boat the lock was refilled and the boat refloated. It was moved to its current location, Tony D obviously knows, by a day boat called Pamela.

 

Current situation is that the insurance assessor is due to visit this week. A possible plan is to remove it to an Anglo Welsh base for refurb over the winter and put it back in the hire fleet. Someone earlier today wanted to take a photo of the boat and was told in no uncertain terms in an aggressive manner to 'go away' by a representative of Anglo Welsh as it was 'not allowed'. Name of that individual is known. The boat is moored in such a way that it is 'hidden' from the public but is still publically accessable. What is there to hide.

 

Which begs a question. Sponsored in boat to AW. Boat written off, then AW who have an interest in it contracturally buy the wreck back and maybe make money out of the refurb, allegedly. Insurance companies don't like people buying back their own insurance write offs. Not sure what the owner would do out of this and not sure if the above is in the small print of an insurance policy. I am speaking imo only. For the record, there seems to be someone else who would like the buy whats left of the boat and do it back up again for their own use. Events will no doubt unfold on all this sorry saga.

[MtB]

Is there school of thought abroad that the sinking was a deliberate 'accident' then?!?!

 

IF this is the case, it might fully explain the total lack of concern or embarrassment from the hirers about the sinking by reported earlier in the thread, AND the mysterious re-filling of the lock during the night after.

 

 

MtB

Edited November 18, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[J R]

Is there school of thought abroad that the sinking was a deliberate 'accident' then?!?!

 

IF this is the case, it might fully explain the total lack of concern or embarrassment from the hirers about the sinking by reported earlier in the thread, AND the mysterious re-filling of the lock during the night after.

 

 

MtB

 

There is no school of thought that the sinking was intentional or premeditated in any way. It was a stag trip that went sadly wrong and booze could have been involved. Alot of booze cans and bottles have been witnessed and documented. The lock concerned, Lock 10, had the bottom paddles closed which I guess is a natural reaction under the circumstances. Neither AW or CaRT made the decision to open them and there were professional people in the boating business on the ground who wanted to help and do the recovery but were told not to. This maybe because of the diesel pollution from the boat that occured, so preventing pollution futher down. Soak up mats were deployed to saok up the diesel and no doubt the spilt lager. The boat could have been saved, albeit with damage, but no.

 

Refering to my earlier post 593, an owner probably can cliam on the insurance and get the boat rebuilt. I was incorrect on some of the wording. The point was that if it was AW doing the refurb this seems a bit close to the action imo. For the sake of argument, if an insurance company can get away with paying out £10 to someone else, why would they want to spend £30 with the current person insured which would cost them an extra £20 for the rebuild. Please don't get me wrong here as I am sure the owner is completly gutted and will do what they wish and I do feel for them. Only looking at the business facts.

[alan_fincher]

 

Don't know what the IWA believe, but figures for overstayer enforcement current as at November 2012, were given by CaRT as involving 110 boats, of which 42.7% were CC’ers. So by a moderate margin, as of that date, home moorers were the bigger offenders.

 

The trouble with trying to make any point about such data as a CC-er versus non CC-er argument is that it depends how you present the data.

 

Here is the alternate approach.........

 

(To make the maths easy, I've assumed 4,700 out of 32,000 licence holders are declared as "no home mooring" - may not be spot on, but seems around the number usually stated, and is close enough to make a point).

 

Your numbers imply that of 110 licence holders in overstayer enforcement, 47 have no home mooring, and 63 do.

 

If 47 out of 4,700 total with no home mooring are in overstayer enforcement then that represents 1% of them in total.

 

But if 63 out of the remaining 27,300 who have a home mooring are in overstayer enforcement then that represents less than a quarter of a percent of their total.

 

So an "average" CC-er it seems is 4 more times more likely to be in overstayer enforcement than someone who has a home mooring.

 

I personally always try and look beyond anything that categorises, and prefer to see us all as just boat owners, but do get rather frustrated when I see numbers being used to apparently prove a point, (on either side of the argument), but where, if you think about it, they are not doing so at all.

[cotswoldsman]

The trouble with trying to make any point about such data as a CC-er versus non CC-er argument is that it depends how you present the data.

 

Here is the alternate approach.........

 

(To make the maths easy, I've assumed 4,700 out of 32,000 licence holders are declared as "no home mooring" - may not be spot on, but seems around the number usually stated, and is close enough to make a point).

 

Your numbers imply that of 110 licence holders in overstayer enforcement, 47 have no home mooring, and 63 do.

 

If 47 out of 4,700 total with no home mooring are in overstayer enforcement then that represents 1% of them in total.

 

But if 63 out of the remaining 27,300 who have a home mooring are in overstayer enforcement then that represents less than a quarter of a percent of their total.

 

So an "average" CC-er it seems is 4 more times more likely to be in overstayer enforcement than someone who has a home mooring.

I personally always try and look beyond anything that categorises, and prefer to see us all as just boat owners, but do get rather frustrated when I see numbers being used to apparently prove a point, (on either side of the argument), but where, if you think about it, they are not doing so at all.

There is another way of doing it and that might be number of days spent on the system.

The 4,700 cc'ers (oh and the latest figures I heard from CRT it is nearer 6,000) would account for 1,715,500 days

if you take the remaining 27,300 boats and say they spent 30 days on average on the system that would total 819,000 days aprox so not even half the time on the system as cc'ers but more tickets.

I know loads of non cc'ers will now come on and say we spend loads more time on the system and all I have done is try to take a stab at some figures also taking into account the boats that actually never leave their mooring

[Tuscan]

Tend to think that the numbers are irrelevant as the enforcement process does not just include those that overstay but in the case of CC'ers those that do not move far enough, this does not effect those without a home mooring.

 

I suspect the figures for Nov 2012 are way out of date. Figures just out for the first 6 months of the K&A pilot as at the end of October show that in the first 6 months approx 70% of those CC'ers that were solely spotted in the local plan area received a pre CC1 and approx 22% received a CC1. And this from a scheme that was set up to be voluntary perhaps CRT are growing some teeth. This is just an extract and I realise figures can be deceiving.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Tuscan

[jenlyn]

The trouble with trying to make any point about such data as a CC-er versus non CC-er argument is that it depends how you present the data.

 

Here is the alternate approach.........

 

(To make the maths easy, I've assumed 4,700 out of 32,000 licence holders are declared as "no home mooring" - may not be spot on, but seems around the number usually stated, and is close enough to make a point).

 

Your numbers imply that of 110 licence holders in overstayer enforcement, 47 have no home mooring, and 63 do.

 

If 47 out of 4,700 total with no home mooring are in overstayer enforcement then that represents 1% of them in total.

 

But if 63 out of the remaining 27,300 who have a home mooring are in overstayer enforcement then that represents less than a quarter of a percent of their total.

 

So an "average" CC-er it seems is 4 more times more likely to be in overstayer enforcement than someone who has a home mooring.

I personally always try and look beyond anything that categorises, and prefer to see us all as just boat owners, but do get rather frustrated when I see numbers being used to apparently prove a point, (on either side of the argument), but where, if you think about it, they are not doing so at all.

It matters not how you attempt to "fiddle" with, or "interpret" the numbers, a fact is a fact. This particular fact could point to boats leaving marinas and being kept on the towpath. Not a huge problem unless of course they are overstaying, or being left on visitor moorings. It would suggest however, that CRT needs to act on the "fact".

[Tuscan]

It matters not how you attempt to "fiddle" with, or "interpret" the numbers, a fact is a fact. This particular fact could point to boats leaving marinas and being kept on the towpath. Not a huge problem unless of course they are overstaying, or being left on visitor moorings. It would suggest however, that CRT needs to act on the "fact".

 

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle, I am sure there is a reasonable number who get there 12 month license when in a marina and then leave the marina to continually cruise and not informing CRT. CRT admit that they currently have nothing in place with the trade to record when boats cease to have a home mooring.