Hackney CMers want to have a "CC Licence" and to remain in one place.

[Tony Dunkley]

Since you differentiate between 'hazard to navigation' and 'obstruction' perhaps you'd care to enlighten us upon the legal definitions. On a roadway a vehicle merely being there can be regarded as an obstruction depending upon circumstances, would this be the same on the waterways? 'Hazard to navigation' is clear but 'obstruction'? open to interpretation I would suggest. If CRT came along and said that they wished to station a work-boat (held in place by hydraulic arms and not moored to the bank) where you had set up a mooring then your boat would be causing them an obstruction, and you have told us yourself that they have every right to remove obstructions.

 

I would suggest that with your constant encouragement to do everything that you can to work against CRT then one could only expect them to reciprocate.If someone was to set up a 'community mooring' telling CRT to get lost then if CRT were to then make things as difficult as possible, what would you expect?

 

Bit like the farmer doing a spot of muck spreading when uninvited itinerants arrive on a field in vans.

i'm sure CRT are allowed to stank off and drain sections of canal for repairs and routine maintenance

 

I can't understand how an anyone living on the cut could be arguing that trying to bypass the body currently in charge when developing <online moorings> is a sensible way to behave.

 

In what way is that constructive - telling CRT to 'get lost'

 

 

wtf ?

 

Keeping it as simple as possible:

 

River navigation + land not owned by C&RT = unquestionably, bugger all to do with C&RT ( who will in fact admit it, if challenged rather than given in to)

 

That's not intended to be constructive by the way, it's intended to let C&RT know that they should stop trying to exercise authority and powers that they don't have.

[boathunter]

I think the problem is that nothing suggested by the poster recommending the 'get lost' approach is in any way constructive. We have already covered earlier in this thread that it would be a massive Pyrrhic victory if those paying EOG mooring fees were able to cease paying them. Yes they may save a few bob but the rest of us would then be paying probably over a grand for our annual licence since CRT would then recoup their shortfall via what means that they can. Listening to him constantly drip and moan about CRT (and BW before them) I rather begin to wish the Government had just sold off the canal system to the highest bidder, because then he WOULD have had something to genuinely complain about rater than just this trivia!

This arguement only works if you think CaRT have a total licence figure, a total boat footage figure and divide one by the other to come to your licence fee. I don't think that's how it works.

Edited December 27, 2014 by boathunter

[Paul C]

This arguement only works if you think CaRT have a total licence figure, a total boat footage figure and divide one by the other to come to your licence fee. I don't think that's how it works.

 

How does it work then? How would the potential income lost from EOG moorings be made up?

[Delta9]

 

How does it work then? How would the potential income lost from EOG moorings be made up?

It wouldn't need to be. They would just need to spend what they have more efficiently. (which they should be doing anyway)

[Tony Dunkley]

I think the problem is that nothing suggested by the poster recommending the 'get lost' approach is in any way constructive. We have already covered earlier in this thread that it would be a massive Pyrrhic victory if those paying EOG mooring fees were able to cease paying them. Yes they may save a few bob but the rest of us would then be paying probably over a grand for our annual licence since CRT would then recoup their shortfall via what means that they can. Listening to him constantly drip and moan about CRT (and BW before them) I rather begin to wish the Government had just sold off the canal system to the highest bidder, because then he WOULD have had something to genuinely complain about rater than just this trivia!

C&RT's EOG charges are just plain dishonest, and they know it. They may well, however, be encouraged to persist in their dishonesty when they see it publicly condoned, as you are obviously so keen to do.

[Paul C]

C&RT's EOG charges are just plain dishonest, and they know it. They may well, however, be encouraged to persist in their dishonesty when they see it publicly condoned, as you are obviously so keen to do.

 

AIUI, for canals and artifical sections of river navigations, there is a court ruling in CRT's favour for charging EOG fees. Do you acknowledge this?

[magnetman]

So are you saying you can moor a boat, with land.owners consent, anywhere on the offside an CRT have no powers? Or you mean they have no power to charge a fee but could just say 'no'

 

genuine question as I squatted an offside mooring once and crt told me to go forth and multiply. Should I have ignored the request and told them to go away?

 

Anyway hackney marshes looks like a river fed canal section is that different?

 

If it is just up to the land owners and news

'gets out' that CRT can 'go forth and multiply' I can see a lot of 'continuously.cruising' boats going over the other side

 

Edit to clarify was in reply to comment by Tony Dunkley

Edited December 27, 2014 by magnetman

[Loafer]

Don't CRT have rights over the first metre of offside land? Hence their EOG mooring rights? It's their water intit? Help. Don't understand.

 

Unless we're talking non-CRT waters, where they can presumably sod off.

[boathunter]

 

How does it work then? How would the potential income lost from EOG moorings be made up?

 

Where does it state anywhere that their income from licences and moorings is fixed and split equally between those that happen to make use? If suddenly they lost 10,000 boats their income would go down, they wouldn't hike the remaining boat's licences by 50% and put up their mooring charges.

 

That would price out another 10,000 and they'd have to double all the prices again, thus pricing out everyone until no boats remained.

 

I

[magnetman]

Tony can you check this as we have a lot of people on phone to bank wanting to cancel dd payments and quite a few wantimg extra long boarding planks and dinghies. Specially those rubber ones you just pack up and put in a rucksack so you don't have to leave it on the CRT towpath

[Paul C]

Have a look at this thread: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9027 which was posted on post #121 of this thread.

 

Where does it state anywhere that their income from licences and moorings is fixed and split equally between those that happen to make use? If suddenly they lost 10,000 boats their income would go down, they wouldn't hike the remaining boat's licences by 50% and put up their mooring charges.

 

That would price out another 10,000 and they'd have to double all the prices again, thus pricing out everyone until no boats remained.

 

I

 

It doesn't - but its a significant income stream to 'lose' and the implication that CRT would seek to make up the shortfall and that it would be in the majority boaters who make this up in some way or another, is a reasonable one.

[magnetman]

Or CRT would be shafted completely followed by a sell off. That'd be fun !

 

Where does it state anywhere that their income from licences and moorings is fixed and split equally between those that happen to make use? If suddenly they lost 10,000 boats their income would go down, they wouldn't hike the remaining boat's licences by 50% and put up their mooring charges.

 

That would price out another 10,000 and they'd have to double all the prices again, thus pricing out everyone until no boats remained.

 

I

The thing is there are a LOT of people with boats who WOULD pay more before giving up the boat. Specially people who use the boat as a residence. At some point an accountant will notice this.

 

It may be that boating is just too cheap. If you can't afford to own then hire for holidays.

[boathunter]

It doesn't look too cheap from where I'm sitting, there's less floor space in a narrowboat than my hallway. If I worked out what it coat to live in my house per sq m of floor and compared that to a narrowboat I would expect the narrowboat to be many times more expensive. For living in.

 

For holidays, you can't put a price on that but hire companies already struggle at the prices they have to charge so I can't see making it more expensive would be helpful.

[Paul G2]

Don't CRT have rights over the first metre of offside land? Hence their EOG mooring rights? It's their water intit? Help. Don't understand.

 

Unless we're talking non-CRT waters, where they can presumably sod off.

 

What Tony is saying is that if you have a CRT licensed boat you have already paid CRT to be on the water, wherever that water might be. So, if you tie up at the end of someone's garden, or a farmer's field, you have already paid CRT for the use of the water you are floating on and for the use of the canal bottom you are floating over, hence they would be charging you twice for the same thing by charging an EOG fee. The property owner has every right to charge rent, because the person would be mooring to their property and using their property for ingress and egress to their boat.

 

He further states that CRT's claim to EOG fees on rivers is even more specious, as the land to the middle of the river is owned by the property owners, and so one is not even mooring over CRT land on rivers.

 

I don't know if Tony is right or wrong. I'm just explaining to you what he has said. If I have mischaracterized his contentions, I'm sure he'll be along to correct me.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

AIUI, for canals and artifical sections of river navigations, there is a court ruling in CRT's favour for charging EOG fees. Do you acknowledge this?

In fact there are two rulings in favour of BW.

BW's success was due to the Judge accepting their argument that the boats in question were moored over BW's land ( ie. the canal bed ) and at the same time ignoring the fact that buying a Licence buys you the right to use and keep a boat on their waters ( 1976 Bye Laws - from the 1971 and 1975 BW Acts).

Put in the simplest possible terms, EOG charges are making the boat licence holder pay for the same thing twice. BW ( C&RT ) are entitled, as is any landowner, to demand payment in return for the right to moor to or against their property, but where they are not the landowners they have absolutely no right to charge a mooring fee and they know this only too well *, that's why they have had to resort to using the 'mooring over our land' argument in Court.

 

* extract from C&RT Licence T&C's :

 

" LEGAL PROVISIONS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. There are no public law provisions concerning moorings along the Trust’s canals. This is entirely a

matter for management by the Trust as property owners. "

Wherever C&RT are the Navigation Authority they do have powers to refuse permission for boats to moor, and to move them without giving notice, where that would constitute a hazard to navigation or an obstruction.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

In fact there are two rulings in favour of BW.

BW's success was due to the Judge accepting their argument that the boats in question were moored over BW's land ( ie. the canal bed ) and at the same time ignoring the fact that buying a Licence buys you the right to use and keep a boat on their waters ( 1976 Bye Laws - from the 1971 and 1975 BW Acts).

Put in the simplest possible terms, EOG charges are making the boat licence holder pay for the same thing twice. BW ( C&RT ) are entitled, as is any landowner, to demand payment in return for the right to moor to or against their property, but where they are not the landowners they have absolutely no right to charge a mooring fee and they know this only too well *, that's why they have had to resort to using the 'mooring over our land' argument in Court.

 

* extract from C&RT Licence T&C's :

 

" LEGAL PROVISIONS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. There are no public law provisions concerning moorings along the Trust’s canals. This is entirely a

matter for management by the Trust as property owners. "

Wherever C&RT are the Navigation Authority they do have powers to refuse permission for boats to moor, and to move them without giving notice, where that would constitute a hazard to navigation or an obstruction.

 

And the Judge found in their favour! Isn't that just a bit like winning your case? You may not like the result but the judgement is that the charge is lawful (or is this one of your 'gullible' Judges). Perhaps the next time a Judge finds in your favour we can all accuse him of gullibility, can we? Or is that not how it works?

 

You have also failed to supply any legal definition of 'obstruction', so explain what is an obstruction in canal terms? I can follow the 'hazard to navigation' bit but if it is separately defined from 'obstruction' then when is a boat an obstruction and NOT a hazard to navigation? If it is the same as on the roadway then it can be an obstruction anywhere, so if CRT wanted to place a workboat somewhere and your boat occupies the space it would be an obstruction, which you have told us they can legally remove.

 

If we follow the 'logic' of the remainder of your arguement then, if I install hydraulic arms to my boat (in the manner of workboats) by which I can 'anchor' myself to the canal bed I would be perfectly within my rights to put my boat into a Farmers mooring (provided that I didn't moor to his land). I could then leave it there, paddle my little inflatable to the towpath side and there would be nothing he could do about it? Would that be correct??

Edited December 27, 2014 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Wanderer Vagabond]

It wouldn't need to be. They would just need to spend what they have more efficiently. (which they should be doing anyway)

That is the typical coalition response to everything, cut the NHS,cut the Armed Forces,cut Local Councils, cut the Police and with less money you will get more, unfortunately it doesn't happen in the real world. You either get less or lower quality or both. Perhaps we could all try this with our boats, next year only spend half the money you spent on it this year but spend it more 'efficiently' and let us know how well you get on!

[Tony Dunkley]

And the Judge found in their favour! Isn't that just a bit like winning your case? You may not like the result but the judgement is that the charge is lawful (or is this one of your 'gullible' Judges). Perhaps the next time a Judge finds in your favour we can all accuse him of gullibility, can we? Or is that not how it works?

 

You have also failed to supply any legal definition of 'obstruction', so explain what is an obstruction in canal terms? I can follow the 'hazard to navigation' bit but if it is separately defined from 'obstruction' then when is a boat an obstruction and NOT a hazard to navigation? If it is the same as on the roadway then it can be an obstruction anywhere, so if CRT wanted to place a workboat somewhere and your boat occupies the space it would be an obstruction, which you have told us they can legally remove.

 

If we follow the 'logic' of the remainder of your arguement then, if I install hydraulic arms to my boat (in the manner of workboats) by which I can 'anchor' myself to the canal bed I would be perfectly within my rights to put my boat into a Farmers mooring (provided that I didn't moor to his land). I could then leave it there, paddle my little inflatable to the towpath side and there would be nothing he could do about it? Would that be correct??

You're just repeating something you posted a while ago, it wasn't really worth responding to the first time, so I'm just going to ignore it again.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

You're just repeating something you posted a while ago, it wasn't really worth responding to the first time, so I'm just going to ignore it again.

Everthing that you post is basically 'CRT is rubbish' so isn't that just infinitely repeating yourself. That is why some of us have little or no sympathy with any problems that you may or may not have with them.

[Tony Dunkley]

Everthing that you post is basically 'CRT is rubbish' so isn't that just infinitely repeating yourself. That is why some of us have little or no sympathy with any problems that you may or may not have with them.

You've got that wrong too . . . It's C&RT who have got the problems, and they're self inflicted.

[Lady Muck]

So are you saying you can moor a boat, with land.owners consent, anywhere on the offside an CRT have no powers? Or you mean they have no power to charge a fee but could just say 'no'

genuine question as I squatted an offside mooring once and crt told me to go forth and multiply. Should I have ignored the request and told them to go away?

Anyway hackney marshes looks like a river fed canal section is that different?

If it is just up to the land owners and news

'gets out' that CRT can 'go forth and multiply' I can see a lot of 'continuously.cruising' boats going over the other side

Edit to clarify was in reply to comment by Tony Dunkley

This site is artificial cut. There is a site further up that is natural river and one of the bends has been squatted for several years (15? 20 Years? ) by several boats. There are several sites on the Lee where the land owners don't seem interested in what is going on. I think you need to look at the land registry in detail on the Lee as it is not at all clear cut who owns or controls what. Even the bit of land outside the gates of my moorings is a patchwork of ownership, which is probably also the reason why it is such a mess.

[Tony Dunkley]

This site is artificial cut. There is a site further up that is natural river and one of the bends has been squatted for several years (15? 20 Years? ) by several boats. There are several sites on the Lee where the land owners don't seem interested in what is going on. I think you need to look at the land registry in detail on the Lee as it is not at all clear cut who owns or controls what. Even the bit of land outside the gates of my moorings is a patchwork of ownership, which is probably also the reason why it is such a mess.

Establishing the ownership of the river / cutside land defines who is entitled to charge a fee for mooring to or against that land, it's the land owner and no other. The mooring site location in respect of whether or not it is within the 'main navigable channel' of a 'scheduled river' or 'artificial cut' has no effect on the right to moor to or against any adjoining land.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[magnetman]

Land registry map check is £3. So if I were to discover that the land to the back of a canalside factory (for example) were owned entirely by the factory freehold owner, right up to the edge of the bank, then you are suggesting I can moor there, if the freeholder are happy for me to do that, and CRT can do nothing to prevent this? I have done this before and received a letter from the CRT patrol boat telling me that the land owner in question did not have mooring rights attached to their property and I was therefore obliged to remove the boat. Being a law abiding type I moved it. Was this letter invalid? It seems you are suggesting it was.

That could get very interesting, but I think that it is perhaps not actually the case.

Or perhaps a land registry search would reveal that CRT own a strip of land along both sides of the canal, which I did actually think was part of the original enabling acts when canals were built but maybe not.

[Alf Roberts]

1. if it was a river then CRT have no say

 

2. if it's a canal then CRT state that permission will not be refused in reasonable circumstances ( can't remember the exact wording )

 

3. if you had refused to move they have no sanction to apply against you

 

4. the ownership of the offside is generally not CRT except that a. there may be a clause in the enabling act and b. recently they had a systematic policy of illegally registering offside land wirh the complicity of the land registry. They were caught at least once in this practice by the Crown Commissioners but as Is so often the case mostly they got away with it.

[magnetman]

Interesting reading here (was interesting for me anyway but I realise half of it may be BS according to some)

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/632.pdf

1. if it was a river then CRT have no say

2. if it's a canal then CRT state that permission will not be refused in reasonable circumstances ( can't remember the exact wording )

3. if you had refused to move they have no sanction to apply against you

4. the ownership of the offside is generally not CRT except that a. there may be a clause in the enabling act and b. recently they had a systematic policy of illegally registering offside land wirh the complicity of the land registry. They were caught at least once in this practice by the Crown Commissioners but as Is so often the case mostly they got away with it.

 

I know about the land grab and I now understand why they are doing it !!