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

[Jerra]

I have seen them, but as there aren't any C&RT parking meters along towpaths (yet) I can't see that they are of any relevance.

Perhaps you will explain why you introduced the subject of cars and parking to the topic, was it to divert attention from the fact that you couldn't put together a rational argument in defence of the EOG charge ?

Its called an analogy. Perhaps not the best but a perfectly acceptable method of illustrating ideas in discussion. Sorry I didn't realise some people hadn't come across the idea, my apologies.

[junior]

was it to divert attention from the fact that you couldn't put together a rational argument in defence of the EOG charge ?

Surely the most rational defence of the EOG charge is that 3 judges have said they are legal?

[Sir Nibble]

I am strongly persuaded by TD's arguments on this and I recognise that all too often the courts and the powers that be are too cosy. What I would like to raise is that if it is the case that the EOG fee is uncollectable because the right to have your boat over that bit of canal bed is paid for in your license, then you can never establish these moorings anyway since everyone's license entitles them to it and you cannot therefore establish exclusive rights required to hold a mooring "Where the boat can be kept... etc etc". So You establish a mooring on the offside, agree a rent with the landowner and tell CaRT to whistle for their EOG because your license covers it. Don't leave that spot, never cruise and never go for fuel water or pumpout because if you do then when you return you may find me there on mudweights having paid just like you, to keep my boat on the waterway. It is only worth establishing the community moorings under discussion if exclusive rights can be afforded to the mooring holders. That can only happen if CaRT hold those rights in order to sell them. If CaRT do not have the right to charge an EOG fee then no one has the right to have one, any of us can just rock up and use it. It would also of course be subject to a 14 day limit whoever is there.

 

There seems to be a division between customers and stakeholders. Customers say "something for nothing! Bonus!" Stakeholders say "Loss of income to the waterway, bad news". It all depends if you love your bank account more than the waterway.

[magnetman]

Good post Sir

[Paul C]

I am strongly persuaded by TD's arguments on this and I recognise that all too often the courts and the powers that be are too cosy. What I would like to raise is that if it is the case that the EOG fee is uncollectable because the right to have your boat over that bit of canal bed is paid for in your license, then you can never establish these moorings anyway since everyone's license entitles them to it and you cannot therefore establish exclusive rights required to hold a mooring "Where the boat can be kept... etc etc". So You establish a mooring on the offside, agree a rent with the landowner and tell CaRT to whistle for their EOG because your license covers it. Don't leave that spot, never cruise and never go for fuel water or pumpout because if you do then when you return you may find me there on mudweights having paid just like you, to keep my boat on the waterway. It is only worth establishing the community moorings under discussion if exclusive rights can be afforded to the mooring holders. That can only happen if CaRT hold those rights in order to sell them. If CaRT do not have the right to charge an EOG fee then no one has the right to have one, any of us can just rock up and use it. It would also of course be subject to a 14 day limit whoever is there.

 

There seems to be a division between customers and stakeholders. Customers say "something for nothing! Bonus!" Stakeholders say "Loss of income to the waterway, bad news". It all depends if you love your bank account more than the waterway.

 

Agree, but the part highlighted in red is the practical issue - people want exclusivity specifically so they can go away for an hour/day/weekend/week and return knowing that it will be vacant.

[ditchcrawler]

I have seen them, but as there aren't any C&RT parking meters along towpaths (yet) I can't see that they are of any relevance.

Perhaps you will explain why you introduced the subject of cars and parking to the topic, was it to divert attention from the fact that you couldn't put together a rational argument in defence of the EOG charge ?

Not meters maybe but bookable visitor moorings in London.

 

Agree, but the part highlighted in red is the practical issue - people want exclusivity specifically so they can go away for an hour/day/weekend/week and return knowing that it will be vacant.

I can do that in the marina where I moor, mind you I have to pay for it.

[magnetman]

But do they have the right to charge you?

 

 

Do we need a new breed of lawyer here

[Tony Dunkley]

I am strongly persuaded by TD's arguments on this and I recognise that all too often the courts and the powers that be are too cosy. What I would like to raise is that if it is the case that the EOG fee is uncollectable because the right to have your boat over that bit of canal bed is paid for in your license, then you can never establish these moorings anyway since everyone's license entitles them to it and you cannot therefore establish exclusive rights required to hold a mooring "Where the boat can be kept... etc etc". So You establish a mooring on the offside, agree a rent with the landowner and tell CaRT to whistle for their EOG because your license covers it. Don't leave that spot, never cruise and never go for fuel water or pumpout because if you do then when you return you may find me there on mudweights having paid just like you, to keep my boat on the waterway. It is only worth establishing the community moorings under discussion if exclusive rights can be afforded to the mooring holders. That can only happen if CaRT hold those rights in order to sell them. If CaRT do not have the right to charge an EOG fee then no one has the right to have one, any of us can just rock up and use it. It would also of course be subject to a 14 day limit whoever is there.

 

There seems to be a division between customers and stakeholders. Customers say "something for nothing! Bonus!" Stakeholders say "Loss of income to the waterway, bad news". It all depends if you love your bank account more than the waterway.

Land not owned by C&RT isn't subject to mooring time limits.

 

"You establish a mooring on the offside, agree a rent with the landowner and tell CaRT to whistle for their EOG because your license covers it. Don't leave that spot, never cruise and never go for fuel water or pumpout because if you do then when you return you may find me there on mudweights having paid just like you, to keep my boat on the waterway. It is only worth establishing the community moorings under discussion if exclusive rights can be afforded to the mooring holders."

 

 

Agree, but the part highlighted in red is the practical issue - people want exclusivity specifically so they can go away for an hour/day/weekend/week and return knowing that it will be vacant.

Just going along briefly with this fantasy about mooring pirates who lurk about waiting for boats to vacate their moorings so they can nip in and secure their boats with nothing but mudweights, can you explain how and why paying the EOG charge would prevent this deplorable and apparently all too common occurence.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Sir Nibble]

Good grief. There is a stretch of moorings. People stop in vacant spots, if the water must be available to all then a mooring cannot be individually allocated so anyone passing is liable to perceive it as no different to a visitor mooring. Indeed, if as you say we have all paid to keep our boat on CaRT water then no part of that water can be allocated to an individual onside or offside unless we accept CaRTs right to lease waterspace out for exclusive use of a mooring holder. This is rapidly turning into all property is theft. AND DON'T PATRONISE ME

Edited December 31, 2014 by DeanS
keeping the forum content family friendly.

[ditchcrawler]

Good grief. There is a stretch of moorings. People stop in vacant spots, if the water must be available to all then a mooring cannot be individually allocated so anyone passing is liable to perceive it as no different to a visitor mooring. Indeed, if as you say we have all paid to keep our boat on CaRT water then no part of that water can be allocated to an individual onside or offside unless we accept CaRTs right to lease waterspace out for exclusive use of a mooring holder. This is rapidly turning into all property is theft. AND DON'T PATRONISE ME

That would even apply to marinas ?

Edited December 31, 2014 by DeanS
removed content from quoted text

[Tony Dunkley]

Good grief. There is a stretch of moorings. People stop in vacant spots, if the water must be available to all then a mooring cannot be individually allocated so anyone passing is liable to perceive it as no different to a visitor mooring. Indeed, if as you say we have all paid to keep our boat on CaRT water then no part of that water can be allocated to an individual onside or offside unless we accept CaRTs right to lease waterspace out for exclusive use of a mooring holder. This is rapidly turning into all property is theft. AND DON'T PATRONISE ME

 

I'll take that as an admission that you can't answer my question about what you claim in #353 then.

 

If you are having a bad time at the hands of your local mooring pirates, it may help if you put up a sign saying something like 'Private Mooring' or 'Take your mudweights elsewhere because I'm one of the mugs who pay EOG charges'.

Edited December 31, 2014 by DeanS
removed content from quoted text

[mayalld]

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.

Of course you are.

 

That's what you do.

 

Any judgement that agrees with your view is paraded.

 

Any that doesn't. Is corrupt/misguided/wrong

[Paul G2]

Good grief. There is a stretch of moorings. People stop in vacant spots, if the water must be available to all then a mooring cannot be individually allocated so anyone passing is liable to perceive it as no different to a visitor mooring. Indeed, if as you say we have all paid to keep our boat on CaRT water then no part of that water can be allocated to an individual onside or offside unless we accept CaRTs right to lease waterspace out for exclusive use of a mooring holder. This is rapidly turning into all property is theft. AND DON'T PATRONISE ME

 

When you use the debating tactic of "reducing to the ridiculous", it's not condescending when someone replies in a similar manner.

 

That being said, your hypothesis seems to be overlooking a critical aspect of this discussion, and of moorings in general. Whilst the boater with mudweights could conceivably occupy someone else's mooring, why would they do so and how long could they stay there with no land access? The person who has paid a property owner for an EOG mooring has paid for the right to cross private property in order to do things, like go to the market, which are necessary for sustaining life. Your hypothetical interloper would be unable to leave his/her boat via the private property.

 

This simple fact would make it highly unlikely that anyone would engage in your hypothetical mooring practice. Even if they did, they couldn't stay there very long and they would most likely find that there were much more pleasant and practical mooring practices.

Edited December 31, 2014 by DeanS
removed content from quoted text

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Land not owned by C&RT isn't subject to mooring time limits.

 

Just going along briefly with this fantasy about mooring pirates who lurk about waiting for boats to vacate their moorings so they can nip in and secure their boats with nothing but mudweights, can you explain how and why paying the EOG charge would prevent this deplorable and apparently all too common occurence.

 

 

 

I'll take that as an admission that you can't answer my question about what you claim in #353 then.

 

If you are having a bad time at the hands of your local mooring pirates, it may help if you put up a sign saying something like 'Private Mooring' or 'Take your mudweights elsewhere because I'm one of the mugs who pay EOG charges'.

Just to help out with this hypothetical problem, if you had paid your EOG mooring fee to CRT and someone else than came along and 'mudweighted' their boat into your mooring surely you would then be entitled to approach CRT to advise them that someone is obstructing your (paid for)mooring, and as you have previously told us CRT have every right to remove boats that are causing an obstruction, haven't they??

[Noah T]

 

Whilst the boater with mudweights could conceivably occupy someone else's mooring, why would they do so and how long could they stay there with no land access?

 

It wouldn't be someone else's mooring. Any license holder would be entitled to moor there.

 

Having a tender might ameliorate the problem of land access.

[Paul C]

 

 

Just going along briefly with this fantasy about mooring pirates who lurk about waiting for boats to vacate their moorings so they can nip in and secure their boats with nothing but mudweights, can you explain how and why paying the EOG charge would prevent this deplorable and apparently all too common occurence.

 

It can & does happen all the time at our moorings - its a popular place to stop and the moorings are online, on towpath side not offside or offline. Prevention? Its impossible to completely prevent ignorant boaters mooring on the private mooring, but the fact that it is one means that appropriate signage can be displayed, and gives some validity to being able to approach a "mooring pirate" and politely explain its a private mooring, and please can they find somewhere else. We've never come across anyone so belligerant as to stay after having the mooring status explained to them.

[Sir Nibble]

 

It wouldn't be someone else's mooring. Any license holder would be entitled to moor there.

 

Having a tender might ameliorate the problem of land access.

Exactly. There can be no mooring pirates because there can be no mooring to pirate. It is not a question of actually anchoring a boat on an eog mooring it is the fact that if CaRT cannot give exclusive use to an individual then an eog mooring cannot exist, usual ban on mooring offside applies. You cannot have it both ways. Either CaRT are able to allocate a bit of space on their water as a mooring (at a price) or they cannot because every license payer has already paid for it. I fully agree that the mudweight scenario is far fetched it was not meant to be more that an illustration but if you don't believe people will use tenders then you really have not been watching. The whole thing falls on the fact that what is free tends to be worth the price. There is absolutely no way any of us surely would consider a mooring not allocated to the boat can be considered to meet the requirements of the act.

[Groundhog]

I know of a case of BW trying to charge for an EoG mooring and being told to get lost. This did not go to court and I believe the reason for this is that all communications were handled by the landowners solicitor. It would appear BW and their successors CRT pick the fights they can win and publicise their victories.

[magnetman]

I know of a case of BW trying to charge for an EoG mooring and being told to get lost. This did not go to court and I believe the reason for this is that all communications were handled by the landowners solicitor. It would appear BW and their successors CRT pick the fights they can win and publicise their victories.

Are you able to describe the location?

 

If not in address terms can you say which canal it is on please otherwise it seems like a made up story.

Not saying it is made up but as it is quite a big subject (in my opinion) more detail would be welcome..

Ta

[b0atman]

EOG mooring £s court costs £? Sledge hammer and nut come to mind .

BW where not the most consistent management .

Now if CRT where to be come aware of this EOG anomaly then wheel out the big guns

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Probably muddying the waters further on the subject of EOG moorings however it is a genuine question. If those who wish to set up moorings against their own land claim ownership of that side of the canal, who is responsible for the upkeep? If there is a breach on 'their' section of the canal bank then surely they would be responsible for repairing it. What brought this to mind was the collapse of a weir on land owned by Kate Bush back in 2007. The original report stated that she would have to contribute £100,000 towards the rebuilding of it since it was on her land she was responsible for the upkeep. This was obviously back in the days of BW and I think that some accommodation was reached. Just thought that those who wish to claim ownership of canal bank might be careful what they wish for!

[Paul C]

Probably muddying the waters further on the subject of EOG moorings however it is a genuine question. If those who wish to set up moorings against their own land claim ownership of that side of the canal, who is responsible for the upkeep? If there is a breach on 'their' section of the canal bank then surely they would be responsible for repairing it. What brought this to mind was the collapse of a weir on land owned by Kate Bush back in 2007. The original report stated that she would have to contribute £100,000 towards the rebuilding of it since it was on her land she was responsible for the upkeep. This was obviously back in the days of BW and I think that some accommodation was reached. Just thought that those who wish to claim ownership of canal bank might be careful what they wish for!

 

An interesting question and I imagine something in the original canal act will detail the maintenance responsibility of the bank. I believe there was a case where someone moored a boat on their 'side' of an eroded bank (ie over their own land, not CRT/BW's) and BW came along and piled the original bank, thus leaving their boat somewhat disconnected from the canal!

[b0atman]

So if you dig out a mooring then no EOG charge.

What about NAA charge and 1/10 of a online mooring lost in area ?

[Paul C]

So if you dig out a mooring then no EOG charge.

What about NAA charge and 1/10 of a online mooring lost in area ?

 

Effectively yes, if you created a small mooring on your own land by digging out the area, you'd be subject to many requirements from CRT and others, including:

 

Planning permission

Permission from CRT to connect to their canal (eg traffic/capacity)

Technical requirements for the lining of the bed and (I think?) banks/mooring structures

A charge for "first fill" of the water

ongoing NAA charge

 

Plenty of environmental hoops to jump through too.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

An interesting question and I imagine something in the original canal act will detail the maintenance responsibility of the bank. I believe there was a case where someone moored a boat on their 'side' of an eroded bank (ie over their own land, not CRT/BW's) and BW came along and piled the original bank, thus leaving their boat somewhat disconnected from the canal!

I don't doubt that, in terms of the Civil Engineering of the repairs then CRT would have responsibility to maintain the waterway, but if it is on land that is not theirs would there be the possibility of them charging the landowner the cost of the repairs if he is claiming ownership?