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

[Jerra]

I don't. if you have an EOG mooring you are paying for the privilege to the land owner. that's a fee to reserve the space.

The land owner doesn't have the right to reserve the bed of the canal adjacent to his land so that fee can't cover that.

 

I am afraid it is your thinking which appears woolly.

 

When you respond to this as you undoubtedly will please do two things for me.

 

1. Answer post #449 from Wandering Vagabond or give me the number of the post where you do.

 

2. po try to answer in a reasonable sensible discussion way. When I was at school in the debating society anyone resorting to suggesting woolly thinking without having taken into account the point I made above would have been in trouble with the teacher. Mainly because they didn't consider that acceptable response in school boy discussions. It is rather scraping the barrel bottom in adult discussion don't you think?

 

Oh sorry you obviously don't.

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

To look at the broader picture on your views of EOG mooring fees, have you REALLY considered the if they were abolished or actually had Judgements made against them? You would then be in the position of Farmers who had the good luck to have canals running across their land being able to massively undercut the costs of marina owners and to trouser all of the profits themselves without putting anything at all into the network costs. If people could moor their boats on farmers land at a tenth of the cost of mooring in a marina, oddly enough that is what they would do I would suggest. There are thousands of boats currently moored in marinas which are hardly used, if these were then spread across the network it would mean mile after mile of moored boats on the canals which, as far as I'm concerned, would mean that the days of slowing down for moored boats would end. I don't mind at all slowing down for a few moored boats but I'm damned if I'm going to plod along at tickover all day just because it's cheaper for people to moor on farmer's land. Is that what you really want?

yes. I like boats. I expect them to moor properly. I pass them slowly but this talk of 'tickover' is just so much rubbish.

[carlt]

The land owner doesn't have the right to reserve the bed of the canal adjacent to his land so that fee can't cover that

but he does have the right to reserve the land which would have to be moored against.

 

Are you suggesting that the offside should be a free-for-all where anybody can moor against private land without the land owner's permission?

[Jerra]

but he does have the right to reserve the land which would have to be moored against.

 

Are you suggesting that the offside should be a free-for-all where anybody can moor against private land without the land owner's permission?

Do keep up. I mentioned ages ago the hypothetical case of using mud weights. Yes before you begin your normal one line nitpicking I know nobody is going to do that at the end of a garden. It is to illustrate the point that it IS possible no matter how remotely for that space to be taken while vacated.

 

I also mentioned that there is usually some form of "claim" laid to the mooring. This might be (as I have already said but you obviously either didn't notice or failed to understand the point) be a sign saying private mooring, or perhaps a sign saying "Titanic" 70 feet for example. It could also be decking, garden furniture, fenders against the piling etc. etc. These lay claim to that piece of canal bottom beside the bank and effectively prevent others using it. Therefore the person with that mooring has "reserved" (for want of a better word). that area and so is using two boat areas of canal..

 

There I know it is a difficult concept but I have outlined it nice and clearly for you so perhaps you will see what I mean this time.

 

N.B. I don't expect to agree with it! For whatever reason you appear to want the free for all suggested in #449.

[carlt]

Do keep up.

No need.

 

I have no intention of reading beyond that patronising comment.

[b0atman]

I see this thread that was played out days ago has been hi jacked by the dementors yet again .

The result of what happens to the said plot of land in Hackney is only answer that is relevant and that should be a new topic if anyone becomes aware of the outcome.

Happy new year to everyone

[Paul C]

What utter rubbish, just considering the practical aspects of 'exclusive' rights, how exactly do C&RT exclude all other boats from the waterspace at the end of someone's garden?

 

This, or a very similar issue, was covered in post #366. Whilst CRT don't actively exclude other boats, with an EOG mooring comes the right to moor the boat there, by the designated moorer there. This can quite legitimately be indicated by signage, for example "private mooring" and/or a sign with the name of the boat and its length, etc. And also the mooring owner could quite legitimately ask a boater who has inadvertently moored there to move on. Pragmatically, I've never met a boater who, once its been pointed out its a private mooring, is too belligerant to move on.

 

Also I think its worth pointing out that its not necessary to exclude all other boats while the mooring it vacant - it would be quite reasonable to pass through the area above the EOG mooring, eg in normal navigation.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

This, or a very similar issue, was covered in post #366. Whilst CRT don't actively exclude other boats, with an EOG mooring comes the right to moor the boat there, by the designated moorer there. This can quite legitimately be indicated by signage, for example "private mooring" and/or a sign with the name of the boat and its length, etc. And also the mooring owner could quite legitimately ask a boater who has inadvertently moored there to move on. Pragmatically, I've never met a boater who, once its been pointed out its a private mooring, is too belligerant to move on.

 

Also I think its worth pointing out that its not necessary to exclude all other boats while the mooring it vacant - it would be quite reasonable to pass through the area above the EOG mooring, eg in normal navigation.

I agree with everything you say. Unfortunately you haven't made it absolutely clear that it's the payment made to the landowner, or the fact that the land is owned by the moored boat's owner that confers the right to moor. The concept of exclusivity as to the use of a specific and static area of the surface of the water in any canal is a nonsense, first introduced by BW, perpetuated by C&RT and endorsed by such as D. Mayall.

[Machpoint005]

 

>> I think its worth pointing out that its not necessary to exclude all other boats while the mooring it vacant - it would be quite reasonable to pass through the area above the EOG mooring, eg in normal navigation.<<

 

That's a small point I was going to make some days ago.

I'd also suggest that a boat on an EOG mooring isn't just taking up its own length -- it also sterilises a length of waterway immediately in front and behind it, say at least a boat's length at each end, because to navigate on those patches of water (or over those areas of canal bed) would result in a collision.

Unless the two ends are silted up/overgrown with weed.

[Tony Dunkley]

Is anything happening in Hackney ?

Let's hope we hear something soon, preferably that the boatowners have told C&RT to get lost and have come to an agreement with the landowners to establish moorings there.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

That's a small point I was going to make some days ago.

I'd also suggest that a boat on an EOG mooring isn't just taking up its own length -- it also sterilises a length of waterway immediately in front and behind it, say at least a boat's length at each end, because to navigate on those patches of water (or over those areas of canal bed) would result in a collision.

Unless the two ends are silted up/overgrown with weed.

That's a completely pointless argument which could be applied to a greater extent to a vessel underway.

[GUMPY]

 

Let's hope we hear something soon, preferably that the boatowners have told C&RT to get lost and have come to an agreement with the landowners to establish moorings there.

That wont happen as CRT are not granting any more L3 (farmers field) moorings.

They are now L5 where the payment to CRT is made by the landowner not the boater.

CRT are trying to renegotiate all L3 moorings to make them L5 it means it costs them less to administrate.

EOG moorings will only be allowed when the boat owner is the land owner and its a residential property.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Loddon

[Tony Dunkley]

That wont happen as CRT are not granting any more L3 (farmers field) moorings.

They are now L5 where the payment to CRT is made by the landowner not the boater.

CRT are trying to renegotiate all L3 moorings to make them L5 it means it costs them less to administrate.

EOG moorings will only be allowed when the boat owner is the land owner and its a residential property.

It's not, and never has been, up to C&RT to 'grant' or 'allow' moorings on any private land adjoining a navigation under their ownership or control, their statutory powers don't extend to any kind of jurisdiction or control over private land. The only way a navigation authority can exercise such control is to lie about what they can demand and do, and then to have their lies believed. You're obviously a believer.

[Naughty Cal]

[Machpoint005]

That's a completely pointless argument which could be applied to a greater extent to a vessel underway.

 

But it's the same 'completely pointless' argument you mentioned in your post no.448!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

But it's the same 'completely pointless' argument you mentioned in your post no.448!

You think what you've quoted above amounts to what I said in #448, which was : -

"What utter rubbish, just considering the practical aspects of 'exclusive' rights, how exactly do C&RT exclude all other boats from the waterspace at the end of someone's garden?". . . . you really are struggling, aren't you.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

yes. I like boats. I expect them to moor properly. I pass them slowly but this talk of 'tickover' is just so much rubbish.

I too like boats however if I want to see hundreds of them all moored I'll go to a marina to look (or perhaps not!). If we are to get mile after mile of moored boats across farmer's fields I would say that would rather detract from the scenery.

 

This 'talk of tickover' isn't actually rubbish, when travelling my engine rpm is about 1600 revs which, according to GPS is marginally over 3 mph. When passing moored boats I drop it to 1100 revs, which 100rpm above is the speed that my engine ticks over at. All I'm saying is that if we are going to have mile after mile of moored boats if someone were to get their selfish way and abolishes EOG mooring charges, then I'll be passing these lines of boats at 3 mph and stuff the consequences. I expect to travel the system slowly (3mph) but I don't expect to travel at moored boat passing speed all day.

 

In answer to those who ask what is happening in Hackney, I thought Lady M gave the definitive answer on post #264 back on 22nd December, another group has got in with their own proposal for the land in question so as far as the Hackney CMers are concerned, nothing is happening.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Tony Dunkley]

I too like boats however if I want to see hundreds of them all moored I'll go to a marina to look (or perhaps not!). If we are to get mile after mile of moored boats across farmer's fields I would say that would rather detract from the scenery.

 

This 'talk of tickover' isn't actually rubbish, when travelling my engine rpm is about 1600 revs which, according to GPS is marginally over 3 mph. When passing moored boats I drop it to 1100 revs, which 100rpm above is the speed that my engine ticks over at. All I'm saying is that if we are going to have mile after mile of moored boats if someone were to get their selfish way and abolishes EOG mooring charges, then I'll be passing these lines of boats at 3 mph and stuff the consequences. I expect to travel the system slowly (3mph) but I don't expect to travel at moored boat passing speed all day.

 

In answer to those who ask what is happening in Hackney, I thought Lady M gave the definitive answer on post #264 back on 22nd December, another group has got in with their own proposal for the land in question so as far as the Hackney CMers are concerned, nothing is happening.

It sounds as if what you really don't like is boats moored anywhere on the outside(offside), and in fact all your sounding off has really got nothing to do with whether or not they've been conned into paying EoG charges.

[Paul C]

Unfortunately you haven't made it absolutely clear that it's the payment made to the landowner, or the fact that the land is owned by the moored boat's owner that confers the right to moor.

 

It could be either, in different situations. For example if its a typical end of an actual garden onto the offside of a canal, then the right to moor against that land (and use it for getting on and off the boat, leaving the boat possibly in the meantime etc) is given to the landowner. If its a farmer's field offside mooring, then the right is given to the person paying for the mooring.

 

But moorings typically have two important elements - two bits of land are important and they are not necessarily (in fact, not usually) owned by the same landowners. The dry land bankside is needed in 99.9% of situations to tie onto (probably with rings), possibly track access, possibly a road access, possibly storage, possibly water/electricity supply services and others too. The area the boat floats over is the other bit.

 

IMHO the right to "moor" or "keep" the boat floating over this bit of land isn't sufficiently granted by the boat licence alone, hence EOG agreement and additional charge. This opinion is based upon the court hearings - if it weren't for these, I'd give your interpretation that the right to keep a boat floating over said piece of land is 100% granted in the licence. Having read the legislation which you were unable to cite, I'm happy enough that the court came to the correct interpretation of the law.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

It could be either, in different situations. For example if its a typical end of an actual garden onto the offside of a canal, then the right to moor against that land (and use it for getting on and off the boat, leaving the boat possibly in the meantime etc) is given to the landowner. If its a farmer's field offside mooring, then the right is given to the person paying for the mooring.

 

But moorings typically have two important elements - two bits of land are important and they are not necessarily (in fact, not usually) owned by the same landowners. The dry land bankside is needed in 99.9% of situations to tie onto (probably with rings), possibly track access, possibly a road access, possibly storage, possibly water/electricity supply services and others too. The area the boat floats over is the other bit.

 

IMHO the right to "moor" or "keep" the boat floating over this bit of land isn't sufficiently granted by the boat licence alone, hence EOG agreement and additional charge. This opinion is based upon the court hearings - if it weren't for these, I'd give your interpretation that the right to keep a boat floating over said piece of land is 100% granted in the licence. Having read the legislation which you were unable to cite, I'm happy enough that the court came to the correct interpretation of the law.

I did respond and cite the legislation you asked for . . . the original enabling Acts. I don't know what you've been reading, but the enabling Acts were the only legislation that conferred the statutory right to keep and use a boat on the canal, and BW were successful in the three EoG hearings due the Court accepting, amongst other contentions, that the right to keep and use a boat on a canal ended with the abolition of the public right of navigation in the 1968 Act.

[Machpoint005]

You think what you've quoted above amounts to what I said in #448, which was : -

"What utter rubbish, just considering the practical aspects of 'exclusive' rights, how exactly do C&RT exclude all other boats from the waterspace at the end of someone's garden?". . . . you really are struggling, aren't you.

 

Why are you arguing with a post that supports your position? (oh for an irony smiley).

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Why are you arguing with a post that supports your position? (oh for an irony smiley).

I really don't see how the two different points are similar or connected.

[Machpoint005]

I really don't see how the two different points are similar or connected.

 

OK, that explains why you are arguing.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

It sounds as if what you really don't like is boats moored anywhere on the outside(offside), and in fact all your sounding off has really got nothing to do with whether or not they've been conned into paying EoG charges.

Perhaps you'd identify exactly where I have said that I don't like boats moored on the offside, it hasn't been an argument I have used anywhere it is just the usual case of you arguing a point that hasn't actually been made. Had you been following the discussion you would have seen that what I was saying to AR was that if your idiotic idea to encourage the widespread non-payment of of EOG fees were to come to fruition (which I hope that it never does) we would have hundreds of boats taken from expensive marinas and moored in a linear fashion across the farmers fields who are fortunate enough to have an asset like a canal across their land. You have also pointedly failed to answer the earlier question regarding whether you have really considered the consequences of your proposal, I can only assume by your non-reply that either a) you haven't or b ) you have but don't really care provided that some people can have cheap moorings.

 

I did respond and cite the legislation you asked for . . . the original enabling Acts. I don't know what you've been reading, but the enabling Acts were the only legislation that conferred the statutory right to keep and use a boat on the canal, and BW were successful in the three EoG hearings due the Court accepting, amongst other contentions, that the right to keep and use a boat on a canal ended with the abolition of the public right of navigation in the 1968 Act.

You also keep referring to these enabling Acts but the purpose of the "...right to keep and use a boat on the canal..."within these Acts had nothing whatsoever to do with mooring rights. As I stated earlier when these Acts were passed the purpose of the canals were as a highway and the prospect of people wanting to remain moored in one place for any significant time was hardly thought of, the purpose of having a boat on the canal was to carry goods not fanny around drinking wine and admiring the countryside!

 

I would still maintain that the three judges made the correct judgement (and I would hope that any future judgements achieve the same outcome).

Edited January 6, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[boathunter]

Although I'm swayed by Tony's logic on the boat occupying one boat-sized area of water wherever it is...

 

In my admittedly limited experience, the total of the EOG fee and the fee to the landowner approximately add up to the cost of a local onside mooring? That's logically the only way to arrive at the market rent.

 

If it was proved to be unlawful for CaRT to charge the EOG mooring fee, what do you guys really think would be the consequences?

 

Loads of cheap moorings?Not a chance. The landowner would put up their charges to the market rate and take the lot. A shot in the foot for boaters IMO.

 

Better leaving things are as they are with CaRT getting the income. Unless you're a landowner of course.

Edited January 6, 2015 by boathunter