Canal and River Trust changes in Licence Terms and conditions

[cotswoldsman]

To be honest, I'm not sure about the best way forward now that we have so many boaters wanting to visit popular places. Sometimes I wish we were back in the 70s and 80s.

 

First of all I would like to make it clear that I'm not a shiny boater and I make a point of walking to avoid parking charges. As I said earlier, I have no problem with popular visitors' moorings to be restricted to 24 hours during the summer season. It's a while since I've been to London but I can understand why CRT is experimenting with bookable moorings. A hire boater or private boater may be only out for a week and it is tough if they have to moor up during the afternoon when it's light until 9pm, to be sure of getting a mooring. They may be happy to pay for a mooring.

 

What we definitely need to discourage is mooring charges creeping across visitors moorings, like parking charges have done in cities and towns. Free overnight mooring for one night should provide a solution at many locations. Rationing of a scarce resource seems the fairest solution without the need for charges. For example, stations often provide free parking for 20-30 minutes. I have never had a problem with finding a space when picking people up from the station.

Two points you need to get away from this mith that there is nowhere to moor in London that is not correct yes you might need to breast up but that is the worse that will happen. I think seeing London in 24 hours is very difficult. My second point is by allowing booking and charging in London and accepting that it is ok allows then for creep of charging for visitor mooring

 

Let's wait and see if CRT go down the route of refusing to relicense boats that have not complied with the rules.

Wow loads of court cases

[churchward]

Two points you need to get away from this mith that there is nowhere to moor in London that is not correct yes you might need to breast up but that is the worse that will happen. I think seeing London in 24 hours is very difficult. My second point is by allowing booking and charging in London and accepting that it is ok allows then for creep of charging for visitor mooring

Personally I am not that keen on anywhere having a 24 hour restriction. I think the restriction would be better at 48 hours as a minimum to allow folk to at least enjoy something of why they wanted to moor their in the first place.

[mango]

Two points you need to get away from this mith that there is nowhere to moor in London that is not correct yes you might need to breast up but that is the worse that will happen. I think seeing London in 24 hours is very difficult. My second point is by allowing booking and charging in London and accepting that it is ok allows then for creep of charging for visitor mooring

 

Wow loads of court cases

It depends if CRT decides to go down the route of declining to renew licences for non-compliance on a routine basis. I hope this would act as a deterrent.

 

New legislation could remove uncertainties and loopholes, and help CRT cope with a situation that is quite different from when the existing legislation was drawn up.

 

Earlier, you mentioned the problem of visitors moorings sitting unused. Another issue is LTMs sitting empty when boaters are away, sometimes for months on a summer cruise.

Sometimes I have been invited to use one by someone on a neighbouring boat. Where the boater looking for a space is on a hire boat there is little danger of the space being occupied when the 'owner' returns.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

New legislation could remove uncertainties and loopholes, and help CRT cope with a situation that is quite different from when the existing legislation was drawn up.

 

 

Why do you assume the legislation would go in favour of CRT? It is Parliament that sets legislation not CRT anyway that won't happen for years if at all The government has now got rid of the waterways and the last thing they want to do is waste time on new Waterways legislation

[mango]

Two points you need to get away from this mith that there is nowhere to moor in London that is not correct yes you might need to breast up but that is the worse that will happen. I think seeing London in 24 hours is very difficult. My second point is by allowing booking and charging in London and accepting that it is ok allows then for creep of charging for visitor mooring

 

Wow loads of court cases

I'm not going to do that without being invited to, either verbally or if there is a notice on the boat. I have been invited to breast up and I have invited others to do the same.

[cotswoldsman]

I'm not going to do that without being invited to, either verbally or if there is a notice on the boat. I have been invited to breast up and I have invited others to do the same.

Fine most boaters in London will invite you to breast up and many have notes in their windows inviting boaters to breast up and as you are happy to just stay 24 hours they will be very happy

[mango]

Why do you assume the legislation would go in favour of CRT? It is Parliament that sets legislation not CRT anyway that won't happen for years if at all The government has now got rid of the waterways and the last thing they want to do is waste time on new Waterways legislation

New legislation should have been introduced under BW, to give CRT a better chance of success in managing the waterways effectively.

Edited February 1, 2015 by mango

[Higgs]

Yes, but their point being, "if you don't think we are right, put it before a court".

Tony is absolutely right. They take you to court "after" they have taken your licence.

 

 

Thinking aloud. If CRT took people to court, before refusing a licence, with the intention of rejecting a licence renewal, this would require CRT to spend much more money, with many court cases pending. Whilst there is the question of CRT's legal case to be answered, it would inevitably lead to more funds being used in the process. Everything would start with a court action, and costs.

 

Infringements are explained and dealt with in stages, according to the T & C. Some leading to court when a boater feels CRT are acting beyond their powers, or when CRT feel it is within their rights to do so.

 

To be frank, if I was CRT, I'd have to go with the - give warning and time to resolve the conflict, but if that fails, take action without recourse to court. The onus would then be on the boater to fight it in the court. That would be a pragmatic view, based on the flow of authority and management of resources.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Higgs

[cotswoldsman]

New legislation should have been introduced under BW, to give CRT a better chance of success in managing the waterways effectively.

Well ii think you might find that both parties were happy with the legislation maybe you need to read the transfer documents issued by the government

[mrsmelly]

I'm not going to do that without being invited to, either verbally or if there is a notice on the boat. I have been invited to breast up and I have invited others to do the same.

 

And that is part of our problem. I dont own the canal and understand that in certain areas such as the big slum there are a lot of boats. personaly I avoid the big slum like the plague but I have never minded being breasted up against another boat whenever needed. Peeps can breast up to me anytime they want, no need to ask. I may lose a bit of blacking whoopee.

 

Tim

[jenlyn]

New legislation should have been introduced under BW, to give CRT a better opportunity of success.

 

All of your argument seems to be, should, if and could. All of which are not covered by legislation. Along with that, you have stated you don't know a way forward.

I'm struggling now to see any validity in what your posting.

[mango]

Fine most boaters in London will invite you to breast up and many have notes in their windows inviting boaters to breast up and as you are happy to just stay 24 hours they will be very happy

I will have a look next time I am in London. I must have missed the notices and invitations. Mind you, I've mostly been there on hire boats and not everyone is keen on them.

[mango]

All of your argument seems to be, should, if and could. All of which are not covered by legislation. Along with that, you have stated you don't know a way forward.

I'm struggling now to see any validity in what your posting.

I do see a way forward. Bring the legislation up to date to close loopholes and clarify what is not clear. The existing legislation dates from a time before the problems of non-compliant continuous cruisers were envisaged.

[Alf Roberts]

no, actually, it wasn't. that's exactly what the legislation was drafted to deal with.

[jenlyn]

I do see a way forward. Bring the legislation up to date to close loopholes and clarify what is not clear. The existing legislation dates from a time before the problems of non-compliant continuous cruisers were envisaged.

More if's and could's.

[cotswoldsman]

I do see a way forward. Bring the legislation up to date to close loopholes and clarify what is not clear. The existing legislation dates from a time before the problems of non-compliant continuous cruisers were envisaged.

But the legislation is very clear what boaters without a home mooring can and can not do. Now that might not suit what you think but the legislation is in place. New legislation might even give boaters without a home mooring even more rights, what would you do then? This country has a housing crisis especially London so most governments would be in favour of more people moving onto boats especially in cities

[cuthound]

I certainly expressed my concern the first time I encountered the charge. I was given a verbal explanation (I cannot remember the details other than the fact that electricity is provided), but found that the charges had been in place for several years. The best time to object is before changes are introduced.

 

I would also be prepared to pay for a guaranteed overnight mooring in places where it is currently very difficult to moor and read that this is being done in London. In most other places I don't see a need for charges for visitors moorings.

 

I do have a great deal of sympathy for CRT having to monitor visitors moorings for overstaying. A considerate boater will abide by the rules out of consideration for other boaters.

Llangollen is a honeypot site, and used to have more boats visiting then mooring spaces were available. The then waterways authority, BW, solved this circa 2000, by purchasing some land, developing a marina type basin and introducing a 48 time limit, charged at £5 per night with free electricity and water thrown in.

 

They extended the charge, time limit and free electricity to the existing on line moorings.

 

Net result everyone can now visit Llangollen, even in high season and get a mooring.

 

The £5 overnight charge pays for the development of the basin and free electricity.

 

It is a one-off solution to a particular problem, evidenced by the fact that charges are not made at other honeypot sites.

[Timleech]

Personally I am not that keen on anywhere having a 24 hour restriction. I think the restriction would be better at 48 hours as a minimum to allow folk to at least enjoy something of why they wanted to moor their in the first place.

I entirely agree. 24 hours is nowhere near long enough for a visit, if you're moving the day before and the day after then at best, and with forward planning, you'll get two half days. While the recent rash of 48 hour restrictions is to be deplored (for most sites), at least it does allow the possibility of one full day.

 

Tim

[mango]

Llangollen is a honeypot site, and used to have more boats visiting then mooring spaces were available. The then waterways authority, BW, solved this circa 2000, by purchasing some land, developing a marina type basin and introducing a 48 time limit, charged at £5 per night with free electricity and water thrown in.

 

They extended the charge, time limit and free electricity to the existing on line moorings.

 

Net result everyone can now visit Llangollen, even in high season and get a mooring.

 

The £5 overnight charge pays for the development of the basin and free electricity.

 

It is a one-off solution to a particular problem, evidenced by the fact that charges are not made at other honeypot sites.

Thanks very much Cuthound. If my memory serves me correctly the same charge applies to the nearby towpath moorings. My own experience backs up what you say because I have not had a problem with finding a mooring since the charge was introduced. I very much hope that charging will be the exception rather than the rule.

[Alan de Enfield]

mango, on 01 Feb 2015 - 2:21 PM, said:

 

Let's wait and see if CRT go down the route of refusing to relicense boats that have not complied with the rules.

 

Already started (From C&RT website) :

 

Since January, 792 new continuous cruisers have received welcome letters, and we have been providing them with regular feedback if we have been concerned about their movement patterns. 63 are now in the enforcement process with a further 83 contacted to say we are concerned. Of these, we’ve contacted 23 with regard to refusing to renew their licences.

 

Edit to add link to avoid any confusion as to the source or facts.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7979-towpath-mooring-update-nov-14.pdf

Edited February 1, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[mango]

 

Already started (From C&RT website) :

 

Since January, 792 new continuous cruisers have received welcome letters, and we have been providing them with regular feedback if we have been concerned about their movement patterns. 63 are now in the enforcement process with a further 83 contacted to say we are concerned. Of these, we’ve contacted 23 with regard to refusing to renew their licences.

 

Edit to add link to avoid any confusion as to the source or facts.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7979-towpath-mooring-update-nov-14.pdf

Thanks for that, Alan. Hopefully these boaters will get the message and do what they have agreed to do, and no further action is necessary.

[oarfish]

Thanks to the Waffen SUCC allocating much of their canal to 48 hour visitor moorings and the unsuitability of much of the canal for mooring (especially with a pretty deep boat like ours) that's not deemed a visitor mooring, the Shropshire Union can be a pretty difficult canal to comply with even if you are good about spending no more than a week or so in a 'place'. It's a lot easier to be a compliant live aboard in London despite the overcrowding. I'd rather be breasted up than pinned 3 foot out from the bank.

Edited February 1, 2015 by oarfish

[Paul C]

Thanks to the Waffen SUCC allocating much of their canal to 48 hour visitor moorings and the unsuitability of much of the canal for mooring (especially with a pretty deep boat like ours) that's not deemed a visitor mooring, the Shropshire Union can be a pretty difficult canal to comply with even if you are good about spending no more than a week or so in a 'place'. It's a lot easier to be a compliant live aboard in London despite the overcrowding. I'd rather be breasted up than pinned 3 foot out from the bank.

 

Is moving the boat again 2 days after you last stopped, that difficult? And the Shroppie shelf is irrelevant - plenty of the visitor moorings still have the shelf, so you'd need to sort yourself out with decent fenders/small tyres in any case. Simply doing this, opens up probably 90% of the length of the canal for mooring possibilities too, 89% of which will be 2 weeks.....

Edited February 1, 2015 by Paul C

[mango]

But the legislation is very clear what boaters without a home mooring can and can not do. Now that might not suit what you think but the legislation is in place. New legislation might even give boaters without a home mooring even more rights, what would you do then? This country has a housing crisis especially London so most governments would be in favour of more people moving onto boats especially in cities

I can't see how the legislation is clear when so many people have posted about it not being clear. Fairly obviously, legislation needs to allow CRT to legally change the terms and conditions for licensing a boat according to changing needs. Obviously we need an effective waterway ombudsman to make keep them under control. Please don't think I have any love for CRT. I just believe they need to be able to take control of the current situation where a minority of boaters want to operate under their own rules or none at all. That's the end of my input for the time being.

[GoodGurl]

I can't see how the legislation is clear when so many people have posted about it not being clear. Fairly obviously, legislation needs to allow CRT to legally change the terms and conditions for licensing a boat according to changing needs. Obviously we need an effective waterway ombudsman to make keep them under control. Please don't think I have any love for CRT. I just believe they need to be able to take control of the current situation where a minority of boaters want to operate under their own rules or none at all. That's the end of my input for the time being.

yep that's what we need let CRT have TOTAL control of making the rules lawful, enjoy your motorhome.