Canal and River Trust changes in Licence Terms and conditions

[peterboat]

How quaintly naive.;

 

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_20130127-2.htm

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/bailiffs-reined-in-thuggery-bad-practice-regulation-debt

How are they going to be bailiffs we dont even know if they are going to put it out to 3rd parties for sure or do we

 

Peter

[Allan(nb Albert)]

If, they were to use 3rd party enforcement, it would no doubt be in London. I would imagine they would clear it quite quickly. Now do you honestly believe they could afford to continue using third party enforcement throughout the system once they had scared everyone s******s?

I spent many years running an enforcement company, crt don't have the budget to lay down outside contractors for enforcement on the scale they would be needed.

CaRT currently spend £2.7m a year on enforcement.

 

Next year they get another £10m a year from government.

 

**** Edited for going off topic by asking if ACC was an enforcement company.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[jenlyn]

Edited by jenlyn

Edited February 1, 2015 by jenlyn

[GoodGurl]

Reported. Off topic.

yes i agree this is not a debate about whether ACC is an enforcement company, it is about CRT's T&C's

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Reported. Off topic.

I have edited my post such that it no longer asks if ACC is an enforcement company

[Allan(nb Albert)]

yes i agree this is not a debate about whether ACC is an enforcement company, it is about CRT's T&C's

Edited February 2, 2015 by GoodGurl
please stay on topic

[jenlyn]

CRT need to get the enforcement costs down, it's needed elsewhere. Private security in the capacity they required, would be far to costly. It could be brought in short term for small areas where it would make a difference, but would not work on a large scale around the system.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

If, they were to use 3rd party enforcement, it would no doubt be in London. I would imagine they would clear it quite quickly. Now do you honestly believe they could afford to continue using third party enforcement throughout the system once they had scared everyone s******s?

I spent many years running an enforcement company, crt don't have the budget to lay down outside contractors for enforcement on the scale they would be needed.

CaRT currently spend £2.7m a year on enforcement.

 

Next year they get another £10m a year from government.

 

I have little doubt that having increased enforcement spend from £2.2m to £2.7m with no result, they will bung up to an additional £1m a year into enforcement.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

CRT need to get the enforcement costs down, it's needed elsewhere. Private security in the capacity they required, would be far to costly. It could be brought in short term for small areas where it would make a difference, but would not work on a large scale around the system.

Whilst agreeing that the money is needed elsewhere, CaRT have increased enforcement spend from £2.2m to £2.7m. How can they reduce it bearing in mind the new initiative?

[costalot]

It appears to me the changes to the T & C are part of an overall strategy. I suspect CRT are attempting to simplify and clarify the T & C to make it easier for all boaters to understand the license requirements and their owner obligations. It will also assist with compliance.

 

With 63% of continuous cruisers not travelling more than 20km annually they are likely to be the second priority on CRT's compliance list. The first being boats without a license.

[mayalld]

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

 

That doesn't mean that it was well drafted

[Bod]

Having read all 18 pages of this thread. There appears only 4 or 5 people who truly understand the topic title, and its effect on boaters in general.

There is more to concern boats with home moorings, than those without. Who will be unaffected, with reasonable movement, ones without enough movement are being advised, to avoid enforcement.

Home moorers, are having conditions imposed, that legislation, does not require. They will be the ones arguing in court, which has precedent, 1995 Act or 2015 T&C's.

 

Bod

[Tuscan]

The principle reason for changing the T&C's was to make the role of enforcement easier, that was the answer I received from the Head of Enforcement. The secondary reason was to make them easier for boaters to understand.

 

There would definately appear to be an appetite to have a stronger enforcement regime against boats who in CRTs opinon rarely move. This is likely to involve an increase in legal action and costs. I would imagine that this in itself would lead to more movement which MAY result in less actual enforcement needed in due course.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Home moorers, are having conditions imposed, that legislation, does not require. They will be the ones arguing in court, which has precedent, 1995 Act or 2015 T&C's.

 

Bod

 

The very question I asked 18 pages ago (post 8) it apears no one can suggest an answer.

[Bod]

 

The very question I asked 18 pages ago (post 8) it apears no one can suggest an answer.

Yup, you are one of four.

 

Bod

[churchward]

 

The very question I asked 18 pages ago (post 8) it apears no one can suggest an answer.

Any T&Cs are in effect a contract made in the UK and as such the contract is made under the scope of any and every pertinent law that applies in the UK including the 1995 act.

 

That however does not mean that it can't have anything in the T&Cs that is not mentioned in the act but the T&Cs terms must be legal otherwise they like any contract those terms are not binding as you cannot (even knowingly and voluntarily) contract to do something illegal.

[mango]

To some, the legislation is quite clear. What's also clear to me anyway, is that if someone is looking at how far is far enough, they are already looking at how they can get around the legislation.

I agree. A hire boat might cover about 100 miles in a week, for example going round the Four Counties Ring. If a continuous cruiser cannot manage to cover this distance in a year, then I would question their motivation. Is spending an hour a week and moving a couple of miles on average really too much to ask.

 

Rather than thinking in terms of whether the 14 days is up tomorrow or last week, Continuous Cruising should be about going round the network and enjoying boating. I very much support and respect the real continuous cruisers.

[Timleech]

Having read all 18 pages of this thread. There appears only 4 or 5 people who truly understand the topic title, and its effect on boaters in general.

There is more to concern boats with home moorings, than those without. Who will be unaffected, with reasonable movement, ones without enough movement are being advised, to avoid enforcement.

Home moorers, are having conditions imposed, that legislation, does not require. They will be the ones arguing in court, which has precedent, 1995 Act or 2015 T&C's.

 

Bod

It an be more difficult for some of those with a home mooring to comply with the 14 day limit than for those without, simply because it's reasonable to assume that most of those without a home mooring will be living aboard, or at least expect to be spending lots of time aboard.

Those who work from a land base are much more constrained when it comes to arranging (worthwhile) boating time, & if self-employed you may in theory have more freedoms but in practice are likely to have to change plans at short notice. We had to do this twice last year, and did keep 'them' informed & they acccepted the situation but they are probably under no obligation to do so if it's not a life and death situation.

I would not offer this as an excuse for clogging up prime visitor moorings, but the rules will it seems be applied everywhere.

 

 

Tim

[Alf Roberts]

so what about boaters who stay in one area in term time but go on long journeys in the school holidays?

 

a common pattern.

[Bod]

It an be more difficult for some of those with a home mooring to comply with the 14 day limit than for those without, simply because it's reasonable to assume that most of those without a home mooring will be living aboard, or at least expect to be spending lots of time aboard.

Those who work from a land base are much more constrained when it comes to arranging (worthwhile) boating time, & if self-employed you may in theory have more freedoms but in practice are likely to have to change plans at short notice. We had to do this twice last year, and did keep 'them' informed & they acccepted the situation but they are probably under no obligation to do so if it's not a life and death situation.

I would not offer this as an excuse for clogging up prime visitor moorings, but the rules will it seems be applied everywhere.

 

 

Tim

 

Before April 2015 this would cause you no problems.

After April 2015, unless you return and move the boat, on or before the 14th day, (how far too move.........???) you will face enforcement proceedings.

 

Bod

[jenlyn]

I agree. A hire boat might cover about 100 miles in a week, for example going round the Four Counties Ring. If a continuous cruiser cannot manage to cover this distance in a year, then I would question their motivation. Is spending an hour a week and moving a couple of miles on average really too much to ask.

 

Rather than thinking in terms of whether the 14 days is up tomorrow or last week, Continuous Cruising should be about going round the network and enjoying boating. I very much support and respect the real continuous cruisers.

That post shows how you cannot, or will not look at the problem with an open mind. Neither do you understand ccing.

If I moved a distance of 2 miles every fortnight, that would only ad up to 48 miles in one year.

Then there is the fact I have a widebeam, so would struggle to do "your" whole system.

Your simplistic thinking may look good on here in your eyes, but it's never going to have any input value until you think about it without prejudice.

[Tony Dunkley]

Having read all 18 pages of this thread. There appears only 4 or 5 people who truly understand the topic title, and its effect on boaters in general.

There is more to concern boats with home moorings, than those without. Who will be unaffected, with reasonable movement, ones without enough movement are being advised, to avoid enforcement.

Home moorers, are having conditions imposed, that legislation, does not require. They will be the ones arguing in court, which has precedent, 1995 Act or 2015 T&C's.

 

Bod

You're absolutely right Bod, I honestly do despair of some members inability to read and understand the intentions, and implications, behind what C&RT are doing. Parry and his cronies must be delighted and encouraged when they look at some of the confused and mindless tripe that gets posted on here by the blinkered and gullible.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[jenlyn]

No matter how many times I read these new t&c's, one thing regarding home moorers becomes clear. CRT are attempting to control the use of ghost moorings by implementing new rules, or if you like, to stop another tony Dunkley case.

That's why they need the third party data protection stuff. They want you to ok the marinas and landowners giving your info.

[Bod]

Yup.

 

Bod

[Higgs]

so what about boaters who stay in one area in term time but go on long journeys in the school holidays?

 

a common pattern.

 

 

Not catered for. Unless a mooring is used for the staying in one area. Or, unless they can satisfy CRT by moving sufficiently through the neighbourhoods.