CRT answer questions to new T&Cs

[kris88]

That's it then the dog house has spoken, there is no reason for concern. Your all anti CRT scaremongerers.

Regards kris

Edited March 22, 2015 by kris88

[jenlyn]

Boat ownership is not a requirement in order to be able to participate in either forum discussions or activities (including hire boating) on the waterways.

Maybe not, but it restricts any overall knowledge in that a week or two on a certain part of the canals, makes someone an expert on the bigger picture.

Argue over that fact as much as you like, but it won't wash.

[Guest]

That's it then the dog house has spoken, there no reason for concern. Your all anti CRT scaremongerers.

 

Is that it?

 

As it happens though I DO believe there is a degree of scaremongering that goes on here and to a much worse degree on the likes of Narrowboat World. My original point was that if you actually get out and about in the real world rather than basing your view on the boating world as seen through the eyes of CWDF then people might see a different picture.

[kris88]

I am out and about in the real world, maybe a little more in touch with what's going on than yourself because I live on a boat 24/7.

Regards kris

[Guest]

Maybe not, but it restricts any overall knowledge in that a week or two on a certain part of the canals, makes someone an expert on the bigger picture.

Argue over that fact as much as you like, but it won't wash.

 

That was merely an example.

 

There are plenty of other ways to participate in activities on the waterways and meet and speak to boaters - it doesn't have to be based on actual personal experience.

 

The forum rules and guidelines do allow non boat owners to participate in any discussion they wish - Argue over that fact as much as you like, but it won't wash.

I am out and about in the real world, maybe a little more in touch with what's going on than yourself because I live on a boat 24/7.

Regards kris

 

Ah that old chestnut - 'I live on my boat so only I possibly know what's going on'.

 

I might not live on a boat but I do take heed of those people who's opinions and thoughts I respect.

[kris88]

Nobody is saying anyone is not allowed to participate in discussion, as I think you we'll know.

Regards kris

It's a fact that the way you use the waterways will influence your experience of them. Argue that if you like.

Edited March 22, 2015 by kris88

[jenlyn]

 

Ah that old chestnut - 'I live on my boat so only I possibly know what's going on'.

 

I might not live on a boat but I do take heed of those people who's opinions and thoughts I respect.

Lol. Ah, that old chestnut.

Fact is fact. End of really.

[Jerra]

 

Is the WO back in operation

 

Jan 2015

 

Waterways Ombudsman Committee

 

CaRT admitted that the committee, which ensures the independence of the Waterways Ombudsman scheme, was no longer in operation. However, it failed to state why it was abandoned or when.

In an email to me on 3rd Feb Andrew Walker (who signed himself Waterways Ombudsman) said:

 

"The Committee has been reconstituted and is due to meet in about two weeks’ time. The previous Committee ceased to exist after it appointed me in October 2012, by which time the transfer of functions from British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust had taken place. "

 

So by now it should be functional!

[jenlyn]

In an email to me on 3rd Feb Andrew Walker (who signed himself Waterways Ombudsman) said:

 

"The Committee has been reconstituted and is due to meet in about two weeks’ time. The previous Committee ceased to exist after it appointed me in October 2012, by which time the transfer of functions from British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust had taken place. "[/size]

 

So by now it should be functional!

Can't see anything, no minutes, notes or information. By your reckoning, it was over a month ago this happened, yet no notice of it made?

[Tony Dunkley]

In an email to me on 3rd Feb Andrew Walker (who signed himself Waterways Ombudsman) said:

 

"The Committee has been reconstituted and is due to meet in about two weeks’ time. The previous Committee ceased to exist after it appointed me in October 2012, by which time the transfer of functions from British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust had taken place. "

 

So by now it should be functional!

 

 

You shouldn't believe everything you read . . . . especially if written by the present Waterways Ombudsman, who in my personal experience, is not only dishonest and biased, but just about as much use as Lord Lucan's Passport.

I have in my possession an e-mail exchange between the Ombiasman and C&RT in which he is seeking their approval for a decision he's about to make.

[Alan de Enfield]

Can't see anything, no minutes, notes or information. By your reckoning, it was over a month ago this happened, yet no notice of it made?

 

On the Ombudsman's website it shows the last meeting was May 2011 and the last Annual Report was 2011/12. When the scheme appears to have been dissolved (March 2012)

 

You would have thought that within 4 or 5 weeks of the re-forming of the committee they would have had a meeting.

 

http://www.waterways-ombudsman.org/information.aspx

[churchward]

Maybe not, but it restricts any overall knowledge in that a week or two on a certain part of the canals, makes someone an expert on the bigger picture.

Argue over that fact as much as you like, but it won't wash.

Do you mean like wide beam owners who at best only navigate a small part of the system?

Edited March 22, 2015 by churchward

[Jerra]

Can't see anything, no minutes, notes or information. By your reckoning, it was over a month ago this happened, yet no notice of it made?

I am merely quoting from the gentleman in questions email. I know no more than that.

[alan_fincher]

Theres your problem. You waded through an Internet thread and made a conclusion. Trouble with modern social media it's not balanced. Try boating within the rules and you won't see owt to worry about iMo.

 

Except that they are not content with the current rules, and intent on creating new ones.

 

Have you not read the posts that suggest that some people fully compliant with the current "rules" have in the past found themselves in circumstances where they would probably have been deemed to be not compliant with the "new" rules.

 

There seems to be a lot of "I'm alright Jack, and nothing will change for me personally" posts in this thread, but it seems more than a bit selfish to then suggest it doesn't matter if it buggers things up for other people.

 

I could choose to do the same - most of the current changes are probably unlikely to affect me, and the way I go boating at the moment.

 

However I still believe it is wrong or CRT to dream up more and more stuff that they don't have legal backing for. Even if I never get to be one of those it affects, unlike some on here, I still spare a thought for those it may affect.

[NigelMoore]

Just for general interest:

 

The 14 day rule has its roots back in the sixties. Although pleasure boat licences were never required prior to 1976, even the private canal companies had instituted pleasure boat licences for pleasure boats, to get around the administrative nightmare of exacting tolls; this was carried on through the British Transport Commission, and inherited by BWB on their set-up in 1962.

 

Without any statutory basis for these, they were a matter of mutual convenience, although BW struggled somewhat with the sums. The Annual Report for 1964 refers to extending the narrowboat licensing experiment for commercial carriers, but notes:

 

“43. The narrow boat licensing experiment has evoked a great deal of public interest. Some of the statements which have been made about its beneficial effect for the waterways have shown a rather incomplete understanding of the financial position. The licences have been fixed at £21 a year for the north-west and £25 a year for the south-east. These contrast with an average annual toll income (under the previous arrangements) of about £150 per boat. This, of course, benefits the operators but it means that--on a constant number of boats—the revenue from commercial traffic (which goes towards the upkeep of the waterways) is only one-sixth of what it was.”

 

For pleasure boats of course, the sums favoured BW, but they still struggled with the mechanics of the inherited scheme. As the 1964 Report said:

 

“Changes in the licensing system for 1965

 

61. In January, 1962, the Board's predecessors introduced what became generally known as a combined licensing system, which consisted of one payment for cruising and mooring. Since the Board assumed responsibility they have been increasingly concerned at the difficulties arising from the application of the scheme and in 1964 they put in hand a radical examination of the problem with a view to establishing a sound basis of growth for the future. Their studies revealed an overwhelming case for a different approach and a new scheme has been announced for introduction on the 1st April. 1965.

 

62. The most important new feature of the arrangement is that licensing of craft will be treated quite separately from the provision of British Waterways Board moorings (that is, mooring against directly controlled Board property, including towpaths etc. but excluding property leased or rented to anyone else).

 

63. With the exception of craft using solely the river navigations mentioned in paragraph 65 the craft licensing system is compulsory. Craft will be required to be licensed in accordance with the Board's conditions, and when licensed, will be entitled to use any of the Board's waterways (including the river navigations) available for pleasure craft.

 

64. By contrast, the use of the Board's moorings will be—naturally--a voluntary matter. Owners will pay mooring charges when they choose to moor against Board property as defined above) and it is only the mooring they have paid for at a stated place which they will be entitled to use. To facilitate cruising however, boats away from their base area may make short stops at Board moorings for a period of up to 14 days without charge. This last mentioned facility will be available to all craft, whether normally based at Board moorings or not.” [my bold]

 

p.s. Note that even back then they were being creative with the legal terminology. It was entirely untrue that the boat licence was compulsory – the difference between canals and rivers lay in the compulsion for canal boats to be registered; an entirely different thing.

 

As to conditions – BW’s Report noted that the draft for these was still under discussion at the end of that year, “but public notice has since been given of the Board’s intention to apply to the Minister for confirmation of the Byelaws.” They were, as we know of course, approved and passed the following year.

[NigelMoore]

I thought the figures that someone posted here (Tony?) a little while back show this is not true for the last few years. Does anyone have figures for the last 20 years?

 

In 1963 BW issued 7,546 pleasure boat licences, the following year that rose to 9,277, something over 20% increase — but the figures will not reflect the actual numbers who legitimately chose to remain unlicensed. This was at a time when working boats were still numerous which are not reflected in those figures. The figures also do not include any pleasure boats on any of the 250 miles of “free rivers”.

 

Even accepting a figure of roughly 10 thousand pleasure boats though, comparison with the present day figures shows only a three-fold increase over the past half century. In fact, at the height of the pleasure boat numbers of a couple of years ago, the total number of boats of any sort on the waterways was said to have reached or just exceeded the same level of population as had existed at the peak of commercial exploitation.

 

So the total actual numbers have climbed no higher really than the maximum numbers of boats on the system that ever were. Only the ratio of pleasure boat to working boat has changed out of all desirable proportion.

[mrsmelly]

It must be where you live, or boat, or whatever. I can honestly say that in 30 years of boating (including home mooring, liveaboard and a bit of CC) I have never heard anyone slag off CCers or wide beams. And I've never got the impression that up this end fo the country we care much about CMers or "dumpers", either. I've heard - and made - the odd joke about shiny boats and yoghurt pots (as I haven't got one of either) but only in humour and never in malice. Perhaps we're just nicer or more relaxed oop north. And, of course, less crowded than down in London or on the K&A.

 

Certainly moooooocho less crowded and in my opinion some of the best cruising areas. The Ouse into York takes some beating and the Selby canal is fab but also the proper carrying stuff like the Aire and Calder and the rivers up to both Wakey and Leeds are great.

 

Tim

[bassplayer]

In 1963 BW issued 7,546 pleasure boat licences, the following year that rose to 9,277, something over 20% increase — but the figures will not reflect the actual numbers who legitimately chose to remain unlicensed. This was at a time when working boats were still numerous which are not reflected in those figures. The figures also do not include any pleasure boats on any of the 250 miles of “free rivers”.

 

Even accepting a figure of roughly 10 thousand pleasure boats though, comparison with the present day figures shows only a three-fold increase over the past half century. In fact, at the height of the pleasure boat numbers of a couple of years ago, the total number of boats of any sort on the waterways was said to have reached or just exceeded the same level of population as had existed at the peak of commercial exploitation.

 

So the total actual numbers have climbed no higher really than the maximum numbers of boats on the system that ever were. Only the ratio of pleasure boat to working boat has changed out of all desirable proportion.

Thanks Nigel. So the entire system isn't likely to become a ghetto then? As I've said before, I've not met anyone, or know anybody who'd chose to live on a boat (other than the very few I know who actually do out of choice). There has been a gradual creep of control over the years. Divide and conquer tactics are working and if we don't all pull together soon to stop this creep, nearly all of us will be affected.

[mark99]

 

Except that they are not content with the current rules, and intent on creating new ones.

 

Have you not read the posts that suggest that some people fully compliant with the current "rules" have in the past found themselves in circumstances where they would probably have been deemed to be not compliant with the "new" rules.

 

There seems to be a lot of "I'm alright Jack, and nothing will change for me personally" posts in this thread, but it seems more than a bit selfish to then suggest it doesn't matter if it buggers things up for other people.

 

I could choose to do the same - most of the current changes are probably unlikely to affect me, and the way I go boating at the moment.

 

However I still believe it is wrong or CRT to dream up more and more stuff that they don't have legal backing for. Even if I never get to be one of those it affects, unlike some on here, I still spare a thought for those it may affect.

 

A lot of extension going on in that reply. If I see someone getting down by reading a thread then is it not reasonable to suggest a thread maybe not representative of everyday occurrences?. Unless you would list say, 10 recent reals cases of Cart unreasonableness or pursuit of boaters following a pattern that they used to, I'm not sure all this hand wringing is logical or doing any good.

Edited March 22, 2015 by mark99

[NigelMoore]

So the entire system isn't likely to become a ghetto then?

 

Not only are the numbers of boats now on the system probably fewer than in the heyday of commercial success [given the significant drop in number since CaRT took over], but umpteen thousands of those are tucked away more or less permanently in seemingly endless acres of offline marinas that never existed back then – so the numbers of boats actually online at any one time will be very considerably less than ever.

 

Congestion at “honeypot” sites [as BW used to call them] has been a marked feature of modern pleasure boating from well over a quarter century ago; nothing much has changed there either – unless it is for the better.

[churchward]

 

Not only are the numbers of boats now on the system probably fewer than in the heyday of commercial success [given the significant drop in number since CaRT took over], but umpteen thousands of those are tucked away more or less permanently in seemingly endless acres of offline marinas that never existed back then – so the numbers of boats actually online at any one time will be very considerably less than ever.

 

Congestion at “honeypot” sites [as BW used to call them] has been a marked feature of modern pleasure boating from well over a quarter century ago; nothing much has changed there either – unless it is for the better.

The "honeypot" sites will always exist almost no matter what regulations or other imposed circumstances are applied. There are distinct places that become popular for all sorts of reasons and for some it is the flocking instinct kicking-in too. I can't see Braunston/Stoke Bruerne for example or similar places becoming less popular for instance eve if there are less boats.

 

In some ways at least I would not want a significant decline in boat numbers even if that may mean I could depend on mooring outside the pub every time. Some look back to how it was in the 1970s with nostalgia and I do too but I would not want the system to return to the state it was in then. It was a young mans sport trying to get through some places in those days with the effort the locks etc required and cars in the cut to dodge!

Edited March 22, 2015 by churchward

[DeanS]

Tim, you are largely right, but what you are not taking into account, is that CRT is unlikely to stop here. They are acting outside their powers, making up rules that they can't. If they are allowed to do this this time, they will move ob to the next group. Previously, those bridge hopping with a mooring were not even mentioned, let alone targeted. Now they are threatened with non renewal of their licence if they dont cruise when away from their home mooring. Again, cruise how far?

 

The thin edge of the wedge has taken hold in the crack, and CRT are starting to hit it with a hammer. CRT would love to have only keeo short section navigable, with boats only allowed out at a rota. The rest of the system only needs a bit of stagnant water for the ducjs and the walkers, cyclists, dog walkers etc. Boats are a burden and a nuisance.

 

BW did not want the CC option without a home mooring. What makes you think CRT is different?

 

Perhaps it is time to ignore the "Act", and deem it replaced....with the T&Cs. I don't think I would personally have the courage to take on CRT in court...and I'm sure many feel the same....so they can do what they like, and boaters like me will probably just try and adhere. ...however....IF.....I've tried to adhere...and it's still not good enough...I'd have to think about what to do ......probably take it to court and talk directly to a judge....unless doing so would cost me money, in which case, I would sell the boat, and move off the canals.........what we need is a Lawyer4Boaters4Free .......a kind of "boaters friend" who might act on their behalf to save their home (boat)

[Graham Davis]

Maybe not, but it restricts any overall knowledge in that a week or two on a certain part of the canals, makes someone an expert on the bigger picture.

Argue over that fact as much as you like, but it won't wash.

 

Perhaps you'd like to suggest to the Mods that they make it a ruling that only full-time boat owners should be a member here then?

I'm sure you'd get a very concise answer!

[GoodGurl]

ok this has gone off topic too many times so i'm locking it.

GG

site crew